Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 11/22/2003 4:08:49 AM EDT
"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."
Words that I'm sure we're all familar with but do you know what the real meaning and intent behind those words? Is the 2nd. Amend. still a viable part of our Constitution or is it effectively a "dead" amendment? I don't think the 2nd. Amend. will work the way our Founding Fathers intended for it to and here's why.
Look at the intend of the amendment, "security of a free State," , the whole point of it was to allow citizens to keep and bear arms so that they could stand up to a government that was trying to force something upon them that they did not want. Be it a law or a tax or anything else, this was suppose to give the states power to defend it's self against a forcefull Federal government.
Now, think back in time, when has something like this happened? At what point in American history has the Federal government "forced" something on the states? What was the action taken by those states? I'm sure all of you have heard of the "Civil War" or as we like to call it "The War of Northern Aggression." This is the one time in the history of this country where the states, in order to secure their freedom, took up arms against a forcefull Federal government and what was the outcome of that action. Were the states able to secure their freedom and maintain their freedom? NO, they were defeated by the Federal government because it had better trained troops and better/more weapons. In the last 140+ years since the war between the North and South the "people" have lost even more of their weapons to Unconstitutional firearms laws while the govenments weapons have become stronger. There is no way that an army of citizens, armed with weapons that are "legal" for them to posess could ever hope to stand toe to toe with Federal forces and win. Any uprising would be a blood bath and could be put down by the government in weeks or maybe even days with it's modern equiptment. So you see, the 2nd.Amend. while looking good on paper would never work in todays America, heck, it didn't work 140 years ago so what makes you think it would work today? Another thing to think about is that in any uprising within a state against the government you'll have those people that will side with the government. That puts a big dent in the theory of "all the people" baning together to take on a tyrannical government run amok. It would be Civil War, brother against brother, father against son just like it was 140 years ago and this time the Feds have better guns, better troops, tanks, jet planes, tatical nukes. There is no way that a force of citizens with their arms could stand against such a force. So, you see, the 2nd. Amend., for all practical purposes, is dead, null and void. Sorry to bear such bad news but the facts are the facts. It's all over except for the crying.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:20:01 AM EDT
It's a little too early in the morning for such brutal honesty o' seer of truth. Suffice to say, you're a little off.

I'm not gonna waste the keystrokes though.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:44:41 AM EDT
The usual procedure is to post a link to your SOURCE.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:53:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Oslow:
The usual procedure is to post a link to your SOURCE.



I believe TNFrank is the source.

Yeah, we had all the cool shit in vietnem, that's why we kicked their ass so easily.



-HS


Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:55:30 AM EDT
History and common sence is my SOURCE. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that there is no way in hell we, the people, could ever stand up to or over throw a tyrannical government using the weapons that we are allowed to own by law. Sure, we could disrupt things and we'd be a big thorn in the governments side but they'd spin it and we'd end up being "wackos" and a bunch of "nut cases" trying to overthrow the government. They'd tell the people how they were on the side of all that is right and good and that we are evil and must be put down. That would give them popular support from the majority of the "sheeple" in this country so they'd have "cart blanch" to use what ever force was necessary to put down the uprising. In so many words we'd be toast. You did take 8th grade history, didn't you. You do remember what happened to the states that took up arms in order to preserve their freedom in the face of a forceful Federal government, don't you. They LOST and they were more equally armed with their oponet then we are today so do you think we'd have any better chance?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:59:11 AM EDT
HillBillySasquatch, Nam was thousands of miles away, we had to ship in everything that we needed. The NVA/VC had everything they needed in their back yard. That's the same reason we kicked Englands butt in the Revolution, they had to ship in their supplies/troops, we had our stuff right here. It was a case of supply. Our government is HERE and won't have to ship in anything.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:59:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 4:59:55 AM EDT by M4_Aiming_at_U]

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
the people, could ever stand up to or over throw a tyrannical government using the weapons that we are allowed to own by law.



Most gun owners usually have a tool shed that will allow them to "fix" thier weapons that may make them a little more "military" like when they fire.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:02:07 AM EDT
Read "Unintended Consequences", by John Ross.


You'll know what to do when the time comes..
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:02:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:

I believe TNFrank is the source.





TNF isn't a source; TNF is just a play back machine. I was looking for the OFF button.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:04:04 AM EDT
M4_Aiming_at_U, do you really thing throwing more bullets at a tank will do anything other then waste ammo? Tanks today shead bullets from small arms fire like a tree sheads leaves in the fall. One bullet or a thousand, it won't matter, it won't make as much as a dent in an M1A1 Abrams. And by the way, they'll be shooting back with a 120mm HE round, how are we/you suppose to stop that?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:08:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
And by the way, they'll be shooting back with a 120mm HE round, how are we/you suppose to stop that?



I know we dont have LAW's, AT4's or TOW's but when the # of us make certain tools and "large fireworks" I think it would even the score a little.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:09:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Oslow:

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:

I believe TNFrank is the source.





TNF isn't a source; TNF is just a play back machine. I was looking for the OFF button.



Nice Backhand!!!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:19:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
HillBillySasquatch, Nam was thousands of miles away, we had to ship in everything that we needed. The NVA/VC had everything they needed in their back yard. That's the same reason we kicked Englands butt in the Revolution, they had to ship in their supplies/troops, we had our stuff right here. It was a case of supply. Our government is HERE and won't have to ship in anything.



That may be why England lost the Revolution. But, that doesn't explain our failure in Vietnam.

There will be no North and South if there is another civil war in the US. There will be rebels and the government all over the country.
A thousand Tim McVeighs could bring this country to it's fucking knees.

-HS
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:20:00 AM EDT
this is assuming that the young Soldier or Marine in that tank will fire on a US cit. on US soil .

I would NOT .. I know my brother would. not.

dont think pvt johnny from Tn would fire either.

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:23:38 AM EDT
The 2nd is all about deterrence. It is not about absolute victory.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:27:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:

A thousand Tim McVeighs could bring this country to it's fucking knees.

-HS



Iraqi whackos are trying that as we speak... doest seem to be stopping the US gov... < damn I hope it doenst . but thats another thread>

.. Dude you pull A "Tim" where innocents are killed then YOUR next on my list. < and so starts the process that will make us fail .. wie will turn on ourselves>

Do not ever for a sec let yourselve believe that pulling a "TIM" will be for the greater good... if you get to that piont where you think killing innocent people is "worth it in the long run" then its time for you to die.

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:28:47 AM EDT
We all saw the public outcry against McVeigh. As soon as a bunch of "civillians" got killed by rebel activity the government would spin it into a world of hurt for them. I don't like this any more they you guys do. I hate what's happened to our country in the last decade but facts are facts, we can't do anything about it with force. We can try voting but I really don't think that Dems or Reps are all that much different anymore. Their all looking out for their own jobs and will say/do anything to get re-elected then turn on the people that put them in office in a heart beat to push thru their own agenda regaurdless of wether it's good for "the people" or not. You think talking about this makes me happy, Hell no, thinking about this woke me out of my sleep at 5am this morning. My heart is heavy thinking about this. We're screwed and there's nothing we can do about it, God that hurts. All these years I've told myself that "as long as we can keep our guns we'll be ok, the government won't be able to push us around." but it's all been a self deceiving lie. The government can and will push us around any time we don't jump into step with the "party line". God save us, he's the only one that can because thanks to the NFA of '34, which effectively gutted the 2nd. Amend. we no longer can.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:34:52 AM EDT
"The security of a free State" not only means the ability for the people to keep the Federal government in check but also to deter other nations from attacking. I have read that Japan did not want to invade the US during WWII due to the ability for the US citizens being able to fight back.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:40:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cluster:

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:

A thousand Tim McVeighs could bring this country to it's fucking knees.

-HS



Iraqi whackos are trying that as we speak... doest seem to be stopping the US gov... < damn I hope it doenst . but thats another thread>

.. Dude you pull A "Tim" where innocents are killed then YOUR next on my list. < and so starts the process that will make us fail .. wie will turn on ourselves>

Do not ever for a sec let yourselve believe that pulling a "TIM" will be for the greater good... if you get to that piont where you think killing innocent people is "worth it in the long run" then its time for you to die.




DITTO
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:41:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 5:42:30 AM EDT by HillBillySasquatch]

Originally Posted By cluster:

Iraqi whackos are trying that as we speak... doest seem to be stopping the US gov... < damn I hope it doenst . but thats another thread>

.. Dude you pull A "Tim" where innocents are killed then YOUR next on my list. < and so starts the process that will make us fail .. wie will turn on ourselves>

Do not ever for a sec let yourselve believe that pulling a "TIM" US GOVERNMENT will be for the greater good... if you get to that piont where you think killing innocent people like at WAKO and RUBY RIDGE is "worth it in the long run" then its time for you The US GOVERNMENT to die.






Yes, I too have a problem with Tim's target, don't get me wrong. I don't however, disagree with his motivations....


-HS
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:51:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:
if you get to that piont where you think killing innocent people like at WAKO and RUBY RIDGE is "worth it in the long run" then its time for you The US GOVERNMENT to die.

Yes, I too have a problem with Tim's target, don't get me wrong. I don't however, disagree with his motivations....


-HS


OK .. seems like we are on somewhaton the same page..


but no matter what little timmys motivations are/where... I will never give that dumbass the benifit of the doubt.

Im sure that for some he was a patriot.. for me he is simply a murderer.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:04:20 AM EDT
damn seem liek we are going off topic..

back ro the subject...

it just hit me...

our soldiers and Marines will not be forced to make a descion to fire against us... why you ask..?


think about it.. the US gov would never do that they know most soldiers and Marines wont.. so whats there solution? ... the UN

yup .. send our boys to patrol somewhere else ,.. then say we are so spread out we need UNto help in out "homeland defense"..... and thats how it will start..

Yes I know we used nato planes for airdefense during 9/11.... but when they send ground troops.. start loading cause something nice isnt very far off....

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:07:38 AM EDT
UN troops have been traing in this country for years. Also, did ya' see the MOAB post. Picture this: Group of pro-constitution rebels sitting around their camp fire and tents in the pre-dawn hours, one plane, one MOAB, BOOOOOM, it's all over. No more rebels, no more problem for the government. Face it, we're screwed.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:10:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 6:11:43 AM EDT by 96Ag]
While TNFrank is correct in his assumption that citizens armed with currently legal firearms would have severe problems dealing with mechanized forces, I believe any revolution or uprising, SHTF, or other Tinfoil drama would be a guerilla type conflict.

Large scale armor, air, and naval forces are great against China, Iraq, etc. but against Aunt Jane and Cousin Bob they would have their limits of use.

History has shown that large regular forces have a lot of difficulty dealing with light fast guerilla forces. Take for example our own Revolutionary War with Frances Marion "The Swamp Fox", The Civil War with "The Grey Ghost" Mosby, the advent of special forces during WWII and Vietnam, and the current War on Terror, all conflicts where small irregular forces tie down and wear down superior forces.

An internal conflict in the U.S. would be a nasty war of attrition and public sentiment, not a set piece battle of mech forces against bolt action rifle armed citizens.

But that's just an opininon.

96Ag
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:16:54 AM EDT
I guess there is a small ray of hope 96Ag but the real question is, How many gun owners would want to give up their comfortable life style to join in with a band of what will be, for all practical purposes, criminals? Would you give up your beer and football to wage war against the largest power on earth? There is no easy answer to the problem. If there were I'm sure we would have fixed things along time ago.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:20:47 AM EDT
TNFrank,

The reason you are wrong is that you are looking at this is a very one-dimensional way.

On a battlefield, OBVIOUSLY a bunch of armed citizens with ar15s, garands, and hunting rifles have NO CHANCE whatsoever against an organized modern military. Yes, you are correct. Pat yourself on the back. Many of us here on the site have considerable military experience, and we are eminently capable of understanding military power.

What I think you are not taking into account is the larger context, and there are several facets to this. First of all, it is not a question of whether or not you can DEFEAT a larger and more organized foe, but a matter of making them question if it is WORTH it! That's the key here. Could the U.S. revolutionaries have defeated the ENTIRE British military might if King George (or whoever it was) had decided to throw it against the U.S.? Probably not. In fact (at the risk of diverting the wrath of my fellow board member from you to me ), I'd say there was no way. Could the Afghan and Pathan tribesmen in Afghanistan have defeated the Soviet army? Of course not. If the Soviets had really wanted to, they could have put more and more troops in there. Could the VietCong have defeated the U.S. in Vietnam? No, not a chance in hell.

However, in all of these cases, the rebels/insurgents/whatever - made the price to pay for victory so high, that the other party (despite their vast technological, organizational and numericanl superiority) decided that it was not WORTH it. Whether or not that could be accomplished in a hypothetical scenario of a tyrranical U.S. government with several million angry and passionate gun-owners with semi-automatic rifles, underground support, sophisticated communications, police sympathisers, etc. etc - is a very valid question.

Another issue to consider - when thinking about how such insurgency might be implemented - is to keep in mind that unlike U.S. troops in VietNam, German troops in France, British troops in the Colonies, the that would support this hypothetical "tyrranical" government, the troops would live here, as would their families - which creates another lever by which insurgents/rebels/patriots can influence those troops.

So, I would submit to you that the situation is more complex than you have suggested (and I'm sure I've left out really valid point that only support my contention - and other will/have no doubt pointed out other aspects)


I'd also like to add that if you are in fact here mostly to agitate (as some seem to suggest) or if you came from the unmentionable site across the street - then I hope that you will continue to stay here and contibute with your viewpoint and opinions. Unlike other site (that will remain un-named) we do not ban people for disagreeing with us (hell, we can't agree amongs each other on any issue ).
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:23:55 AM EDT
Well let's see what the Founding Fathers had to say about the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment states:
"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."


1)A well regulated militia:

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)


2)being necessary to the security of a free state:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

3)the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

There's more here: www.guncite.com/

A good Google search is all it takes to see the intent the Founding Fathers had with the 2nd Amendment!





Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:29:29 AM EDT
DK-Prof, my main intent is to get people to THINK, something that is sometimes lacking in our society today. You do bring up some valid points that helps me feel alittle better about the situation. I think the day is coming, although I can't say when, when the government will push it's citizens too far. When that day comes I truly hope we(the citizens) will be ready and able to do what must be done to again make this a free country. I guess you can say that I like to "stir the pot" from time to time so I can see what floats to the surface. You must admit, this post has gotten people to stop and think and debate about this issue. So long as we can remain civil to each other I think that is a good thing, a very good thing.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:39:44 AM EDT
You are looking at it like it would be the lowly citizens against the mighty US military. I can tell you for certain that at least 85% of our fighting men would abandon Uncle Sam the second he decided to wage war on US citizens and would probably take their gear with them i.e. tanks, planes, APC's, choppers, etc.
If it ever gets to the point that the government tries to go to war against US citizens, expect a coup de'tat from within by our military commanders. Blood is much thicker than ink. Our boys will head home to defend mom, dad, and susie. Once the S has HTF to that degree, do you think anyone will worry about being tried for treason?

This country was founded by men who were guilty of treason.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:43:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cypher214:
This country was founded by men who were guilty of treason.



That's a fascinating point!


TNFrank - I am very much in favor of thinking - and I completely agree with you. As long as we can keep it civil, we can have conversations about pretty much any topic over here.

Sure we get heated about things (just ask people what they think about my ACLU membership ), but there are a lot of really thoughful and intelligent folks here.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:58:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
It would be Civil War, brother against brother, father against son just like it was 140 years ago and this time the Feds have better guns, better troops, tanks, jet planes, tatical nukes. There is no way that a force of citizens with their arms could stand against such a force.


Tell that to the Somalis and Lebanese. Taking on an enemy with superior firepower is not impossible, just costly.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:10:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
DK-Prof, my main intent is to get people to THINK, something that is sometimes lacking in our society today. You do bring up some valid points that helps me feel alittle better about the situation. I think the day is coming, although I can't say when, when the government will push it's citizens too far. When that day comes I truly hope we(the citizens) will be ready and able to do what must be done to again make this a free country. I guess you can say that I like to "stir the pot" from time to time so I can see what floats to the surface. You must admit, this post has gotten people to stop and think and debate about this issue. So long as we can remain civil to each other I think that is a good thing, a very good thing.



You are correct Sir about people not thinking these days, but I believe the members here, are here, because they think! We are a collection of like minded thinkers that is hard to find these days.

Modern day Patriots if you will.

Your intentions may be honorable but instead of stiring this pot you should channel that energy towards those who need stiring up!

Quote "I think the day is coming, although I can't say when, when the government will push it's citizens too far. When that day comes I truly hope we(the citizens) will be ready and able to do what must be done to again make this a free country."

That is exactly why the 2nd stands true this day as much as it did the day it was written. And it's up to us, entrusted with the task of teaching these truths to our children, to ensure that those who fought before us to maintain those ideas did not work, or die in vain.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)



Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:14:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I guess there is a small ray of hope 96Ag but the real question is, How many gun owners would want to give up their comfortable life style to join in with a band of what will be, for all practical purposes, criminals? Would you give up your beer and football to wage war against the largest power on earth? There is no easy answer to the problem. If there were I'm sure we would have fixed things along time ago.



Read the book, no shit...
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:17:08 AM EDT
You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. is probably better prepared ot fight off a surprise alien invasion than any other country in history!


How's THAT for thinking!


Seriously though, I find that scenario more likely in my lifetime that having to gear up and fight a tyrranical U.S. government. Maybe I'm just optimistic.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:19:09 AM EDT
You people wont even assemble to show your numbers as gun owners to defeat gun laws, what the fuck will happen the the gumbint come to your house with APC's and armed men?

That’s right, dont yell it out too fast



You will do nothing!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:58:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 7:59:36 AM EDT by 96Ag]
DK-Prof

I hope you are talking about the alien invasion from south of the border. Although it really won't be a suprise.

Cypher214

Great line. Is it okay if I use that?

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:02:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
You people wont even assemble to show your numbers as gun owners to defeat gun laws, what the fuck will happen the the gumbint come to your house with APC's and armed men?

That’s right, dont yell it out too fast



You will do nothing!



Speak for yourself. I'm going down swinging.


-HS
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:06:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
You people wont even assemble to show your numbers as gun owners to defeat gun laws, what the fuck will happen the the gumbint come to your house with APC's and armed men?

That’s right, dont yell it out too fast



You will do nothing!



Speak for yourself. I'm going down swinging



When I post the words "you" that doesnt mena I am speaking for myself.

I am glad however that you will go down down in a fight, that makes at least two of us here on the board!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:23:46 AM EDT
We have every right to defend the constitution, and it would be idiotic to overthrow the government. I think the founding fathers meant for the people to be armed so individuals and local militias could defend themselves against gov't corruption. Rather than advocate the violent overthrow of our government, we have the power to arrest and detain government thugs who seek to subjecate us.

This means trusting each other and working together, which is why the federal government took over the organized militia, to prevent us from getting together regularly and staying in touch with each other.

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:28:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 96Ag:
DK-Prof

I hope you are talking about the alien invasion from south of the border. Although it really won't be a suprise.

Cypher214

Great line. Is it okay if I use that?




Go ahead, I don't think it is an original. I have heard statements that said basically the same thing.
Top Top