Re: "Right to bear arms" (was: OT Science versus religion: Is compromise

Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
>
>
> I think you fail to understand that the Army is overwhelmingly populated
> by red-state types that tend to not trust the government in the first
> place.  The blue-state pussies rarely join up.

Is the Army populated wholly by volunteers these days?  I ask because I
don't know.
>
> And all of the soldiers swear an oath to uphold the constitution FIRST,
> then the government.

But the president is the C-in-C, isn't he?

>
> But, assuming that you are correct and the "army" is right behind the
> "government" -- the only firearms needed are enough to secure access to
> the nearest motor pool populated with M1A1s.
>
> It is scary how many times I was on guard duty with an empty magazine so
> I wouldn't 'hurt anyone' -- even when guarding ammo or tactical nukes.
> You can always count on the stupidity  of government to help out in a
> pinch...

"Government" is a collective noun which subsumes all the people who work
in or for the governing body of the country.  As such, the elected
portion tends to reflect the characteristics of the electorate - which
as a whole is not well educated, well read, or even very attentive to
the issues.  (Not just in the US, everywhere with free elections).  And
("Yes Minister" notwithstanding) since the elected control the
government that means that it is a poorly educated, poorly read,
inattentive organism.  You gets what you pays for!

So it's no wonder that you had to do guard duty with unloaded weapons.
I'd wonder if somewhere in your chain of command there wasn't somebody
on the take.

Still and all, I'll keep to my opinion.  Ordinary citizens can't defend
themselves against the government unless they can muster similar
resources.

PL