Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Post Reply New Topic

Here is another example of one of those "lost causes" where having arms did not immediately make a difference, yet made ALL the difference in the end:

On March 2, 1836, a small group of Anglo settlers and native Mexicans gathered in a tiny village on the Brazos River to declare their independence from Mexico and its bloodthirsty dictator, Generalissimo Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

For the Texians, as we were known then, and Tejanos, this was no mere act of civil disobedience. Their civil rights and civil liberties were being violated and their government was forcibly seizing their goods and wealth, as well as their guns.

A charismatic leader, Santa Anna rapidly rose to take Mexico’s highest office. He promised to protect the poor from the wealthy and powerful, but instead centralized the government and delivered a tyranny even more terrible.

The Mexican army was the largest and best-trained in the Western Hemisphere. Their orders were clear – slash and burn their way through Coahuila y Tejas, take back the town of San Antonio de Bexar, move north, crush the rebellion and execute its leaders.

The only thing between these simple farmers, lawyers and doctors and the hot lead and slashing bayonets of the “Napoleon of the West” was a crumbling stone church along the main road through Texas.

Around 180 volunteers were huddled inside the Alamo, holding off as many as 5,000 Mexican soldiers as long as possible to buy their fellow patriots some time to declare independence and raise a resistance.

They refused Santa Anna’s offer of mercy to any man who left the fort, which came with a promise to slaughter everyone else, despite not knowing that same offer to rebels at Goliad ended with Santa Anna executing those who accepted his "generosity."

Flying a flag of no quarter, Santa Anna lived up to his word to kill all inside when a pre-dawn assault on March 6 finally breached the walls after 13 days of resistance. Every Texian and Tejano defender was killed, but recapture of the Alamo came at a demoralizing price. Fewer than 200 rebels killed around 600 of the Western Hemisphere’s best soldiers and wounded others.

The stubborn resistance bought the freedom fighters time. The Texas Declaration of Independence was signed at Washington-on-the-Brazos on March 2. Santa Anna’s crimes against liberty were announced to the world before he could capture the rebellion’s leaders and tighten his dictatorial grip over the rebellious colony.

A small band of colonists, armed only with simple hunting rifles and hastily assembled into a makeshift militia, now fled ahead of the massive military juggernaut rampaging north through Texas, burning towns to the ground in its wake. Many Texians were angry, wondering why the leader of their forces, former Tennessee governor Sam Houston, was retreating from Santa Anna rather than fighting.

But they weren’t exactly retreating. General Houston knew an army of thousands, which had marched over 3,000 miles from central Mexico at breakneck speed was exhausted and had overstretched its supply lines. And they knew the valiant sacrifice at the Alamo deeply wounded the Mexican Army. As they lured Santa Anna further north, they waited for their moment to strike. It was a bold gamble with seemingly slim odds of success, as Santa Anna was better armed, better trained, had an exponentially larger force and would stop at nothing to exterminate the rebellion.

Well, the beautiful thing about liberty is that it eventually gives you an opportunity to win it back.

For the Texians and Tejanos, that moment came on the afternoon of April 21. Santa Anna, a brilliant military strategist, had not only split his weary army, he camped his contingent on a wedge of land hemmed in by thick swamps and the San Jacinto River. The arrogant Santa Anna had overreached. The freedom fighters seized the opportunity, charging down the hill into the much larger Mexican camp.

The attack came as a total surprise. As the rebel militia hurtled towards the camp, some Mexican soldiers returned fire and others feebly attempted to retreat into the only directions not blocked by Texians and Tejanos – the nearly impenetrable swamps and the San Jacinto River.

The short battle was a mind-boggling defeat. The outnumbered militia of farmers, doctors and lawyers killed over half the Mexican force of 1,200, wounded more than 200 and captured over 700 more in less than 20 minutes. They lost only nine of their own.

Among those captured was the bold, cocky, arrogant Generalissimo, the “Napoleon of the West,” the once-inspirational hope who changed Mexico from a constitutional republic into a centralized superstate. Only the rebels didn’t know it. Santa Anna ordered a lowly soldier to hand over his uniform, hoping the rebels wouldn’t know who they captured.

His cowardly disguise would have worked, had his soldiers not seem him being led back to the camp and started chanting his name. Disgraced and humbled, he agreed to a simple trade. Give them Texas, and they would give him his life. Unlike Santa Anna, the Texians and Tejanos actually kept their promise of mercy.

And therein lies the lesson of Texas Independence Day. Liberty can be violated, infringed and outlawed, but the transformational leaders behind it eventually overreach. Their arrogance, pride and hope to change a nation in their image lead them too far. That’s when liberty presents the opportunity for once-inconceivable victory those bold enough to declare their independence and win it back...

Sometimes even with only "small arms".

The drafters of the Constitution did indeed intend for private citizenry to have access to artillery and other heavy weapons; as of course the citizens of a representative and free nation must necessarily be able to exercise some military autonomy in defense of their communities (either from external aggressors or internal, as the case may be with a tyrannical government).

The founders, at least those of whom looked upon the federal beast with a jaundiced and suspicious eye, never intended to create a central power-elite in the halls of the federal government vested with a total monopoly on military force. As that psychotic little Red-Commie dwarf Mao said, "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun".

But back to the issue I alluded to earlier, I would point out that General Jackson's near-run but brilliant defense of New Orleans was chiefly made possible due to the numerous pieces of dug-in artillery at his disposal, and the finely trained artillery-men at his command.

And may I ask, sir, do you know from whence many of those cannons and well-trained crews came from? Why, from Jean Lafitte of course, a private... ahem... entrepreneur of a sea-borne nature that contributed large numbers of men to the defense of the embattled city, provided guns and crews for several artillery companies, and offered highly trained and very well regarded artillery-men for the American war effort on land and at sea.

If it were not for his privately owned ships of war, trained crews, and extensive collection of military hardware, then the near-run defense of New Orleans would have easily turned in to an unfortunate rout of the American forces.

As an aside, our Constitution even has provisions for hiring private ships of war to supplement our naval forces in times of war.

If you study the civil war, you will quickly find that at the beginning most of the standing militias and state defense forces in the South were equipped by the donations made by local businessmen. Private charity and public service by upstanding citizens provided a significant portion of the military hardware used by the South in the opening days of the war. And yes sir, those private men were perfectly able to go out and buy their own damned canons, if they were able to scrape together through donation and charity the enormous amount of money required.

It was not until the late 1930's that the federal government even entertained the idea of restricting private access to weapons. If you actually read the findings in U.S. v. Miller, and note that neither the defendant nor his attorney showed up for the trial, you will quickly realize precisely what the justices meant when they said: "We have been shown no evidence that would lead us to conclude that a short-barreled shotgun is a military weapon, and hence cannot conclude that it is protected by the second amendment." The justices believed, rightly, that the private citizens of our nation had a right to possess military weapons.

Modern Era:

What the Panther Taught the Eagle - A Modern Folk Tale

Right now the media is saying it's because of the War On Drugs in Mexico...our assault weapons are ending up in the hands of drug gangs in olde Mexico so the government wants to ban certain assault rifles again.

most rational compassionate people burn the 2nd amendment and piss on its ashes just to put a stop the alarming firearm-related death rate in the US but i guess innocent people dying aren't as important as a f*****g piece of paper. USA number 1, indeed.

hahahha if i walk down a regular street in the US i have a a greater chance of being shot than in any other western country. for you that probably just symbolizes freedom or something but i personally dont want to get shot. and the absolute easiest way to keep the populace from being shot is by not having any guns from the beginning.

but it doesnt really matter now, the inferiority complex inherent in the american male has created a situation in which there are so many guns in circulation thats regulating it is pretty much impossible. obama can ban all the guns he wants, but for every gun that isn't sold in gun-store, ten will be sold on the black market

seriously you're all pretty f****d. what laws you have wont matter, you'll be seeing kids accidentally shooting themselves or others, columbines and v-techs, gang shootouts and random killings for a long time to come. and with a financial crisis in full spin, it'll probably escalate

and all because of a piece of paper and the phallic insecurity of american men. lol.

"(5) who, being an alien— "

That made me lol ^^; , as if aliens did not have any means to defend themselves...<.< Only in a US document would i have seen this XD .

I'm mostly anti-gun =.= i'd rather fight with my fists than take the easy way and shoot someone with a deadly ranged projectile -.-

Oh and for all those who value the right to possess firearms.... Inspired by Nozick much? <.< (according to Robert Nozick, the state should not force you to do anything you do not want to, and that includes : the right to sell your body, the right to not wear a helmet when you're riding a bike, the right to not save a person who's life is in danger)

Hrm, well obviously a gun gives you an advantage -.- This is actually the biggest thing with humans, since we have technologies, we don't need to develop physical traits that could determine who's strongest (like most other animals do). What i am against though, is how excessive the harm a gun can bring towards somehow who would fight unarmed. (Heh, don't you often see in movies that the guy shooting the hero in the back is a coward?).

I'd also note that huh... The farther you are from someone, the less empathy you feel, the harder it is for you to strike her/him down. I doubt the people that dropped the nuclear bomb or launch missiles get to see the face of those they've killed, which makes it easier for them to strike without any back feeling. Try stabbing or hitting someone at close range, it's not as easy as one might think.