Listen
westwall and
2aguy , America has the 2nd Amendment so the people can shoot a tyrannical government, should such a government appear. The downside to this, in the meantime, people are shooting one another, so you experience high gun crime and gun deaths.
So I agree with you having guns, I don't agree on the lame shit justifications why you have guns, suicide rates in Japan (fuck all to do with guns), good guys shooting bad guys before a potential mass shooting happens, home defence, store clerk defence etc...
You're doing guns an injustice with shit threads like this, and with your retarded comments.
From about 40 posts back on this "shit threads";
...
... seems much of the discord on the subject results from a lack of historical knowledge and perspective on some issues. One would be the nature of language usage from about 230+ years ago. A second comes from lack of knowledge regards military tactics and methods from 230+ years ago.
A couple quick notes on language and terms will help.
1) "Arms" need not be limited to firearms. Spears, pikes, lances, halberds, swords, bow-n-arrow, crossbows, slings, etc. would also be included here. Hence the sharpened sabre hanging on my wall is covered. Since some colonial militias also had cannons, those also are covered.
2) Muskets were the principle type of firearm of that era and there was a prescribed method, or drill, on how a body(formation) of musket armed men would operate in a combat/battle situation.
We'll use the example of a small town militia of say @ 30 men. They would march toward the battlefield in three columns of 10 men each and once where they were to deploy, they would move to left or right and form as three lines of ten across. Usually they would be about an arm's length apart, and each line a step or two behind the frontline.
To engage, their leader would order;
"Present Arms"
"Aim"
"Fire!"
Once the first/front line has fired, they would then move "through the ranks" - the space between individuals in the lines behind them, to form a new line in the rear where they would reload their muskets.
The second line would then fire when ordered and do a similar move to the rear to reload.
And then the third line would fire when ordered and also move to the rear to reload.
This way the formation is always presenting a portion of their strength ready to fire and engage, covering those whom are reloading.
If well trained in the Drill (well regulated), they might also be capable of succeeding lines taking a step or two forward before firing in order to remain on that piece of ground rather than gradually moving rearward.
The well trained ~ know their drills ~ "well-regulated" militia unit would also likely have one or more leaders - officers and sergeants.
Bottom line here means the community's militia unit is trained in drill and proper maneuver as used on the battlefields of the 17-18-19th centuries versus just being an unorganized armed mob.
3) Since England kept few troops/army in the colonies until the decades prior to 1775, it had been the responsibility of the colonies to provide for their own defense, often against hostile natives, hence having a militia had been the custom for generations.
...
The colonists had been forming militias since the very beginnings of Colonial settlement for the purpose of defense against
Indian attacks. These forces also saw action in the
French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763 when they fought alongside British regulars. Under the laws of each New England colony, all towns were obligated to form militia companies composed of all males 16 years of age and older (there were exemptions for some categories) and to ensure that the members were properly armed. The Massachusetts militias were formally under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but militia companies throughout New England elected their own officers.
[13] Gage effectively dissolved the provincial government under the terms of the
Massachusetts Government Act, and these existing connections were employed by the colonists under the
Massachusetts Provincial Congress for the purpose of resistance to the military threat from Britain.
...
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
