I will concede the point that small arms are essential to an insurgent campaign, but most successful ones have recieved outside assistance, externally or internally. The mujahadein were not too sucessful against the Soviets until they started obtaining heavier weapons from the outside. The same can be said for the Iraqis, where I would argue the ease of insurgents obtaining heavier arms was a result of poor security of the huge amount of Saddam-era weapons (probably an impossible task to guard, there were so many of them) was more a factor in than their possession of small arms. One of the few 'successful' insurgencies that does relies mostly on small arms and homemade bombs is the FARC. But thier success has been severly stunted, even at the height of their 'success', by the fact that they did not have more sophisticated a weapons. They constantly struggled against the Colombian military's dominance of the air, against which they had no effective arms to counter. I knew I would get in trouble with that.....I was going back to Statesman's claim that the example's he cited were good ones to argue for the Second Amendment. All of the real examples that he cited utilized much 'heavier' weapons than what is legal today in the US. Without them, they would have been nowhere near as effective. Which goes back to the argument that you and Wink put forward, addressed above......
Which brings up a good point, why make the argument that we should keep our arms for such a possibility when the likelihood of it happening is so low? I think there are better arguments that could be made in support of the Second Amendment.
I agree with Flash. While invasion of the homeland is not a bad argument per se, it's highly unlikely. The only thing close to an invasion we've seen for some time is along the Mexican border (see: Mexican Police and Military attacking farmers and Border Patrol). A better argument for the 2nd Amendment is the breakdown of civil order. Like I've stated before, the LA Riots and Hurricane Katrina are two solid examples where civil order completely broke down and citizens were forced to defend themselves. When the government no longer functions and can not and will not protect you, those that are accustomed to the "nanny state" are in trouble. Not only that, but courts have held up the ruling that the police and other civil defense services are NOT required nor expected to defend the individual.
Red Dawn should be mandatory viewing as an insurgency primer. On retribution killings: "Everytime you execute one of them the insurgency grows" On compromising momentum for security: "We will build walls, keep our troops inside. Then we'll see how these Wolverines can attack us" No longer hunted the insurgents launch audacious attacks within the enemy garrison. Which is EXACTLY what we did with our FOB's. I could go on all day. Red Dawn is an undervalued training aid.
A more politically astute argument? I agree. But I do believe the men involved where specifically concerned with the people having a means, if necessary to ensure our government remained ours and not the other way around. They had just concluded the Mother Of All Insurgencies. NRA-ILA goes to great lengths to distance themselves from the revolutionary slant. They focus on "shooting sports, hunting rights, and American heritage". And with the successful castle doctrine they are more frequently using defense of self and home. I cant remember the last time I heard anyone from the lobby side mention a revolution. But I do believe that was the number one thing on everyones mind when it was written. Just my opinion I have no facts to back that.
Concur. I love it when the "simple" gets poo-poo'ed by folks who think they're really, really "smart" ... Anything by John Milius is worth a look-see. Or two looks ... as in addition to Red Dawn, some may have heard of Apocalypse Now, Dirty Harry, Rough Riders, The Wind and the Lion amongst others ... I could go on all day, too.
I dont disagree, and was not "citing" Red Dawn as a reason for 2nd Amendment rights but rather to disagree with a previous post that an armed populace can not hope to resist a tyrannical government who is backed by an industrialized military force. I strongly believe that an armed populace was desired by the Founding generation to ensure that the elected officials behaved themselves lest they be forcibly removed from office. The ability to defend ones home was merely a desirable side effect resulting from the primary reason for gun ownership. And that is one of the only contentions I have with the opinion from Scalia.
Great movie, one of my all-time favorites. The Redux is better than the original, but your mileage may vary. "Hey, man, you don't talk to the Colonel. You listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet-warrior in the classic sense." /Threadjack
Threadjack: In the cult classic The Big Lebowski John Goodman portrays Walter Sobchak, a Vietnam veteran and loose cannon. Not to mention very funny guy. The writers based this character on John Milius who was a friend of the directors. Milius was known for carrying a 1911 on the set of his films and berating crew and actors with comments like "50,000 Americans did not die face down in the mud of Vietnam so you could insult them by making bad films" END THREADJACK. Flash, It was an impossible task to safe guard the captured enemy munitions because we decided it wasnt worth the manpower. That proved to be a terrible misjudgment. On the FARC, they have been receiving assistance and support from third parties from day one. Dominance of the air is a moot point when fighting someone who doesnt consider the sky a battle space unless you exploit the advantage? Whats the point of controlling the air just to bore holes in the sky? Their strike missions have been less than effective and their heliborne assaults were no more effective than what we did in the mid-1960's. FARC doesn't not value terrain in terms of ownership, they value terrain for maneuver and stealth. The CNA has not been quick to adapt to the enemies scheme of battle. It appears as though someone fell in love with their plan and was (until recently) willing to ride it into the ground. Again this is just my opinion though.
Maybe we need to split this thread into the hypothetical insurgency/reddawn thread Im not debating that after Cuba he went off on some weird ways. But the point is much can be done with tools readily available. Today a $3 shovel or $10K dozer can cause a hell of a headache to a $4 million dollar tank. I think A4s summed it up best...
But the FARC has been at war with the Colombian government for over 40 years, and is still nowhere close to achieving their goal. Dominance of the air by the CNA is just an example of FARC's relative impotence armed with mainly small arms and homemade explosives, and a lack of more sophisticated arms like MANPAD's and anti-tank weapons. I was merely using them as an example of how an insurgency, armed with only the implements that are available to the average citizen here in the US has utterly and completely failed in their stated goal when other insurgencies have succeeded. I would argue largely because of their acquiring more sophisticated arms from external actors; the mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets and the NVA and Vietcong are two examples. There is a long list of failed insurgencies that received small arms and the like from external actors, but not more sophisticated arms, and failed spectacularly; the Communists in Malaysia, Tibetan's, Biafra and the IRA just to name a few. But that is just my opinion......
You're right. They havent won any real victory and certainly havent reached their own stated objectives. They have been able to stay in the fight for 40 years. Attrition is a patient man's fight. The recent loss of their crown jewel captives may in time prove to be a silver lined cloud for them. I bet you'll agree with me on that. They should be sighing with relief. Capturing Americans is like robbing a liquor store owned by the Mob. Had they captured Israelis there wouldn't be a tree left to hide under. But hey werent we talking about the Second Amendment at some point?
The ACLU recently clarified its position regarding the 2nd Amendment. http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/ Even with all nine Justices agreeing it is a individual right (with 4 of those thinking that it means nothing), the ACLU still believes in a collective right interpretation. I have so far read down to comment #30 (of ~300) and have yet to read one that supports the ACLU. The best one that I read: Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . .
I think you would be hard pressed to find any politician in this country that gives a second thought to the citizenry taking up arms because of a decision they make. The few wackos that have taken up arms against the government since the Civil War haven't done all that well either. As a matter of fact, when was the last time an armed insurrection worked in the US? I will give you a hint, a guy named Washington was in charge. One argument that I have heard repeatedly, and what I think you are alluding too, for keeping arms is again the ideal that we have an armed citizenry ready to answer the call of arms whenever necessary. But I think that is a flawed argument. It is based partly on the whole idea that we won our independence because a few citizens grabbed their guns and fought the British. If that is what you think, you are sorely mistaken. We won mainly because the professional Continental Army and in the end, French assistance. Militamen were generally unreliable on the battlefield and only served to harass the British in most cases. One of the few battles where militiamen were a decisive factor in a battle, the Battle of Cowpens, Brigadier General Daniel Morgan actually factored in the militiamen's tendency to abandon the battlefield into account when he schose the battlefield and his tactics. He gave orders for the militamen to fire only two or three shots, withdraw and reform, and more importantly made sure there was a river at his back to ensure that the militia did not cut and run. Another example would be the 'Bladensburg Races' in 1814, when a predominantly militia force faced a professional army on the battlefield. The militamen fled very early in the battle, leaving 400 sailors and Marines to stand and fight a desperate holding action against the British. The result, DC burned. So I don't really know where you get this idea anyone in government seriously takes into account the armed citizenry into account when they make governmental decisions. Basing your argument for the 2nd Amendment on old fashion notions and ideals, that have not held up when tried, is probably not the best tactic.
Just to fuel the fire: Dont you think that today is a little bit different than back in the day in terms of civilians fighting? Today we have so many more trained vets than we did back when we fought the British.
I dunno ... "back then" nearly every Colonial was conversant in the use of and employment of firearms. Men & women, young & old ... proportionately, I would say "everyone" had a firearm -- and knew how to use it -- when compared to today ... ???
Just one more thought: As far as enemies "domestic" are concerned ... I think the burden of proof is upon the government as to who has "more to fear" -- an armed citizenry or an oppressive government??? Can you say: Ruby Ridge?? Elian Gonzalez?? Waco?? There's arguments to be made on both sides. And as we have seen, there's no limit to what oppression can be meted out w/out the benefit of due process from an "armed" government when a certain type of mindset is at the helm ... even the current batch of Gitmo POW's get better than that.
I don't disagree with anything in your last post. I know of the unreliably of the militia in both the Revolution and 1812, but I think where you and I disagree is the original intent of the 2nd Amendment when it was authored. I strongly believe the original purpose of the 2nd was to provide the populace with a means to the defend themselves in the face of tyranny. You can see this alluded to in the Scalia opinion. Scalia's opinion states that the 2nd is made up of the prefatory clause and the operative. The prefatory being A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. There is considerable argument to be had over exactly what this is implying however I would submit that the inclusion of the 'free state' suggests that this amendment is not only concerned with protecting from foreign invasion but rather is simultaneously concerned with dangers from within. Whether the Militia was any good or not is a matter for historians to argue, but many of the Founders believed the Militia to be a great asset and one that helped win the war. That said it would follow that they believed a Militia could help overthrow a government which had over reached its bounds. Let us remember that Jefferson believed a revolution was necessary from time to time and fully expected it to occur every 25 to 50 years. (See Joseph J. Ellis 'American Sphinx') If that was the case then how would such revolution occur if it were not rooted in a well armed populace. Again I am not arguing the effectiveness of Militia here, I am arguing the original intent of the Constitution. My argument in support of an insurgent movement still stands however. I believe that a well organized insurgent movement has the potential to resist a well armed and mechanized force. Not any insurgent force will be able to achieve victory, just like any military operation leadership, practicality in their operations are all very important, but to say insurgent movements can not affect change is in my opinion quite false.
Well, as you can see on this glorious national birthday, this country went with the Hamiltonian ideal instead of Jefferson's stagnant agrarianism. Happy 4th and God Bless America.
Umm, OK. The Continentals got their asses whipped on a regular basis until Von Steuben drilled them into shape at Valley Forge, and they later got a taste of winning. The Revolutionary War was pretty much a string of utter disasters interspersed with victories where we needed them the most. By all odds, we should still be British subjects. Washington et al were good, but also DAMNED lucky, and their British opponents made some really dumb decisions. What if Clinton had reinforced Cornwallis with the balance of the British Army instead of sitting in New York? What if Washington hadn't been able to escape Brooklyn or later Manhattan? Game Over in 1776! But where did these "professional Continentals" come from? No such animal. The Continental Army wasn't a standing army. They came from shops, farms, cites, towns, and plantations. They were your average Tom, Dick, and Harry. Or Elijah, Josephus and George back then. The difference between them and the militia was a matter of experience and being blooded. Not years spent learning the craft of war as a "professional." They got that during the war, and boy, did it cost them. Washington himself was a gentleman planter. He had service in the French and Indian War, but you could make the argument that he CAUSED it by porking away the Fort Necessity affair. He had a somewhat inauspicious or at least checkered past as a field-grade, but no flag experience until he took command of the Continentals. And there were plenty of people who wanted to see him go because they thought he was screwing things up (Gates and Lee come to mind). So it seems that the Revolution WAS won, at least partly, by common men with guns. The Continental Army was just a "militia" that learned by screwing up badly, but being lucky enough not to be defeated along the way. The other "militias" you speak of at Cowpens were simply less experienced. The same thing happened during the Civil War. Thousands of volunteers sign up who barely know a left oblique from a right flank, and half the officer/NCO corps rises in rebellion. Captains and Majors become Colonels and Generals just like that. The Union basically gets whipped for 2 and a half years until Gettysburg. We can argue all day about what would have happened if Ewell had taken Culp's Hill in the first day of battle, or if Lee had allowed Longstreet to move Pickett's division against the Union flank, or if the 20th Maine had been overrun by Laws' Alabamans, or if Confederate artillery hadn't screwed the pooch and actually HIT the Union lines before Pickett's Charge. Or if Lee had decided to find better ground, put himself between Meade and Washington, DC, and made Meade come after him. Or whether Grant's taking Vicksburg made it all moot. If that "insurgency" hadn't made a pretty good go of it, people down there wouldn't be talking about the "War of Northern Aggression" to this day. The more I study those two wars, the more it seems like the Continentals simply got the breaks, and the Confederates didn't.
Waco and Ruby Ridge are some of the best examples of oppressive government. As more information came out after those episodes, it became very apparent that the government lied, decieved, and was very heavy handed in its execution. The fact that the FBI sniper who murdered, and yes he murdered, the wife of the man from Ruby Ridge, who was unarmed and posed no threat whatsoever, and is not in prison, should forever be a grim spot on the federal government. You don't have to agree with what the actual "crazies" were doing, but when you see the data... the government was way way way above and beyond in reaction.
You, Sir, are misinformed. I have talked directly with a Federal law enforcement agent, who is one of my closest friends, and have heard the story firsthand, only a couple of days after it happened. The wife was in the door as one of the armed people was coming in and leaned out to close the door as the shot was fired. She leaned into the line of fire and was not the primary target. I acknowledge that it is a huge tragedy but to blow it out of context just to make Federal Agents look bad is just wrong. I won't get into the rights and wrongs of what happened at Ruby Ridge but I do know that there was no grand Government conspiracy to "murder" these people. Just some good men trying to enforce the laws as they are paid by us to do. The press and the politicians blur the truths after the fact to suit their own agendas. We can take it to PM if you wish to discuss further.
Flugelman, The story your friend related to you is pretty close to what I know to be true about the death of Vicki Weaver. And my differing opinions arent meant to imply that your friend is not telling the story as he believes it. Lon Horiuchi's first shot struck an unarmed man, Randy Weaver, who was checking on the body of his 14 year old son who had been shot in the back, and killed, by Agent Dugan. Also with Randy was his unarmed 16 year old daughter and Randy Harris. Randy Harris was armed. Realizing they were under sniper attack the three ran back to the home. They covered less than 20 feet moving right to left. Lon Horiuchi was at a range of 72 yards with a Remington 700. The shot that killed Vicki Weaver entered her back while she was breast feeding her child. The bullet first passed through Harris's arm and into the open doorway where Vicki was standing. One of the four rules to firearm safety is to be sure of your target and what is behind it. This is taught to Boy Scouts. His shooting unarmed citizens was criminal. His accidentally shooting an unarmed woman in the back was criminal. His actions go so far beyond negligence and incompetence that its hard to believe he valued anyone's life. I dont believe their was a conspiracy to murder and I also dont believe he intended to murder. But thats exactly what he did. If it makes FED Agents look bad? Thats no one's fault here. The two citizen's killed at Ruby Ridge were both shot in the back. One was unarmed and nursing a baby, the other 14 years old. Lon Horiuchi would claim that he had been ordered to kill, on sight, the people occupying Ruby Ridge. The scene commander denied giving this order though it appeared in handwriting on the OP ORD given to the sniper elements. The Nuremberg defense.
