Chuck, the Constitution and Assault Weapons

A friend recently sent me a link to a video of Chuck Woolery (an actor) who, with an assault style weapon in his hand, argues in defense of gun ownership.  He begins his argument asserting the Constitution.  Chuck says that "our founding fathers wanted every citizen to be armed equal to the army" for protection against a sovereign bent on destroying our freedoms and they wrote the 2nd Amendment to enforce that protection.  Well, pilgrim, I am about an Abrams tank, Patriot missile and a few dozen hand grenades short of my basic load.  The only "Red Dawn" or Stalin or Hitler in our future is in a paranoid dream.  Believing that the possession of an assault rifle by every American could stop an Adolf is delusional. But we can look at the possibility. How would this new Adolf takeover here?  One way would be for "Big Brother" to be elected by the vote of a majority of our citizens.  By one count there are 207,643,594 eligible voters in the U.S.  So assuming they all vote (not likely) then 103,821,798, 50% plus one, citizens would have voted Adolf into office.  I'll grant you that there are times when chunks of the electorate appear stupid to me.  But, that's a whole lot of stupidity,  Yet we, being in a small segment of the 103,821,796 minority, might feel the need to rebel and, having our assault weapons cleaned and ready, we charge.

But, it's not likely that we charge, because we fundamentally believe in a democracy.  Right?  And our belief in democracy is greater then our belief in a right to bear arms because we bear arms to protect the existence of our democracy.  So, let's say these 103,821,798 also vote Adolf's cronies into power in Congress.  A couple of Supreme Court appointments and it is OVER for our democracy.  Of course, the murder of democracy would have to take place within a two year period before the next elections which could change the control of Congress.   Ahhh, you say, what if both parties are evil??  I'll save that for later.

Now putting laws and threat of impeachment aside, let's suppose that Adolf takes extraordinary executive control of the country by something like presidential edict.  He or she (Ohhh, yes, they too can be evil) would probably try to maintain citizen support while suppressing dissension and individual rights first by trickery (WMD's somewhere in our neighborhoods) or bribery (darn entitlements!). That failing or insufficient for Adolf's ego, he declares martial law.  So Adolf now sits in the White House surrounded by merely 40 or 50 suck-ups as his enforcers.

Now all occurred while the also evil left-wing media (or maybe it's a right wing Adolf??) does nothing but support a left wing Adolf.  There is no Fox News (or MSNBC) to inform citizens.  There are no bloggers, tweeters, or internet from which the "truth" that will keep us free can be taken.  All occurred without vigorous opposition from politicians and their parties.  The local, state and federal law enforcement officers, the ones who live with their families down the street, would have to be expected to bow to the orders of a dictator with oath, law and conscience forgotten.  And when someone must go out to enforce martial law, the leadership of the Army and the Marines will, damning the Constitution they swore to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic, take to the streets and shoot us.

Unless we have an assault rifle.

Or maybe we see the imposition of one or more taxes or the type of health care or the hunting restriction on baited fields or whatever single or multiple government action as too intrusive, abrasive, unnecessary or stupid.  Petitioning, picketing, debating, compromising, and even our massing together to vote is just not enough to bring about a change to our way of thinking.  G. Washington himself led an Army to repress a tax revolt.  So there must be something very special about a democracy and about it's right to defend itself against a minority. Putting aside the issue of just who the fuck you think you are to impose any personal belief by force, I reckon nothing can be done. 

Unless we have an assault rifle.

I am a gun owner and support gun possession under reasonable regulation.  Canada, I understand, requires a gun purchaser to come in with two others who will attest to the purchaser's character before the sale can be completed. That seems to be one reasonable requirement.  If I haven't stopped an intruder or two with eight rounds in one clip I shouldn't own a gun.  Large capacity magazines should be restricted.  If I need to buy more than one firearm in a thirty day period, unless a strictly licensed dealer/collector, I may need to see a mental health provider and seriously rethink my Christmas shopping choices for the family.  I see NO rational excuse for general ownership of assault rifles.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a very Happy New Year to all.