Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[danielpalos]

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

no, You are confused. Our Second Amendment clearly declares, what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

All the right wing has, is appeals to ignorance of the term, militia.

..........and that because it is necessary to have a Militia (Military) to defend a free State, and with recent History (the revolution) showing how that Militia (Military) can be used against it's own people, that the People would have the right to defend itself against a rogue Government that would use the might of the Militia (Military) against them.

See how beautifully thought out that was.

lol. all you have is, right wing propaganda; and an appeal to ignorance of the Term, militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Bill of Rights, is not a Constitution unto itself; they don't have their own, legal Standing without our federal Constitution.

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

Where is the express Power to Prohibit (political) speech, in our original Constitution?

I guess the same place where the express power to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms is?

only the unorganized militia whines about gun control; well regulated militia have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment, when it really matters.

 

[danielpalos]

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.

If you care to make an argument, do so in such a way that is understandable. That's simply gibberish.

If you don't understand that, you are simply clueless and Causeless and lack any Standing, in Any legal venue.

OMG, the dude is completely triggered.

nothing but appeals to Ignorance, right wingers?

Which, Persons of the People shall not be Infringed when it is really really important, if we have to quibble, right wingers.

Make a point instead of thinking anyone want's to take your mindless test.

Good God, PLEASE AT SOME POINT MAKE A POINT! I for one would love that!

Yes, the right wing really really is, That clueless and that Causeless, in the Public Domain.

 

[Pop23]

It is a part of the constitution and clearly a very important part as it is relegated the starting position of all the amendments. The first 10 are delegated to the superior rights that the PEOPLE have to it's government. But for some unknown reason you think that, for some unknown purpose the Founding Fathers snuck in an amendment, near the top of this list, that served a far different purpose than securing the Peoples rights.

Un friggin real the pretzel twisting you've gone through.

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

Where is the express Power to Prohibit (political) speech, in our original Constitution?

I guess the same place where the express power to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms is?

only the unorganized militia whines about gun control; well regulated militia have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment, when it really matters.

And you've yet to explain it's placement, within the constitution in which individual freedoms are assigned, not freedoms granted to the government.

Nothing to see here folks, but wait a minute, the dude will deflect once again, it's what he does best.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?

Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize

Idiot

Finally you sign a post with your nickname. But I digress.

Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?

Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment? Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter. Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.

Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so? An LT or above to oversee a company?

A mob is not a military force.

No. it's a mob, ask those commanders in Vietnam how effective fighting a mob was.

Your Pipe Dream Revolution isn't well thought out. Logistics is a major problem. Just putting it together would get it noticed long before it became effective and ready to be used. So you are going to get your millions to the fight. Good friggin luck with that. The Traffic Jam, the gas lines, and more will kill you in the first place. Are you gong to practice mobilizing your millions before hand? Woops, you just got noticed again.

The NVA and VC were NOT mobs. Most of the VC were trained NVA (North Vietnam Regulars) that came down and trained South Vietnamese fighters. They were well equipped, had a good supply line, excellent equipment that was portable and were extremely dedicated in their mission to win at any cost. We knew we could win easily against a VC unit because they didn't have the support but when going against an NVA unit, Katy bar the Door, those were extremely good fighting men that were well equipped. The second you forgot that you ended up dead. But neither of these were MOBS. They were dedicated fighting men with the will to win even if they had to die to do it. At some point, we just got tired of killing them with no end in sight.

 

[danielpalos]

They are, merely Articles of Amendment, that is all.

OK, no freedom of speech for you, cuz afterall, their just Articles of Amendments.

Where is the express Power to Prohibit (political) speech, in our original Constitution?

I guess the same place where the express power to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms is?

only the unorganized militia whines about gun control; well regulated militia have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment, when it really matters.

And you've yet to explain it's placement, within the constitution in which individual freedoms are assigned, not freedoms granted to the government.

Nothing to see here folks, but wait a minute, the dude will deflect once again, it's what he does best.

some conspiracy? the words mean more than any right wing propaganda.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?

Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country. We don't. When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment. If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing. At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway. But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors. Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act. He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops. The System works and works well, traitor.

And we ain't Britain. You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.

Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.

Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.

Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact. You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution. Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded. If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting. Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.

 

[Pop23]

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so? An LT or above to oversee a company?

A mob is not a military force.

No. it's a mob, ask those commanders in Vietnam how effective fighting a mob was.

Your Pipe Dream Revolution isn't well thought out. Logistics is a major problem. Just putting it together would get it noticed long before it became effective and ready to be used. So you are going to get your millions to the fight. Good friggin luck with that. The Traffic Jam, the gas lines, and more will kill you in the first place. Are you gong to practice mobilizing your millions before hand? Woops, you just got noticed again.

The NVA and VC were NOT mobs. Most of the VC were trained NVA (North Vietnam Regulars) that came down and trained South Vietnamese fighters. They were well equipped, had a good supply line, excellent equipment that was portable and were extremely dedicated in their mission to win at any cost. We knew we could win easily against a VC unit because they didn't have the support but when going against an NVA unit, Katy bar the Door, those were extremely good fighting men that were well equipped. The second you forgot that you ended up dead. But neither of these were MOBS. They were dedicated fighting men with the will to win even if they had to die to do it. At some point, we just got tired of killing them with no end in sight.

We just need to hold off long enough for a good part of the Military to say "what the ****, we are attacking our own people"

And an equally fun part is that, thanks to the recent wars, a WHOLE HELLUVA lot of ex Military is now part of this so called unorganized militia. Cool beans aye.

Now, no one is calling for a revolution, except it appears your kinda jonesing for one. But if it happened by this Billionaire that you seem to be getting an erection over, you think for a moment (as was the case in the Revolutionary War), other world powers would just stand back and watch? Nah, I think the Militia would get some mighty fine backing fro the outside world.

And that, my friend, is just how respected our Constitution is to the Free World. They hate Tyrants like you.

 

[westwall]

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?

Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country. We don't. When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment. If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing. At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway. But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors. Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act. He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops. The System works and works well, traitor.

And we ain't Britain. You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.

Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.

Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.

Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact. You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution. Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded. If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting. Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.

And your side is funded by Soros. The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England. He is far more anti America than the kochs are. Me thinks you need to do some more research.

 

[Pop23]

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?

Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country. We don't. When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment. If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing. At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway. But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors. Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act. He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops. The System works and works well, traitor.

And we ain't Britain. You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.

Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.

Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.

Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact. You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution. Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded. If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting. Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.

You keep saying I am somehow investing in organizations. Of course you would have proof of that, right? If not, I guess you are simply lying. Full disclosure, if my investments in Amazon and Microsoft fund this Revolution you speak of, I am completely unaware of it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so? An LT or above to oversee a company?

A mob is not a military force.

No. it's a mob, ask those commanders in Vietnam how effective fighting a mob was.

Your Pipe Dream Revolution isn't well thought out. Logistics is a major problem. Just putting it together would get it noticed long before it became effective and ready to be used. So you are going to get your millions to the fight. Good friggin luck with that. The Traffic Jam, the gas lines, and more will kill you in the first place. Are you gong to practice mobilizing your millions before hand? Woops, you just got noticed again.

The NVA and VC were NOT mobs. Most of the VC were trained NVA (North Vietnam Regulars) that came down and trained South Vietnamese fighters. They were well equipped, had a good supply line, excellent equipment that was portable and were extremely dedicated in their mission to win at any cost. We knew we could win easily against a VC unit because they didn't have the support but when going against an NVA unit, Katy bar the Door, those were extremely good fighting men that were well equipped. The second you forgot that you ended up dead. But neither of these were MOBS. They were dedicated fighting men with the will to win even if they had to die to do it. At some point, we just got tired of killing them with no end in sight.

We just need to hold off long enough for a good part of the Military says "what the ****, we are attacking our own people"

And an equally fun part is that, thanks to the recent wars, a WHOLE HELLUVA lot of ex Military is now part of this so called unorganized militia. Cool beans aye.

Now, no one is calling for a revolution, except it appears your kinda jonesing for one. But if it happened by this Billionaire that you seem to be getting an erection over, you think for a moment (as was the case in the Revolutionary War), other world powers would just stand back and watch? Nah, I think the Militia would get some mighty fine backing fro the outside world.

And that, my friend, is just how respected our Constitution is to the Free World. They hate Tyrants like you.

There you have it folks. He's a died in the wool treasonous traitor to the nation by his own admission. By keeping things all stirred up, he believes that he gives his cause support. He may be right somewhat. But anyone of us Retired Military Folks would disagree and we are about 3.2 million strong. And any Service Member on Duty would disagree at another 2 million would disagree. These people are living in fantasy land but bring confusion and pain to every other person they touch. This is sad. And never going to be successful.

 

[Pop23]

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms able to work well together without trained non commissioned officers for every dozen or so? An LT or above to oversee a company?

A mob is not a military force.

No. it's a mob, ask those commanders in Vietnam how effective fighting a mob was.

Your Pipe Dream Revolution isn't well thought out. Logistics is a major problem. Just putting it together would get it noticed long before it became effective and ready to be used. So you are going to get your millions to the fight. Good friggin luck with that. The Traffic Jam, the gas lines, and more will kill you in the first place. Are you gong to practice mobilizing your millions before hand? Woops, you just got noticed again.

The NVA and VC were NOT mobs. Most of the VC were trained NVA (North Vietnam Regulars) that came down and trained South Vietnamese fighters. They were well equipped, had a good supply line, excellent equipment that was portable and were extremely dedicated in their mission to win at any cost. We knew we could win easily against a VC unit because they didn't have the support but when going against an NVA unit, Katy bar the Door, those were extremely good fighting men that were well equipped. The second you forgot that you ended up dead. But neither of these were MOBS. They were dedicated fighting men with the will to win even if they had to die to do it. At some point, we just got tired of killing them with no end in sight.

We just need to hold off long enough for a good part of the Military says "what the ****, we are attacking our own people"

And an equally fun part is that, thanks to the recent wars, a WHOLE HELLUVA lot of ex Military is now part of this so called unorganized militia. Cool beans aye.

Now, no one is calling for a revolution, except it appears your kinda jonesing for one. But if it happened by this Billionaire that you seem to be getting an erection over, you think for a moment (as was the case in the Revolutionary War), other world powers would just stand back and watch? Nah, I think the Militia would get some mighty fine backing fro the outside world.

And that, my friend, is just how respected our Constitution is to the Free World. They hate Tyrants like you.

There you have it folks. He's a died in the wool treasonous traitor to the nation by his own admission. By keeping things all stirred up, he believes that he gives his cause support. He may be right somewhat. But anyone of us Retired Military Folks would disagree and we are about 3.2 million strong. And any Service Member on Duty would disagree at another 2 million would disagree. These people are living in fantasy land but bring confusion and pain to every other person they touch. This is sad. And never going to be successful.

THE KING HAS SPOKEN TO HIS MINIONS ^^^^^^^^^ SO IT IS WRITTEN, SO IT SHALL BE DONE! ^^^^^^ What a boob

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?

Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country. We don't. When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment. If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing. At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway. But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors. Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act. He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops. The System works and works well, traitor.

And we ain't Britain. You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.

Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.

Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.

Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact. You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution. Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded. If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting. Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.

And your side is funded by Soros. The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England. He is far more anti America than the kochs are. Me thinks you need to do some more research.

Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America. Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer. Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers? Not something I would admit to willingly.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, the British had the most advanced fighting machine on the face of the earth, and expressed the same sentiments as you, how'd that work out for em?

Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country. We don't. When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment. If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing. At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway. But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors. Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act. He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops. The System works and works well, traitor.

And we ain't Britain. You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.

Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.

Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.

Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact. You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution. Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded. If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting. Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.

And your side is funded by Soros. The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England. He is far more anti America than the kochs are. Me thinks you need to do some more research.

Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America. Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer. Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers? Not something I would admit to willingly.

Wrong. The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co. Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies. The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country. We don't. When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment. If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing. At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway. But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors. Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act. He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops. The System works and works well, traitor.

And we ain't Britain. You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.

Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.

Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.

Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact. You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution. Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded. If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting. Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.

And your side is funded by Soros. The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England. He is far more anti America than the kochs are. Me thinks you need to do some more research.

Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America. Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer. Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers? Not something I would admit to willingly.

Wrong. The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co. Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies. The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.

I did some research into the COSA and found the backers to be the Koch Brothers. Then I dug a bit deeper and found that they were using it to not only do the things they say but were advocating weakening other parts of the Constitution using the Continental Congress to do the heavy lifting. The end result would allow states to leave the nation. As crazy as that sounds, it's far worse than just removing the 2nd amendment.

As for removing the 2nd amendment, good friggin luck with that. Now,if they were to be working to bring it into the 21st century then you might have a worry. Then Millions that are against it now would be for it then. Shoot, we have all but shredded the 2nd amendment anyway. We might as well rewrite it to modern terms and then stick with it and end all this nonsensical fighting.

 

[Pop23]

Well, traitor, the British uses their forces in country. We don't. When any country's leader loses the backing of it's Military (the military doesn't have to do anything, just sit down and do nothing) they are effectively out of power right at that very moment. If our President were to try and use the Federal Troops to guard the border, the Military would be forced to do nothing. At that point, the President had just as well resign as he's days away from an impeachment anyway. But he can use State Forces to guard the border or assist in NON Police Action with the permission from the State Governors. Even if the Federal Government is paying for it, it's under the authority of the States and does not go against the Posse Comitatus Act. He can even use Federal equipment but no Federal Troops. The System works and works well, traitor.

And we ain't Britain. You want to go help Britain fail, by all means, go.

Hey Dumbass, this was British Country.

Actually, if there is a traitor here, that would appear to be you and your actions to declare "the people" subjegated to the Government. A REAL AMERICAN understands it is the Government that is subject to the Constitution and the People.

Ah, but I want to keep the Constitution and the US intact. You are investing in an organization that wants to dismantle both using a back door in the Constitution. Your Extreme Right Wing group is supported by none other than the Koch Brothers so it's well funded. If successful, then there would be another Civil War and the Federal Government would have no choice but to use Federal Troops and supporting State Troops to quell the rioting. Sorry, but you still won't have your "Revolution" since you won't be classed much higher than a riot.

So, I can live with my place in life.

And your side is funded by Soros. The kochs provide a commodity that the world uses, yet your hero made his billions by destroying public employee pension funds throughout Asia and busting the Bank of England. He is far more anti America than the kochs are. Me thinks you need to do some more research.

Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America. Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer. Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers? Not something I would admit to willingly.

Wrong. The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co. Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies. The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.

Yeah, well Darly did research, and since Daryl did research it must be true!

 

[danielpalos]

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.

 

[Pop23]

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.

Now that's deep, real deep

 

[WinterBorn]

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't. First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms. But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population? Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq? Now imagine that being US citizens. The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population. It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.