A question about The Second Amendment

[Shadow Wolf]

I find this very funny amongst lefties. They assume that it's the gun lovers that will have to face the military. Newsflash, it is the anti-gun folks that are revolting against the U.S. Military troops don't come from ivy school families. Soldiers come from mostly poor and rural areas. Do you think the troops would turn against their own families to defend rich upper class folks who are anti-gun? Meh always a very amusing assumption most lefties always take. Just more evidence how out of touch with reality most are.

Righties always assume the military will do the "right thing" by not following orders and refusing to fire upon American citizens.

 

[Enoch07]

Righties always assume the military will do the "right thing" by not following orders and refusing to fire upon American citizens.

If the military ever is asked to come in they will face the revolutionaries. Anti-gun folks are the ones revolting against the constitution. It's just simple logic.

 

[Skwim]

Militia is formed out of civil population. So, population must have arms to form militia.

So, where are all these well regulated Militias that all gun owners have formed?


.

 

[Shad]

According to the post I responded to, they will have no problem bombing Chicago. Just not BFE Oklahoma or Scrotum, Idaho.

The idea is just nonsense. There will be issues in the military if soldiers are fighting citizens. Soldiers will pick sides in some situations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To be honest I do not think that the National Guard was the sort of militia intended by the founders. And also please note, the right to bear arms has already been ruled not the right to bear any arms. One can get a fully automatic rifle if one lives in the right state and is willing to go through massive regulation.

By the way, for those that claim that regulation would not end the some of the latest mass killings that we have seen how many were done with fully automatic weapons? The one possible example was the killings in Las Vegas with a bump stock. Those only work when there is a massive crowd of people because they are incredibly inaccurate.

I am for reasonable gun control. There really is no purpose for the size of magazines one can get for some rifles. Not for self defense, not for hunting. And the last time there was a zombie apocalypse was almost 2,000 years ago.

But outside of the National Guard, I do not know of any organized, well-regulated and trained militia. I have serious doubts that the citizenry of this country could spontaneously form military units capable of repelling a significant foreign military incursion. I wonder how effective it would really be.

Don't get me wrong, I support the 2nd Amendment, it is just that some of the reasoning behind it is dated. I think self-defense is sufficient. But it would be irresponsible and ignorant to pretend we do not have some problems in this country that involve the illegal use of firearms. But I honestly do not know what the solution is. Removing rights seems to be as wrong headed as some of the reasons people use to defend rights.

 

[Shad]

Do you really think I'm that dumb? That somehow I can't see the difference between a place where weapons, armor, and supplies are conventionally stored for military/militia purposes and a citizen who has a ton of guns in their closet, drawers, counters, trucks, and boats?

Except for the fact that you said "And lots of those rural homes have a shotgun or rifle. They don't have enough to arm a militia." You are assuming how arming will come about based on little.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, where are all these well regulated Militias that all gun owners have formed?


.

I am working on that. Right now it is just an idea. Eddie Izzard once suggested a unit composed of soldiers wearing dresses to confuse and awe the enemy. Once I have a group together, I am going to form a committee of some of the group to explore that possibility and a few others. Given that a militia is going to be scattered over an area prior to being called to service, we may need many and varied means to assemble and deploy effectively.

Since I am opposed to discrimination based on gender, and my militia will be open to male and female membership, the above idea may have limited combat value.

 

[Shad]

But outside of the National Guard, I do not know of any organized, well-regulated and trained militia. I have serious doubts that the citizenry of this country could spontaneously form military units capable of repelling a significant foreign military incursion. I wonder how effective it would really be.

Don't get me wrong, I support the 2nd Amendment, it is just that some of the reasoning behind it is dated. I think self-defense is sufficient. But it would be irresponsible and ignorant to pretend we do not have some problems in this country that involve the illegal use of firearms. But I honestly do not know what the solution is. Removing rights seems to be as wrong headed as some of the reasons people use to defend rights.

Keep in mind the military absorbed the militia around the Civil War. The Southern Armies were comprised, at the start, of militia and regular army. Lee for example was offered command of the Union military when secession was underway. He sided with his state causing all sorts of issues for the Union until 63/64. McClellan's position as commander of the Army of the Potomac was due to his rank in a state militia prior to the war.

The military absorbing the militia does not invalidate the 2a as militia by definition is not the normal military

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The idea is just nonsense. There will be issues in the military if soldiers are fighting citizens. Soldiers will pick sides in some situations.

When did a claim of the military choosing to defend particular groups based on a position regarding the 2nd Amendment turn into fighting our own citizens?

Talk about not making sense. You aren't even in the right conversation.

 

[Shad]

When did a claim of the military choosing to defend particular groups based on a position regarding the 2nd Amendment turn into fighting our own citizens?

As deployment for domestic action requires a revolt, rebellion, civil war or request by a civilian agency such as police. In the last the military has major restraint on what it can do.

Talk about not making sense. You aren't even in the right conversation.

Wrong. You just have no idea how the US military operates by law. Try again.

 

[Skwim]

The "well regulated militia" today is the National Guard.

The only weapons of the National Guard are government arms, and are kept in an armory, not in it's member's homes, garages, or cars. Members of the National Guard do not use their personal weapons when on duty.

.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Keep in mind the military absorbed the militia around the Civil War. The Southern Armies were comprised, at the start, of militia and regular army. Lee for example was offered command of the Union military when secession was underway. He sided with his state causing all sorts of issues for the Union until 63/64. McClellan's position as commander of the Army of the Potomac was due to his rank in a state militia prior to the war.

The military absorbing the militia does not invalidate the 2a as militia by definition is not the normal military

I get it. Big on history. Not so much on reading comprehension.

The entire point I am in agreement with is that there are no examples organized and well-regulated militia today. Not that anything invalidates the 2nd Amendment.

What domestic enemy combatants did 150 years ago is fascinating, but hardly demonstrates the existence of modern militias.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As deployment for domestic action requires a revolt, rebellion, civil war or request by a civilian agency such as police.



Wrong. You just have no idea how the US military operates by law. Try again.

You are just not getting it.

 

[Shad]

You are just not getting it.

Wrong. I went to the heart of the issue as per post 30 and 32. Neither of you know what you are talking about.

 

[Skwim]

I think to understand the founders words here in the constitution, we must know what they said elsewhere when they talked about arms and malitia.

Heres a list of quotes. Gun Quotes From Our Founding Fathers – 2nd Amendment

Basically in a nutshell, the founding fathers are saying that this malitia IS the CIVILIANS of the country. The purpose of the arms was incase the government got out of control.

So, it is a discusting and evil thing that the left is doing in trying to ban certain kinds of guns. If government gets out of control, well, we need the same equal guns THEY have.

You're not forgetting the "well regulated" part are you?


.

 

[Shad]

I get it. Big on history. Not so much on reading comprehension.

Wrong as one point has nothing to do with my points about domestic deployment of the military. Try again

The entire point I am in agreement with is that there are no examples organized and well-regulated militia today. Not that anything invalidates the 2nd Amendment.

Assertion. Go look up some right-wing militia which are trained by ex-military. You are assuming what well-regulated and organized means without stating it. Try again

What domestic enemy combatants did 150 years ago is fascinating, but hardly demonstrates the existence of modern militias.

Hilarious. You complain about reading comprehension when that point was never about modern militia but history of militia. Try again son.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wrong. I went to the heart of the issue as per post 30 and 32. Neither of you know what you are talking about.

How many people do you think I am?

What have I talked about other than to say that soldiers do not get to choose their assignments. Is that wrong? Are you saying they do?

What about these well-organized militias. Can you post some links to their websites?

What about hunters rising up to defend this nation against an invasion by a serious threat. Will there be a bag limit. Only antlerless invaders?

I am not sure what it is you are on about, but you can leave me out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wrong as one point has nothing to do with my points about domestic deployment of the military. Try again



Assertion. Go look up some right-wing militia which are trained by ex-military. You are assuming what well-regulated and organized means without stating it. Try again



Hilarious. You complain about reading comprehension when that point was never about modern militia but history of militia. Try again son.

I have no idea what your point is? Perhaps you should just put this in your win column and move on. I see no fruitful discussion with you son.

 

[Shad]

How many people do you think I am?

You didn't look at the posts did you? Did I claim you made both? Less listening to fiction in your head and more reading what I posted. Yawn.

What have I talked about other than to say that soldiers do not get to choose their assignments. Is that wrong? Are you saying they do?

Actually any soldier can object to what they see as an illegal order. Like I said. You have no idea what you are talking about.

What about these well-organized militias. Can you post some links to their websites?

Look up the Three Percent movement and it's associates.

What about hunters rising up to defend this nation against an invasion by a serious threat. Will there be a bag limit. Only antlerless invaders?

Deflection babble

I am not sure what it is you are on about, but you can leave me out.

You are still clueless.

 

[Shad]

I have no idea what your point is? Perhaps you should just put this in your win column and move on. I see no fruitful discussion with you son.

I am talking about a subject beyond your understanding. Simple as that. You have no idea how the military works so just babble and bluff.