Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@BillW,

Who do you think the citizens are and who do you believe the people in the armed services are? The citizens are the family members of the people that make up the military. Also, the current military has a population of around 1.3 million members... there are over 22 million veterans that have the same training. There are about 7 million veterans since the first gulf war.

Let me add that states have their own militaries as well. Think about how many red states there are and that each one has National Guard units with the same training and gear as the US Army and other branches.

1 Reply

@BillW,

Also, Hightor likes to talk out of his ass and post articles by people that have no idea what they are writing about.

1 Reply

Gentrix, you sound like a foolish little angry man!

1 Reply

@BillW,

ooooohhhh... I see. I'm sorry. I thought you might have wanted to do more than walk around with {not decent for keeping my membership}.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

With attitudes like the above, it may take a little longer - fortunately, it isn't most of the people! He is just a small man looking for an internal war according to his thinking.......

2 Replies

@BillW,

When Trump boasted of grabbing 14 year old girls by the pusy McGentrix made it his avatar, calling it Alpha male bahaviour.

I can see why someone like that would waht a gun, but I can't understand how any society could allow such a repulsive creature access to one.

0 Replies

@BillW,

Jamie Raskin obviously knows more about the 2nd Amendment than McGentrix does, so the Trumpist just starts insulting other members. Notice how he never really explains what he means or demonstrates the steps which have led him to arrive at his conclusions. Apparently he thinks that just showing up and lobbing a few crude insults is sufficient to establish some sort of credibility. When in reality it just makes him appear crotchety, like the bitter old man that he has become, waving a firearm, wearing a perpetual scowl, and spewing ineffective vitriol.

3 Replies

@hightor,

will he change his avatar when 45 goes to jail, i wonder...

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

How is Hightor talking out of his ass, exactly?

What are these people saying in their articles that Hightor posts that they have no idea what they are writing about, exactly?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Who do you think the citizens are and who do you believe the people in the armed services are? The citizens are the family members of the people that make up the military. Also, the current military has a population of around 1.3 million members... there are over 22 million veterans that have the same training. There are about 7 million veterans since the first gulf war.

Let me add that states have their own militaries as well. Think about how many red states there are and that each one has National Guard units with the same training and gear as the US Army and other branches.

Please, clarify this train of though.

Are you suggesting that an armed rebellion would have to start within the military by which these rebellious people that make up the military would then arm their family members in their rebellion, and this rebellion is legalized by the Second Amendment?

1 Reply

@hightor,

Jamie Raskin is good at making strawman arguments and then showing why the other side is terrible based on those strawman ideas.

Jamie Raskin seems to know nothing about the second amendment, nor why it is the second amendment.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Read the post I replied to for context.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Read the post I replied to for context.

Yes, it was a question about the ability of a "citizen's army" fighting against a government with military armaments.

You responded with the assertion that the citizens are the family members of the people that make up the military, and that red state National Guards have the same equipment and training as the US military. That's precisely what prompted my request for clarification.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Well, the citizen army is more than a couple of red necks with AR-15s...

If it ever came to brass tacks, I don't think the US military forces would attack a US civilian population if it were in a state of rebellion against a tyrannical US Govt. If they did, however, it would not be an easy win for either side.

in The Federalist, No 46 James Madison wrote

Quote:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Madison was entertaining the "extravagant supposition" of the downfall of the state governments at the hands of the federal governments, and the states' resistance against this scenario. The militia that Madison refers to is what is now the National Guard, organized and controlled by the states and the federal government. He wasn't referring to individual insurrectionists. Even Madison's speculations about this rebellion against the federal government speak to the good regulation of this militia "united and conducted by governments," as prescribed by the Second Amendment, and not the argument that anti-regulation gun advocates are making, a veritable free-for-all of arms for the people in general.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

The point of The Federalist No. 46 was not to game out the details of this kind of conflict between a federal army and state militias allied with an armed citizenry. Madison’s point was to demonstrate how the whole constitutional system was designed to prevent such a conflict. The point was to set up a system where a revolution would never be needed in the first place, by ensuring that there is as little distance as possible between the coercive power of government and the people it governs. An armed citizenry and state militias, along with a military of citizen soldiers, are all part of that system.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

In The Federalist Papers : No. 46 Madison's gaming was based entirely on the supposition of the downfall of the state governments at the hands of the federal governments, and not some general "coercive power of government." The entire paper is an exposition on "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared." Anyhow, this doesn't address nor support the argument made by anti-regulation gun advocates about the Second Amendment allowing for a veritable bearing of arms free-for-all so that individual citizens could counter the coercive power of government.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

It goes back to the foundation of the US as a Republic of states under a restricted Federal government. The Constitution was a list of what powers the Federal government could and couldn't have. The ability to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms was a very clear restriction that has been bastardized through the years. The reason for that was the citizens of the US, as Madison points out, are the best-armed society in the world and the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Now, the government is of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy. The rest of us are basically wage slaves and tax monkeys.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Now, the government is of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy.

Any theories as to why?

Quote:

The rest of us are basically wage slaves and tax monkeys.

But we're still the "best-armed [over-armed] society in the world" so evidently access to firearms hasn't been able to stop our slide into the sort of statist tyranny you seem to be suffering under.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Now, the government is of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy.

The solution is Socialism.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know