Ensuring A New American Century

Remove all ads!

Guns are not prerequisite for freedom.

Guns are not required to ensure freedom for American citizens.

Gun owners and survivalist nut cases are absolutely deluding themselves if they believe they can mount a defense against a trained military for whatever reason. Red Dawn was fiction. In the past forty or fifty years no rebel force, freedom fighter organization, or militia has done even marginally against a trained military force. In Afganistan and Iran collalition forces have averaged ~20:1 casualties on an entrenched enemy. When the Soviets invaded Afganistan they inflicted 100:1 casualties. Bubba with his shotgun or Bushmaster or .50 cal isn't going to make a dent against a trained military (or police) unit.

My problems is not with Bubba or his uncle Billy Joe Jim Bob owning their weapons in the deluded belief they can hold off the Chinese Army if the US military falls. I got to admire the (completely misplaced) confidence. That they go off with cousin Zeke to hunt possum, racoon or deer is not really an issue either. I'm all for those guys having a license to own weapons and having those weapons registered. I want to keep the weapons out of the hands of little Timmy who is under (or over) medicated and believes he needs to have others pay for his pain -- whatever that pain happens to come from. Proper regulation (cradle to grave -- no pun intended -- gun ownership responsibility) will minimize people being given weapons they cannot reasonably handle; just as proper enforcement of gun laws (which is not currently done) will help minimize violent crime.

Unfortunately, nothing short of removing guns from homes will reduce the domestic violence deaths in America.

 

Which is why Bubba should be able to buy RPG's, rocket launchers, tanks, fighter jets, attack helicopters, and other items reasonably essential to ensure personal safety. Nukes should require a permit, though.

 

For some reason you seem to believe that only ~3% of the population would own firearms and that said firearms are little more than airsoft guns. There have been countless revolutions, rebellions and coups over the past 40-50 years, so I'm not sure what you have been smoking. The Second Amendment doesn't exist for deer hunting, kid, it exists to promote freedom and fight tyranny.

The only problem with the Second Amendment is that for the past few decades, it hasn't been properly implemented. Prior to the early 20th century, every citizen was required to keep and bear arms and required to undergo regular training in everything from military tactics to weapons proficiency. I propose we restore our freedom and help build a civic populace by returning to this model. Every citizen is a member of the militia, every citizen must keep and bear arms and every citizen must undergo advanced training covering everything from firearms proficiency, to hand-to-hand combat, to disaster relief, to basic medical care, etc.

Let's say they have to attend these training courses twice a month (24 times a year), this will prepare every citizen for a great deal of situations, ranging from taking down a totalitarian government, to defending themselves, to helping each other during times of need (natural disasters, etc.) and much more. A simple fact that some people refuse to recognize (out of ignorance) is that in order to live in a functioning democratic state, the people need to take on a great deal of responsibilities. The people must be ever vigilant against all threats to freedom, democracy and their livelihood.

 

How many in the United States and can you name some that were actually caused by a mob of freedom seeking individuals and not an internal collapse of the government and armed forces? Usually riots lead to a legitimacy crisis in a government which causes splits in the armed forces. Many soldiers and generals have problems with the massacre of the people they are supposed to protect and switch sides. It's more or less what happened in Syria and Libya not all too recently. A mob with assault rifles without proper training, military organization, communcation network, armor, airforce etc. has little chance against a organized military force even if the numbers were stacked for them.

 

Just because I got a kick out of AD calling T2 "kid" (although "kiddo" would have gone further to add even more credibility to his post), I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

AD pretty much addresses that in the last paragragh of his post, where he's saying military training should be mandatory.

Of course, he's basing that on a model that is a century old, and may not be relevant in today's world.

 

Evidence for this assertion? I can find evidence that the English, according to British law, required all white males (who were not crippled or criminals) between the ages of 16 and 45 to own weapons of a certain type, going so far as to purchase them for some citizens and then charge them for the cost. This was in the 17th and 18th centuries, and apparently not limited to just colonies in America but also British colonies elsewhere.

As near as I can tell, a requirement to keep and bear arms declined both in practice and popularity throughout the 19th century in the U.S. Law and practice varied from region to region and state to state. By the second or third administration (I can't remember if it was under Adams or Jefferson) U.S. political elites realized they needed a standing military and they simply couldn't rely on militias to defend their national interests; I am not certain but I strongly suspect that at that point the federal gov't didn't care if citizens were still arming themselves anymore. Obviously, around the middle of the 19th century, laws and practice collided with the very ideas of citizenship--namely, with whether lawful black citizens even could own weapons because of fears of black uprisings (this was a concern even in areas where slave-holding was illegal). One must remember that probably less than half of the actual residents of the U.S., deep into the 19th and even into the 20th century, were actually citizens with all the rights and responsiblities we typically perceive U.S. citizenship with today (let's assume half were women, plus a huge number of non-whites, non-landowners [this mattered deep into the 19th century], the often confusing legal rights and responsibilities of those who lived in non-state territories [Alabama wasn't even a state until 1819 and Maine until 1820, and by 1870 the U.S. still only 37 states], etc).

Furthermore, I've recently done a lot of reading on the Indian Wars. It was not uncommon for many people in large swathes of the U.S. population, even in "frontier regions," to be unarmed by the end of the 19th century. Visions of the "wild west" and such are somewhat overstated (at least partially because they are so interesting and dramatic).

 

Well, I've done my military training and participated in two mandatory exercises after my conscripted service and I still don't believe I can shoot down a fighter jet or destroy a tank with an assault rifle. I probably need just a bit more training.

 

I'm not sure where you came up with the "3%" or the "airsoft" comment. Most of my family have weapons -- .22's, .306's, .41 mags, 7.62's, shotguns, M-1's, 1911's, Glocks, Barettas, S&W's, Rugers, Winchesters (I happen to like the .300 mag), etc.. Many of us are military trained and have various medals and ribbons for weapon skills (including me). Every generation in my family has served in the military since the civil war.

I don't smoke. Morgoroth addressed this issue and I would agree that the vast majority of revolutions, rebellions, and coups over the past 40-50 years (and even further back) are started and won by the military striking at the current regime. Others are won by the military refusing to take sides (and the sitting government has no one to fight for them). I don't recall a modern example of an uprising where the people overthrew the military.

dogsoldier addressed this but I would go further and say you've been misinformed on this issue. While regions may have required arming their citizens during an emergency I've not heard of the federal government requiring weapon ownership for the entire populace. Ever.

Now we're back to experience. Having been active duty and reserves for over twenty years I can state the reserves are easily smoked in training exercises by active duty. We're talking 36 days annual training instead of 24 and they still can't hold a candle to their active duty counterparts in combat. If the military trained reserves don't really stand a chance against a well trained armed force, then the citizen-militant-survivalist groups are going down hard. A minimum of 20:1 losses ... bad news.

As far as the PM you sent (which I thought was really funny and showed a good sense of humor on your part):

That five page hand written apology you want for "a few very bigoted and intolerant statements on the boards, in which you directly attacked the Jews, Americans, Canadians, Zoroastrians, Muslims and all gun owners everywhere" ... ain't gonna happen. I've never been accused of attacking those groups before or being anti-sementic but if others on the boards feel the same way I will certainly apologize.

On the other hand I have been accused of being insensitive to:

1. The entire nation of Hungary.
2. Reagan worshippers. Sorry, but I thought he was a scary old man who wanted a war with the USSR.
3. Clinton revelers (either Clinton). My stance on this has softened over the years but I still don't want to see Bill as the First Lady.
4. Tree-huggers ... that one may be right.​

I am also very biased against men who would harm a woman and anyone who would abuse a child. I tend to make fun of rednecks and have been accused of being one (which is probably accurate).

Edit: Oh, one thing to add. Officers in the military swear an oath to "uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States." Military officers are required to refuse orders from the Commander in Chief if those orders are contrary to the Constitution and its amendments. Every senior officer (flag rank) takes that oath very seriously and examines high level orders to ensure they do not come even close to compromising that oath. Those officers, in my opinion, are at the forefront to "promote freedom and fight tyranny." Working alongside quite a few of these men, and knowing their commitment and quality, has probably influenced my belief in the role of armed citizens in the second amendment. To be honest -- the citizens can't fight the military, we can't stop tyranny if the military backs it. Arming the populace to stop tyranny is absolutely pointless. We must trust the military to uphold the Constitution -- and I do realize some people simply can't do that.

 

You're supposed to aim for the fuel tanks. Duh!

T2 - don't forget bigots. I'm fairly sure you're pretty insensitive and intolerant towards them.

 

Don't be ridiculous, after three kills you get a SAM turret to take down enemy aircraft.

Let's assume for a second that everyone in the military sides with the totalitarian government in a revolution. Do you really think the government is going to start carpet bombing San Francisco or nuke Chicago in order to suppress the patriots? Of course not, and if they did, they would only result in more people taking up arms against their government. For every one patriot they kill, ten more people will take his/her place. Not to mention the fact that in order to fight against this domestic insurgency, the totalitarian government would have to crackdown on civil liberties and freedoms even more, resulting in more people becoming discontent and taking up arms against the government.

 

I'm not willing to make that assumption. The military is made of people like you, me, dmc, dr, our brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, sons and daughters. All of us in the US have classmates from high school or college who serve (served) in the military. These people are not going to fight and kill in a vacuum, instead they will defect from the military before targeting family and friends.

In such a case we would have an entirely different scenario and the military would actually split into factions -- this would be real civil war, fought by differing factions in the military and not by civilians.

Not true. You're almost quoting a passage from "The Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla" by Carlos Marighella. Carlos mistakenly believed his cause was in line with what the people wanted and they would rise to help in the struggle. He further believed it was his duty to only overthrow the tyrannical regime in power and that others, more able to rebuild, would take the mantle of leadership after victory. His personal political beliefs were actually in the minority and the police were tipped off by the very people he sought to liberate. Imagine his surprise.

You're assuming the "totalitarian government" would be hated by all. Since we elect our government that would simply not be accurate -- at least 50% of the voting populace would be supporting the government. Those killed may not be seen as patriots but instead as terrorists and very few would take the place of the terrorists. Being in the minority is a big deal in war -- one of the problems for the south in the Civil War was limited replacements for the fallen. The war of attrition was bound to be won by the north.

 

What are you guys smoking? You don't think a properly trained and armed citizen can take down an army? Clearly you haven't watched Commando.

 

I bet Arctic Daishi is like one of those nut jobs in South Dakota "People getting killed? omgz moar gunzz!!!11!!"

[Play nice, Barmy... -Tal]

 

I got a chuckle out of that too. While I don't know how hold AD is, there's a pretty good chance he's closer in age to some of T2's children than he is to T2. I mean, T2 has children who are adults themselves.

As for the idea of compulsory gun ownership and mandatory training in everything from military tactics to weapons proficiency, that just seems like a bad idea on endless levels. You seriously want to train Grandma and Grandpa, who have never owned a gun in their life, on military tactics? Really?

Not to mention that I feel one of the problems about guns being so readily available to just about anyone is that the system invariably fails and some nutjob eventually gets his hands on a gun and starts killing people. There is some legislation currently in Congress for mandatory background checks for anyone purchasing a gun, but owing to medical confidentiality laws, I'm not sure how much good that will do. Compuslory gun ownership will be giving these weapons to the exact people who shouldn't have them.

And compulsory training for everyone - how exactly do you propose we do that? Everyone I know in the reserves was former active military and all of them volunteered. In other words, they met some basic fitness standards to even be able to get through basic training (almost everyone is a teenager or in their 20s at the time they sign up), and had an interest on some level of joining the military. (Perhaps not patriotic reasons - I know some people who joined the military after high school so they could have a job.)

But you're talking about training everyone - presumably even people like the 40-something business executive who works a desk job, is overweight, out of shape, and - perhaps most importantly - has no interest in ever owning a gun. He doesn't want you stinkin' training, and many others will be like him. You can't effectively train people who are uninterested in being trained. One of the advantages of our current military is the people signed up for it. And I don't even want to consider the economic impact of lost manhours in the workforce with 24 mandatory days of training per year. That's more days than most people get in vacation time per year.

 

Whoa ... WHOA ... WHOA! Don't be spreadin' those kinds of rumors there pilgrim ... especially don't spread the rumor I'm going to be a grandfather in September....

 

Well Nakia still holds that distinction, although we don't see her around much anymore. And I think Splunge is ahead of him too (but it's close).

Regardless, "old-timer" just wouldn't do when in just 6 months "Gramps" will be an option.

 

Nakia, Old One and Splunge are older -- although Splunge is only a year older.