"If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2015, 11:24 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:10 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 11:04 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  OK, but the common grunt didn't win the war all by himself, and probably couldn't have without air support, artillery, bombs, tanks, etc.

I agree that people with enormous stashes of guns are silly. I just wasn't quite getting that from your statement.
But the "common grunt" is what would be fighting TYRANNY!!!! if it ever came to the US. Those gombahs wouldn't be able to form a coherent and effective fighting force on the level of the Wolverines. But they keep on saying they're defending liberty, and will keep on doing that until the shit hits the fan (and their shorts at the thought of actually having to do all that bullshit they keep saying they'll do.)

There are many, many veterans capable of planning and organizing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:25 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
I’ve always equated a “well-regulated militia” to something similar to the current National Guard.

“Well regulated” to me includes:
Established hierarchy (ranks, chain of command, etc.)
Trained (drills, practices, trains as a cohesive unit/s)

Anything less than this is just a bunch of individuals running around armed and thus falls outside the parameters of the definition as I see it.

I know some of you will want to point out how effective a bunch of disorganized guys can be a la Red Dawn or some-such vision and perhaps they can be. The French Resistance during WWII is a great example. However I’m not arguing about the effectiveness here, I’m pointing out that in this case the definition for “well-regulated” is not being met and therefore falls outside the 2nd amendment.

The precedent for the existing National Guard is historical:
"Local militias were formed from the earliest English colonization of the Americas in 1607. The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent.”

It is interesting to note that it wasn’t until 1933 that the Guard was incorporated in the US Army by the National Guard Mobilization Act. Maybe this was a mistake, maybe the National Guard should have been allowed to stand apart from the five branches of the military, effectively creating a 6th fighting force.

For this fighting force to be effective against the five existing branches of the US military it would have to be just as well armed and just as well trained and just as large as the other five combined, an absurd proposition. How would you even fund this?

I think that the original concept for having a local, colonial or even a State militia predates a national, cohesive fighting force to repel foreign powers. That is has morphed into an excuse for private citizens/individuals to be armed to the teeth and reporting to no one is unfortunate and a major reason for why gun deaths in America dwarf all other civilized countries.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:25 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I’ve always equated a “well-regulated militia” to something similar to the current National Guard.

“Well regulated” to me includes:
Established hierarchy (ranks, chain of command, etc.)
Trained (drills, practices, trains as a cohesive unit/s)

Anything less than this is just a bunch of individuals running around armed and thus falls outside the parameters of the definition as I see it.
...

And your interpretation is not correct. Read this.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:32 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 11:10 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  But the "common grunt" is what would be fighting TYRANNY!!!! if it ever came to the US. Those gombahs wouldn't be able to form a coherent and effective fighting force on the level of the Wolverines. But they keep on saying they're defending liberty, and will keep on doing that until the shit hits the fan (and their shorts at the thought of actually having to do all that bullshit they keep saying they'll do.)

There are many, many veterans capable of planning and organizing.
And how many of them are drunken rednecks with guns? And planning and organization need a base force to use that, one that's disciplined and combat effective. Otherwise it's just pushing little horses around a map. The well-regulated militia is the past, not the present.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:25 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I’ve always equated a “well-regulated militia” to something similar to the current National Guard.

You can get a good read on what the founders meant by "well-regulated militia" by looking at what happened when the British attacked Washington during the War of 1812. It did not work. There's no substitute for a standing army no matter how scared they were of it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:32 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 11:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  There are many, many veterans capable of planning and organizing.
And how many of them are drunken rednecks with guns? And planning and organization need a base force to use that, one that's disciplined and combat effective. Otherwise it's just pushing little horses around a map. The well-regulated militia is the past, not the present.

And how many of them are sober, intelligent people? Try using facts instead of opinions. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:34 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 11:25 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I’ve always equated a “well-regulated militia” to something similar to the current National Guard.

“Well regulated” to me includes:
Established hierarchy (ranks, chain of command, etc.)
Trained (drills, practices, trains as a cohesive unit/s)

Anything less than this is just a bunch of individuals running around armed and thus falls outside the parameters of the definition as I see it.
...

And your interpretation is not correct. Read this.
Not really, that's today's spin on the term.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:34 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 11:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  And your interpretation is not correct. Read this.
Not really, that's today's spin on the term.

No, it is the words of the framers. You didn't actually read it, did you?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:33 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 11:25 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I’ve always equated a “well-regulated militia” to something similar to the current National Guard.

You can get a good read on what the founders meant by "well-regulated militia" by looking at what happened when the British attacked Washington during the War of 1812. It did not work. There's no substitute for a standing army no matter how scared they were of it.

That doesn't even make sense. Read the actual words of the framers.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 11:34 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Not really, that's today's spin on the term.

No, it is the words of the framers. You didn't actually read it, did you?

I've read the history of the militia in the US from day one until they just gave up. I'm a historian by trade.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: