best statement on 2nd yet.

[blu]

By Carl Street, June 27 at 2:28 am #

Unfortunately, most here have substituted their personal agenda for the facts. IF you REALLY want to know the reasoning of the Founding Fathers, I suggest you read the writings of the founding fathers of this nation. Their Federalist Papers give an extensive, detailed, and complete background for each and every Clause and Amendment in the Constitution – including the much misquoted and misunderstood 2nd Amendment.
You can find the text of their Federalist Papers on line using Google – Synoptically, they were UTTERLY OPPOSED to a strong military and standing armies and considered them a consummate danger to freedom and liberty. By design, they ONLY supported a SMALL cadre officer corps.
Their plan for protection of this nation was that EVERY INDIVIDUAL was to be armed and a member of the militia—an independent ad hoc irregular defense force. Thus, providing any invading enemy with a prickly porcupine of innumerable armed enemies that COULD NOT be defeated by any organized military forces. And, while those militia might not “win” a war in a conventional sense; eventually, the enemy would find any invasion to be too expensive to maintain.
They based this on their proven success in defeating the British (the superpower of their day) in the American Revolution. And, their stance was MORE than justified in that the defeat of the British was accomplished even though only about 20% of colonial residents actively supported the American Revolution. So it stood to reason that with an independent militia representing 100%, their stance was a sound military defense strategy.
Would such a plan work in today’s high-tech, smart-weapon world? You BET-- regardless of the smoke screen provided by self-serving military-industrial government sources, THAT is exactly what defeated the USA in Vietnam and is defeating us in Iraq.
All you junior-league arm-chair history channel john waynes please spare me your comments. I KNOW first-hand what I am speaking about. I served from 8 aug 66 to 7 aug 72 including stints in the 101st Airborne and was an instructor at Ft. Lewis WA—my specialty was Techniques of Guerrilla warfare—so I do NOT want to hear ignorant comments from wannabee idiots whose only combat experience is fighting their wife for the remote control.
Hopefully, this clarifies the Second Amendment for ALL—bubble-headed, touchy-feely, doo-gooders and centralized, standing-army, military-industrial warfare, “super patriots”—both of whom are unwittingly undermining this nation and cutting their own throats as well as the rest of ours.









So, this was from a anti-war site. Intelligent comment, from actual experience. My comments here, on a gun site, are for the folks in the second half of the last sentence above.


..."whom are unwittingly undermining this nation and cutting their own throats as well as the rest of ours."

[upgrayedd]

Good post, Blu!

[1biggun]

All you junior-league arm-chair history channel john waynes please spare me your comments. I KNOW first-hand what I am speaking about. I served from 8 aug 66 to 7 aug 72 including stints in the 101st Airborne and was an instructor at Ft. Lewis WA—my specialty was Techniques of Guerrilla warfare—so I do NOT want to hear ignorant comments from wannabee idiots whose only combat experience is fighting their wife for the remote control.
Hopefully, this clarifies the Second Amendment for ALL—bubble-headed, touchy-feely, doo-gooders and centralized, standing-army, military-industrial warfare, “super patriots”—both of whom are unwittingly undermining this nation and cutting their own throats as well as the rest of ours.

IT WAS A GOOD POST UNTILL AUTHOR DECIDED THAT ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN COMBAT WERE QUALIFED TO COMENT ON IT!
THE POST MAY BE INFACT VERY VALID HOWEVER THE ASSERTION THAT ONLY SOME OF THERE MILITARY EXPERANCE IS QUALIFED TO COMMENT IS IMOA LAUGHABLE. THE MERE FACT THAT THEY POSTED THIS ON A PUPLIC FORUM MEANS IT WILL BE COMMENTED ON.
DOES HE HONESTLY FEEL THAT HE IS SOME HOW SUPERIOR TO NON MILITARY PEOPLE IN DETERMINING THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION? WHILE I APPLAUD HIS SERVICE RECORD I SEE NO REASON THAT HE IS ANY MORE QUALIFED THAN ANY OTHER INTELIGENT PERSON.

Would such a plan work in today’s high-tech, smart-weapon world? You BET

IS THIS PERSON SAYING THAT WE COULD DEFET A MAJOR SUPER POWER WITH ARMED CITIZENS ONLY? WITH OUT OF THE US MILITARY (WHO BY THE WAY ARE ALL VOLINTARY MEMBERS SO IN A ROUND ABOUT WAY ARMED CITZENS) TO SUPORT us WE WOULD BE SITTING DUCKS. I DONT CARE IF EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD WAS PACKING HEAT. IT WOULD DO LITTLE AGAINST A NUKE OR GAS/GERM ATTACK.
THE STATEMENTS THAT THE USA LOST THE WAR AGINST
VIETNAM BECAUSE WE WERE FIGHTNG ARMED CITIZENS IS REDICULIS WE LOST TO THE VIETNAM MILITARY. THEY WERE ORGANISED AND FOUGT IN A MANER THAT WAS NOT SUTABLE TO THE USA. THEY WERE NOT JUST A BUNCH OF FARMERS WITH THERE OWN WEAPONS THE ARMS WERE ALMOST ENTIRELY SUPPLIED BUY THE MILITARY. WERE DO YOU THINK ALL THOSE MIGS ,SAMS AND AK,S CAME FROM?? WITH OUT THE CHAIN OF COMAND THAY HAD AND MILITARY SUPPORT THAY WOULD HAVE LOST!!
IMOA THE WAR IN IRAQ IS BEING STALLED NOT LOST DUE TO THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT OUTLINED BY THE USA AN NATO. IF THE USA WAS IN TRUE DANGER OF INVASION FROM IRAQ THE WAR WOULD BE OVER IN LESS THAN A DAY. IT WOULD ONLY TAKE THE PUSH OF A BUTTION!
I CERTANLY AGREE THAT THE USA HAVING EVERY CITIZEN ARMED WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OFF TO STOP A INVASION BUY LAND IN A SITUATION WERE TO ARISE, BUT I DONT SEE ANY WAY THAT A BUNCH OF CITIZENS ARE GOING TO GO OVER TO IRAQ OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY AND INVADE IT AND WIN WITH OUT A LARGE MILITARY FORCE.

IN SORRY BUT 6 YEARS VIETNAM DONT MAKE HIM BETTER THAN EVERY ONE ELSE.
(THIS IS NOT A SLAM AT ANY MILITARY PERSONS BUT DIRECTED AT THE AUTHOR OF THE ABOVE POST)

[JRIVEN00]

Sounds like he is describing 20th century Switzerland for his point of view. Now the Swiss have automatic weapons, and we're buying their bolt action surplus.

[railbuggy]

Agreed,Switzerland has no stregic value,they are doing the right thing.I think things changed after 1812,The USA started growing horns.

[vz58]

While I whole-heartedly agree with MOST of that claim, I must respectfully disagree with some parts of it. The premise that ONLY those who have served can critique him is, well... poorly thought out. Because one has never served in the armed forces in a combat zone does NOT mean their opinions are by definition worthless. Conversely just because another has served in a combat zone does NOT mean their opinion is valid or factual.

[1biggun]

I THOUGHT blu WAS JUST POSTING SOMEONE ELSES OPINION OR IS BLU AND
CARL STREET THE IDICATED AUTHOR ONE AND THE SAME????
DID I MISS SOMETHING?

[blu]

Originally Posted by vz58

While I whole-heartedly agree with MOST of that claim, I must respectfully disagree with some parts of it. The premise that ONLY those who have served can critique him is, well... poorly thought out. Because one has never served in the armed forces in a combat zone does NOT mean their opinions are by definition worthless. Conversely just because another has served in a combat zone does NOT mean their opinion is valid or factual.

VZ and Biggun:

should have included the source, which was the Denver Post, and the comments are not mine, but the poster by that handle. Apologies.

I have been closely following the posted comments by several midwest papers,
and if it helps, I think the veteran above, when he says combat experience,
is truly making the distinction between his experiences, and the typical cubicaled PC liberal-leaning city dweller. Whom really don't know shit. I would think that does not describe anyone here, civilian or otherwise.

[railbuggy]

Im glad your OK,thought maybe ya took the wrong pill.

[blu]

:-)

calm in the storm, clear blue sailin' ahead.







~sometimes i wish i were a sailor.