wow, unfortunatly i think your wrong. and probably just wanted to post to get some attention, so congrats, you look stupid now.apollo_fi wrote:
It's not a deterrent.Parker wrote:
and last but not least, the people i practice with have class III licenses....that means machine guns....now multiply that for every city in this nation. tell me its not a deterrent if someone wanted to invade us.
I think your reading it right.....usmarine2007 wrote:
The right to bear arms?
"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."
Now, I know we cannot dig up the dead and ask these guys what they meant when they wrote this, but to me this does not mean "individual" rights to bear arms. Now the word militia is a little old obviously, but to me they are talking about a States rights, not each individual citizen. It is my opinion that this statement was not intended to guarantee the right for someone to keep a .50cal and loads of ammo in their house. Maybe I am reading it wrong?
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-12-12 12:28:33)
Aye, an argument I have.Parker wrote:
wow, unfortunatly i think your wrong. and probably just wanted to post to get some attention, so congrats, you look stupid now.apollo_fi wrote:
It's not a deterrent.Parker wrote:
and last but not least, the people i practice with have class III licenses....that means machine guns....now multiply that for every city in this nation. tell me its not a deterrent if someone wanted to invade us.
would you have an arguement for that, or no?
IMO your argument is invalid....... any sane person would know that an invasion of another international leader... whether it be the USA or People's Republic of China... would know that it would ultimately end in nuclear warfare.Parker wrote:
well considering that before said invading army would even have a chance to be fired on by said machine guns, they would have to fight their way past the US military. im not seeing a whole lot of armor and planes left after that.
and besides all that stuff is cool, but we have ALOT of barrett owners in this country. and thats not counting the crazys that sport 20mm anti-material rifles.
those things eat APC motors.
so yep us owning firearms would scare the living shit out of anyone coming to invade us, and definitly make them think twice.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-12-12 12:47:32)
That is true, of course. But hopefully you can see that the deterrent there is the US military, not the few class III licensed citizens?Parker wrote:
well considering that before said invading army would even have a chance to be fired on by said machine guns, they would have to fight their way past the US military. im not seeing a whole lot of armor and planes left after that.
No disagreement there.Parker wrote:
and besides all that stuff is cool
Anyone coming to invade you is already scared shitless, and has thought it over at least twice. But again, that's because of the US military, not private gun owners.Parker wrote:
so yep us owning firearms would scare the living shit out of anyone coming to invade us, and definitly make them think twice.
Actually it would just make them shoot first, thus massacre the majority of the American population. Wouldn't be pretty.Parker wrote:
well considering that before said invading army would even have a chance to be fired on by said machine guns, they would have to fight their way past the US military. im not seeing a whole lot of armor and planes left after that.
and besides all that stuff is cool, but we have ALOT of barrett owners in this country. and thats not counting the crazys that sport 20mm anti-material rifles.
those things eat APC motors.
so yep us owning firearms would scare the living shit out of anyone coming to invade us, and definitly make them think twice.
... thanks to productive posts such as this.Stingray24 wrote:
This thread has certainly wandered off course . . .
here we go.
The only reason the American militia was successful was because every farmer and hunter had a rifle. It was originally intended to secure that right. But in todays world, where our "well regulated militia" is so well regulated that the Federal government controls it, the 2nd Amendment is useless.usmarine2007 wrote:
The right to bear arms?
"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."
Now, I know we cannot dig up the dead and ask these guys what they meant when they wrote this, but to me this does not mean "individual" rights to bear arms. Now the word militia is a little old obviously, but to me they are talking about a States rights, not each individual citizen. It is my opinion that this statement was not intended to guarantee the right for someone to keep a .50cal and loads of ammo in their house. Maybe I am reading it wrong?
precisely. which is why i say let the national guard return to state governance ONLY like I think it was intended to be...or...start state sponsered militias..with or without state funding. i know many states have little groups in them (idaho, michigan, etc) where this happens..and even though many of these groups think they're fulfilling a good purpose, and some may be...they are not "well regulated" by any means, and most are not even supported by their state governors..which I think they should be regardless of their anti-government stance.jonsimon wrote:
The only reason the American militia was successful was because every farmer and hunter had a rifle. It was originally intended to secure that right. But in todays world, where our "well regulated militia" is so well regulated that the Federal government controls it, the 2nd Amendment is useless.usmarine2007 wrote:
The right to bear arms?
"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."
Now, I know we cannot dig up the dead and ask these guys what they meant when they wrote this, but to me this does not mean "individual" rights to bear arms. Now the word militia is a little old obviously, but to me they are talking about a States rights, not each individual citizen. It is my opinion that this statement was not intended to guarantee the right for someone to keep a .50cal and loads of ammo in their house. Maybe I am reading it wrong?
any sane person wouldnt shoot nukes to quell citizens...see iraq.Spearhead wrote:
IMO your argument is invalid....... any sane person would know that an invasion of another international leader... whether it be the USA or People's Republic of China... would know that it would ultimately end in nuclear warfare.Parker wrote:
well considering that before said invading army would even have a chance to be fired on by said machine guns, they would have to fight their way past the US military. im not seeing a whole lot of armor and planes left after that.
and besides all that stuff is cool, but we have ALOT of barrett owners in this country. and thats not counting the crazys that sport 20mm anti-material rifles.
those things eat APC motors.
so yep us owning firearms would scare the living shit out of anyone coming to invade us, and definitly make them think twice.
Besides, us owning so many firearms, and hypothetically if we were invaded and occupied.. could also result in anarchy, something kinda like Iraq, just not on a religious-war scale. When any population that owns lots of guns is invaded and occupied, and then lacks a matured government, things are not going to turn out good.
I disagree. Nuking Japan worked quite well after the second time.Parker wrote:
any sane person wouldnt shoot nukes to quell citizens...see iraq.Spearhead wrote:
IMO your argument is invalid....... any sane person would know that an invasion of another international leader... whether it be the USA or People's Republic of China... would know that it would ultimately end in nuclear warfare.Parker wrote:
well considering that before said invading army would even have a chance to be fired on by said machine guns, they would have to fight their way past the US military. im not seeing a whole lot of armor and planes left after that.
and besides all that stuff is cool, but we have ALOT of barrett owners in this country. and thats not counting the crazys that sport 20mm anti-material rifles.
those things eat APC motors.
so yep us owning firearms would scare the living shit out of anyone coming to invade us, and definitly make them think twice.
Besides, us owning so many firearms, and hypothetically if we were invaded and occupied.. could also result in anarchy, something kinda like Iraq, just not on a religious-war scale. When any population that owns lots of guns is invaded and occupied, and then lacks a matured government, things are not going to turn out good.
ChinaVilham wrote:
You have the highest military budget in the world... when would you ever need to form a militia?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Citizens need guns so that they may form militias if the need ever arose.
Sorry to say but 3 or 4 tanks would decimate a whole milita. 100 trained soldiers would most likely take down atleast 1000 militia. As a militia man you aint going to be decked out in full army gear, thats body armour, ammo, best gun available, etc.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
ChinaVilham wrote:
You have the highest military budget in the world... when would you ever need to form a militia?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Citizens need guns so that they may form militias if the need ever arose.
But the thing is, look at Iraq. Thats proof that Tanks cant just decimate whole "Militias".Vilham wrote:
Sorry to say but 3 or 4 tanks would decimate a whole milita. 100 trained soldiers would most likely take down atleast 1000 militia. As a militia man you aint going to be decked out in full army gear, thats body armour, ammo, best gun available, etc.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
ChinaVilham wrote:
You have the highest military budget in the world... when would you ever need to form a militia?
Last edited by Last1Standing (2006-12-12 16:55:55)
You are correct however in America you would try to stop them taking one foot of land thus having to go toe to toe against them. Btw the American Revolution isnt the best example of guerilla tactics, based on that example the person invading your country would have a couple much larger wars going on else where and you would have an ally that would fight off anything other than land units.Last1Standing wrote:
But the thing is, look at Iraq. Thats proof that Tanks cant just decimate whole "Militias".Vilham wrote:
Sorry to say but 3 or 4 tanks would decimate a whole milita. 100 trained soldiers would most likely take down atleast 1000 militia. As a militia man you aint going to be decked out in full army gear, thats body armour, ammo, best gun available, etc.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
China
You have to remember, our "Militias" during the Revolutionary War were in fact using guerilla tactics similar to insurgents in Iraq today (albeit lack of roadside bombs). And we beat the British, no?
Some people (please dont flame) would say we are losing in Iraq to the "militias" there.
Therefore, Militias are still effective. Another example: Vietnam War, when the local populace rose up against us. We might have crushed them immediately, but it still made a huge impact (news media, our realization that it was what the people wanted/people thought they wanted).
As for the origional question, militias back in the day were made up of civilians. The 2nd Amendment is there so that we can rise up against an oppressive government much like we did in the revolutionary war. If we did not have the right to bear arms, it would be like a 1984-style country, where no matter how many people rebelled, they would die because they would have no weapons.
The 2nd Amendment is there so that if the democracy is not serving the needs of the majority of its citizens, the citizens can retaliate. "You wont help our needs? We will force you too."
A check & balance between citizens and government, if you will.
So if individuals were not allowed to have arms, then yes crime would go down. Not disappear though. But then the citizens have lost all the power to protect themselves against an oppressive government.
Last edited by JG1567JG (2006-12-12 18:19:27)
Like we have any power right now.Last1Standing wrote:
So if individuals were not allowed to have arms, then yes crime would go down. Not disappear though. But then the citizens have lost all the power to protect themselves against an oppressive government.