"Arms" as contemplated by the second amendment isn't limited to hand guns and rifles. It includes all arms, from switch blades to missles (yes even nukes). And our rights are continually infringed upon by this tyrannical government.
I'll be looking for a companion piece from superman on the reportage of hammer wielding thugs in NYC - that bastion of gun control- as the "other side" to the bazooka scenario. Ban them hammers right along with bazooka bans! Sheesh.
In China, Martial law was declared on May 20, 1989. The protesters demanded that the leadership resign, but the government answered this demand on the nights of June 3 and 4 with troops and tanks, killing thousands to quell a "counter-revolutionary rebellion."
Americans do not assault battle tanks with shopping bags as much as the world and our own government would like it to be. Americans answer such aggression with actions taken by Bundy Ranch supporters.
What we saw at Bundy Ranch is a lesson to be learned. Attempts at organization of the various militia, patriots and supporters are not something that can be accomplished easily and without a tremendous amount of coordination, support and communications. Everyone wants to be in charge, therefor, NO ONE is in charge...
If we accept that Militias cannot be run like an organized military, we soon understand that this weakness is the Militias greatest strength. When the Feds do pull the trigger first, it will be small fire team, sniper, demolition, saboteur groups that will have the greatest effects. Not some modern day General Gates as Benjamin Martin would say, (please forgive my using fictional characters from The Patriot movie, but the truth is the same.) “That Gates is a damn fool. He’s spent too many years in the British army. Going muzzle to muzzle with Redcoats in open field – its madness. This battle was over before it began”?
We do not need or want any self-appointed leader trying to give everyone orders. Leaders may be necessary until the Obama loyalists open fire. However, after that, a unified GOAL to destroy the enemy’s ability to eat, drink, travel and resupply will be what is needed. Leaders will be unnecessary, the chain of command and communications too easily compromised. What we need, and I think Americans have plenty of, is someone who is willing to sit in a snipers hide until the enemy decision maker kisses his wife and children goodbye for the last time. 4th Generation Warfare has not real organized leadership. But it does have some very well tested Goals.
Theoretically, a bazooka or RPG is just the sort of weapon the 2nd Amendment protects. After all, it is supposed to be militia - light irregular infantry. If an RPG or bazooka isn't a militia weapon, I'm a monkey's uncle.
The concept of what weapons are ok for a second amendment analysis is interesting. In the 1700s, there were no jet planes, nuclear weapons, etc. I beleive that people should own bazookas and perhaps even tanks, but what about nuclear weapons? Would the people have a right to own nukes, canisters of VX nerve gas, and powerful bio weapons with 99% kill rates? Interested to know the dutchman's analysis of this.
All things considered, I am unable to see a reason why any private citizen ought not own whatever self-defense gear his economic circumstances can handle. If someone is really well-heeled, he may have so much to protect that it is reasonable to think he could expect massed attacks.
To put it in concrete terms, if John Travolta can handle it, I do not see a reason whey he should now be able to purchase a fully equipped C-130 gun ship to add to his collection.
For me personally, if I can't tow it with my current vehicles, it is probably outside my economic reach.
1 - There IS a difference between arms and ordnance. We have the God-given right to defend ourselves using one, but I think it is a fair assumption to 'regulate' (control access to - in today's parlance)the other. 2 - The notion that the average armed American citizen wouldn't be able to stand up to the firepower of your typical military (or militarized) peace-keeping force, SHOULD BE anathema to Americans everywhere. It was NEVER the intent of the framers of our Constitution that the military would/should have arms of greater efficacy than the common citizen. The question we SHOULD be asking is, "WHY can we not stand up against them?", or, to put it another way, "Why are THEIR arms better than ours?"
Cannons folks. Lexington and Concord. WHATEVER the military has, the people must also have free access to - it's a BALANCE thing.
The founders wrote ARMS in GENERAL to cover each and every thing from a boot knife to "bombs". The balancing check upon us is simple. Our RIGHT is possession (including procurement) and carriage alongside use in DEFENSE. Regulate to death all those things OUTSIDE those parameters to your hearts content.
As for the technological advancement argument posed above. SIGH! Does the internet and computer advancements alongside printers of course mean the First Amendment doesn't apply? Because the Framers couldn't have envisioned such technology? For crying out loud, I can't believe people actually friggin pose that idiocy about guns but don't stop to think of the ramifications regarding other rights.
I believe it's come to this - those making such foolish statements aren't serious in the least bit. They expose themselves as either intellectually dishonest intentionally or absent straightforward critical thinking skills to recognize the pure failure of such positions.
Certainly there are some greater good arguments and limits on what weapons the people can posses? For example, I don't think commercial stores should sell lethal bio weapons alongside gun shop stores. If you screw up with a gun you might shoot a family member, screw up with a bio weapon with a 99% kill rate and you unleash armagedon. Also, does anyone believe people have a right to own nukes, for example, could the multi millionaire in the better part of town be allowed to purchase the cheapest nuke?
10 comments:
"Arms" as contemplated by the second amendment isn't limited to hand guns and rifles. It includes all arms, from switch blades to missles (yes even nukes). And our rights are continually infringed upon by this tyrannical government.
I'll be looking for a companion piece from superman on the reportage of hammer wielding thugs in NYC - that bastion of gun control- as the "other side" to the bazooka scenario. Ban them hammers right along with bazooka bans! Sheesh.
In China, Martial law was declared on May 20, 1989. The protesters demanded that the leadership resign, but the government answered this demand on the nights of June 3 and 4 with troops and tanks, killing thousands to quell a "counter-revolutionary rebellion."
Americans do not assault battle tanks with shopping bags as much as the world and our own government would like it to be. Americans answer such aggression with actions taken by Bundy Ranch supporters.
What we saw at Bundy Ranch is a lesson to be learned. Attempts at organization of the various militia, patriots and supporters are not something that can be accomplished easily and without a tremendous amount of coordination, support and communications. Everyone wants to be in charge, therefor, NO ONE is in charge...
If we accept that Militias cannot be run like an organized military, we soon understand that this weakness is the Militias greatest strength. When the Feds do pull the trigger first, it will be small fire team, sniper, demolition, saboteur groups that will have the greatest effects. Not some modern day General Gates as Benjamin Martin would say, (please forgive my using fictional characters from The Patriot movie, but the truth is the same.)
“That Gates is a damn fool. He’s spent too many years in the British army. Going muzzle to muzzle with Redcoats in open field – its madness. This battle was over before it began”?
We do not need or want any self-appointed leader trying to give everyone orders. Leaders may be necessary until the Obama loyalists open fire. However, after that, a unified GOAL to destroy the enemy’s ability to eat, drink, travel and resupply will be what is needed. Leaders will be unnecessary, the chain of command and communications too easily compromised. What we need, and I think Americans have plenty of, is someone who is willing to sit in a snipers hide until the enemy decision maker kisses his wife and children goodbye for the last time.
4th Generation Warfare has not real organized leadership. But it does have some very well tested Goals.
Have a good weekend.
Theoretically, a bazooka or RPG is just the sort of weapon the 2nd Amendment protects.
After all, it is supposed to be militia - light irregular infantry. If an RPG or bazooka isn't a militia weapon, I'm a monkey's uncle.
The concept of what weapons are ok for a second amendment analysis is interesting. In the 1700s, there were no jet planes, nuclear weapons, etc. I beleive that people should own bazookas and perhaps even tanks, but what about nuclear weapons? Would the people have a right to own nukes, canisters of VX nerve gas, and powerful bio weapons with 99% kill rates? Interested to know the dutchman's analysis of this.
All things considered, I am unable to see a reason why any private citizen ought not own whatever self-defense gear his economic circumstances can handle. If someone is really well-heeled, he may have so much to protect that it is reasonable to think he could expect massed attacks.
To put it in concrete terms, if John Travolta can handle it, I do not see a reason whey he should now be able to purchase a fully equipped C-130 gun ship to add to his collection.
For me personally, if I can't tow it with my current vehicles, it is probably outside my economic reach.
Two things...
1 - There IS a difference between arms and ordnance. We have the God-given right to defend ourselves using one, but I think it is a fair assumption to 'regulate' (control access to - in today's parlance)the other.
2 - The notion that the average armed American citizen wouldn't be able to stand up to the firepower of your typical military (or militarized) peace-keeping force, SHOULD BE anathema to Americans everywhere. It was NEVER the intent of the framers of our Constitution that the military would/should have arms of greater efficacy than the common citizen. The question we SHOULD be asking is, "WHY can we not stand up against them?", or, to put it another way, "Why are THEIR arms better than ours?"
Cannons folks. Lexington and Concord.
WHATEVER the military has, the people must also have free access to - it's a BALANCE thing.
The founders wrote ARMS in GENERAL to cover each and every thing from a boot knife to "bombs". The balancing check upon us is simple. Our RIGHT is possession (including procurement) and carriage alongside use in DEFENSE. Regulate to death all those things OUTSIDE those parameters to your hearts content.
As for the technological advancement argument posed above. SIGH! Does the internet and computer advancements alongside printers of course mean the First Amendment doesn't apply? Because the Framers couldn't have envisioned such technology? For crying out loud, I can't believe people actually friggin pose that idiocy about guns but don't stop to think of the ramifications regarding other rights.
I believe it's come to this - those making such foolish statements aren't serious in the least bit. They expose themselves as either intellectually dishonest intentionally or absent straightforward critical thinking skills to recognize the pure failure of such positions.
Certainly there are some greater good arguments and limits on what weapons the people can posses? For example, I don't think commercial stores should sell lethal bio weapons alongside gun shop stores. If you screw up with a gun you might shoot a family member, screw up with a bio weapon with a 99% kill rate and you unleash armagedon. Also, does anyone believe people have a right to own nukes, for example, could the multi millionaire in the better part of town be allowed to purchase the cheapest nuke?
Let's not forget that George Washington owned a fleet of ships that constituted a large part of our fledgling navy.
Under the current thinking, he would have been breaking the law in having such an arsenal.
Post a Comment