In a message dated Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:02:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> writes:
<< > From JKSCHW at aol.com Tue Oct 17 08:21:42 2000
> Do you too buy into the silly idea that my right to buy a
> .357 or even an AR-14 protects me against tyranny,
> that the Michigan Militia would stand a chance against the 101st
> Airborne if it came to that?
This is a mischaracterization of the intent of the protection; it's not an individual tactical stand that would be made (MM vs. 101st, though certainly it wouldn't be a slam dunk [c.f., Mogadishu]) but rather a political stand ("the people" vs. "the government") that is designed to keep the balance of power in check _long before_ it came to blows. Ruby Ridge and Waco do _not_ represent the intention of the 2nd Ammendment.
It's speculative, of course, to what extent it has been effective thus far in the US, but we certainly have plenty of examples of the development of tyranny that begin with disarmament, specifically to tip those scales -- again, it's merely speculative to what extent being fully armed might have changed the outcome of the the late 30's in Germany, but it's clear (but only in hindsight!) that the intention of the disarmament of the citizenry was intended to help with the Plan. We have far fewer examples of citizen disarmament without the intention of tyranny (and perhaps keeping score on those is a moving, um, target).
James continued earlier:
>> I guess the American example shows that the ideological grip of
>> the powers-that-be over the masses means that the literal monopoly
>> of force can be relaxed without jeopardising state power.
Which is an excellent point: just because you don't have a strict monopoly on power doesn't mean the State doesn't have effective control of the population through other means.
ps-to-jks: what's an AR-14?