Front Page
Constitutional Intro
Constitution & Bill of Rights
Constitution vs Treaties
Constitutional Rights
Civil Rights
Supreme Court
Electoral College
Justice & Juries
Case Law
Natural Law
Law Precedents
Executive Orders
Judicial Accountability
News Media Bias
Gun Ownership
2nd Amendment
Gun Issues
The United Nations
World Issues
American Loyalty
Citizen's Comments
Youth & Crime
Police Actions
World/Olympic Shooting
The Sounding Board
US Times
Save Your Guns
Shots Heard Downrange
U.S. History/Formation
Words of Wisdom
Voting Recommendations
Constitution Defender
Editorial/Editorial Policy
Constitution Conflicts
Corporate Profiles



So far, our solution to the resulting slaughter is to bring in foreign troops at great cost and too late to save thousands of lives. Would it not be far simpler to arm the unarmed faction? I suggest that the result would be a standoff, with former bullies suddenly becoming civil. Even if conflict were to continue, it would not involve massacres; It would become far more difficult to kill people who can defend themselves.

During WWII we air dropped thousands of inexpensive small arms behind the lines for resistance groups. There are effective weapon designs that are stamped rather than machined, making them very cheap and they can be quickly made by the thousands.

It doesn't matter if some get into the wrong hands as those who are already armed do not benefit further. Massive airdrops of small arms and ammunition would ensure that everyone can defend themselves against bullies - and our troops can stay at home.

Additionally, with everyone armed, East Timor is far more likely to evolve into a democracy. An armed population cannot be ignored, but an unarmed population is an irresistible plum for a despot to pluck.

Realistically I know that such a simple solution could never be used because the current government is opposed to the meaning of the Second Amendment. The government does not want to be seen proposing that the solution to any problem may be the arming of the population.

A thesis has occurred to me that there is a correlation between armed populations and the development of democracy. In world history democracy is a fairly rare phenomena. We have the ancient Greeks for a brief period of time. The early Roman Republic, Iceland, Switzerland and the United States of America, in each case there existed a totally armed citizenry. In the case of the Greeks and the Romans to be a citizen was the same as being a member of the militia--the two sets were absolutely identical.

In argument, it has been mentioned to me that the Afgans are armed. It is clearly also not a single homogenous population group. I suspect that within the various groups that the group does reflect popular will.

Then there is Europe , which is fairly democratic and mostly unarmed. I have heard that it is immensely more bureaucratic than here in the United States and it came very close to going Fascist except for U.S. Intervention, which is beginning to show signs of wearing off.

Americans used to be armed mostly because of the circumstances of life in those times. Circumstances have changed and Americans don't usually need arms. If we don't become an armed society as a political duty then sooner or later the Republic will probably be replaced.

Someday I would like to see a million man march on Washington consisting of honest, competent, responsible, employed men with families wearing blue blazers and red ties and white shirts marching in formation, in step, with rifles slung and cartridges in their belts. Not to be a threat to Congress but to let government know in a subtle way who is the ultimate boss in a republic. In the final analysis words don't matter if you lack the ability to back them up.