In the December 30th edition, in an opinion letter titled "A ‘tired’ defense still valid", the author argues that weaponry is needed to protect freedom from government-imposed tyranny and goes so far as to imply firearm owners might have to rebel against a government that tries to implement arms controls.
Tyranny is defined as: cruel and oppressive government or rule. There are existing restrictions on gun possession. For example, Title 18, United States Code, Section 922 (g) & (n) prohibits felons from possessing firearms. At the same time, the 8th Amendment guarantees Americans will not be subject to cruel or unusual punishments. It is a short logical leap to conclude a government that implements firearm control is not automatically a tyranny. Put away your plans for armed revolt; we don't need them!
The Jeff Cooper line of thought made sense in an isolated, post-revolution, frontier community where a small conspiracy of armed perpetrators could use force to inflict their will on a small unarmed population. That model does not scale well to a country with over 300 million people spread over nearly 4 million square miles of land, with widespread deployment of modern electronic communication systems, law enforcement agencies, and a justice system that works pretty well most of the time.
I am reminded of a conversation with a USMC veteran who told me the most potent person in an infantry platoon is not the rifleman. It is the radio operator. Our best defence against tyranny is not a handful (or even a large number) of citizens with rifles. It is several hundred million well-informed citizens who speak up if they see something wrong and make good choices about who they elect to office.
