Didnt take him long...

[packsaddle]

Gern, what better way to overthrow a government than to kill millions of the citizens? Of course, if that's what someone wants to do, some clever genetic engineering could produce a microbe that could do the same thing and leave the hardware standing. Ooops...I guess we've already thought of that too. As usual, I'm late with the idea. Do microbes qualify as 'arms'?

 

Edited to answer the question: heh, heh, only if they have really, really, long flagella.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Narraticong]

Well...since Detroit has already been brought up, and it has been mentioned how we suburbanites just don't understand or care about all the troubles in the big city, let me clue you in.

 

I live in a suburb of Detroit, just across the infamous "Eight Mile". The high school my daughter attends is a "school of choice"- meaning students unhappy in their own district can come to school in ours. Being next to Detroit, with a school district which is corrupt and in shambles, many parents opt to have their children come across the border.

 

Two days ago, a boy was assaulted at gunpoint, inside our high school by a young man armed with a gun. Nobody was hurt due to the perfect timing of the bell which filled the hall with students. Three young men have been arrested in the matter. At this early stage it is believed they are students who live outside the district boundaries.

 

Our school has several security personnel and a full time police officer on duty. None, including the officer, are armed. Had this become a shooting, inside the school, how many innocent people may have died before the armed officers could arrive?

 

An armed officer on the scene could quickly assess the situation. Officers are trained to determine the correct way to react- shoot / don't shoot. But at least that option would be available. Somehow, some way, a shooter must be neutralized, and that may just mean shot dead. But so be it. When a person carries a gun with intent to do harm, the value of his life drops well below that of the innocent bystanders and victims.

 

Yes, many of us who live outside the city, but who have to deal with it closely, have little sympathy for those who choose to live outside the law. My father grew up poor during the depression and never found it necessary to rob or shoot anyone. Let's be honest, few serious crimes are committed by the seriously destitute. I would venture a guess that more are committed by just plain thugs. They need to be dealt with.

[TheScout]

"TheScout, I do not mock you. But you have stated the 2nd Amendment was designed to allow citizens to repel foriegn invasions and resist our own government. It doesn't refer to firearms, it refers to arms. Obviously, unless the citizens have access to the same military hardware the government does, the 2nd Amendment becomes meaningless. I cannot resist my government without SAMs, RPGs, landmines, cannon and possibly cruise missiles. Its an arms race we are very far behind on. Those of you who use the 2nd Amendment to justify ownership of assault weapons and pistols, are misusing it. Those toys would are meaningless to satisfy the true intent of the framers of the amendment."

 

That is an interesting point that I have never really thought of. It would be interesting to know what the the word 'arms' referred to?

 

I would assume it referred to personal arms. This is what the vast majority of colonists had in the early days of the country. Very few militia units had artillery pieces which I suppose could be considered the WMD of the day. Or even naval ships. Even the states were forbidden to have their own fleets without the consent of Congress. This seems to say that there was a limit on at least some type of large arm - the ship of the line- the most potent weapon of the day.

[GernBlansten]

I'm shocked, shocked I say. How can you make an assumption on what type of arms the framers were refering to? Since they specifically refer to arms, its all arms. The only restriction is the size of the pocketbook. Cannon and ship were too expensive for early Americans to own privately, so that's the reason they didn't have them, it had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and what was permissible or practical.

 

Likewise today, I should only be restricted on my personal arsenal based on my ability to pay for it. The bar has risen slightly though. An RPG (modern day cannon) is a couple thousand dollars. SAM, around 150k. A cruise missle, 1.5 million. But land mines are cheap. Couple of dozen for a price of a Prius.

 

Remember, the 2nd Amendment is not about gun collecting or hunting, its about being able to overthrow an oppressive government. You guys complaining about Obama taking away assault rifles are missing the big picture.

[mmhardy]

But how else can I protect my constitutional rights from an oppressive government?

 

Sell your house, cottage, boat, computer, cell phone and car. Shred your Visa. Convert all to cash and buy a farm and be off the grid. As long has your playing in society, your subject to its rules.

 

No amount of arming one's self to the teeth it going to protect you from oppression. If you feel that you need these things to live free then I submit your already living in an oppressive tyranny.

[TheScout]

Like I said I think it would be interesting to research the original intent of the word arms. I don't know. But like I said which you ignored, States themselves were forbidden to build ships, though they certainly could afford it. And they were the most powerful weapons of that day . . .

 

"No amount of arming one's self to the teeth it going to protect you from oppression. If you feel that you need these things to live free then I submit your already living in an oppressive tyranny."

 

Remember what happened in this country from 1775-1783? Ever hear of George Washington? Apparently it does work?

 

So Gern what is your suggestion on how we protect ourselves for an oppressive government? Or should we give up our ability to resist altogether.

[SSScout]

Let's see... required reading for the class includes...

 

US Constitution, 2nd Amendment

 

The Weapon Shops of Isher, Van Vogt

 

The Weapon Makers , Van Vogt

 

any good text about the Weimar Republic

 

The Foundation series, Assimov

 

Tao Ta Ching, Laotze

 

Bible, Book of Acts, etal

 

 

[GernBlansten]

Well TheScout, how do we protect ourselves from an oppressive government?

Obviously, you can't do it with private small arms, not even automatic weapons. Just not enough firepower to stop a well trained and equipped army. Private ownership of small arms are unnecessary and impractical to preserve the nation. Modern military hardware would be necessary, but costs prohibit private acquisition. So I think we follow the second part of the 2nd Amendment and have well regulated militias. States could call for recruits and tax their citizens to fund them. Training and provisioning of the militias will be the responsibility of the governors of each state. These militias would be first responders in cases of emergency, whether natural or political.

 

Another approach, which could be employed simultaneously to the previous method, is to use our representative government to keep it from becoming oppressive in the first place. Any sign of abuse, should be responded to with calls for impeachment and prosecution. Beware of attempts to justify malfeasance with claims of unitary executive powers or unconstitutional war powers. Democracy is wonder, if we can keep it.

[TheScout]

"Well TheScout, how do we protect ourselves from an oppressive government?

Obviously, you can't do it with private small arms, not even automatic weapons. Just not enough firepower to stop a well trained and equipped army. Private ownership of small arms are unnecessary and impractical to preserve the nation."

 

Again, what about George Washington and his soldierrs against the greatest empire in the world?

 

More recently look what the Afghans did to the Soviet Union.

 

Or the Algerians to France.

 

Or the Vietnamese to the French and the Americans.

 

"So I think we follow the second part of the 2nd Amendment and have well regulated militias. States could call for recruits and tax their citizens to fund them. Training and provisioning of the militias will be the responsibility of the governors of each state. These militias would be first responders in cases of emergency, whether natural or political."

 

Its actually the first part of the Second Amendment (shows how much you know it). To me this is the ideal situation as well. However it seems to me the National Guard has been just about taken over by the federal establishment. In all areas of equipping, training, appointing of officers, etc the state militias are dependant on the federal government and the regular army than ever before. I question exactly where there first loyalties would lie.

 

"Another approach, which could be employed simultaneously to the previous method, is to use our representative government to keep it from becoming oppressive in the first place.

 

Of course this is ideal. But a move to tyranny has been the way of many democratic governments throughout history . . .

[GernBlansten]

Afghanistan is an excellent example. When the Soviets invaded, they pretty much could do as they wished, killing anything that moved without resistance. AK47s have no effect on Hine choppers. It wasn't until Charlie Wilson was able to provide them with advanced military hardware, namely SAMs and RPGs, that they were able to stop the invasion and exact losses on the Soviets.

Likewise, you and Brent holding your assault weapons, are no match to any army. It will take advanced military hardware to resist.

In Vietnam, the Vietcong were rather ineffective until supplied advanced military hardware from China.

 

Your comparison to our revolutionary warriors is not applicable. They resisted with equal firepower.

[TheScout]

But remember Gern, the point of guerilla war isn't to win. It is to wear out the enemy. The Soviets quickly used their better resources to dominate the few cities, but they could not country the vast mountainous areas of the country. Even our forces have problems operating in some parts of the nation today.

 

A dedicated guerilla force with small arms does not require much more to hold such restricted terrain.

 

"In Vietnam, the Vietcong were rather ineffective until supplied advanced military hardware from China."

 

The French were driven out of Vietnam long before real aid came to the Vietnamese.

 

"Your comparison to our revolutionary warriors is not applicable. They resisted with equal firepower."

 

The Royal Navy was unmatched in the world. The British army enjoyed, when it wished to have it, better artillery support. At many times they had more gunpowder. They were the best trained army in the world.

 

Some said Washington had no chance either.

 

The early American statesmen, Noah Webster once wrote,

 

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

[Hal_Crawford]

General Washington was commanding a conventionally equipped army. The revolution was not won with personal firearms but with military rifles and cannon taken from militia arsenals. The redcoats captured and destroyed 3 24 pounders at the battle of Lexington and Concord. These were large pieces of artillery not personal firearms. Read about the Virginia militiamen removing the guns and powder from the Williamsburg magazine so the Royal Governor could not turn it over to the British. Once the French joined us the supported us with troops, guns, artillery and a navy. The allies at Yorktown outnumbered the British and artillery carried the day.

 

With regard to Vietnam. If the enemy had only been the Viet Cong the South Vietnamese government probably could have won the war without our help. The war was won by the NVA with support from China and the Soviet Union. They had MiGs, tanks, artillery and SAMs. Ask Sen. McCain about the SAMs. That wasn't some farmer with a hunting rifle that checked him into the Hanoi Hilton. I heard a Marine officer (who had done two tours) describe the NVA as some of the best infantrymen in the world.

 

Of course there was that time that the Soviets invaded Colorado only to be repelled by a bunch or high school kids but wait that was just a movie.

 

Hal

[BrentAllen]

Speaking of guns on campus, read this piece: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504524,00.html

 

Excerpt:

"A professor in Connecticut reported one of her students to the police after he gave a class presentation on why students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Now, free speech activists say the professors actions are what really need to be investigated.

 

Last October, John Wahlberg and two classmates at Central Connecticut State University gave an oral presentation for a communications class taught by Professor Paula Anderson. The assignment was to discuss a relevant issue in the media, and the students presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns.

 

That night, police called Wahlberg, a 23-year-old senior, and asked him to come to the station. When he arrived, they they read off a list of firearms that were registered in his name and asked where he kept them. Guns are strictly prohibited on the CCSU campus and residence halls, but Wahlberg says he lives 20 miles off-campus and keeps his gun collection locked up in a safe. No further action was taken by police or administrators."

 

Gotta love our instructors of higher learning!

This is why we fight gun registration. When the gov't can show up with a list and say hand me these weapons, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean much.

 

Sorry, Hal - no way I agree with the legislation proposed in the past the close the "gun show loophole." It was written so loosely that if I had a couple of friends over and sold a firearm to one of them, I would have been violating the law.

 

 

[TheScout]

General Washington's army was conventional in all but the early period of the war, but it was supplemented by militia in almost all occasions. Many times like in the Southern campaign the milita fought alone.

 

The British had the ability to ship as much artillery to America as they wished. Though field commanders used very little of it except for very light guns as war in America had less sieges and more maneuver than wars of that time in Europe.

 

I think the Vietnamese drove the French out before almost any aid came from the USSR or China.

 

You don't seem to have much respect for guerilla armies at all I guess . . .

 

That is odd considering most soldiers say it is the hardest type of war to fight.

[Hal_Crawford]

The Viet Minh was initially (1947) a guerilla force and while scoring some victories against the French they also suffered serious defeats. In 1949 China started to supply and equip them and soon they were fighting in division formations. The Soviets also started providing support. At the battle of Dien ben Phu they outnumbered the French 5 to 1 and had heavy artillery and antiaircraft artillery. The Viet Minh suffered almost 50% casualties but the French suffered close to 100%.

 

Guerilla wars are among the hardest to fight and they are often effective as a part of a larger conflict. The Tito's partisans held up more than ten german divisions in Yugoslavia. Well equipped and supported they can sometimes convince a larger power to give up and go home but they usually cannot achieve a military victory. That takes larger formations and firepower.

 

Hal