SCOTUS affirms gun rights in historic decision

[Flash]

But the weapons we can legally possess make obtaining the weapons you cite possible through guerrilla operations where small arms are effective. Weapons like those legally obtainable in the US ARE essential to any armed insurgent movement.

The most common charge in IED's during 2004 was the 155MM HE round. Procured through stealth and force from ASP's that were being guarded by coalition forces.

Small teams of badguys using wit and firearms to get capture the big toys.

Small Arms are the material foundation of any U/W campaign.

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.

Correct me if I am wrong but those weapons are Light by definition. Their effective employment is good tactics and doesnt make them Heavy. None of those weapons are crew served nor require fire direction.

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......

 

[Flash]

I will say that the movie does present an idea which in this country we are not accustomed to thinking about. That is warfare on our ground. With the exception of a small island in Alaska during WWII no US soil has been occupied by an enemy force for roughly 200 years.

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.

 

[Fly Navy]

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.

 

[Zissou]

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.

 

[Zissou]

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.

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.

 

[A4sForever]

.... I could go on all day. Red Dawn is an undervalued training aid.

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.

 

[statesman]

I agree with Flash. While invasion of the homeland is not a bad argument per se, it's highly unlikely.

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.

 

[AllAmerican75]

. . . some may have heard of Apocalypse Now[/B]

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

 

[Zissou]

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.

 

[MrSaturn]

Maybe we need to split this thread into the hypothetical insurgency/reddawn thread

Che Guevera ended up dead after two failed insurgencies, your point?

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...

A dedicated "insurgent", no matter what color his flag, can go a long way w/ a rifle, some ammo, and a bag of rice.

This can't be news to anyone ...

 

[Flash]

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.

And 216 years later that is probably a moot point now, times have changed.

 

[Flash]

On the FARC, they have been receiving assistance and support from third parties from day one.

FARC doesn't not value terrain in terms of ownership, they value terrain for maneuver and stealth.

Again this is just my opinion though.

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......

 

[Zissou]

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?

 

[statesman]

And 216 years later that is probably a moot point now, times have changed.

I'm sorry you feel that way... I respectfully disagree.

 

[HokiePilot]

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 . . .