Author Topic: What is a Militia? (Read 20684 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #105 on:** November 24, 2007, 02:08:12 PM »

bingalong.. admit it.. you are a brit right?

Did you know that a lot of the militarys best weapons are just civilian arms that they have bought?

To think that the military would lockstep with a tyranical government is insane in any case... this is a big country.. come see it some time. we can't even find people who get lost and are trying to get found. You are foolish to think that the day of the firearm is over in this day of rockets and bombs. you are simply not looking at what is going on in the world.

If you are going to bring out the tired old arguement that 100,000,000 men armed with assualt rifles and 50 caliber barrets and scope sighted 1,000 yard hunting rifles don't stand a chance against a few million (at best) half hearted soldiers of a tyrant then you are the one who is living in a fantasy world.

No one wants that to happen tho... and.. it probably will never come to that so long as we have an armed society.. it will never get that far.

so come on.. get a tiny bit honest.. admit you are not from here and that you abhor our second amendment.

Oh.. and bingalong.. it is obvious that you don't know anything more about guns and ammo than what you see in some action movie in london...

Ammo is no hazard to people and rescue workers in any kind of reasonable quantities. It doesn't blow up and send bullets everywhere.. It is no danger even in a fire past about 3 or four feet from the case cooking off.. there was a good show on "mythbusters" about that old myth.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #106 on:** November 24, 2007, 02:18:02 PM »

hap... not sure what your question is.

By asking if more bad guys than good have been killed... what do you mean by "bad guys"? Would that include people with criminal records? say... fellow gang members? would that include the man who has beaten his girlfriend or wife for what is now the last time?

Would that include suicides? not bad or good and nothing to do with guns anyway.

I would say more bad guys than good died but even more... I would say that with firearms being used from 1.5-3 million times a year to prevent crime.. to stop it... if even 1% of those would have been a killing of an innocent... then... you would have to factor into the equation the amount of lives saved.

The people who have made bad guys run off but were sure they would have been killed had they not had a firearm. The bad guys wounded.. the bad guys just running off or being held till the police showed up.

As for the people.. I have no problem with my neighbors being armed. I always feel a whole lot less safe in areas where I know my fellow citizens have been deprived of the right to have guns... I know that if I see a gun it will be in the hands of someone real bad....and there won't be a thing we can do about it.

lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #107 on:** November 24, 2007, 02:29:49 PM »

The main problem with the argument that a populace with small arms can't stand up to a large force is that history has shown it to be untrue. All you have to do is look to see that there have been times when a population with small arms has stood up to a larger, better equipped force and not been smashed flat. It's tactics rather than the arms that rule in that kind of engagement.

A second and more telling argument against it is that the US Military is made up primarily of citizens of the country. They swore an oath to uphold the constitution, not the administration or congress. Giving an order to fire on the population in general simply will not be followed, they also are of the people, not separate from them.

AKIron · « **Reply #108 on:** November 24, 2007, 02:33:36 PM »

Of course the citizens of the US really wouldn't have to fire a shot to bring our government to it's knees. All we really need is an organized tax revolt.

Arlo · « **Reply #109 on:** November 24, 2007, 02:55:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I hope you're not expecting consistency from the left. From those who think the ends justify any means consistency means nothing.

Here's another shot of .... perspective:WMDs in Iraq, no wait, Al Queda, no wait, regime change and enforcing Democracy, no .... wait .... .

Just sayin'. Extreme right and extreme left character broadsides on each other from the vantage point of glass fortresses in the midst of claiming to know the answers and have the fixes have always impressed me as the most efficient method to an American nirvana.

(obligatory smiley)

Arlo · « **Reply #110 on:** November 24, 2007, 02:59:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bustr
All government(s) ultimatly hing on the power to kill its citizens. Or to coherce them with the threat of death or the loss of freedom backed by the use of whepons.

All governments? I'm not seeing an understanding (historically nor contemporary) of the U.S. system of government in the above quote.

john9001 · « **Reply #111 on:** November 24, 2007, 03:04:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Here's another shot of .... perspective:WMDs in Iraq, no wait, Al Queda, no wait, regime change and enforcing Democracy, no .... wait .... .

Just sayin'. Extreme right and extreme left character broadsides on each other from the vantage point of glass fortresses in the midst of claiming to know the answers and have the fixes have always impressed me as the most efficient method to an American nirvana.

(obligatory smiley)

i have no idea what you just said, explain please. No, never mind, you have no idea either.
(no obligatory smiley)

AKIron · « **Reply #112 on:** November 24, 2007, 03:05:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Here's another shot of .... perspective:WMDs in Iraq, no wait, Al Queda, no wait, regime change and enforcing Democracy, no .... wait .... .

Just sayin'. Extreme right and extreme left character broadsides on each other from the vantage point of glass fortresses in the midst of claiming to know the answers and have the fixes have always impressed me as the most efficient method to an American nirvana.

(obligatory smiley)

Of course I can't prove it but I still believe Saddam had chemical weapons and they were moved into Syria and/or Jordan or are buried in the desert. Al-Qeada will remain a threat to freedom loving people so long as both exist.

Arlo · « **Reply #113 on:** November 24, 2007, 03:08:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
There is no way the government will be able to take all the guns out of the hands of the citizens. Not in this country.

Nor is that the goal of defining the 2nd amendment. Quite plainly (imo, I suppose, though I'd wager not just I). Any form of gun control being the first step toward gun elimination has always been an exaggerated argument.

To borrow a favorite correlation from anti-gun control groups: Why aren't people up in arms over requiring licensing and registration on automobiles? Why aren't people insisting no limits to what is and isn't street legal?

Arlo · « **Reply #114 on:** November 24, 2007, 03:10:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
i have no idea what you just said, explain please. No, never mind, you have no idea either.
(no obligatory smiley)

Don't project so much, son. Though it's good to see you honestly admit it.

john9001 · « **Reply #115 on:** November 24, 2007, 03:15:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Why aren't people up in arms over requiring licensing and registration on automobiles?

that's something else that should be eliminated.

Arlo · « **Reply #116 on:** November 24, 2007, 03:25:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
that's something else that should be eliminated.

Ok ... then make that ... why aren't the majority of people ....

Tigeress · « **Reply #117 on:** November 24, 2007, 03:30:32 PM »

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Arlo
Why aren't people up in arms over requiring licensing and registration on automobiles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
that's something else that should be eliminated.

Something that has always irked me is that no one has a government defined "right" to drive a car... rather it is defined as a "privilege."

TIGERESS

AKIron · « **Reply #118 on:** November 24, 2007, 03:32:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Ok ... then make that ... why aren't the majority of people ....

Because Rush or whatever local talk radio host hasn't rallied support for the cause.

Seriously though, talk radio reaction is exactly what got the attention of the senate recently, humbling them before the will of The People.

Arlo · « **Reply #119 on:** November 24, 2007, 03:33:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tigeress

Something that has always irked me is that no one has a government defined "right" to drive a car... rather it is defined as a "privilege."

TIGERESS

I'm sure it was merely an oversight on the part of the framers of the constitution.