.
In 1943 Polish Jews in Warsaw were alerted to what their fate was going to be, and what the fate of many other Jews were. For 28 days they held off Nazi troops with nothing but Pistols and homemade bombs. When their ammunition ran out, they were defeated, but not without killing several hundred Nazi soldiers.
This is one town, with inferior arms.
Blow that up to hundreds of millions of people, with arms on par with their opponents.
I would warrant that almost every nation on this earth has had to use civilians to defend their land. And I would warrant that many falls of nations and governments would have been prevented had the citizenry been properly armed.
Despite your claims otherwise, you cannot claim that we will forever be impervious to invasion or internal instability. It is inevitable that U.S. civilians will have to defend themselves against either foreign or domestic tyranny. By the time such an age comes, the U.S. population will be staggering, if we respect 2nd Amendment rights we will never fall to foreign or domestic tyranny, it would be impossible to attempt to subjugate so many adequately armed resistors. And therefore we will always remain free Americans.
Start actually making some god damn points instead of unbacked claims au. If what I am stating is fantasy rather then reality, back it up, don't just make that claim. You don't have a ******* clue who you're talking to and yet you have the audacity to call me a liar and falsely portray me as a nut who takes their philosophy from Arnold movies.
Perhaps our armed forces will one day be inferior to the military of a foreign power, when that day comes, will be vulnerable to invasion and our armed forces will be incapable of fully protecting the nation. Perhaps it will be our armed forces themselves who will attempt to execute a coup for some excuse like "To bring security to the nation under these dangerous times, the current administration's incompetence must be cleansed." Granted some units would defect and take the side of the civilian populace, but we would still require adequate arms guaranteed to us by the 2nd Amendment to prevent such an incident. There are infinite possibilities where the civilian populace could be threatened and forced to defend itself.
Militias are unprofessional forces made up of ordinary citizens that obey the authority of the people. The government may request help from a Militia, but unlike a professional military, the Militia obeys the people before the government. A Militia is all eligible civilians. That is they are armed and of age. In order for a Militia to be able to protect the nation, it must be on par with military ground troops. It will generally outnumber enemy forces, so all it needs to be capable are military rifles, grenades, other precision explosives, and vehicles. It needs to be regulated so it isn't running amok or using weapons like WMDs that it just doesn't have the qualifications to use.
au1929 wrote: In my opinion the well regulated militia is they speak of should be the national guard. If not that does not sit well than a militia should be created and recruited and equipped. They would be in time of need it seems to me better prepared to deal with the described situations than people in possession of guns running around willy nilly without direction.
How do you suggest that the national guard, or the alternative you propose, protect the people against a tyrannical government? After all, in your scenario they would be recruited by the very same tyrannical government they're supposed to protect the people against. And they would have no arms but those the tyrannical government chose to give them. You don't expect the founding fathers' approach to work out. Could you please describe for me how yours would work?
.
Don't forget that the National Guard is a professional force under the authority of the government, and hence does not meet the definition of a Militia.
Yup... this post is OVER! we got it made lol
and AU yes I am going out to purchace my own stash of dynomite right now!
hope you get yours (before the Secret Police show up)
I think au expresses a valid concern, the indeed citizen fear of increasing violence in our society, I don't agree with his means for solution but I do understand his concern. I am also a gun owner. perhaps rather than argue with AU over the gun issue, we could offer some ideas on decreasing the violence?
dyslexia wrote: perhaps rather than argue with AU over the gun issue, we could offer some ideas on decreasing the violence?
I applaud your idea, but I'm afraid that what I consider the obvious means of decreasing violence is just as divisive as the gun discussion. In my opinion, America could greatly diminish violent crime by legalizing drugs and prostitution. When prohibition was repealed in 1933, the homicide rate dropped to about one half of its level during the prohibition -- mostly because liquor shop owners stopped shooting each other. It crept back up during the sixties, when the federal government started getting tough on drugs, and reached a plateau shortly after Nixon declared the so-called war on drugs.
I believe that if America repealed the prohibition of drugs and prostitution, it would have the same effect as when America repealed the prohibition of alcohol. The prohibited activities would surface from the underground, pimps and drug dealers would stop shooting each other, and violence would be much reduced.
.
That is an excellent approach dyslexia.
I agree with Thomas but more out of principle than practical solution. Though it would indeed lower violence. Ultimately culture is the deciding factor. You can have all the guns in the world or no guns at all and still have very low crime rates. Japan and Switzerland are excellent examples of this, Japan strict gun laws, little crime, Switzerland purposeful gun proliferation, little crime. It is their culture that decides crime rates.
How does government influence culture so as to lower crime rates? Its' public education system that aims not just to equip youth with the means to getting a career for themselves or to educate them on the basics of life (Neither of which it completely succeeds in), but also to make them better people. Ethics are not taught rigorously enough, education in parenting skills and understanding the people about you and how to manage conflict is absent in the American Public Education system. It should be reinforced from a very young age, the fallback conclusion to almost every class.
But that is a just one blow and one blow is not enough. Poverty is an issue, and while education helps to alleviate that, education means little if their are no means to employ it. Promoting business growth must be made a very high priority in the more impoverished and higher crime areas. How one does that I don't know, but there has to be someone with the knowledge of how government policy and actions can be used to make micro-economic growth in areas even with high crime rates.
Well, now, there we have some real info, as you know Dys.
Stuff like early intervention with vulnerable young parents, to support their attachment to their children, and their parenting.
Headstart type programs with vulnerable kids - to assist in their learning etc.
Smaller schools with real commitment to positive relationships with the kids and to achievement - and classes small enough for teachers to be able to give reasonable attention.
Really early intervention for kids with learning problems.
And so on.
Doesn't cost so much - in the LONG run - compared with the cost of imprisonment and the results of violence...
We could weed out sociopaths at an early age and then isolate them from society.
Wait, they already tried that and created Australia...nevermind.
Just kiddin' dlowan.
And the USA, dearheart...
Lol - England invaded Australia because your revolution, amongst other results, meant they couldn't dump convicts on your fair shores any more.
You folks weren't just Puritans and such - you had a few lusty, red-blooded convists in the mix!
when people came from england to the USA it was for religious freedom from the kings tyranny. Not sociopaths sent there.
Whatever, I didn't mean for this to happen.
Swift wrote:when people came from england to the USA it was for religious freedom from the kings tyranny. Not sociopaths sent there.
It was both.
And - just as with Oz, many political dissidents also thrown in prison.
Convicts were a mixed lot. Certainly by no means all sociopaths.
PS: CJ, I haven't taken offence at your joke, BTW. It's funny that you guys don't seem to know this bit of your history, though.
believe me its confusing! People are rewriting the textbooks to take God out of it even though he is the main person in our history!
Ok so now we know where the problem with violence in society comes from, thanks Swift.
Lol - but, after this wee divertissement into apparently unknown parts of US history, we now return you to your normal program:
Bang!!!!
From what I have learned from this discourse is that all gun owners have them primarily for the purpose of protection against the tyranny of government and invasion by a foreign power. Is this the message I am expected to believe?
In the meantime inorder to keep in practice they will be used to shoot up businesses, schools, religious conferences and etc..
