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
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
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
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
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.