I would like to know how many understand the context of this article, and realize the importance of the entire text?

Three Questions About The Second Amendment

I have a few specific questions.

"...however, the agency’s ultimate goal is not just to ban “bump-stock-type device[s]”—and not just to outlaw “bump fire” effectuated through the employment of such “device[s]”—but instead [i]to ban all firearms capable of “bump fire” by any means, on the grounds that all such firearms, so usable, are effectively “machine guns”.[i]"

Q: Where is the communication of the BATF's "ultimate goal" specific to this allegation?

"...were the Militia in full constitutional operation..."

Q: What exactly, defined, explained to enough detail to show, what that phrase means. Describe it so anyone "would know it if they saw it."

With regard to your first question SM, I don't think you can pull that quote out of context and ask where the author gets his facts. I believe, or more correctly, my interpretation is, that he is making an argument that the gov't, having done so in the past via the BATFE, is on the path to banning all semiautomatics.

ETA:

quote:

"To be sure, the National Rifle Association and its co-thinkers claim that “the individual right” protects ordinary Americans against tyranny. This is wishful thinking. Even if armed, mere individuals or ad hoc groups cannot be expected to fend off by themselves the well organized and equipped forces of an ensconced tyrannical régime, any more than they can be expected to “repel Invasions” or “suppress Insurrections” on their own."

He hasn't been paying much attention in the middle east, has he?

I did not pull it out of context, the author did when he "however"ed it.

The argument of the left is often that the U.S Military is "the Militia" (spoken of in the 2nd) and that individuals have no need for firearms for personal defense, as we have paid police forces.

And history shows that in almost all cases that such exist, and the people are either un-armed, or dis-armed, that they end up as wholesale worm food.

I will believe that the 2nd is intended for each person, as I believe the founders saw the individual above the sate, and that I am the most important part of any "Militia", or first and foremost to defend myself, in order to be effective if called or required to "stand united" with any and all against a tyranny.


Before some silly Madison Avenue type put it on a poster, I was(am) an "Army of One".

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
He hasn't been paying much attention in the middle east, has he?

Maybe while he thinks about it, let's get Country Joe and the Fish to sing a sad song...Uh oh, I don't give a damn, next stop is Viet Nam doo-dah...

If anyone has read the Federalist Papers, Hamilton clearly explains the need for citizens to arm themselves the same firepower of the army or militia and are to be able to protect ourselves and our neighbors from the armies of an unfair government. There is no question to why our founding fathers wanted us to own firearms.

I think I understand it. He is saying that on one side we have the gun-grabbers who want to interpret the 2A as only a collective right applying to the "militia" which in modern times is the military or the NG. Hence, individual ownership can be regulated to the hilt.

On the other side is the NRA and many (most) gun owners who say it is an "individual" right for self-defense and worse case defense against tyranny.

His point is that it means what it says, all of it together. It can't be separated out into either an individual right or just to protect the "militia." Nor was it ever about self-defense.

A well-regulated militia is necessary (not a just bunch of armed individuals), but an individual right to arms is also necessary (the right of the people to keep and bear arms) so that they are able to comprise the militia.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
ETA:

quote:

"To be sure, the National Rifle Association and its co-thinkers claim that “the individual right” protects ordinary Americans against tyranny. This is wishful thinking. Even if armed, mere individuals or ad hoc groups cannot be expected to fend off by themselves the well organized and equipped forces of an ensconced tyrannical régime, any more than they can be expected to “repel Invasions” or “suppress Insurrections” on their own."

He hasn't been paying much attention in the middle east, has he?

Well, I've been to both Iraq and A-Stan and fall more on the side of the author on this one.

First, while there are many individuals and ad-hoc groups, historical Al-Queda, the Taliban, ISIS, are all pretty well organized and funded. Further, they have a whole lot of state-sponsored support most notoriously from Iran to included money, arms, and fighters.

2nd; we are having to project and sustain power halfway around the world in unfamiliar lands and culture. This takes a tremendous amount of capital, man-power, and political and national will. It also makes earning the trust of locals and support of local govt. all the more difficult.

A civil war would be fought on home-turf by everyone involved. Government forces would not have to project power a long distance at all and would for the most part share the same or similar home territy knowledge and local support. An ad-hoc group of NC locals with semi-auto guns and not much else would be quickly squished by an active duty unit operating out of Ft. Bragg for example.

A large "well-regulated" militia as intended by the founders? Not so easy...but we really don't have a current equivalent of that. I actually agree that in practical terms, the National Guard is our modern version...I vehemently disagree that the National Guard is what the 2A is referring to as the "militia" both because it didn't exist at the time and because the NG is under both Federal and State governmental control.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
A civil war would be fought on home-turf by everyone involved. Government forces would not have to project power a long distance at all and would for the most part share the same or similar home territy knowledge and local support. An ad-hoc group of NC locals with semi-auto guns and not much else would be quickly squished by an active duty unit operating out of Ft. Bragg for example.

Very true if the locals attempted to engage the active duty unit. If the locals decided to make life miserable for the civilian supporters of the oppressive forces, they would be more successful.

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:


Very true if the locals attempted to engage the active duty unit. If the locals decided to make life miserable for the civilian supporters of the oppressive forces, they would be more successful.

A lot of my point is that our military on our turf wouldn't need much (if any) local support. Short supply lines, bring everything with them to include tentage, transportation, and even water purification capability. Could rotate units from the nearest active duty base into the AO.

I hope it never comes to any of this, it would be much uglier than anything in the ME. The average American is much more intelligent and resourceful (and possessing more resources) then the average ME insurgent by a factor of 100.

I still agree an ad-hoc group of (gun behind every blade of grass) individuals won't do much. It is never going to play out like that though, that is a silly fantasy. The battles that matter would be military units on the side of a theoretical tyrannical govt. vs. military units in opposition with the typical "cold dead hands" civilian gun owner as a peripheral annoyance.

The units in "opposition" to tyranny would be largely comprised of active duty and Guardsmen on that side taking all the equipment they can get with them and local recruiting of mostly vets. It wouldn't surprise me to see NG M1A2 Abram tank battalions in opposition.

My JAG lawyer would probably like me to mention at this point that these are my personal and private views and do not reflect that of the Army or DOD.

Back to the 2A more specifically, as a member of the National Guard, I still have no individual RTKBA. My "arms" are issued to me by the unit under orders from either the federal or state government depending on the type of operation. I have no right to be armed unless official and I cannot so much a sbring a private weapon on govt. property no matter what permit I have.

Therefore, with no "individual" right to bear arms as a soldier, the 2A is absolutely necessary for all the reasons it was written. The State or Fed. controlled NAt. Guard "militia" can't fulfill the check on tyranny function.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:


Very true if the locals attempted to engage the active duty unit. If the locals decided to make life miserable for the civilian supporters of the oppressive forces, they would be more successful.

A lot of my point is that our military on our turf wouldn't need much (if any) local support. Short supply lines, bring everything with them to include tentage, transportation, and even water purification capability. Could rotate units from the nearest active duty base into the AO.

I hope it never comes to any of this, it would be much uglier than anything in the ME. The average American is much more intelligent and resourceful (and possessing more resources) then the average ME insurgent by a factor of 100.

I still agree an ad-hoc group of (gun behind every blade of grass) individuals won't do much. It is never going to play out like that though, that is a silly fantasy. The battles that matter would be military units on the side of a theoretical tyrannical govt. vs. military units in opposition with the typical "cold dead hands" civilian gun owner as a peripheral annoyance.

The units in "opposition" would be largely comprised of active duty and Guardsmen on that side taking all the equipment they can get with them and local recruiting of mostly vets.

My JAG lawyer would probably like me to mention at this point that these are my personal and private views and do not reflect that of the Army or DOD.

If it ever got down to this I believe civilians would be like the Viet Cong in supporting the North Vietnamese. I don't know if the U.S. military would go against their own families. It did happen brother against brother in the war between the States, but civilians were not the target.

One last point on this and why is is not analogous at all to the ME or Vietnam.

Insurgents can never militarily "defeat" a foreign military. All they can do is make life hell for them until they either a) give up and leave or b) negotiate a truce. The foreign military can only "win" if they can succeed in stabilizing the host nation government enough not to require their presence anymore. The foreign nation can't ever "defeat" the insurgents in totality and force a surrender like you could with a formal military or nation. There will always be resistance...

If a civil war happens here, the forces of tyranny will be fighting for their homes and way of life, the very survival of their "nation." The forces in opposition will be fighting for the exact same thing. There will be no side to out-last until "they" go home. Everyone is already "home" somebody has to win, somebody has to lose, and it will be the bloodiest mess the world has ever seen until then.

So, I'm firmly on the side of the RTKBA and enforcing the rule of law equally as well as protecting our Constitution in order to prevent that possibility from ever happening!

Is it not the intention of EACH of the amendments to apply to individuals? There is the how and why of to whom the 2nd applies.

Boring history:
Prior to the Revolutionary war, Americans were loyal British subjects. 30,000 Colonial Militia Men fought during the 9 year long French and Indian War. It was the efforts of King George to recoup the cost of that war by taxing the Americans without their consent that sowed the seeds of revolution. Americans complained to the Crown but to no avail, and for their efforts, they were rewarded with the so called "Intolerable Acts". The most egregious of these acts were the seizure of the Massachusetts government and the Quartering Act, which required Americans to house British troops in their homes. The Americans had ceased to trust British troops after the "Boston Massacre" and they feared having them in their homes. The "Boston Tea Party" really pissed off the King too. Actual open combat took place when the British mounted an operation into Lexington and Concord Massachusetts to seize arms (including artillery) and arrest men who were advocating revolution. This operation was doomed from the start, thanks to a dude named Paul Revere (among others) who warned the towns of the arrival of the British expedition. The Colonial Militia met the Brits in Concord but were in the process of disbanding when someone (hard to say who) fired a shot. The Concords lost the engagement and the Brits pressed on into Lexington. We stopped being subjects of the crown at the Old North Bridge and the subsequent retreat of the British back to Boston was a rout.
The die was cast. An unresponsive, non-elected and tyrannical government pushed its own people into armed rebellion.
Bored yet? All these events, as well as the writings of our founders, clearly define the right to keep and bear arms. It is equally clear about the definition of militia. It means the ordinary citizen, which is exactly what a militiaman was.
Never forget it was an attempt to disarm the Colonists that ultimately led to us becoming Americans.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
A lot of my point is that our military on our turf wouldn't need much (if any) local support. Short supply lines, bring everything with them to include tentage, transportation, and even water purification capability. Could rotate units from the nearest active duty base into the AO.

Let me preface these thoughts by saying a modern "civil war" would make 1861-65 look like a pleasant day at the park and in no way I would EVER want it to happen.

I don't think you've really thought this through.
Someone has to deliver the food for the cooks to make the meals ,the fuel truck drivers, etc., etc., still need to do their jobs.
That means the cooks, fuel truck drivers and their families need to be around for them to do their jobs....and that may not always be the case. Hell, people are threatened on a daily basis for political bullshit. Those are usually just farts in the wind but just imagine what it would entail if the future of our Republic was at stake...and people were taking matters seriously.

The fact that the US military is outnumbered by a HUGE number of armed Americans who may feel differently about any aggressive actions may tip the balance against the US based military.
(Edit to add: there's a difference between "support" and active/passive resistance)
The US military is very good at engaging enemy troops and using very good force multipliers.
They absolutely SUCK at counter-insurgent warfare. There would be numerous victories for them certainly. But the long haul is not in their favor. Hit and Run tactics are the large military downfall.
You make a good point about being near re-supply. But that also means the insurgents are also near your re-supply.

quote:

I hope it never comes to any of this, it would be much uglier than anything in the ME. The average American is much more intelligent and resourceful (and possessing more resources) then the average ME insurgent by a factor of 100.
I still agree an ad-hoc group of (gun behind every blade of grass) individuals won't do much. It is never going to play out like that though, that is a silly fantasy.

If "TOTAL WAR!" happens on the contintental US, the military may be shocked to find out just how devious, deceitful and inventive the USA population can be. They may also be shocked by the number of mustered out or retired military members who will be on the side of the guy "behind every blade of grass".
I bet the knowledgable insurgents would ban Twitter, Facetime and BookFace and all other stupid cell phone/internet usage. Anyone who wanted to stay alive would toss their phone as far as they could.
They will know the tactics, the strategy and the counter-measures.

Forget the American Civil War...this would make the French Revolution look like a fun picnic in the park...and I'm glad I'm too old and I'll never live to see it.

The author's solution is to forma and be a part of a Militia recognized by the government? give me a break.....

I still read the 2nd amendment as the people's need to be armed to ultimately protect themselves from a militia. That's exactly what was going on in 1775.

quote:

If it ever got down to this I believe civilians would be like the Viet Cong in supporting the North Vietnamese. I don't know if the U.S. military would go against their own families. It did happen brother against brother in the war between the States, but civilians were not the target.

This issue was raised with active duty members not so long ago. Along with LEO personnel.

To a man, they said that they would NOT fire on Americans in support of an out of control government.

And for those who believe that the overwhelming force of the US ground force prevents individuals for rebelling against the government, consider this.

400-600 millions firearms in the hands of the public, not counting police and military.
(how many LEOs, soldiers will actually take part in attacking Americans in our cities, homes, or even out in the woods?)

Has anyone here ever had to try to deal with an efficient marksman, out in the woods or mountains? 600, 800, 1000 yard shots taking out individuals? Consider the mountains here in the east. All wooded, steep, rough. How many people did we lose in Viet Nam? How many billions spent? And those guys in black pajamas were never whipped. How well were they equipped?

The Second Amendment has made it possible for the people in this country defend themselves, families, and yes the nation should that need arise.

How many in this forum alone have the equipment and ability to hit targets at 1000+ yards?

One marksman shooting from on ridge to another ridge can wreak havoc, and be gone before any opposing forces get there. Call out the air force and use whatever weapon they choose to kill that marksman? Consider: Take 1-3 shots, take down 1-3 "enemy" and clear out before any supporting air assets can arrive.

The Second Amendment was put in place by people who not only understood, but who had been exposed to the harsh realities of a government gone out of control.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
I think I understand it. He is saying that on one side we have the gun-grabbers who want to interpret the 2A as only a collective right applying to the "militia" which in modern times is the military or the NG.

The militia argument is stupid to begin with, but the militia is not exclusively the National Guard.

10 US Code 246:

quote:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
A civil war would be fought on home-turf by everyone involved. Government forces would not have to project power a long distance at all and would for the most part share the same or similar home territy knowledge and local support. An ad-hoc group of NC locals with semi-auto guns and not much else would be quickly squished by an active duty unit operating out of Ft. Bragg for example.

A) Many in the North thought the Civil War would last 90 days.

B) In the ME, you aren't facing improvised weapons made by engineers, chemists, physicists, etc. One MOAB/Cruise missile hits a civilian area, and people might interpret that as a declaration of total war, by DC.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
A large "well-regulated" militia as intended by the founders? Not so easy...but we really don't have a current equivalent of that.

What they wanted, was no Army, and the Swiss model. (Town Squares were for markets, but also for drilling the local militia, handily defined
in USC 10 § 246 as all males from 17-45.)