Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/27/2006 5:36:20 PM EDT
There is so much reference to the 2nd Amendment and its intent...let's think about it in practical terms...the original intent was to insure parity between the "government" and the people. At the time it was written, the average person could indeed acheive parity...anyone could get a flintlock or bow and arrow, and I imagine that a canon was not out of reach. A short 300 years later, we couldn't hope to own the weapons available to the government, both state and federal. In fact, we are not allowed to own an F-18, or a TOW missile, or a tank, or anything over .50 caliber in some places(soon to be more than some places if the trend continues). The fact is that we retain the right(sometimes) and the means(sometimes) to defend ourselves only against other citizens. The idea of a revolt by the general population is a pipe dream...we'd be obliterated in short order. Yet this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Any thoughts?
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:44:44 PM EDT
Many framers of the constitution saw an armed citizenry as a defense against a tyrannical govt. They were wrong.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:45:08 PM EDT
Okay - I'll play devil's advocate a little.


Your argument rests on a single assumption:

"...the original intent was to insure parity between the 'government' and the people."

Not everyone in the USA agrees with that assumption. There have been quite a few people argue that there's nothing in the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, or any other contemporary writings (by individuals associated with the drafting of the constitution) that proves that "intent."

One specifically cited example to the contrary comes during the war of 1812 - Letters of Marque had to be issued in order to arm private ships with a specific class of cannon weaponry. This government decree is cited as an example of how the framers did not specifically "intend" the 2nd amendment to allow the citizenry access to all weapons available to the federal government.

Of course the point is arguable, an I personally fall on the side of the RTKBA by all citizens. However, I do get a little disappointed when I see our side fail to even acknowledge that the other side of the coin might have a valid argument. Extremists on either side only dilute their causes.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:45:30 PM EDT
Number of gun owners in the U.S. = 80 million+

Size of U.S. Military = 1.5 million (approximately)

Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:46:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zupspoon:
There is so much reference to the 2nd Amendment and its intent...let's think about it in practical terms...the original intent was to insure parity between the "government" and the people. At the time it was written, the average person could indeed acheive parity...anyone could get a flintlock or bow and arrow, and I imagine that a canon was not out of reach. A short 300 years later, we couldn't hope to own the weapons available to the government, both state and federal. In fact, we are not allowed to own an F-18, or a TOW missile, or a tank, or anything over .50 caliber in some places(soon to be more than some places if the trend continues). The fact is that we retain the right(sometimes) and the means(sometimes) to defend ourselves only against other citizens. The idea of a revolt by the general population is a pipe dream...we'd be obliterated in short order. Yet this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Any thoughts?



pipe dream? i hope so...
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:46:51 PM EDT
If there was a general population uprising, you might want to consider the military is part of the general population. A soldier is not going against mama or other family
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:56:11 PM EDT
The other side has no valid argument whatsoever. Facts will soon flow.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:57:34 PM EDT
Ok, I'll bite...then what WAS the intent? What were we given the right to keep and bear arms against? Deer? Why was the revolt against the Queen ok?
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:02:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zupspoon:
There is so much reference to the 2nd Amendment and its intent...let's think about it in practical terms...the original intent was to insure parity between the "government" and the people. At the time it was written, the average person could indeed acheive parity...anyone could get a flintlock or bow and arrow, and I imagine that a canon was not out of reach. A short 300 years later, we couldn't hope to own the weapons available to the government, both state and federal. In fact, we are not allowed to own an F-18, or a TOW missile, or a tank, or anything over .50 caliber in some places(soon to be more than some places if the trend continues). The fact is that we retain the right(sometimes) and the means(sometimes) to defend ourselves only against other citizens. The idea of a revolt by the general population is a pipe dream...we'd be obliterated in short order. Yet this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Any thoughts?



Yeah, we'd be obliterated if knuckleheads got to choose the tactics adopted.

People seem to have this vision of a bunch of whackjobs holed up in their homes, or large scale maneuvers with thousands of revolutionaries across open plains into artillery and armor while close air support rains down on them.

Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:03:38 PM EDT
I see it this way...

Politicians should be afraid of citizens. (I'm not advocating it but...) Sometimes politicians do so wrong, they should be removed, and when voting doesn't do it... a bullet can.

Basically political figures should be living and performing their duties to the people under a Sword of Damocles.

As far as revolt, don't forget that our military is made up of CITIZENS. I don't think it would be civillians against the military in any way. How many military men and women do you think would engage American citizens? Especially when they've been sworn to protect them.


I don't think any of us can pretend to know what will happen in 20, 50, 100 or even 200 years in our country... but the citizens being armed has been and always will be critical to individual freedom.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:05:29 PM EDT
The militia should have thermo-nukes.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:08:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By alaman:
If there was a general population uprising, you might want to consider the military is part of the general population. A soldier is not going against mama or other family



One would hope that's true...however...I would have hoped that the guys involved at Waco and Ruby Ridge would have had some compassion for innocent women and children...but they blindly followed orders...which is what I believe those in the military are also trained to do.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:17:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zupspoon:

Originally Posted By alaman:
If there was a general population uprising, you might want to consider the military is part of the general population. A soldier is not going against mama or other family



One would hope that's true...however...I would have hoped that the guys involved at Waco and Ruby Ridge would have had some compassion for innocent women and children...but they blindly followed orders...which is what I believe those in the military are also trained to do.



Overall I think the spirit of men in the military and those involved in law enforcement, esp Feds, are very different. Probable that most that go into LE do so with noble goals but become jaded over time leading the the standard US v THEM crap. Just MO.

Some in the military might do so though. In my day I don't think it would have been many.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:21:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
Number of gun owners in the U.S. = 80 million+

Size of U.S. Military = 1.5 million (approximately)




all our small arms in the world are powerless against some of the gov't equipment. Even machine guns won't slow down a B-52.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:33:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
Number of gun owners in the U.S. = 80 million+

Size of U.S. Military = 1.5 million (approximately)




all our small arms in the world are powerless against some of the gov't equipment. Even machine guns won't slow down a B-52.



Somehow I don't see the .gov carpet bombing large cities in the US. That would lead to their certain defeat.

Equipment of all kinds can be destroyed, captured and used, etc.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:43:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
Number of gun owners in the U.S. = 80 million+

Size of U.S. Military = 1.5 million (approximately)




all our small arms in the world are powerless against some of the gov't equipment. Even machine guns won't slow down a B-52.



In what delusional fantasy do you envision that a B-52 would be employed to quell a revolution in our own country?

Please, explain to me in what situation this would occur?
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:47:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By alaman:
If there was a general population uprising, you might want to consider the military is part of the general population. A soldier is not going against mama or other family



This is why, if there were to be an uprising, you send military units to other areas.
We saw it in New Orleans, with police from other states doing the disarming of citizens.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:47:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
Number of gun owners in the U.S. = 80 million+

Size of U.S. Military = 1.5 million (approximately)





Yep, they couldn't possibly get us all.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:50:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

People seem to have this vision of a bunch of whackjobs holed up in their homes, or large scale maneuvers with thousands of revolutionaries across open plains into artillery and armor while close air support rains down on them.




What, you mean we're NOT supposed to form into poorly trained and supplied militia battalions, and fight force-on-force against armored divisions?



Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:52:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 6:53:37 PM EDT by thedoctors308]

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By happycynic:
Number of gun owners in the U.S. = 80 million+

Size of U.S. Military = 1.5 million (approximately)




all our small arms in the world are powerless against some of the gov't equipment. Even machine guns won't slow down a B-52.



*Just an academic exercise*
The B52 doesn't go up there on its own accord, does it?
It needs fuel, armament, maintainance, and pilots.
Have a sympathizer on the base sabatoge the plane.
Hit the pilot's barracks with mortar fire/lure the pilot's with a honey trap, then kill him.
Blow the rail lines that bring supplies.

The Afghani's did all that and more.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:52:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Riotgun:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

People seem to have this vision of a bunch of whackjobs holed up in their homes, or large scale maneuvers with thousands of revolutionaries across open plains into artillery and armor while close air support rains down on them.




What, you mean we're NOT supposed to form into poorly trained and supplied militia battalions, and fight force-on-force against armored divisions?






Only those of you I send out first as a diversion.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 7:01:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 7:02:47 PM EDT by Burkey]
The way I look at it, the only thing a person NEEDS is everything up to and including mortars and AT. If you have very good AT, then not having tanks isn't THAT much of a problem. It is not necescary to have everything the gov. has, just enough to counter it. That said, if you think one guy with a rifle isn't a force to be reckoned with, just ask someone who has been shot at by a sniper. (Well, those who lived to tell about it)
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:22:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
I see it this way...

Politicians should be afraid of citizens. (I'm not advocating it but...) Sometimes politicians do so wrong, they should be removed, and when voting doesn't do it... a bullet can.

Basically political figures should be living and performing their duties to the people under a Sword of Damocles.

As far as revolt, don't forget that our military is made up of CITIZENS. I don't think it would be civillians against the military in any way. How many military men and women do you think would engage American citizens? Especially when they've been sworn to protect them.


I don't think any of us can pretend to know what will happen in 20, 50, 100 or even 200 years in our country... but the citizens being armed has been and always will be critical to individual freedom.



Im willing to bet the vast majority of the US Military would do so, you know "Just following orders". For me Katrina dispelled all hope that they wouldn't, A lot of the National Guard went around willingly confiscating firearms from Law Abiding Citizens contrary to their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Same with some LEO's, They would do it with a clear conciouse to save their job, or through their belief that they are right
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:35:41 PM EDT
what about that Battalian commander that refused to confiscate weapons? Didn't I read something about that?
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:41:48 PM EDT
What some don't understand is the definition of "arms" as stated in the constitution. THe term "arms" means anything man portable, that is anything that can be used by 1 man, onto the field of battle.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:43:55 PM EDT
Maybe if we organize a legit militia they'll let us own whatever we want?
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:49:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By zupspoon:
There is so much reference to the 2nd Amendment and its intent...let's think about it in practical terms...the original intent was to insure parity between the "government" and the people. At the time it was written, the average person could indeed acheive parity...anyone could get a flintlock or bow and arrow, and I imagine that a canon was not out of reach. A short 300 years later, we couldn't hope to own the weapons available to the government, both state and federal. In fact, we are not allowed to own an F-18, or a TOW missile, or a tank, or anything over .50 caliber in some places(soon to be more than some places if the trend continues). The fact is that we retain the right(sometimes) and the means(sometimes) to defend ourselves only against other citizens. The idea of a revolt by the general population is a pipe dream...we'd be obliterated in short order. Yet this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Any thoughts?



Yeah, we'd be obliterated if knuckleheads got to choose the tactics adopted.

People seem to have this vision of a bunch of whackjobs holed up in their homes, or large scale maneuvers with thousands of revolutionaries across open plains into artillery and armor while close air support rains down on them.




The Iraqi insurgency seems to be giving us a run for our money, and they're idiots...
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:49:21 PM EDT
small arms seem to be doing a decent job in Iraq
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:56:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zupspoon:
Ok, I'll bite...then what WAS the intent? What were we given the right to keep and bear arms against? Deer? Why was the revolt against the Queen ok?



Ok, I'll bite.

What Queen did we revolt against?

Link Posted: 3/27/2006 9:07:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 9:14:19 PM EDT by imposter]
Right, the US military is invincible against poorly armed and trained insurgents.

Irregulars are not great at winning battles, but they can wear down an enemy's will to fight and secure a victory. There is a difference between winning battles and winning wars. An irregular force could lose every battle but still win the war. This happened in Vietnam, and will probably happen in Iraq.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 9:36:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By imposter:
Right, the US military is invincible against poorly armed and trained insurgents.

Irregulars are not great at winning battles, but they can wear down an enemy's will to fight and secure a victory. There is a difference between winning battles and winning wars. An irregular force could lose every battle but still win the war. This happened in Vietnam, and will probably happen in Iraq.



I'd also like to point out that even the dumbest bubba is a better shot than Haji ad our religion doesn't have any prohibition against aiming the damn weapon.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 9:41:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By imposter:
Right, the US military is invincible against poorly armed and trained insurgents.

Irregulars are not great at winning battles, but they can wear down an enemy's will to fight and secure a victory. There is a difference between winning battles and winning wars. An irregular force could lose every battle but still win the war. This happened in Vietnam, and will probably happen in Iraq.



I'd also like to point out that even the dumbest bubba is a better shot than Haji ad our religion doesn't have any prohibition against aiming the damn weapon.



Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:03:59 PM EDT
Wisdom is the ultimate weapon, so what the militia is not as well equiped as pro-forces what we do not have on the first day of the war, we will on the second.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:30:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 11:31:48 PM EDT by PromptCritical]
Ok, here's the deal: In a modern country such as ours, the government has way more powerful weaponry and nearly infinite more resources. What of it? Sure, if a bunch of civvies decides to openly take on the gov in a frontal confrontation, the full force of weaponry available to that government would absolutely destroy them. No one will care, but those sympathetic to the "insurgents". The media will be on the side of the .gov, and so will most of the population due to the media.

As I stated in an earlier thread, a person deciding to use armed rebellion to initiate political change would have to analyze the government's strengths (large amounts of troops and more powerful weapons) and weaknesses (inability to exert military force on own citizens while maintaining public support). A person who wants to win a conflict against their own government should do their best to hit them when possible, make them look stupid when not, and generally cause hate and discontent. This can be done. Look at what is going on in iraq: Do the same things, but don't kill innocents, and use more planning and intelligence.

Hit and fade. Don't openly confront. Make the gov screw up. Use propaganda. Gain public support. Indescriminate killing is out, selected targets are in. Occupying forces cannot win wars of attrition, they can only take ground.

If only I had writing skills, I could write the ultimate ARFcom wet dream book...
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:44:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JackBurton:
The Iraqi insurgency seems to be giving us a run for our money, and they're idiots...



You are not fighting just Iraqi citizens, China Russia Iran Syria Arabia Jordan are helping the bad guys.

Something tells me if hostilities break out in America there wont be very many nations coming to our aid.

Just another reason to think unconventional.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:58:21 PM EDT
For some reason threads like this remind me of a quote from Fight Club:


We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances, we guard you while you sleep.


Link Posted: 3/28/2006 12:02:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:
For some reason threads like this remind me of a quote from Fight Club:


We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances, we guard you while you sleep.





You forgot the rest: DO NOT FUCK WITH US!
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 1:19:48 AM EDT

we'd be obliterated in short order.


Exactly what the Soviets thought about the Afghanistan resistance, and what we thought about the resistance in Iraq or Vietnam for that matter.

Link Posted: 3/28/2006 2:02:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JonasBlane:

we'd be obliterated in short order.


Exactly what the Soviets thought about the Afghanistan resistance, and what we thought about the resistance in Iraq or Vietnam for that matter.




Exactly. Insurgencies are extremely difficult to defeat. The only way for them to lose is to screw up. (Like loosing support through terrorist attacks)
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 5:14:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JackBurton:
The Iraqi insurgency seems to be giving us a run for our money....


Hardly.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 5:43:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:

Originally Posted By JonasBlane:

we'd be obliterated in short order.


Exactly what the Soviets thought about the Afghanistan resistance, and what we thought about the resistance in Iraq or Vietnam for that matter.




Exactly. Insurgencies are extremely difficult to defeat. The only way for them to lose is to screw up. (Like loosing support through terrorist attacks)



No, the way insurgencies loose is to not have support of the rest of the civlilians.

Kind of like what would happen to a "militia" that tryed anything in this country. They would find themselves fighting not only our army but the rest of the citizens of this country. From what I have seen we have better leadership.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 5:59:32 AM EDT
There was no parity between civilians with firearms and the organized military even in 1776. Anyone who thinks there was has not studied history. Do you have any kind of idea what a ship-of-the-line was capable of? It was basically a floating mass of destruction, capable of leveling a city. Civilians couldn't own and operate cannon without at least tacit governmental approval, ever since the formation of the Nation.

The Second Amendment is about the average civilian's RIGHT to keep and bear arms - this means just what is says: Americans have the right to defend themselves and their country (against all enemies) with personally owned firearms. If you think that this government (or any) could stand in the face of an armed populace and their uprising, then you have not studied history. Every superpower has faced defeat from an armed populace who were undergunned, but not HELPLESS!!!

France got rid of their own king.

The Americans kicked out the British (the greatest superpower in the world, at the time).

The Vietnamese defeated America.

The Afghans beat the Soviets.

Sure, they all used other tools, both military and political, to achieve their ends, but the fight began because the populations were not disarmed and helpless.

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.

It's about self-defense, against badguys of all sorts, both public and private. It makes you a citizen, not a subject.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 6:22:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DonD:


No, the way insurgencies lose is to not have support of the rest of the civlilians.

Kind of like what would happen to a "militia" that tryed anything in this country. They would find themselves fighting not only our army but the rest of the citizens of this country. From what I have seen we have better leadership.


This is why the 2nd amendment's purpose is a pipe dream today. The American people firmly believe that their standing government represents them,no matter what it does. Any armed force arrayed against the government, no matter how "right" or constitutionally sound it may be, will be opposed by the vast majority of people who just want to be left alone. Those folks who are "moderates", the people who don't vote, don't pay attention to government,etc,would be opposed to any revolution for the simple fact that it disturbs their existence more than any government tyranny could.
Most Americans don't even support the concept of warring for ideals anymore,which is why a lot of our reasoning for supporting the 2nd amendment falls on deaf ears. Why support the right to oppose your government with firearms if you don't believe that opposing your government with force is morally right?
Any more, firearms are simply a way of protecting ourselves from our fellow citizens.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 7:08:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2006 7:08:53 AM EDT by DonD]

Originally Posted By Poodleshooter:

Originally Posted By DonD:


No, the way insurgencies lose is to not have support of the rest of the civlilians.

Kind of like what would happen to a "militia" that tryed anything in this country. They would find themselves fighting not only our army but the rest of the citizens of this country. From what I have seen we have better leadership.


This is why the 2nd amendment's purpose is a pipe dream today. The American people firmly believe that their standing government represents them,no matter what it does. Any armed force arrayed against the government, no matter how "right" or constitutionally sound it may be, will be opposed by the vast majority of people who just want to be left alone. Those folks who are "moderates", the people who don't vote, don't pay attention to government,etc,would be opposed to any revolution for the simple fact that it disturbs their existence more than any government tyranny could.
Most Americans don't even support the concept of warring for ideals anymore,which is why a lot of our reasoning for supporting the 2nd amendment falls on deaf ears. Why support the right to oppose your government with firearms if you don't believe that opposing your government with force is morally right?
Any more, firearms are simply a way of protecting ourselves from our fellow citizens.



I have a lot of respect for the average American Citizen to be able to understand the issues and make decisions about what is right and wrong with the country. We have in place thru our democratic system ways to change the government thru our vote.

AR15.com is a firearms site consisting of people who enjoy the shooting sports and who make clear to all the importance of maintaining our consitutional rights to continue to do so. Its not about how to create a militia`s or how to wage an insurgency to overthrowing the government. Some here would seek to poison our minds and it at times is necessary to make it clear they are not the majority in America.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 7:31:43 AM EDT
good morning.

one of my kids is writing what promises to be a very interesting research paper on the 2nd amendment in his government class. i will post it if he allows me to.

i probably should mention that this kid is 19 years old and that i have raised him [as a single parent] since he was 10. he has been shooting since he was old enough to understand safety and hold a gun. he has a birthday coming up in july and i am going to build him a 1911 for it.

this makes me proud. i can see that he has absorbed some of what i have tried to teach him.

the 2nd does not specify. it states only that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary in a free society. i believe that what the founding fathers intended was that this be yet another check and balance to 'government'. the language is absolute. it leaves nothing open to interpretation or modification, and the judges who have 'interpreted' it and the legislators who have 'modified' it have committed crimes against the constitution.

as for insurgency, there is no defense against a determined adversary. as pointed out above, we have seen that down through history. it will not change in the future. the only thing that can change is the determination of the 'insurgent'.

i will get off of the box now. thanks for letting me vent.

peace.
billr
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 7:37:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billr0012:
good morning.

one of my kids is writing what promises to be a very interesting research paper on the 2nd amendment in his government class. i will post it if he allows me to.

i probably should mention that this kid is 19 years old and that i have raised him [as a single parent] since he was 10. he has been shooting since he was old enough to understand safety and hold a gun. he has a birthday coming up in july and i am going to build him a 1911 for it.

this makes me proud. i can see that he has absorbed some of what i have tried to teach him.

the 2nd does not specify. it states only that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary in a free society. i believe that what the founding fathers intended was that this be yet another check and balance to 'government'. the language is absolute. it leaves nothing open to interpretation or modification, and the judges who have 'interpreted' it and the legislators who have 'modified' it have committed crimes against the constitution.

as for insurgency, there is no defense against a determined adversary. as pointed out above, we have seen that down through history. it will not change in the future. the only thing that can change is the determination of the 'insurgent'.

i will get off of the box now. thanks for letting me vent.

peace.
billr



I hope he enjoys his 45 and thanks for being a good dad to him.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 7:53:46 AM EDT
Don't worry about the B-52s...

Diane Feinstein says anyone with a 50-cal can "knock 'em from the sky."
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 8:02:08 AM EDT
Having followed the second amendment debate for more than 30 years some things have become obvious to me. First and foremost, regardless of what our Brady Bunch hackers say (say not think, because they know their opposition to our gun rights are based on pure lies) the clear intent of our forefathers was to assure that the American people were armed in order to repel an evil govt. Kind of like the one we have today.

Arguments about machine guns, tanks etc. are immaterial because they did not exist in those days. Had they have existed I'm sure the second amendment would have allowed for any LAW ABIDING CITIZEN to own anything the potentially evil govt. could own. It is ridiculous to think that these men during that period of time could possibly fathom modern day weapons.

Would a brainwashed military turn on their fellow countrymen? Waco.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 8:02:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
small arms seem to be doing a decent job in Iraq



Iraq is a perfect example,

2-3% of the population is willing to take up arms and fight against the largest and most advances military in the world. Though they are certainly not winning, they are putting up quite a fight.

Imagine if it was 40% of the population willing to take up arms?
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 8:04:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By zupspoon:
There is so much reference to the 2nd Amendment and its intent...let's think about it in practical terms...the original intent was to insure parity between the "government" and the people. At the time it was written, the average person could indeed acheive parity...anyone could get a flintlock or bow and arrow, and I imagine that a canon was not out of reach. A short 300 years later, we couldn't hope to own the weapons available to the government, both state and federal. In fact, we are not allowed to own an F-18, or a TOW missile, or a tank, or anything over .50 caliber in some places(soon to be more than some places if the trend continues). The fact is that we retain the right(sometimes) and the means(sometimes) to defend ourselves only against other citizens. The idea of a revolt by the general population is a pipe dream...we'd be obliterated in short order. Yet this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Any thoughts?



There was no original intent of parity as another posted has already proven. Nothing in the Constitution or Federalist papers or writings mention parity.

The 2nd Amendment is to allow private Citizen's to own firearms. A tank, or f-18 is not a firearm.

The 2nd amendment is allow Citizen's to be able to defend them selves, and ultimately if we were ever to have another tyrannical government imposed on our selves we could defeat it. The founding fathers believed firearms are essential to liberty, and they are.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 8:07:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:


As far as revolt, don't forget that our military is made up of CITIZENS. I don't think it would be civillians against the military in any way. How many military men and women do you think would engage American citizens? Especially when they've been sworn to protect them.




A few years ago i would have said the military would sit it out and take a wait and see attitude. After the NO incident where troops were reluctant , but still willing to shoot civilians who did not hand over their guns I am not so sure.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top