I know that a lot of 2A die hards fear government overreach and want to be armed for that reason. I would say that arming yourself for this purpose is not necessary. We already have the fighting force you think you need to assemble. I have a very rare perspective on this subject, as I have had the unique pleasure of serving on Active-Duty, the U.S. Reserves, and the National Guard. I don't think there are a lot of people like me out there, though there are some. The federal government has the Active-Duty and Reserve forces. The states have their Army National Guard (and Air National Guard) units. They all have their different flavors. When you are Active-Duty and Reserves, it is undoubtedly federally focused, but the State Guard units are very state centric. Unless federally activated, State Guardsmen work for the State they are assigned to. The entire command and control exists within the State and all the units train together and share a sense of camaraderie. If something were to go down between particular States and the Federal government, those of you who are anti-Fed could join your State guards, who have all the equipment and guns you need. Surely, some from the Active Duty and Reserves would defect and join the State Guard units, and some from the State would defect to the Federal side depending on their political stance. But to think that the individual keeping some rifles and handguns is somehow protecting themselves from the federal government is laughable. You probably wouldn't even get the dignity of a one-on-one shootout that you are expecting. There is a high possibility you'd get taken out by a drone and be vaporized without even seeing or hearing it. Even if you did get a firefight, you stand very little chance against trained and equipped military personnel. The point is, if you are paranoid about federal overreach, you already have a well-regulated militia.
Your point is outstanding. However, it will not support the mass sale of arms, so it will fall on deaf ears.
You just explained why SCOTUS’s most recent interpretation of the 2A is hogwash and has lead to the current insanity. America doesn’t have any more mentally ill, angry or frustrated people percentage-wise than any other country. The others just don’t have access to guns with which to express themselves. As I’ve said in other threads, it’s a national disgrace. When children are murdered and Congress does nothing, it’s basically saying their deaths are a price worth paying.
Good insight. I have wondered about this last point though. I never served but given the resistance our forces faced in places like Fallujah, does this point understate the extent to which armed people and pockets of resistance can create serious problems even against a professional military? I guess I am imagining door-to-door fighting and thinking the U.S. military would be unlikely to wipe out entire American cities or towns. If anything, I presume - if it came to it - that the U.S. military would be even more careful to minimize civilian casualties and the destruction of infrastructure on its own soil as compared with Iraq, for example.
Yeah, the biggest disparity with homicides involves firearms. But IF the data here is correct, the U.S. has two to three times more Non-Firearm Homicides than other high income countries (1.5 per 100K versus 0.6). IF that's accurate, it would seem fair to say the U.S. has a bigger homicide problem even when guns aren't used. https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&context=nursing_fac
As I pointed out in the other thread, the references to the militia in Articles I and II of the Constitution clearly envisioned a militia similar to that of today's National Guard, a military organization under the command of a state's governor which can be federalized in the event of a national emergency. Article I empowers Congress to federalize the militia and Article II designates the President as Commander-in-Chief of the militia after it has been federalized. Certainly not the ad hoc type of militia (the Proud Boys would fall into the category by the way) frequently mentioned by a number of 2A advocates.
State National Guards vs Federal forces would be an absolute nightmare and blood bath on both sides. That's kind of my point. I wouldn't compare it to anything in Afghanistan or Iraq, because to be frank, those were completely one-sided affairs, despite some people's uninformed depictions of what happened. Total and complete domination. It amazes me that people think we had any trouble fighting over there. Did we take casualties, of course, but I wouldn't call it anything other than a complete military victory. Any losses we took were on the political/diplomatic front after we already were leaving... and a war is fought by the militaries, but is ended by politicians and diplomats. USA federal vs USA states is a whole different and terrifying idea, and that is why I don't get the reasoning behind guys thinking they need to stockpile guns. On their own, they'd be nothing but an annoyance. If they were to not even have the support of their State Guards, well just forget about it because they lost. But assuming that their cause is widespread enough to get state guards to fight against the feds, it will be very ugly.
I didn't get that from the Abstract of the article you linked. It seemed to say homicides by firearms are much greater than in other similar countries. It's become academic since Heller. The ideologically driven, divorced from reality SC Justices will never let stand any meaningful gun legislation.
My experiences in various foreign countries have led me to generalize that American citizens are no better or worse than those in England, France and Germany. To that extent I'm "sure". Do you believe otherwise?
Anyone feel safer and more secure with the Proud Boys being fully armed? You know, the group that was ruffed up and run off by the pro drag queen protesters last week The current interpretation of the 2A is a relatively new phenomenon. It used to be read as providing for a collective right, not an individual one. You have to pretty much read the last parts in a vacuum and ignore the first part along with the historical perspective to get us where we are now.
I'm sure you're right. I am probably extrapolating too much based on some of the fiercest fighting I've heard or read about. I have talked to a close friend who was a Marine in the First Battle of Fallujah during April of 2004. It sounded pretty dicey to me at points and they lost a lot of men (though not compared to the enemy). I have read some about that battle, and the insurgents apparently had RPGs, machine guns, mortars, and anti-aircraft weapons. I don't know the extent of their training but sure most weren't typical dudes with an AR-15 in their closet either. So your point is well taken.
I may have not been clear. I think you're absolutely correct that Firearm Homicides account for the vast bulk of the disparity between homicide rates in the U.S. versus those other countries. That's enough to make your points about guns. I was just noting that the tables in that link also contain separated-out data for Non Firearm Homicides. If those data are accurate, the United States also has a higher rate of homicides when guns are not used. Not nearly as much but still two or three times more than the other countries. I think that's pretty significant and would indicate that America - for whatever reasons - might have a greater propensity for homicides generally speaking.
Maybe the way everything is over covered and social media, it makes it seem like we have more than our share.
I have often wondered about this Murph. Good points indeed. This idea that we could really combat our federal forces is absurd. The state guard seems to line up with the constitutional concept of a militia quite well to me. The right to bear arms should still exist, but the limits are far to soft and broad.
Thanks for the insight as I served though not in multiple branches such as yourself. I know several people that split their service between Army, Navy, USMC and the Air Force. The problem is a well maintained militia is a product of the state and the armed services are a product of the Feds. 2nd amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. There is a clear delineation between a militia being necessary for the security of a free state and the right of people to keep and bear arms. The amendment does not provide the right to only the militia. It provides the right to the people and the militia. If the 2nd amendment were meant for only the militia the words "the right of the people" would not have been included in the amendment.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. The right of the people to bear arms exists through their right to have a militia. Isn't Militia the subject of the sentence?
