Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/20/08 11:35 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: We already have a well-armed militia. It's called the National Guard.

Which was created by two pieces of legislation: the Militia Act of 1903 - an Act that stated that, rather than disorginised rabbles with guns, all militia should conform to Regular Army orginisation within five years (i.e. by 1908). On top of that was the National Defence Act of 1916, that changed militias from individual state forces to the US Army Reserve, which is where the National Guard was created.

I forget who posted it in this thread, but in the unlikely event of the US being invaded (simply because the Atlantic and Pacific put any invasion plans in the juristiction of the US Navy and USAF due to the fact everyone but Canada and South American nations would have to cross either the Atlantic or Pacific ocean - and if it were a South American nation, the US Army would be the first to go in), but the fact is plenty of gun owners would more likely be a hindrance than any form of help, because they have no military training, or have weapons that would be unsuitable to urban warfare - a handgun isn't much use, for example.

Whilst there may be some militia groups who could be useful in individual cities and/or areas, on the whole would anyone trust somebody who missed the message of Menace II Society with the future of their nation?

At 5/25/08 01:16 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 5/20/08 11:35 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: We already have a well-armed militia. It's called the National Guard.

Which was created by two pieces of legislation: ...

Which is irrelevent. The Constitution bars funding for the Army that goes past two years without Congressional renewal. Furthermore, if the SCOTUS rules that the second amendment is an individual right...the argument that the National Guard satisfies the explanatory clause of the Second Amendment is over as well.

I forget who posted it in this thread, but in the unlikely event of the US being invaded ... but the fact is plenty of gun owners would more likely be a hindrance than any form of help, because they have no military training, or have weapons that would be unsuitable to urban warfare - a handgun isn't much use, for example.

I agree with you that invasion is unlikely in the near future.

However, I also find it amusing that people with no military training (correct me if I'm wrong about you D2K) are arguing as if they have a clue about military operations.

1) Assault rifle clones are common in American gun stores/shows. The only functional difference between them and military grade rifles is they do not shoot full auto. Beyond that, an insurgent force can actually use more types of ammo and have more freedom of command than a military force.

2) The issue of training is either a red herring that is thrown up intentionally to obfuscate or you genuinely do not know what you're talking about. There are plenty of gun owners who do have military training. This training can be imparted in a remarkable amount of time. Even though I have no formal training on the AK-47, I have technical knowledge from self-study and having owned one since I was 18. However, I have military training on the M-16. Therefore I could impart my knowledge on the AK in two hours. The M-16 in half a day.

Over a three day weekend I could have a squad up and ready for insurgent warfare.

Whilst there may be some militia groups who could be useful in individual cities and/or areas, on the whole would anyone trust somebody who missed the message of Menace II Society with the future of their nation?

You know D2K we've talked about this. Movies are not reality. They do contain messages and are important as an art form. However, they are not good sources to base policy on that infringes upon a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

At 5/25/08 07:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 5/25/08 01:16 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 5/20/08 11:35 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: We already have a well-armed militia. It's called the National Guard.

Which was created by two pieces of legislation: ...

Which is irrelevent. The Constitution bars funding for the Army that goes past two years without Congressional renewal. Furthermore, if the SCOTUS rules that the second amendment is an individual right...the argument that the National Guard satisfies the explanatory clause of the Second Amendment is over as well.

If it's irrelevant, why were they both passed? There's a simple reason: so people wouldn't mumble something about "Second Amendment rights" when buying a gun for the purpose not outlined within the Bill of Rights, or at the very least a deliberate bastardisation of what is written in the Second Amendment. And why would the Supreme Court pass conflicting pieces of legislation?

I forget who posted it in this thread, but in the unlikely event of the US being invaded ... but the fact is plenty of gun owners would more likely be a hindrance than any form of help, because they have no military training, or have weapons that would be unsuitable to urban warfare - a handgun isn't much use, for example.

I agree with you that invasion is unlikely in the near future.

However, I also find it amusing that people with no military training (correct me if I'm wrong about you D2K) are arguing as if they have a clue about military operations.

1) Assault rifle clones are common in American gun stores/shows. The only functional difference between them and military grade rifles is they do not shoot full auto. Beyond that, an insurgent force can actually use more types of ammo and have more freedom of command than a military force.

You have patently not read what I put - owning a gun is not the same as having military training, and never will be. If you are untrained in how to use an assault rifle (clone or otherwise), you will not be much of a help and more of a hindrance if and when you were in a position of having to use it, as you won't have the discipline of how to use it at the very least.

I wouldn't be hopeful if the last, best hope was a few untrained people with an AK47 against a trained army.

2) The issue of training is either a red herring that is thrown up intentionally to obfuscate or you genuinely do not know what you're talking about. There are plenty of gun owners who do have military training. This training can be imparted in a remarkable amount of time. Even though I have no formal training on the AK-47, I have technical knowledge from self-study and having owned one since I was 18. However, I have military training on the M-16. Therefore I could impart my knowledge on the AK in two hours. The M-16 in half a day.

How many other people can say this, however?

Whilst there may be some militia groups who could be useful in individual cities and/or areas, on the whole would anyone trust somebody who missed the message of Menace II Society with the future of their nation?

You know D2K we've talked about this. Movies are not reality. They do contain messages and are important as an art form. However, they are not good sources to base policy on that infringes upon a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

Again, you aren't reading what I'm saying: the message of the film is "Increase the peace", yet plenty have thought it looks cool to wave a gun around and act like they're OG - and, by the way, that was a throwaway remark, not something to dwell on (at least in this topic).

Besides, if anyone uses the sort of gunplay used in MIIS you'd more likely have a broken wrist, so again you'd be pretty useless as a last defence...

The purpose of the militia is not only to protect the people from an invading force, but also to protect the people from an oppressive government.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of overlap between gun owners and people who think that you should do whatever the government says no matter what because they're the government.

At 5/26/08 12:09 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: If it's irrelevant, why were they both passed? There's a simple reason: so people wouldn't mumble something about "Second Amendment rights" when buying a gun for the purpose not outlined within the Bill of Rights, or at the very least a deliberate bastardisation of what is written in the Second Amendment. And why would the Supreme Court pass conflicting pieces of legislation?

Their passing had nothing to do with the second amendment. The connection there is made by anti-gun advocates to obfuscate and other people who do not understand how the American system works. The militia referred to in the Second Amendment is one of average citizens owning the means to resist.

Furthermore, SCOTUS did not pass this legislation...that is not in their power. Furthermore, they have not heard a case where the militia act was used to infringe upon the second amendment. You are conflating two things that are actually unrelated. The militia act deals with the organization of the Army (and now the Air Force)...it is not a gun control measure.

You have patently not read what I put - owning a gun is not the same as having military training, and never will be. If you are untrained in how to use an assault rifle (clone or otherwise), you will not be much of a help and more of a hindrance if and when you were in a position of having to use it, as you won't have the discipline of how to use it at the very least.

I did read what you put, and what you put was bollocks for the reasons I responded. I think you have an over-inflated sense of the importance of military training. The most modern and highest trained militaries on the planet are consistently having difficulty with assymetrical warfare such as insurgencies. Hell in WWII the German Wehrmacht and Imperial Japanese forces were the highest trained and disciplined armies on the field, but was confounded by the US military...which had a reputation for lack of discipline and maverickism.

I wouldn't be hopeful if the last, best hope was a few untrained people with an AK47 against a trained army.

Pushed us back from the Yalu river in Korea, eroded the will of the public in 'Nam, kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the list flows on...

How many other people can say this, however?

Many D2K. The type of people who own guns are often also the type of people who serve.

Also another thing, genocides happen when a country collapses and one group has guns while another side does not. Darfur, Somalia, Kosovo... My concern is less about invasion and more about a societal breakdown. Yes American society is currently stable. But look at Rome...even great empires can fall into chaos.

At 5/25/08 10:58 AM, TheMason wrote:

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.

I guess i can agree with your conclusion on "manageable" insurgency. As this country has a manageable war on drugs and a manageable war on gangs. A country like Israel, which in perspective is approximately the size of New Jersey, has enough military and civic faculty to deal with nomadic militia threats. they, as you said, are a manageable threat given the proper institution of diligent threat analysis and poised defensive outposts.

The Republic of Lebanon which is notoriously estranged to the state of Israel, holds a force of almost half a million Palestinian refugees within its borders. Seeing as this is a epicenter for unbridled festering hostility, the defenses bordering Lebanon are undoubtedly plagued by rocket attacks which do little but to create a more unyielding and zealous posturing towards that threat as seen by the invasion of Lebanon not to long ago.

My point was to accentuate that a force of (isolated)(guerrilla combatants) have a small chance of damaging let alone toppling an populated well defined military.

examples like the NFL forces in northern Vietnam and the taliban during the soviet occupation of Afghanistan is, to me, considered a supportive ally providing an invaluable supply of tactical training as well as a sizable modern arsenal. this making it ,therefor, an detachment of the greater ambiguous force

At 5/27/08 08:02 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 5/26/08 12:09 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Also another thing, genocides happen when a country collapses and one group has guns while another side does not. Darfur, Somalia, Kosovo... My concern is less about invasion and more about a societal breakdown. Yes American society is currently stable. But look at Rome...even great empires can fall into chaos.

the principle fact in this argument. It is not meant to be a function of logic during a time when its not needed. If you understood that WHEN that vacume occurs its already to late to anticipate. the best proactive solution is to have a armed citizenry with the ability to consolidate and fortify with little aid from the main armed force.

at risk of alienating my point with idiocy, zombies, though cartoonish and improbable, can allow a train of thought. what would happen if there was a sudden pandemic of zombies in the heartland? the need for a (*reactionary*) force on the smallest of local levels would outweigh the response capacity of the great armed forces which requires logistics to wield. the local "militias" would be a function of immediate resistance and response while the military is mobilized.

Red Dawn is a great movie to accentuate the need for the second amendment, and they were mexican, soviets... but it is patric swasey movie so be forewarned.

My opinion "I belive that everyone has the right to own a gun"

i agree.

The Second Amendment happened to be one of the more trickier issue as it's misinterpretation have helped led to the creation of the NRA

Probably one of the most controversial amendment besides the eighteenth amendment which was famous for banning alcohol and would eventually be repealed (The only time an amendment was repealed) by the twenty-first amendment

At 5/28/08 09:47 AM, hanorotu wrote: My opinion "I belive that everyone has the right to own a gun"

Including convicted criminals? Psychopaths? Drugdealers?

I hope we'll never meet in real life outside the internet, trust me it's for the greater good when it comes to certain issues including this.

At 6/3/08 02:00 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 5/28/08 09:47 AM, hanorotu wrote: My opinion "I belive that everyone has the right to own a gun"

Including convicted criminals? Psychopaths? Drugdealers?

that the typical response. Obviously these people are the exception. Felons cannot legally own guns in America. But somehow, they are never in short supply.

I hope we'll never meet in real life outside the internet, trust me it's for the greater good when it comes to certain issues including this.

??? what your panties in a bunch over this issue? Why is that, have you been a victim to someone with a gun?

At 6/3/08 04:06 PM, slowerthenb4 wrote:

??? what your panties in a bunch over this issue? Why is that, have you been a victim to someone with a gun?

What happen is that you should word them carefully or you'll look somewhat unstable from the stand point.

Picks up a gun and is planning to sell it on eBay

At 6/3/08 04:47 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 6/3/08 04:06 PM, slowerthenb4 wrote:

What happen is that you should word them carefully or you'll look somewhat unstable from the stand point.

Picks up a gun and is planning to sell it on eBay

??? word what carefully? my question was on the context of the obvious threatening tone the guy was taking with the counter point...

At 6/3/08 08:09 PM, slowerthenb4 wrote:

??? word what carefully? my question was on the context of the obvious threatening tone the guy was taking with the counter point...

Indeed

*points a gun at slowerthenb4*

Step away

At 6/3/08 08:15 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 6/3/08 08:09 PM, slowerthenb4 wrote:

??? word what carefully? my question was on the context of the obvious threatening tone the guy was taking with the counter point...

Indeed

*points a gun at slowerthenb4*

Step away

listen mmmister i dont want no trouble...

nice! grandmas got my back.... whats up now punk!

shes old but knows how to swing that thang...

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 respect that your making opinions (And I'm going to be as neutral as possible because I usually have a bunch of retards that think different and act like asses to me), but don't say it's a fact until your not confused. Just a word of advice.

At 6/4/08 02:50 PM, slowerthenb4 wrote: nice! grandmas got my back.... whats up now punk!

Close but no cigar

Takes out an uzi

I have .44 magnum on one hand and an uzi on another, what are you going to do now punk?

The second amendment is about individual gun rights. Has nothing to do with military. There's no point in having a second amendment if that's what it meant considering all countries have a military. But how many countries allow their citizens to own guns? Not many, if any. Remember that the Bill Of Rights were added in not that long after their war with Britain who had a military. Doesn't make sense to have the second amendment embrace what they just got through fighting against. The only way the second amendment makes sense is in it being about individual rights, which is what it is about.

what?? o hey sis... your still here hu?

At 6/6/08 02:13 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: what?? o hey sis... your still here hu?

Great pic of the first female helicopter door gunner in the Air Force (or any branch I believe)! I remember reading the article about her in Airman magazine about 8 years ago when I went through my first tech school. I wonder if she is still as hot?

At 6/6/08 02:13 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: what?? o hey sis... your still here hu?

Say hello to my little friend, Mark Gor with double machine guns and robocop.

At 6/6/08 08:20 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/6/08 02:13 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote:

Great pic of the first female helicopter door gunner in the Air Force (or any branch I believe)! I remember reading the article about her in Airman magazine about 8 years ago when I went through my first tech school. I wonder if she is still as hot?

Thats a cool sidebar... she was really the first female door gunner wow. yea shes gorgeous.

it should be all citizens but the way democrats want it it should be that the government can provide and train a person with a weapon in the armed services;which i will be amazed if it still exists if a democrat gets elected

I'm not sure but i think that you can use one in self-defense but not any act of aggression

At 5/23/08 10:43 PM, Korriken wrote: 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.

No, it's because Switzerland is surrounded by mountains and incredibly easy to defend from a land invasion. Switzerland is like Thermopile in 300, a small number of men could defend againts thousands.