Phatscotty wrote:well regulated means armed to the teet, and ready to match whatever attack may be coming.
If they are attacking us with tanks, then yes, we have the right to own tanks. It means we stay on top of it, and constantly upgrade as the technology advances, in anyway that can make defense stronger.
REGULATORS!!!!!!!! MOUNT UP!
doesn't mean we have to sell you tanks however...
ooge wrote:want to own a gun? join the national guard.
or better yet, active duty
PLAYER57832 wrote:The real irony here is that we have essentially passed the point when an armed malitia, with guns, could really mount any kind of serious defense. Even terrorists tend to use other means.
The real protection we need today is protection of information, and the integrity to know that the information we see is real and verified. But.. sadly, too many people wanting to espouse freedom also want to proclaim that most facts are just not facts... because they would rather further their agendas than actually seek truth. Freedom is not freedom unless it is for ALL, and unless there is a real ability to verify facts and distinguish them from mere ideas, hopes or agendas.
well said indeed
PLAYER57832 wrote:The real irony here is that we have essentially passed the point when an armed militia, with guns, could really mount any kind of serious defense.
Actually we passed that point in ... er ... 1812. Never the less, it can make things annoying. Neither Germany nor Japan planned a land invasion of the United States. Yes they could have but the cost would not have been worth it. The mindset back in 1776 was a lot like the mindset of modern gorilla warfare; especially when traditional armies were used to open field warfare. Actually it wasn't all that effective then either.
Never the less, it does complicate warfare, as traditional armies work on the notion of lines where the general population exists in an area. You can't really push back a general population as you can an army. You have to protect the entire area in order to ensure supply lines where with an army vs army scenario you just have to maintain a solid front line. We see this effect in places like Afghanistan.
there hasn't really been an "army vs army" scenario in truth since WW2... everything since then has had some form of guerilla warfare on one or both sides... besides, what most people in the US want is not to have a militia, it's to have a majority of people become "insurgents" should we ever be invaded
BigBallinStalin wrote:So moving past the irrelevant ooge and PLAYER comments,
what would the federal government's reaction be if a group of people took seriously the 2nd Amendment by forming their own well-regulated militia?
we already have that... it's called the national guard...