Educate the Canadian on 'Bearing arms'!

[lklawson]

Instead of telling us what your position WAS NOT.........tell us what your position WAS.

That the average U.S. citizen exercising 2nd Amendment Freedoms is NOT on a 1:1 parity with the average modern Warfighter. That the modern equipment used by the modern Warfighter elevates his kill capacity by some amount (between 2 to 4 times depending on who you believe) over what Joe Sixpack can typically arm himself with and that is without taking personal armour and advanced training into consideration.

I thought that I had been perfectly clear about this.

Often when someone spends a great deal of time telling me what they weren't saying, they're attempting to back track from what they were saying......perhaps you aren't.....I could be reading your posts wrong.....the easiest way to clarify that is NOT to tell us what you weren't saying......but simply explain what you were......because telling us what you were not saying isn't really being blunt, it's being obtuse.

The trouble seems to be that an assumption was made about a conclusion that I have not drawn. I made a statement that the modern Warfighter is much (MUCH) better armed, armoured, and trained than the modern civilian potential insurgent. There is no parity. You (apparently) assumed that I had therefore concluded that civilian armament was useles, worthless, and an anacronism, easily crushed by governmental actors.

I will stipulate that some people do conclude this. I have not.

To be perfectly blunt, my thought processes, though nebulous, was more along the lines of "I think it'd be a much better idea to let civilians (potential insurgents against a repressive, tyranical government) have access to the same infantry tools and so maintain parity." I believe this is what the Founders intended when they wrote the Second. If it were not otherwise, you'd have seen stipulations against civilian cannonry and the like.

To extend it a bit past where I had intended, the Founders intended civilians to be at a parity with infantry. Because of the evolution of our laws this is no longer so. I am not saying that a potential, theoretical revolution would be ineffective or would fail, I'm saying that the intent of the Founders has been slowly, if not completely, subverted.

Does that clear it up?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[chinto]

Is that still true in modern U.S.?

The State has access to fully automatic rifles and shotguns, highly trained street and entry teams, advanced supply lines, specialized training and equipment specifically designed to be effective against civilian insurgency, and, importantly, a decade of experience in the middle east against just such a scenario.

I've got several WWII pieces, including a semi-auto M1 Carbine, shotguns, pistols, etc. But I don't have a SAR, M203, or a full auto, drum fed shotgun loaded with HE and Frag rounds. I'd wonder whether a freaking Company of civvies armed as I would have a chance against a modern Entry Team or two.

I mean, let's be honest here. Even if the average civvie collector had a M16 or a AK47/74 would he be a match in either equipment or training? Especially considering that in most cases DUE TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION those would not be at a parity in rate of fire with what the State Actors would have. And that's without considering that the average civvie here in the U.S. frequently is restricted from LEO grade body armour, has no chance at an up-armored Hummer, or anything approaching modern HE or Frag. Heck, we'd have no chance at access to technology DECADES out of date such as an RPG-7. Heck, we can't even (legally) have a functioning Bazooka and that's WWII technology.

Think about what this means to the theory that an armed civilian populace in the U.S. has the capacity to prevent government tyranny. I contend that the reality is that said capacity has been effectively legislated away in slow increments. We can debate whether or not it's necessary in modern society, whether or not civilian access to such "advanced" weapons would represent a greater danger to the public weal, and any/all of the other arguments that crop up with allowing civilian parity with modern military infantry men, but the fact remains, that the parity is a myth.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

no it is still true. the pentagon even said as much a few years ago in a report ... a lot of the people who own guns have served in the armed forces. others have training from such people or other sources. I can garantee you that we are a lot more able then say the people in canada or other nations that are not allowed arms.

but yes the founding fathers did want the people to have the same or even better weapons then the infantry. and I hope and pray that some day soon many of the laws forbidding such in some jurisdictions will be nullified or repealed.

 

[lklawson]

but yes the founding fathers did want the people to have the same or even better weapons then the infantry. and I hope and pray that some day soon many of the laws forbidding such in some jurisdictions will be nullified or repealed.

Me too. I wonder if it is a real possibility. The recent SCOTUS decision accompanied by the Majority Opinion would seem like a slam dunk here but the gyrations that D.C. has taken to end-run the decision seems to belie the hope. D.C. is, in effect, paraphrasing Jackson: John Marshall (The Supreme Court) has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

This seems to be echoed among a significant fraction of the American people; "I don't care what the Law says, what SCOTUS says, or what the Founders actually wrote, I know what I WANT and to the devil with the rest." With such a large fraction of the electorate believing this way, how much hope have we of reversing infringing legislation?

I dunno, maybe a bunch, but maybe not. I'm feeling a little pessimistic right now.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[sgtmac_46]

that's kind of weird reasoning man. i think you just read his posts wrong. mis-reads happen :idunno:

jf

It's not weird reasoning....I acknowledge that I could have read his post wrong.....however, the way to clarify that is not to tell us what you're NOT saying......but explain what you are.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I will stipulate that some people do conclude this. I have not.

Fair enough.

To be perfectly blunt, my thought processes, though nebulous, was more along the lines of "I think it'd be a much better idea to let civilians (potential insurgents against a repressive, tyranical government) have access to the same infantry tools and so maintain parity." I believe this is what the Founders intended when they wrote the Second. If it were not otherwise, you'd have seen stipulations against civilian cannonry and the like.

I believe that the founders intended that very thing......many of the founders argued as much. Cannonry, however, isn't as useful as it used to be. The infantry rifle is.

As you note, it is the military small arm that the 2nd Amendment specifically deals with......which draws irony to the argument that the 2nd Amendment doesn't defend so-called 'Assault Weapons' when any rational reading concludes those are SPECIFICALLY the arms defended by the 2nd Amendment.......not the .22 competition rifle or grandpa's bird gun.

To extend it a bit past where I had intended, the Founders intended civilians to be at a parity with infantry. Because of the evolution of our laws this is no longer so. I am not saying that a potential, theoretical revolution would be ineffective or would fail, I'm saying that the intent of the Founders has been slowly, if not completely, subverted.

To be completely accurate the Founders wanted civilians to BE the infantry.......i.e. no standing army. But that's an issue for a different thread.

Does that clear it up?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Quite a bit.....:asian:

 

[lklawson]

As you note, it is the military small arm that the 2nd Amendment specifically deals with......which draws irony to the argument that the 2nd Amendment doesn't defend so-called 'Assault Weapons' when any rational reading concludes those are SPECIFICALLY the arms defended by the 2nd Amendment.......not the .22 competition rifle or grandpa's bird gun.

Absolutely, 100%. RIGHT ON.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk