Second Amendment--Down But Not Out?

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership posted "The Second Amendment is Alive and Well" , in response to writer David Brownlow's opinion piece, "The Second Amendment is Already Dead."

Skip in Texas adds his thoughts in an open letter to Mr. Brownlow, posted here with permission:

JPFO's comments are correct in that your article is worth reading and discussing. Both you and JPFO had some very valid points in your arguments. As a retired military officer I believe that you far underestimate the capabilities of our Nation's civilians, especially those with previous military experience, to act in support of our rights should that need ever arise.

There are millions of us with a vast amount of military experience who remain capable of neutralizing or commandeering and using the superior weapons currently in the possession of the presumed opposition. Also, there are many currently in uniform, military and law enforcement, who still abide by their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Just as our founders fought and prevailed against superior forces, so is possible for us to do again, if needed. While the gov't can concentrate a vast amount of combat power into a small, specific area, it would be outgunned by a large margin should widespread revolution break out across the land, or even within an area the size of several states. I suspect that many more, in uniform at the time, would sympathize with those defending the Constitution and our Founders' ideals than one might imagine. This could happen in any of a number of ways, but make no mistake, happen it could.

Regarding your comment: "Sure, we might still have the ability to wage a little one-man revolution - for about five minutes!", I can assure you that anyone with any smarts what-so-ever could make things happen in their favor for much longer than that. An area that you completely ignore in your thesis is that of "leaderless resistance". Probably one of the best books on the topic is titled "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. If you have not read it, you should consider it. I'm sure there are other models out there too. In many of these scenarios, at least at the beginning, it would be necessary for a few dedicated individuals, acting individually or in concert, to get the ball rolling and then convince others to join in the action; or others would join in because of the ongoing actions. Our Nation is becoming more and more of a tinder box in this regard and I suspect that at some point a spark in the right place could ignite a wildfire throughout many parts of the country.

JPFO's comment: "History everywhere shows that a fire in the belly -- the will to be free -- triumphs over superior weaponry," is very valid, especially when that superior weaponry can be turned against those attempting to usurp the freedoms of another. Consider too that such an action by "the people" would only be required until those necessary factions of the gov't could be neutralized or disempowered, which would allow the freedoms to be returned to the people, perhaps without a complete cleansing of those in power. That would allow a Constitutional gov't to continue without the need to start up an entirely new gov't. There are a number of ways that this could happen but some of "the people" using the meager resources currently available to them could certainly start the ball rolling, should that become necessary.

Still, your article is worthwhile, if perhaps naive, in several respects. Keep up the good work.