Yeah, that’s why I assigned them to duties like getting kitties out of trees and the like. In reality it’s just an excuse to get the spams to sign on for compulsory tests of the ability to shoot vaguely straight (random idiots with guns scare me even more than criminals with guns - the criminals at least have a reason not to shoot you!)
I have always though the 2nd should be read in the context of the time and is now out of date. The people who formed the constitution had seen all the bad thing that Europe had, church run state, military control of the people. By not having a standing army and having a militia the head of state could not use the army to control the people.
My point entirely.
The government does have a standing army and the 2nd is redundant, no amount of firearm owning civilians are going to be safe when “combined arms” rolls through, Sleepyville Minnesota. Even if the constitution grants them barrets and rotary cannon and tanks and live shells, its an inane hope that the militia could ever be used in its “constitutional” context. The 2nd is an excuse to play with guns surely. 8)
While I think the idea of a militia defeating a modern Army in an open battle laughable, I think it has a point to form a guerilla unit, using classical guerilla tactics. With widespread ownership of weapons, they would at least not need to attack enemy stores to obtain them. They can definitely do damage if a) they get proper training and b) have an effective leadership. Though I don’t see it with the beer bellied wacko militias.
Jan
I agree with Walther, even in the modern context the idea of pacify a population in which gun ownership is very widespread is incredibly difficult…look at Iraq as an example! I would imagine the US Govt. would have a hard job forcing anything on the states or the population by force of arms, especially as the soldiers are from those states/population. (Except the Mexicans, and other hispanic green carders, obviously! :lol:)
Bluffy, ‘combined arms’ rolled through Iraq, and its still barely ‘conquered’. We could have rolled combined arms through NI, and we did the next best thing, but that still took decades. I think you are putting too much faith in the power of conventional military units despite all the evidence to the contrary that shows that guerillas, militias and so forth can be very hard for conventional forces to defeat. (As long as they fight on their own terms)
As to training, do not overestimate this either…many guerrilla campaigns have been started with little or no formal training with everyone ‘learning on the job’, it might not be ideal, but it has worked for many. Modern guerrillas have thinkers like Mao, Che, and many more to provide tactical and strategic guidance.
As to the second amendment, I gather that most US judges/lawyers feel it refers to the right of an individual to bear arms, in order to be able to form ad hoc militias or protect themselves as individuals. The ‘gun control’ movement holds, however, that it merely permits the state militas (i.e. national guards) to hold guns of any kind. When I first read it, it read the first way to me, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise.
The 2nd quoted way of reading it requires twisting the semantics of the amendment and contradicting it with the other amendments of that period (which are ALL individual rights, not state’s rights). The most pathetic one I’ve heard is that “it refers only to the National Guard”, which was created in 1903.
There’s also a DoJ academic piece argueing convincingly why it’s an individual right.
Oh, and FYI, “militia” is defined as:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
If you look back to WW2, even this mass conflict was largely fought by amateurs, who learned on the job. Sure, in most forces there was a core of regular professionals, but the majority of the soldiers were conscripted civilians, who, depending on which country, often received a minimum of training and were then sent to combat. Also, while most people were reasonably fit (being used to much harder working conditions e.g. in factories or agriculture than today, walking instead of driving in cars, and since the depression was just over for a few years, also much leaner than us wellfed people of the 21th century), the military conscripted men as soldiers, who wouldn’t be considered today, both health and agewise. The way you modern soldiers train and keep fit today would have been considered good enough for a commando course back then.
Jan
You should be able to have a gun if you have an IQ over the ammount of 100 
(semi-auto) an automatic should only be aloud with trust community members, but still even those can go crooked 
:?
How many crimes are committed with rifles (either manual, semi- or fully-auto)? Almost none. Killias himself even acknowledges this!
IMO full automatic is overated anyway and only usefull to certain tactical situations, like covering fire or sustained fire in defense. And then you’ll need a huge supply of ammo. But I think our resident soldiers give a better opinion.
Jan
Having fired full-auto from a H&K G3, I can say that with a rifle it’s a waste of ammo until you’re within spitting distance of the enemy (the last phase of an assault when you’re in the same trench/room). It’s great fun, though
You have not heard of,
A lighthouse in a desert, very bright but F***ing useless.
High IQ is no guide to sense. I know a number of clever people who I would not give a water pistol to let alone a loaded weapon.
Ahahaha, so true, I only said that for shock value :shock:
The following comment (which I have always treasured because it is so true) was directed at me and a few like me at RAF Bicester a while back:
“They could tell you the square root of a jar of pickled eggs but couldn’t get the f***ing lid off”.
So true it’s unreal!