2nd Ammendment question...

[FairWeatherFriend]

I have a question about it:
When it says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, is it AS part of a well regulated malitia, or is it as a citizen that is not part of a State Guard (look um up, sort of interesting)?

As a gun owner I of course say that it SHOULD be for individuals, but the writing confuses me a tad,

Opinions/Clarifications?

[Maverick-Alex]

At 5/19/08 09:29 PM, FairWeatherFriend wrote: I have a question about it:
When it says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, is it AS part of a well regulated malitia, or is it as a citizen that is not part of a State Guard (look um up, sort of interesting)?

As a gun owner I of course say that it SHOULD be for individuals, but the writing confuses me a tad,

Opinions/Clarifications?

I think this applies in war times... you need to be in a militia, a designated group... then, they are contradicting themselves in that common people has the right to bear arms, just militias

[nuclearmoose919]

It's saying that you have the right to bear arms IN CASE there's a need for a well armed militia.

So don't get rid of that gun yet!

[SolInvictus]

apparently the American populace constitutes a militia of some sort, therefore even if it applies only to militias you're in the clear because you're technically part of one.

TheMason brought it up and i'm just rambling.

[Korriken]

well considering that people CAN purchase guns, i would imagine that the right extends to all people who have not lost the right due to felony or psychotic disorder. Consider that the government has NEVER said, "Ok, those who are not in a militia must have over their weapons!"

None of the founding fathers ever said that the common man cannot own a weapon, so there you have it.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

In October of 1994, three student film makers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland, while shooting a documentary.

A year later, their footage was found.

[TheMason]

At 5/20/08 02:29 AM, SolInvictus wrote: apparently the American populace constitutes a militia of some sort, therefore even if it applies only to militias you're in the clear because you're technically part of one.

Under the militia act of 1903 pretty much every male over 18 is part of the militia. Originally they were not armed by the government...but provided their own weapons.

I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers would still support this...especially assault rifles.

[KeithHybrid]

We already have a well-armed militia. It's called the National Guard.

[aranS]

I had that same question last year, so i have an answer for you. When it was written, the U.S. was still very unexplored, so the people were allowed to have guns to protect themselves from Indian tribes, protect themselves from animals, and to hunt animals.

[TonyTostieno]

At 5/20/08 02:29 AM, SolInvictus wrote: apparently the American populace constitutes a militia of some sort, therefore even if it applies only to militias you're in the clear because you're technically part of one.

Did you know that our second amendment actually stopped the Japanese from trying to invade (actually invade, not just bomb the shit out of a base) during world war II? If I remember right, they decided not to because they decided, "We'd find a gun behind every blade of grass." What does this mean? It means the second amendment is badass.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 5/21/08 02:56 AM, TonyTostieno wrote:

Did you know that our second amendment actually stopped the Japanese from trying to invade (actually invade, not just bomb the shit out of a base) during world war II? If I remember right, they decided not to because they decided, "We'd find a gun behind every blade of grass." What does this mean? It means the second amendment is badass.

I thought the fact that they had no possible, strategically sound way to invade us is why they didn't... or am I tripping?

[therealsylvos]

At 5/23/08 12:28 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

I thought the fact that they had no possible, strategically sound way to invade us is why they didn't... or am I tripping?

I seem to remember hearing a couple years ago that had Japan attempted to invade the west coast after what they did to pearly harbor, they would've have gotten incredibly far.
But that is just my memory, I din't have a link.

[TonyTostieno]

At 5/23/08 12:28 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 5/21/08 02:56 AM, TonyTostieno wrote:

Did you know that our second amendment actually stopped the Japanese from trying to invade (actually invade, not just bomb the shit out of a base) during world war II? If I remember right, they decided not to because they decided, "We'd find a gun behind every blade of grass." What does this mean? It means the second amendment is badass.

I thought the fact that they had no possible, strategically sound way to invade us is why they didn't... or am I tripping?

Little bit of a, little bit of c. But yeah that's basically the reason, but the second amendment did help, you have to admit that. Though I'm not going to lie, I was like 1/8 awake when I posted that.

[Al6200]

At 5/21/08 02:56 AM, TonyTostieno wrote:

At 5/20/08 02:29 AM, SolInvictus wrote: apparently the American populace constitutes a militia of some sort, therefore even if it applies only to militias you're in the clear because you're technically part of one.

Did you know that our second amendment actually stopped the Japanese from trying to invade (actually invade, not just bomb the shit out of a base) during world war II? If I remember right, they decided not to because they decided, "We'd find a gun behind every blade of grass." What does this mean? It means the second amendment is badass.

What do you mean by that? Japan never had the naval superiority to pull off an invasion, especially after the battle of midway.

Moreover, I have to agree that widespread gun ownership would be somewhat helpful in case of an insurgency, but to be honest I can imagine that RPGs and heavy machine guns would be the best weapons against a modern army, and I can't see any citizen owning those.

[slowerthenb4]

"comprised all (people) physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

see:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/a mdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2

[slowerthenb4]

http://supreme.justia.com/us/116/252/cas e.html

A state statute providing that all able-bodied male citizens of the state between eighteen and forty-flue, except those exempted, shall be subject to military duty, and shall he enrolled and designated as the state militia, and prohibiting all bodies of men other than the regularly organized volunteer militia of the state and the troops of the United States from associating together as military organizations or drilling or parading with arms in any city of the state without license from the governor as to

Page 116 U. S. 253

these provisions is constitutional, and does not infringe the laws of the United States, and it is sustained as to them, although the act contains other provisions, separable from the foregoing, which it was contended infringed upon the powers vested in the United States by the Constitution or upon laws enacted by Congress in pursuance thereof.

The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.

[Korriken]

consider this bit of information, Switzerland sits between Germany France and Italy. during WW2 switerland surrounded by Germany and Italy on every side after France fell to German forces, and yet the axis never attacked Switzerland. The reason? ever Swiss male had a military grade gun. the ammo to fire it, and the training to fire it well. You would figure a country with no standing army to be weak, but the Axis knew not to mess with the Swiss, because the Swiss would cause heavy losses on the Axis, whether it fell or not.

what does this have to do with america and today's weapons? well, you need foot soldiers to secure buildings, unless you intend to raze entire cities and kill everyone in them. and foot soldier armor has many unprotected points. one of them being the neck. a pistol shot to the throat can kill quickly due to massive blood loss and blood pouring into the lungs. the person firing the shot is probably gonna die in a hail of bullets from the remaining soliders, but that's war for ya.

also many americans know how to make explosives and other useful gadgets of death and destruction that can be unleashed on invading enemy forces.

civilians might lack the capability to bring down a jet or stop a tank in its tracks, but we can still kill foot soldiers and destroy many vehicles.

[Joodah]

korriken's partly right. here's the other part:
when America was being founded, the creators had just seceded from the British Empire. they wanted to guarantee their citizens the right to an armed revolt if it became necessary.
interesting, no?

[Heretic-Anchorite]

back in those days the people where the malitia, and second at the top of the document it says "We the people"

[Heretic-Anchorite]

At 5/24/08 12:01 AM, I-RULE-OVER-ALL wrote: back in those days the people where the malitia, and second at the top of the document it says "We the people"

and also Militia is a term which has varied meanings. It has been commonly used to characterize a military force recruited directly from civilians who would not otherwise be liable to serve in a state's regular armed forces, and upon whom a military obligation is imposed by the state in certain circumstances. Usually this obligation is imposed for the purposes of local or home defence although, on occasions, such militias have been employed abroad. In the past, both Britain and the USA had citizen militias of this kind, that in Britain existing on an organized basis from 1558 until 1908. A second use of the term is to describe any unorganized military force drawn from within a civilian population and which has taken up arms. Thus, in modern Somalia the armed followers of different warlords have been characterized as militias.

[GrammerNaziElite]

Does anybody here actually think that if we are invaded, all the gun-wielding maniacs in America will magically form an ordered militia and fight?

[Korriken]

At 5/24/08 01:03 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Does anybody here actually think that if we are invaded, all the gun-wielding maniacs in America will magically form an ordered militia and fight?

no, but they will follow a strong leader when one arises. also they would join ranks with the military and assist them, there are also organized miltiias in america that people could also team up with.

you would also have the rogue element that some people would try to turn rambo, or even use their gun on their fellow citizens for their own profit during the ordeal.

on the bright side, the liberal gun snatching pussies will have someone to keep them safe while they cringe in their closets.

[TheMason]

At 5/23/08 06:45 AM, Al6200 wrote: ... but to be honest I can imagine that RPGs and heavy machine guns would be the best weapons against a modern army, and I can't see any citizen owning those.

Look at Iraq. The insurgency is not relying upon either of those as their primary weapons against the most advanced modern military. And they have achieved some measure of success (just look at the poll numbers about the war).

What an effective insurgency comes down to is cleverness and guile...not any particular class (or two) of weapon. Quite simply only a fool thinks they can predict the next effective weapon of a insurgency/guerilla/assymetric foe.

[TheMason]

At 5/24/08 01:03 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Does anybody here actually think that if we are invaded, all the gun-wielding maniacs in America will magically form an ordered militia and fight?

You are simply a fool.

The thing is the most dangerous force for a military to meet on the battlefield is a determined foe who has the homefield advantage. A well ordered and disciplined order of battle is irrelevant when dealing with a determined group of people defending their kith and kin.

So yeah, I do think that if someone were stupid enough to try and invade the "gun-wielding maniacs" such as myself would prove an effective (albeit unordered military force) fighting force. Look at the Taliban and al-Qaida. They are not anymore ordered than American rednecks. However, they know the lay of the land. Therefore they are effective against the most advanced, disciplined and professional military in the world.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 5/25/08 01:18 AM, TheMason wrote:

You are simply a fool.
The thing is the most dangerous force for a military to meet on the battlefield is a determined foe who has the homefield advantage. A well ordered and disciplined order of battle is irrelevant when dealing with a determined group of people defending their kith and kin.

Actually, that happened before.

The east coast and southern portions of the U.S where invaded by a HUGE Army, and we managed to fight the vastly superior army with a force made up of almost entirely untrained civilians with guns. Surprisingly, we where overwhelmingly successful. In fact, we where so successful that we where able to officially become an independent nation.

[TheMason]

At 5/25/08 01:41 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 5/25/08 01:18 AM, TheMason wrote:

You are simply a fool.
The thing is the most dangerous force for a military to meet on the battlefield is a determined foe who has the homefield advantage. A well ordered and disciplined order of battle is irrelevant when dealing with a determined group of people defending their kith and kin.

Actually, that happened before.

The east coast and southern portions of the U.S where invaded by a HUGE Army, and we managed to fight the vastly superior army with a force made up of almost entirely untrained civilians with guns. Surprisingly, we where overwhelmingly successful. In fact, we where so successful that we where able to officially become an independent nation.

Good point CLN. From a military perspective what passed as an organizied military force in the Revolution faced some serious problems. Where we really won our independence was in unorganizied and unorderly "irregular" units who fought with cunning and with little regard for how the professionals waged war.

This pattern holds today. Just look at the US vs China in Korea, the US vs the Vietcong and the US vs the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all three cases we are vastly superior. In fact during the end stages of Korea and Vietnam we were actually defeating the adversary. However, their cunning is what undermined our ordered might. But people who are unacquainted with military history simply do not understand what they attempt to speak of.

[slowerthenb4]

At 5/25/08 01:57 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 5/25/08 01:41 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 5/25/08 01:18 AM, TheMason wrote:

You are simply a fool.
The thing is the most dangerous force for a military to meet on the battlefield is a determined foe who has the homefield advantage. A well ordered and disciplined order of battle is irrelevant when dealing with a determined group of people defending their kith and kin.

Actually, that happened before.

The east coast and southern portions of the U.S where invaded by a HUGE Army, and we managed to fight the vastly superior army with a force made up of almost entirely untrained civilians with guns. Surprisingly, we where overwhelmingly successful. In fact, we where so successful that we where able to officially become an independent nation.

Good point CLN. From a military perspective what passed as an organizied military force in the Revolution faced some serious problems. Where we really won our independence was in unorganizied and unorderly "irregular" units who fought with cunning and with little regard for how the professionals waged war.

This pattern holds today. Just look at the US vs China in Korea, the US vs the Vietcong and the US vs the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all three cases we are vastly superior. In fact during the end stages of Korea and Vietnam we were actually defeating the adversary. However, their cunning is what undermined our ordered might. But people who are unacquainted with military history simply do not understand what they attempt to speak of.

Cambodia was in my opinion more of a reason for loosing Vietnam then the guerrilla forces. Allowing free flowing fronts going where they pleased behind our developed front lines via a cooperative apathetic neighbor swamped our ability to resist the NFL. the vietnam conflict was an example of political and media pressure to keep to that specific country in overt operations whereas the enemy had no such hesitation being "out of bounds".

homefield advantage is overrated as a determining force to a battle. a determined zealous force is quickly trumped by sound communication and ample resources.

[TheMason]

At 5/25/08 10:43 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: Cambodia was in my opinion more of a reason for loosing Vietnam then the guerrilla forces. Allowing free flowing fronts going where they pleased behind our developed front lines via a cooperative apathetic neighbor swamped our ability to resist the NFL. the vietnam conflict was an example of political and media pressure to keep to that specific country in overt operations whereas the enemy had no such hesitation being "out of bounds".

homefield advantage is overrated as a determining force to a battle. a determined zealous force is quickly trumped by sound communication and ample resources.

I think you're actually missing your own point here. Sound comm and ample resources are only effective if commanders have the freedom to exploit them. You are correct to say that if it wasn't for the supply routes from Cambodia the Viet Cong would have probably crumbled. Furthermore, in Vietnam they knew what was going and had the ability to wipe out these logistical lines. However, the government did not allow them to.

However, guerillas have no such restriction on their freedom of movement and command. Look at Israel. Even with a more relaxed ROE, top notch Human Intel resources, modern Comm and disproportionate resources they still have problems with insurgents that will not go away but rather has to be managed.

The difference is the insurgency in Israel is local which means it is easier to manage and the public has to support it. On the other hand the countries that would possibly have the tech to invade the US in the next 20-50 years would not be local. Therefore it would be expensive and a drain on domestic support to fight an American insurgency.

[bobomajo]

I can't believe some people are flirting with the idea that they might need to play rambo and thats why they should keep their gun. If war comes to the US homeland it will come in the form of a mushroom cloud, or via biological means. Plus there is the factor of destroying the US military first before the bad guys could bring in the troops, do you really put that little faith in the most expensive army in the world. Anyway what possible motives would a country have to police America, it would be way too expensive for little benefit, your at more risk of annihilation then occupation.

[hippl5]

At 5/25/08 11:58 AM, bobomajo wrote: I can't believe some people are flirting with the idea that they might need to play rambo and thats why they should keep their gun.

So maybe that won't happen. But can you give a solid reason as to why we should take away people's guns? The issue of crime isn't solid, as it goes both ways, the pro-gun people showing facts that less guns is more crime.

Maybe some people just like guns? If they're not going to shoot you, let them have fun with their weapons.