- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is a very potent argument against the "2nd amendment means militia" talking point
Posted on 2/16/21 at 3:59 pm to thebigmuffaletta
Posted on 2/16/21 at 3:59 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
We don’t have anywhere near the number of foot soldiers needed to stop a large scale invasion of the US. Half the people enlisted in the military are pencil pushers
You don’t stop an invasion across two oceans by letting them land...
And if you think untrained “Wolverines” are going to stop a force that runs a Pacific or Atlantic gauntlet and reaches our borders then you’ve seen too many Swayze movies.
Between our Active Duty and National Guard forces we have plenty enough to stop an invasion force given our border advantages. China can’t mobilize as well as we can.
Lastly, if you think the untrained masses would be more effective than your common Marine personnelist, Army supply sergeant or Air Force civil engineer, (your “pencil-pushers”) you are sadly mistaken. They’re at least familiar. Civilians would be lucky to not shoot each other...
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 4:05 pm
2
Posted on 2/16/21 at 4:45 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
You don’t stop an invasion across two oceans by letting them land... And if you think untrained “Wolverines” are going to stop a force that runs a Pacific or Atlantic gauntlet and reaches our borders then you’ve seen too many Swayze movies. Between our Active Duty and National Guard forces we have plenty enough to stop an invasion force given our border advantages. China can’t mobilize as well as we can.
See Afghanistan and Vietnam
quote:
Lastly, if you think the untrained masses would be more effective than your common Marine personnelist, Army supply sergeant or Air Force civil engineer, (your “pencil-pushers”) you are sadly mistaken. They’re at least familiar. Civilians would be lucky to not shoot each other
Having been in the military myself, I can assure that most enlisted personnel aren’t marksmen. Many of them would be hard pressed to outshoot your average teenage Hunter in the south.
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 2/16/21 at 5:08 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Many of them would be hard pressed to outshoot your average teenage Hunter in the south
Having witnessed inexplicably more non-quals than should be possible (mostly in first-termers) I agree that marksmanship is overall worse than it should be. I concur (as a past teenage hunter from the South) that hunters shoot better than new recruits by far.
That said, and as you know, there is more to military effectiveness than marksmanship. A civilian response would be unwieldy above the level of maybe 10-20 folks. At least you can command and control the military. Civilians...no way. It would devolve into 10-person pockets everywhere with no control.
The Vietnamese were primarily a military force using guerrilla tactics and backed by China.
Invading Afghanistan and invading the US are totally different. In AFG you had to root out every last insurgent because the target was terrorists, not taking down the state. The US is a first-world country that has actual centers of gravity. These have to be defended by an actual military...you can’t just fight like the Afghans and blend back into the terrain and give up your infrastructure.
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 2/16/21 at 5:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
According to US Code, every male above the age of 17 and under 45 is a member of the militia.
/thread
10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
/thread
10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 5:37 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
your very quote is the answwer:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Not the right of the government, not the right of the legislature, not the right of the army, not the right of the Supreme court . . . it is the right of "the people"
Your argument would make speech, religion, press, etc. a right of the state.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Not the right of the government, not the right of the legislature, not the right of the army, not the right of the Supreme court . . . it is the right of "the people"
Your argument would make speech, religion, press, etc. a right of the state.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 5:38 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
Many of your gun owners in the US are prior military and they’d be backed by the US military.
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 2/16/21 at 5:39 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
George Mason:
[quote]
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates )
LINK
[quote]
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates )
LINK
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 2/16/21 at 5:48 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Many of your gun owners in the US are prior military
Agreed.
quote:
and they’d be backed by the US military.
Not the conversation we’re having
Posted on 2/16/21 at 6:00 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
The thing that is different about the U.S. though, we are so highly industrialized, and have an incredible amount of heavy equipment and useful tools at our disposal everywhere that can be used effectively as weapons. An invading force might possibly be able to land on our shores, but crossing and moving across the vast country and staying supplied would be impossible.
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 6:02 pm
Posted on 2/16/21 at 6:09 pm to auggie
quote:
An invading force might possibly be able to land on our shores
Very unlikely
quote:
but crossing and moving across the vast country and staying supplied would be impossible.
Disagree. IF we allowed landing, our internal lines of communication would make travel easy for a mechanized force if unopposed by a standing Army
Posted on 2/16/21 at 6:17 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
If the 2nd was intended to protect the right of government sanctioned entities to keep and bear arms, just who is this potential infringer?
Posted on 2/16/21 at 6:19 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
Disagree. IF we allowed landing, our internal lines of communication would make travel easy for a mechanized force if unopposed by a standing Army
This is where guerilla operators would come into play, and using the equipment and tools at their disposal(big stuff is everywhere in this country, you just don't see it because it's out on job sites), can strand and isolate forces very easily, and cut off their supply lines.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 6:22 pm to stuntman
quote:
I use this argument against gun grabbers;
"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Does that mean only people w/ college diplomas should vote?
In my experience gun grabbers would be the people who also almost universally say, yes, great idea, only us indoctrinated college idiots should vote.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 6:49 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
quote:
I honestly wonder if it ever crosses their minds that if the founding fathers came back today, they would shoot them democrats for being tyrannical
Posted on 2/16/21 at 6:53 pm to shinerfan
quote:
just who is this potential infringer?
External threats
Posted on 2/16/21 at 6:58 pm to auggie
quote:
This is where guerilla operators would come into play, and using the equipment and tools at their disposal(big stuff is everywhere in this country, you just don't see it because it's out on job sites), can strand and isolate forces very easily, and cut off their supply lines.
I agree with this somewhat, but only if you’re willing to drop the major bridges and tear apart your interstate system in a coordinated effort...which would severely damage the country when it had to put it all back together. Hell, we can’t even afford fixing what we have. Rebuilding the expensive pieces everywhere would be crippling.
Better to have a standing army that keeps them from our borders
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 6:59 pm
Posted on 2/16/21 at 7:00 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
People don't realize that they don't need to revoke the 1st and 2nd Amendments to destroy them. Just pack the court with dishonest partisan hacks who will say that speech can be violence and therefore hate speech is not covered under the 1st Amendment and that the 2nd Amendment more refers to the militia than the people.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 7:10 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
I agree with this somewhat, but only if you’re willing to drop the major bridges and tear apart your interstate system in a coordinated effort...which would severely damage the country when it had to put it all back together. Hell, we can’t even afford fixing what we have. Rebuilding the expensive pieces everywhere would be crippling.
You wouldn't need to destroy the bridges. You have the equipment to bury the highways at the passes and bottle necks and dig those out later. You also have big supplies of industrial gasses and means to produce extreme high voltage to use, that can do some incredible things to a stalled force.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 7:11 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:I promise you that most avid hunters can shoot a gun as well as most military personnel.
Lastly, if you think the untrained masses would be more effective than your common Marine personnelist, Army supply sergeant or Air Force civil engineer, (your “pencil-pushers”) you are sadly mistaken. They’re at least familiar. Civilians would be lucky to not shoot each other...
They may not be trained in military tactics, but they can definitely snipe.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 7:16 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
just who is this potential infringer?
External threats
What kind of external threat would be bound by the US Constitution?
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News