Second Amendment facts

[Mike Tx]

The overwhelming consensus among historians and law professors is that the Second Amendment guarantees that every responsible, law-abiding adult may have guns. It is no coincidence that the few scholars who disagree all are gun-control advocates. In contrast, endorsers of the individual-right view include not only gun-control opponents, but also numerous scholars who support gun control yet honestly acknowledge the overwhelming historical evidence.

That evidence starts with the words "right of the people" to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights passed as one document in 1789: Every provision having that wording guarantees a right to individuals.

To deny the Second Amendment is such a right requires assuming that when the First Amendment says "right of the people," it means a genuine right, but 16 words later, it means a "states' right" or a meaningless "collective right" -- but 26 words later in the Fourth Amendment, it refers to a genuine right again, as it also does in the Ninth and 10th amendments.

The Second Amendment also mentions "militia," a concept that, under colonial and state laws, meant every home's having a gun and every military-age male's mustering with it for militia duty.

Thus the Second Amendment's guarantee of individuals' rights to arms simultaneously guaranteed the arms of the militia, which were the arms of its individual members...

More... (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/74350_focus16pro.shtml)

[ 06-18-2002: Message edited by: MikeTx ]

[Mike Tx]

Now if we could just repeal the crime loving laws passed by crime loving politicians who should be hung, we would be doing better than we are now.

[occiferdave]

Okay... here's the ENTIRE second amendment... no opinion on my part... make up your own mind....

Article the fourth

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Mike Tx]

Seems like a whole lotta infringing goin' on.

[JRT6]

I think when the gun-grabbers read the enitre second amendment they ignore the comas.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the "Federalist Papers" that the second is clearly a individual right. Now the anti's say those papers are garbage;however, these are the SAME papers the "seperation of church and state" quote comes from which as we all know is NOT written as such in the first admendment.

Hypocracy, circular arguments, ignorance, lying; gun control ain't about "common sense" or about "saving the children", it's about power, period. 7,000 people we're murdered with guns in a country of 300 peopel million last year. 100,000 people are killed by medical malpractice a year. You don't hear a word about that. Saving lives has absolutley nothing to do with gun control.

[Zamboni]

Personally I think the 2nd amendment means a milita, i.e. something like an army or national guard. That said I really don't care what it says. If thats what it means then lets get rid of it. Banning guns doesn't work. Banning anything doesn't work.

I used to be pro gun control till I really thought about the issue and looked at it more. Even though I don't like guns I do believe in the theory that only the law abiders will obey a gun ban leaving only crooks with guns.

[Watchman]

The "milita" is still any abled bodied man from 17 to 50 that might be required to defend this country. Technically, everyone is part of the "militia".

It is quite clear that what the founding fathers thought about the right to bear arms, it's just that most people that ignore history have never heard the quotes (and there are many )that deal specifically with gun control and being armed. Many are shocked when they actually read up on the stuff.

Another thing that I hear that implys ignorance, is the fact the the second amendment refers to the "National Guard" therefore we no longer need a second amendment.What these people forget is that the "National Guard" wasnt formed until the early part of this century.

Those that would deny us the right of self defense sit with their hands folded and they laugh out loud at the simple folk and the educated idiots that cry for gun control. They know that an unarmed popuilation where it is illegal to defend onself is ripe for tyranny and the people have no recourse but to abide by their rule or cease to exist.

Every single country where millions have died due to genocide was a result of the citizens having no means of self defense. It will be no different the next time around.

We are indeed blessed to be the only country in the world that has the language that the second amendment contains. If you look the major casualties of the last decade, Canada,Australia,Great Britian and even Sweden they have all used as an argument the fact that their governing documents contained no such language, therefore making it much easier to disarm the people.

Hypocracy, circular arguments, ignorance, lying; gun control ain't about "common sense" or about "saving the children", it's about power, period.

couldnt have said it better myself...

Gun Control is about POWER...

Thats all it's ever been and thats all it'll ever be.

Pity the poor fools that'll never understand thast...
:eek:

[jarhead6073]

This is one of the cases where the founding fathers' foresight was not quite what some people think it was. This was written in time when the government didn't equip it's militiamen and they brought their own weapons with them to battle. I don't think that the 2nd ammendment foresaw a nation like we have today where we have a large standing military that the government equips. After the Revoulutionoary war the entire military was disbanded. And I "think" that was still the case in 1791 when the BOR was ratified. (even so, the Marine Corps and Army still celebrate their birtdays from 1775)

That said, I still believe that the 2nd ammendment carries over as an 'individual' right today. And that every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms.

[klar]

<small>[ 09-27-2002, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: klar ]</small>

[LeslieBScott]

Jarhead -
I believe what the founding fathers were aiming for was for a way for the citizen to protect him/herself against the federal government. At the time of the constitutions writing, America was a new country having just recently divorced itself from King Georges England. The founding fathers recognized that true freedom can only be accomplished if the citizenry is able to tell the gov't that they've gone too far. The right to keep and bear arms does not necessarily mean only for the purpose of serving in the militia, but also to protect oneself against his own government (note - this would, of course, apply only in cases where the gov't has become intolerable, or obviously breaking it's own values as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - not just a matter of inconvenience). Please note thet I do not advocate overthrow of the American Government.

As for the militia, the standing Army/National Guard/Reserves/etc are not the same as the militia. The militia would be the last line of defense against the invasion of a foreign power. If a foreign government were to invade the US, each citizen should have the power to repel the enemy. (IMHO, each citizen should also have the will to do the same, but with all the anti-gun groups, it appears that there are many who don't care who rules them)

[Mike Tx]

The second is there to help secure our free state, not to overthrough the government. That idea comes from those who equate restoring constitutional limitations to overthrowing the government.

[Watchman]

The second is there to help secure our free state, not to overthrough the government. That idea comes from those who equate restoring constitutional limitations to overthrowing the government.

Got to disagree with that...

There has been much written and much debated about the intent of the second amendment. It is quite clear that the prevailing thought was that any government could outgrow it's citizens and when the government no longer meets the needs and desires of its people it was time to change it out. Those that founded this country understood that often the only way to effect change was through bloody revoloutions. They had just been though one and the memorys of it were still very clear.

There are many famous quotes that deal specifically with breaking away from the government and it was thought then that it was the duty of each citizen to do so when that government became unresponsive to the needs of its people. The more you read up on history and how this country came to be, the more you'll realize that this was one of the main intents of the second amendment.

By todays standards, that sounds pretty radical, especially to those that think personal responsiblity is a thing of the past. Its not like they are teaching this stuff in the public indoctrination centers (schools) nowadays. If they did, someone might wake up and think that bearings arms is the duty and responsiblity of every citizen in America. GOD forbid we teach our kids how to handle guns !!!

[Mike Tx]

My take is that it was put in so we could restore the constitutional limitations of government. Not to mention making us almost invasion proof.

There has been much written and much debated about the intent of the second amendment. It is quite clear that the prevailing thought was that any government could outgrow it's citizens and when the government no longer meets the needs and desires of its people it was time to change it out

I agree, to restore the limits of the constitution.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: MikeTx ]

[jarhead6073]

Originally posted by klar:
<STRONG>America no longer has a large standing army. We have downsized and downsized to the point that when something comes about we are calling up our reserves and national guards to go and be real soldiers for a time until they can again come home and go back to thier real jobs.

*True, but there are still roughly 1 million active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. Which I'm sure is beyond what Ben Franklin had in mind.*


The second amendment as a part of the whole Bill of Rights is very important as it enpowers the people to keep this nation free and on the right path. IF the government wants to take control away from the people it is the peoples responsibility to rise up and force the government to give our rights back to us. That my friend is the power behind this government and the constitution of this great nation.
Klar</STRONG>

I don't disagree with that. But it's hard to know where to draw the line. How many rights stepped on is too many? When do you cross the line from responsible citizen to extreemest wacko?

[UnderturnAlibi]

The main argument for guns is that without them, we are helpless to government overthrow. Of course, we ignore the fact that the military could destroy us with or without guns.

[Niteshift]

Actually, a properly executed guerilla war against a standing military can be amazingly effective.

Not to mention that both the Japanese during WW2 and the Soviets during the Cold War both cited the private ownership of firearms as a major factor against them should they decide to invade.

[UnderturnAlibi]

I know a guerilla war would be very effective, but in reality, our military would A. never do such a thing B. prepare for such a war and C. win it anyway, since unlike Vietnam, we live in suburbs and cities, with less underbrush than we'd like.

When another country says that, it's a tad different. War fever, "Kill the enemy," etc. The government is brilliant, methodic. We wouldn't know what hit us in most cases, and if we did, we aren't going to keep fighting. For every man they lost, chances are they would kill a dozen, take prisoners, and torch some houses. We would be ruined as a country either way.

[Mike Tx]

Under, Why don't you get some of your army buddies together and try it? I'm ready to die for my freedom, and I gaurantee I'll take at least one with me.

[UnderturnAlibi]

Army buddies? I surely won't die for my freedom. What's my freedom without me to be free under it?

[Mike Tx]

That's a typical response from one who doesn't know what freedom is.

[Don]

Originally posted by UnderturnAlibi:
<STRONG> I surely won't die for my freedom. What's my freedom without me to be free under it?</STRONG>

YOU SURELY WILL DIE. We all will. If you are not willing to die for your freedom (only if you have to, of course,) then you really DON'T DESERVE TO HAVE FREEDOM.

[jarhead6073]

Of course he won't die for his freedom. He'll talk about his causes and identify with "liberals". He'll talk about how "they" are going to change the world.

[UnderturnAlibi]

That's not my liberalism. I would die for the freedom of others. If they put a gun to my head and said "take the bullet or let your country be enslaved" I would take the bullet. But if they said "take the bullet or move to an authoritarian country," I apologize, but I'd take the next flight to whatever authoritarian country they choose for me. If I die there, so what? Same result.

I don't see anything as far as my own interests go more important than my life.

[Niteshift]

"but in reality, our military would A. never do such a thing B. prepare for such a war and C. win it anyway, since unlike Vietnam, we live in suburbs and cities, with less underbrush than we'd like."

It's clear you haven't been educated in guerilla warfare. Urban setting makes no difference.

"I surely won't die for my freedom. What's my freedom without me to be free under it?"

If I have to explain the answer to that, you wouldn't understand it.

[UnderturnAlibi]

I actually know a lot about guerilla war. Urban settings are actually damn near perfect, so I don't know why I said that. But here are some better reasons for why we could never withstand such an attack:

A. Not everyone has a gun
B. Those that do have guns don't have guns that are powerful enough
C. The few that do have such guns aren't fully trained, nor are they enough in numbers to help us much.
D. Again, the military is methodic, dangerous when they want to be. They know what they are doing.

The people could resist, yes, but in the end, it wouldn't do any good. We COULD beat them back! Imagine! But imagine what would be done before that happens. Millions dead, cities nearly destroyed. Good thing it won't ever happen.

[UnderturnAlibi]

By the way, I see what you are all saying about freedom. But I'm referring to my personal freedom. I'm not exactly a cop either way, and I salute anyone who puts the safety of others above their own.

[Watchman]

A. Not everyone has a gun

There are an estimated 80 million guns in America. Can you think of ANYWHERE else that has that many ?

B. Those that do have guns don't have guns that are powerful enough

A puny .22 caliber pistol will kill you just a dead as a .50 MBG

C. The few that do have such guns aren't fully trained, nor are they enough in numbers to help us much.

That maybe true where YOU live, but deinatley not where I live...


D. Again, the military is methodic, dangerous when they want to be. They know what they are doing.

Duh...lots of people here are ex military.Do you think they forget their training as soon as they get out ?

The people could resist, yes, but in the end, it wouldn't do any good.

How do you know that ? I think you assume way too much..


We COULD beat them back! Imagine! But imagine what would be done before that happens. Millions dead, cities nearly destroyed.

Yep.Thats what happens in war.


Good thing it won't ever happen.

I wish I had the same ability to predict the future that you did. I'd use it on my stock portfolio and get filty rich instead of just rich.

[UnderturnAlibi]

My ability to predict the future actually astounds me. In fact, I'm gonna call this: tomorrow, World War 3 will not begin. We'll discuss on Saturday? Some things are obvious.

How about you line up a hundred yards from me, give me a .50 sniper rifle, and you take your little .22, and we gun it out. I smell victory.

[Watchman]

Hey punk...I own a .50 caliber rifle.

In case you havent heard...its not the gun, its the MAN behind the gun that wins it...

Have you ever even seen one ?

And no...Nintendo,Sega,Sony,history channel and movies dont count.

oh...and by the way...
since you can predict the future..whats the S+P E-minis gonna do tommorow ? Up or down ?

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Watchman ]

[UnderturnAlibi]

I happen to have fired one. I'm a good shot for my age. Man behind the rifle...you mean like the Special Ops that would bust me a new one?

FYI, by the end of tomorrow I'll have fine tuned by paintballing skillZ, and then we'll see who gets the last laugh.

[FLLawdog]

How about you line up a hundred yards from me, give me a .50 sniper rifle, and you take your little .22, and we gun it out. I smell victory.

That wasn't the point.

Also take into consideration surprise. You may have a .50 on your way into my town to invade it. I may have taken a position in the town's clock tower with my .22. If you have no idea where I'm at, you can't hit me with your .50.

I could go on forever with the rest, but it's late and you're no fun anymore.

[UnderturnAlibi]

Surprise is all well and good, as it's the concept behind guerilla warfare, but it's not something the military will allow happen. As you're saying, the emphasis will be on tactics. This all breaks down into opinion, but I think whoever tries to go into it with the military's best commanders is gonna get their asses handed to them.

[Niteshift]

"A. Not everyone has a gun"

So? Not everyone in the Warsaw ghettos had one either, but they did a darn good job of holding a much more powerful and well equipped German Army at bay. Nor did the Viet Cong. We had helicopters come back with arrows stuck in them.

"B. Those that do have guns don't have guns that are powerful enough"

Oh ye of little imagination. I thought you said you knew about guerilla warfare. :confused:

First, most hunting rifle are more powerful than the small arms being carried by our military. They have a .223. Almost every common hunting round (.30-06, .270, .308, .30-30, 7mm Mag etc) is much more powerful.

Second, part of guerilla warfare is to trade up. We dropped hundreds of single shot .45's into France during WW2. Why? You use that to kill a single soldier and take his weapon. Then you use it to kill others and arm your peers. Then you take your armed group and take out a fuel depot which is usually only guarded by a few sentries. Then you use a couple of barrels from the fuel depot to take out an ammo dept, again usually guarded by a few sentries.......... that's how a single shot pistol stops a tank battalion. You constantly trade up.

"C. The few that do have such guns aren't fully trained, nor are they enough in numbers to help us much."

Do you know how many veterans there are in the US? Apparently not. Aside from that, you have people who grew up hunting, shooting and other related activities.

"D. Again, the military is methodic, dangerous when they want to be. They know what they are doing."

Hello! What do you think those of us that are veterans did in the military? Do you think someone with the little Men in Black pen thing erased our memories before we got our discharges?

"But I'm referring to my personal freedom."

I'm referring to personal freedom too.

Let me put it this way, if you look at the flag and just see cloth, you aren't on the same page as I am.

If you don't get a cold chill when you watch Braveheart and hear William Wallaces final word, we're not on the same page (yes, I know it's a movie, and again, if that's your response, we're on different pages).

I suspect we're on different pages.

"How about you line up a hundred yards from me, give me a .50 sniper rifle, and you take your little .22, and we gun it out. I smell victory."

What sort of fool stands at a couple of hundred yards and just tries a shoot out? Those sort of tactics went out with the British in the Revolutionary war, when they got their butts served to them by Americans that didn't fight that way.

How about if you take your .50 and I take my .22 and we do it right. We'll see who sees who first and gets the accurate shot off. If you don't own a ghille suit, don't bother showing up.

[UnderturnAlibi]

I'm too tired to argue currently, but I'll add my main point. I mean tactics on a large scale. Personally, I think the military would take a hell of a hit trying to take us over. Not everyone would fight, though, and those that did would die. The military would certainly map everything out perfectly before doing something this ridiculous. I doubt they would send troops into little suburban neighborhoods. If they did, and those troops took damage, they'd bomb the hell out of the place, since they obviously don't care much for the people in it. Vets are limited in capacity. 'Nam vets are going to be limited in speed etc. in war (that's now, by the time something like this could happen, Gulf War vets will be long gone), so the only hope is military drop-outs. Obviously, when taking over the country, you'd call up the reserve, so they are out of the question. In the end, our last line of defense is hunters. Hunters vs. tanks and helicopters, with some black ops among their ranks.

Well if it makes you feel better, I'll soak the traitors with paint. Over and over. Surely you guys are paintball fans?

[Watchman]

I happen to have fired one.

Great ! What kind was it? 600,647or 750Grain ammo? AP,API,APIT or ball ?How much did the gun weigh ? 8,10 pounds maybe ? Those .50 are pretty heavy.

I'm a good shot for my age.

Really ? What was the range ? 10 yards ? 25 ?
I bet that you are an above arverage shot huh?

Man behind the rifle...you mean like the Special Ops that would bust me a new one?

Well...not quite. I mean anybody with a clue that knows how to survive.

, by the end of tomorrow I'll have fine tuned by paintballing skillZ, and then we'll see who gets the last laugh.

ahhh...PAINTBALL...
the sport where everyone shoots each other up, then they brag about their exploits and their brave deeds right before they go home and go to sleep. PAINTBALL, the "real" warriors sport. O.K., I see where you are coming from now.

Hey...S+P E MINIS, they gonna be UP or DOWN tommorow?

:p

[UnderturnAlibi]

Paintball is just good fun. Of course, I forgot, you've died in battle. I find paintball on par with video games, just in case you couldn't sense the heavy sarcasm in my last post.

Actually I shot a .50 at about 400 yards. That was the only distance I really tried, but I'm a decent shot with most guns. I can hold an AK-47 steady (with solid accuracy, of course) for prolonged periods of time. But don't be impressed, I'm just 16. I suppose by that age you were shooting down helicopters deep in Red China in a secret operation.

[Niteshift]

"I mean tactics on a large scale."

That's my point.....guerilla warfare os not large scale. By definition, it's NOT fighting a pitched battle.

"Vets are limited in capacity. 'Nam vets are going to be limited in speed etc. in war (that's now, by the time something like this could happen, Gulf War vets will be long gone), so the only hope is military drop-outs."

Military drop-outs????? I hope that was just p*ss poor wording on your part. Going in, honorably serving your commitment and getting an honorable discharge is not being a drop-out.

"Obviously, when taking over the country, you'd call up the reserve, so they are out of the question."

If they went. Remember, many of those will disagree and NOT go.

"In the end, our last line of defense is hunters. Hunters vs. tanks and helicopters, with some black ops among their ranks."

See above about how a single shot pistol stops tanks.

And what is your thing with "special" and "black" ops? The backbone of every army is the infantry. Every Marine is a rifleman first. It's not all about wearing berets and having tabs on your sleeve.

[CinaC]

"WAR, huah, yeah! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!"

Paintball IS fun. Just wear a cup, and don't open your mouth if you get shot in the face mask (takes forever to get the taste of paint out of your mouth).

Can you think of ANYWHERE else that has that many ?

Are we talking percentage-wise? Because we have one of the largest populations in the world. It makes sense that even pre-ban Britain wouldn't have as many guns as we do, since they have a smaller population base.

I'd use it on my stock portfolio and get filty rich instead of just rich.

Well, if you want to buy me a Springfield Armory 1911 .45, I won't object ... :D

Not to mention that both the Japanese during WW2 and the Soviets during the Cold War both cited the private ownership of firearms as a major factor against them should they decide to invade.

Well, the Japanese had their hands full with their "exploits" in Asia. Did they have any manpower to commit to an invasion of America, regardless of whether or not everybody had a gun or not? Also, I doubt many nations had any widespread bans on guns back in the '30s and '40s (if I'm wrong, please correct/enlighten/beat me into bloody submission) ... and that didn't certainly didn't stop Germany from invading most of Europe and the USSR!

Also, about the point with the USSR: they went and tackled the Nazi war machine. Somehow I think if they'd wanted to invade the US, they would have (and would probably have been very successful).

YOU SURELY WILL DIE. We all will.

Well, everybody dies. :D

give me a .50 sniper rifle, and you take your little .22,

How about you get a .50 sniper rifle, and I get a Glock-19 with a 33-round 9mm clip? I'd rather have capacity with a lower caliber over a scope with a higher caliber!

That's just my little "liberal gun loving" dreaming let loose ...

Watchman, I'd happily take a Glock-19 if you don't want to spring for the 1911 ... :)

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Crazy in a Jeep ]

[UnderturnAlibi]

Originally posted by Niteshift:
<STRONG>[i]

And what is your thing with "special" and "black" ops? The backbone of every army is the infantry. Every Marine is a rifleman first. It's not all about wearing berets and having tabs on your sleeve.</STRONG>

I don't think they'd send the Marines charging into the suburbs. Anything they did (at least initially) would be covert.

[CinaC]

I don't think they'd send the Marines charging into the suburbs. Anything they did (at least initially) would be covert.

Well, I don't think they would either. And even if they tried to, I don't think the Marine Corps (or all of it, at least) would follow that order.

But anything, no matter how unlikely anyone thinks it, can happen.

[UnderturnAlibi]

True enough, but that is certainly one incident I am not concerned about.

[Watchman]

How about you get a .50 sniper rifle, and I get a Glock-19 with a 33-round 9mm clip? I'd rather have capacity with a lower caliber over a scope with a higher caliber!

You have GOT to be kidding.

[CinaC]

Okay ... okay ... how about a grenade launcher?

You have GOT to be kidding.

Uh. About what, though?

If somebody with a sniper rifle is crouching in a tree, and I come up behind 'em ... and, hey, with a 33-round magazine, at least I'll hit them once or twice ... :D

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Crazy in a Jeep ]

[UnderturnAlibi]

Forget the weapon, I'll take air support...

[Niteshift]

"Surprise is all well and good, as it's the concept behind guerilla warfare, but it's not something the military will allow happen."

You act as if they simply make a choice to not be suprised. If life were that simple......

"This all breaks down into opinion, but I think whoever tries to go into it with the military's best commanders is gonna get their asses handed to them."

I know what my opinion is based on. Would you care to tell us all what yours is based on?

"Of course, I forgot, you've died in battle."
"I suppose by that age you were shooting down helicopters deep in Red China in a secret operation."

After those two comments, I'm having trouble deciding whether to spank you in public or just give Watchman a green light.

Dial it back. It's hard enough to take a 16 year old lecturing vets on tactics seriously, but the punk factor doesn't help your cause.

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Niteshift ]

[UnderturnAlibi]

Watchmans enjoys ranting on about his superior knowledge of guns...which isn't much of a feat.

Again, they won't just shovel Marines into NYC come this fictional doomsday.

Have you been in the military? I'd assume so, so I'll go at this saying you have.

I hope you were fairly low ranking...but here goes. The military would not be stupid about something like this. For all we know, they would cut off power to everyone in the country and wait for a surrender.

[CinaC]

Okay, this guy is getting on MY nerves now! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[UnderturnAlibi]

As it should be. To be honest, I'm not quite as worried about this military take over as I am about getting to bed before 1, and I only have 20 minutes.

[Niteshift]

Mine too......

"Have you been in the military?"

It's clear you don;t read the replies. Otherwise, when I posted: "What do you think those of us that are veterans did in the military? Do you think someone with the little Men in Black pen thing erased our memories before we got our discharges?" you would have known.

"I hope you were fairly low ranking...but here goes."

I led troops in combat. Any more questions?

Now maybe you'll answer mine (asked for the second time) ...... where did your military knowledge come from sport?

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Niteshift ]

[UnderturnAlibi]

I was referring to VERY high up positions. Saying leading troops is low-ranking is ridiculous, but I don't know how else to put it.

May I ask what war?

[Niteshift]

I've had it.......I've asked you the same question twice and you've purposely ignored it.

You've been bugging the sh*t out of me in a number of threads........ the beauty of this is, I don't have to be bugged if I don't feel like it.

[Jim Burnes]

Originally posted by UnderturnAlibi:
<STRONG>Army buddies? I surely won't die for my freedom. What's my freedom without me to be free under it?</STRONG>

UnderturnAlibi,

You're just a kid, right? I ask, because, if you were really an adult, I'd have to say your remarks mark you as a coward.

But as a child, you would not have the maturity to understand the concept that your individual life, among the millions of American citizens facing an armed enemy, means nothing. Only your individual efforts to protect the whole, makes your life worth recalling.

This is going to go right over your head.

Jim Burnes

[klar]

<small>[ 09-27-2002, 04:23 AM: Message edited by: klar ]</small>

[LeslieBScott]

UnderturnAlibi-
140 years ago this scenario was played out. A number of states decided that the federal government had gone too far in their control of the states rights. They decided to do something about it. Those persons who led the "rebels" were not just the farmers. They included many West Point graduates who believed in the Constitution more than in the Government. General Robert E. Lee often felt bad about his choice to go into battle against his brother, but he never regreted that decision. He felt strongly about his freedom.

As did all the others who fought and died for the Confederacy. It is true that the Confederacy lost the war, but that in no way diminishes the love of freedom of those Patriots. If all sixteen-year-olds in that time had felt the way you do (freedom is great, but I wont fight to keep it), then the Civil War would surely not have happened. If that had been the case, then the Federal government would have continues to eat up states', as well as individual, freedoms. Had it not been for those Patriots, then the Government would not have received the wake-up call.

Now, 140 years later, the public at large has decided that we no longer need to keep our freedom. Many have decided that, not only do they choose not to fight for their freedom, but nobody else should. They have pressured the government to diminish our standing army, disallow private ownership of firearms, and generally dumb down the entire country. They would have the public believe that freedom "ain't nothin but a thang". They believe that everything they have is theirs by birthright.

WAKE UP ALIBI!!

Freedom is not a right!
Freedom is something that must be fought for to receive, and them must be fought for to retain. There will always be someone who wants to take it away from you. If you let them, then you may live forever as a slave.

Or they may kill you simply because they want to.

OR you can fight for your freedom, the freedom of your friends and family, and the freedom for your progeny.

However, you do retain the FREEDOM to make your own choice . . . for now.

[CinaC]

diminish our standing army,

Well, Leslie, you know, that might have something to do with the fact that we're not engaged in a cold war with another super-power ... :D

[LeslieBScott]

Crazy -
Could it be that the cold-war ended because of the standing army?

By reducing it, we simply leave ourselves open.

By retaining a standing army, we allow ourselves the luxury of not having to fight.

[jarhead6073]

Originally posted by UnderturnAlibi:
<STRONG>I don't think they'd send the Marines charging into the suburbs. Anything they did (at least initially) would be covert.</STRONG>


Wait a minute... I'm a Marine... I'm in the suburbs!!! OHH Noooo :eek:

[retired]

LeslieBScott,

Originally posted by LeslieBScott:
<STRONG>Crazy -
Could it be that the cold-war ended because of the standing army?

By reducing it, we simply leave ourselves open.

By retaining a standing army, we allow ourselves the luxury of not having to fight.</STRONG>

It is my opinion that the cold war ended because of the internal failures of the governments of the iron curtain countries. Our standing army had nothing to do with it.

[jarhead6073]

I think that it was a combination of things. Both our arms build up and the train wreck of an economic model that the former USSR was using.

Since the cold war meant that we were always trying to "one up" each other that meant that we needed at least equal economic footing to stand on. The Russians didn't have it and they over extended themselves trying to keep up with us. So it was a combination of both factors (and probably many others) that the USSR failed. The constant military build up (by both of us) and a faulty system on their part.

Had they not been pressured by our military build up they probably would not have collapsed like they did.

[shooter1201]

A few random thoughts..no particular order:

* Under...HOW old are you? I'm guessing MAYBE a Freshman in college at best.

* Under...the more I read your posts, the more I'm convinced you are what the Founding Fathers referred to as a 'sunshine patriot/summer soldier'. In case you don't know what that is, it refers to 'talking the talk, but NOT being able to walk the walk'...

* The Founding Fathers DIDN'T WANT a 'standing army'. They detested the idea and equated such with the POWER weilded by the draconian English king's army. Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely.

* Anyone remember the 'Warsaw Ghetto Uprising'?

[Bill R]

Yes the millitary could put a real hurting on civillian resistance. As stated earlier though many civillians are ex- millitary and know what they are doing. Also, I would like to think that if there were widespread resistance to an oppressive government, many of our brothers in the millitary would join us. They are Americans too.

[CinaC]

many of our brothers in the millitary would join us.

Not our sisters in the military, though. They want to oppress us all. :D

[Bill R]

Originally posted by Crazy in a Jeep:
<STRONG>

Not our sisters in the military, though. They want to oppress us all. :D</STRONG>

That's a whole 'nuther thread. And I ain't going there!

[Mike Tx]

Bin Laden should read this stuff. He thinks HE brought about the collapse of the Soviets.

[CinaC]

Well, certainly the war in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[JRT6]

I wish this forum had an "ignore" feature like GT for people who make countless obnoxious posts.

[Mike Tx]

Sorry, I'll try not to be so obnox.

[Jim Burnes]

Well, if we are going to apologize here, then I too, am sorry that Mike TX is obnoxious :D

Jim Burnes

[Mike Tx]

### #### ###.

[Niteshift]

I wish this forum had an "ignore" feature like GT for people who make countless obnoxious posts.

We sort of have one.......it's called me booting his azz out the door.

BTW, he is a 16 year old kid, who now emails me wishing that I was dead and calling me a nazi. Oh well, better people than him have been down that road.

[Don]

Originally posted by MikeTx:
<STRONG>Sorry, I'll try not to be so obnox.</STRONG>

Umm I don't think YOU are the problem. After all, we all know you now, and realize that you can't help it. http://imbiss-coding.de/smiliez.de/smz/nsrtrts/nsrtrts_271.gif :D

[CinaC]

Where DO you get all those cool smileys?

[Don]

Off the internet, where do you think? http://imbiss-coding.de/smiliez.de/smz/crz/crz_185.gif http://imbiss-coding.de/smiliez.de/smz/crz/crz_193.gif

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: Don ]

[CinaC]

Well, yes, Don, I figured that ...

:dualies:

[n567]

Originally posted by Watchman:
<STRONG>[i]D. Again, the military is methodic, dangerous when they want to be. They know what they are doing.

Duh...lots of people here are ex military.Do you think they forget their training as soon as they get out ?
</STRONG>

Perhaps he's referring more to the fact that the military has many more tools to avail itself of.

If said military is taking heavy casualties to a militia in an urban setting, then they'll just carpet bomb and flatten the area. Additionaly, APC's, and Tanks are virtually impenetrable to the small weapons fire that would make up virtually any militia's armament.

As for the military being used in such a capacity, as unlikely as it is - People in the military are heavily, heavily trained to follow orders - It's very plausible that our military could be used as a tool of aggression in a gradual manner.

[n567]

Originally posted by retired:
<STRONG>LeslieBScott,



It is my opinion that the cold war ended because of the internal failures of the governments of the iron curtain countries. Our standing army had nothing to do with it.</STRONG>

Oh, it actually had alot to do with it.

Sorry guys, shoulda read page two before replying!

Anywho. The United States was able to spend a whole lot more money on the military and still maintain a (relatively sh*tty) infrastructure. The U.S.S.R attempted to keep pace and couldn't. SCausing it's infrastructure, and military simultaneously fail...

Basically we outspent them.

[Niteshift]

"Additionaly, APC's, and Tanks are virtually impenetrable to the small weapons fire that would make up virtually any militia's armament."

Sigh.......you have no imagination.

Where do you think Afghan rebels got Soviet RPG's and AA guns from? Certainly not the US. We gave them other stuff, but not those items. They got them by doing what I outlined above........trading up all the time.

"People in the military are heavily, heavily trained to follow orders - It's very plausible that our military could be used as a tool of aggression in a gradual manner."

Actually, that's less true today than it ever was.

Additionally, we were taught over and over about no only the ability, but the responsibility, to disobey an unlawful order.

Lastly, one advantage that the US Army had over the Soviet army was that the US soldier were all trained to think for themselves for the most part. That's why we all knew the general mission and trained to move up if someone in the chain was killed, as well as cross trained into other peoples jobs. Unlike the Soviets...... where only the officer and most senior NCO knew what was goingon and if they were killed, you had a bunch of soldiers standing around without a clue.

[n567]

Certainly weapons from abroad could be purchased. But the chance of them successful getting into the hands of a militia would be much more difficult than in Afghanistan. While not impossible; if the Military complimented the Coast Guard and Border Patrol I'm sure they'd yield some impressive results. Afghanistan was a landlocked country with borders the Soviets no doubt had very little control over for the most part. The U.S on the other hand has far more easily patrolled, and controllable borders. Additionally, our Military has far more advanced technology to take advantage of.

And in a gradual manner, I was thinking along the lines of martial law being declared for whatever reason, widespread rioting or whatnot. Granted I've never been in the military, nor do I plan to be if at all possible. So I cannot know with much certainty exactly what the response of our Army would be. Of course, these things never happen over night. I wouldn't expect the military to go out and shoot armed citizens if it was ordered. Not yet anyway. Like I said, gradual.

[Niteshift]

"Certainly weapons from abroad could be purchased."

You obviously haven't read this thread closely. Scroll back up and see how a single shot pistol leads to a tank battalion being stopped.

I'm not talking about purchasing anything. I'm talking about taking it....one step at a time. That's how things happen. The Afghans didn't purchase Soviet RPG's..... they TOOK them.

"The U.S on the other hand has far more easily patrolled, and controllable borders."

Millions of Mexicans a year disagree.

[n567]

That too, would not be the most common occurance. American soldiers are quite a bit more competant than forced conscripts (I hope). Stealing such weapons from dead soldiers would also be more difficult I'm sure. It would happen of course, but not so much as to defeat the army.

Also, you must not be reading this thread too carefully ( :)), as I did make mention that if the military were drafted into assisting the Coast Guard and Border Patrol to guarding our borders... Then I'm sure interdiction would be a much more successful past time. Relative to a landlocked nation that borders several instable, poor countries - The United States has much more easily patrolled borders by comparison.

[Niteshift]

The military has been helping on the border for years. Where have you been?

Military aircraft have provided electronic surveillance. Military Intelligence personnel have set up and monitored electronic devices. Armed military members have actually conducted "exercises" for "drug interdiction" around the border. Don't you remember the American teen killed in Texas by some Marines a few years back?

"Stealing such weapons from dead soldiers would also be more difficult I'm sure. It would happen of course, but not so much as to defeat the army."

That's why I'd succeed and you'd fail in a guerilla war.

[n567]

The military doesn't help in such a significant capacity in that it actually does a whole lotta good. As it stands, there's one border patrol officer for every 50 miles of border. put some soldiers along the border shooting at anything that tries to get across, and I'm sure that would change things.

Of course you'd succeed... Well, I suppose being optomistic is good.

[Niteshift]

"put some soldiers along the border shooting at anything that tries to get across, and I'm sure that would change things."

Yeah, that worked so well at keeping infiltrators out of firebases during Vietnam. :rolleyes:

"Of course you'd succeed... Well, I suppose being optomistic is good."

It's not optimism, it's confidence. Confidence because I have the training, experience and knowledge to know that what I'm saying is true. And because I'm not already afraid to win.

[DaveInTx]

Originally posted by Watchman:
<STRONG>A. Not everyone has a gun

There are an estimated 80 million guns in America. Can you think of ANYWHERE else that has that many ?

</STRONG>
Actually, I believe the usually-quoted figure is 200 million firearms of all types; the 80 million figure is for just handguns.

DaveInTx

[Mike Tx]

What country. The right to buy arms is the right to be free.