Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Vac Rental | E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Embattled farmers

January 15, 2013 - Harry Eagar
.Some days, the gun nuts say the reason we have to let them run around unsupervised is that they have a natural right to protect their homes and families from all those scary, lascivious black dudes who are trying to break in. But on other days, they say the real reason for the Second Amendment is that only an armed citizenry is able to resist government tyranny.

Consider the second. Is an armed citizenry competent to resist a centrally organized tyranny? History says no.

The obvious place to look for a yes would be the American Revolution. After all, the men who gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution had just finished rebelling against what they regarded as the tyranny of Britain. It is significant that they did not originally see any necessity to provide guarantees about private firearms.

They knew that the Revolution was not won by "embattled farmers." Although in the 1770s and '80s, the disparity in firepower between a citizen militia and the army was tiny compared to today, the lightly-armed irregulars were unable to prevail against the British army. From time to time, the militias won a battle. They never came close to winning a campaign.

In "The Glorious Cause," a history of the Revolution, Robert Middlekauff wrote that the driver of success was the Continental Army. Irregulars melted away ("summer soldiers," Tom Paine called them, even before the fighting had begun) and could not be relied upon. The regulars endured long seasons of discouragement (Valley Forge) and recovered from defeats (Brooklyn Heights). Irregulars don't do that.

It didn't hurt the American prospects that an important political faction in England thought the government should let the Americans go; nor that the Royal Navy was unable to blockade all American ports simultaneously; nor that the Royal Navy of France managed to defeat the Royal Navy of England when it counted; nor that French regulars joined American regulars in the final campaign.

It would be going too far to say that the "embattled farmers" had nothing to do with the success of the rebellion, but they didn't win the fight.

Recent history confirms that light-armed irregulars cannot stand up to armies. Famous examples include the rising of the maquis in central France in 1944, crushed with great slaughter by a minor effort of the German army that was busy dealing with real armies to the west; the decimation of the Viet Cong in 1968; and the Iraqi Sunni resistance which succumbed to a minor "surge" by an otherwise undermanned and incompetently led American army.

It sometimes seems that light-armed forces impose their will against states, but that happens only when the state is rotten within: Nobody wanted to die for Fulgencio Batista, so Castro's rebels won almost without fighting. Today's newspaper states the situation clearly. The Malian state, corrupt and incompetent, has been unable to resist irregular rebels, but a tiny force of French troops backed by airpower has done so easily. In Libya last year, the rebels were unable to prevail by themselves. .

The idea -- and it seems to be nearly universal among the noisy gun nuts -- that armed but unorganized slobs would be able to resist an American army that (somehow) had turned against its own people is a childish, ignorant fantasy.

 
 

Article Comments

(3)

HarryEagar

Jan-19-13 12:24 PM

There is plenty of ag land on Maui & in Hawaii for all uses. Reorganization could help. But it's not an either-or situation as regards resources. We have resources in plenty.

You raise an interesxting point.RtO will attempt to consider this at length sometime soon.

RonScheurer

Jan-19-13 1:21 AM

Distinguish rebels (terrorists) and revolutionaries (people seeking change. Rebels are irrational individuals with a gripe about their perceived unfair position in society. Revolutionaries seek change in what they perceive as inequities in the status quo between themselves and the ruling elite. When negotiated changes are not rationally debated, revolutionaries turn rebellious. A line is crossed; civility is lost, and hostilities erupt. Assault rifles and bug spray are not needed. The basic cause is the competitive use non-sustainable resources, physical or emotional, by one group over another, neither realizing that both are in the already sinking same boat. Think Maui’s land use: development that reduces independent food sustainability for its population without imports, continued commercialization of agriculture for export instead of encouraging small local farms owned and operated by native Hawaiians.

OneAikea

Jan-16-13 5:08 PM

Terrorist are like Hiawatha. They shoot an act of terrorism in the air and know not where it lands. How will one with an assault weapon stop that?

Osama bin Ladin said on the anniversary of 9/11 that some terrorist group would take action. He said when but did not say where. Benghazi could have been foretold by Osama bin Ladin. Maybe in reality the You Tube video did spark some fire in creating this act of terrorism. Like many Americans wanting to fight because some terrorist group burned the American Flag. NO difference in reason to fight.

For home defense, I can use bug spray that acts like tear gas. Hair spray. My rolling pin. I have kitchen knives I can use to "disarm" a armed person. Cut off their arms. At most I can use my paint gun powered by CO2. I can tell Police to look for a painted burglar. I don't feel serious about owning a gun. Live by a gun and die by one.

 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web