Heller, 2nd Amendment, Automatic Weapons etc.

Militia vs. Regular Military

Let me ask you folks something... Who d'you figure is better prepared to defend a particular area, people who live and work there, and possibly even grew up there.... or somebody who got sent there from god knows where, who has no idea of the terrain or available resources, other than what they may or may not have been told?

Then there's the aspect of fighting for home vs. country... which is, ultimately, what a militia does. Sure, they may be fighting for their country too, but the main fact is that they are first and foremost fighting for their homes.

I've heard the elitist military B.S. an awful lot, over the years. The old "If you haven't served 20+ years in the _____, then you can't possibly know what you're doing".

The fact is, it never holds up, when it's examined closely. In far too many instances, when it's tested, it only serves to prove that just because a person might do something for a long time doesn't mean they were doing it right the whole time, or that there's no other way to go about it.

Also, any weapon is just another tool. And if how to use that tool can be learned by one person, it can be learned by another. Doesn't matter what it is or how it operates. Doesn't take any special rank, or membership to a particular "club". It only takes a willingness and ability to learn.



J.C.
 
This unorganzied militia thing armed with military weapons that some here promulgate gives me the willies.
Click to expand...

Does it give you the willies because it's civilians with guns or because you can't control it? Just curious.
 
Does it give you the willies because it's civilians with guns or because you can't control it? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Both. They would answer to no one have no chain of command and control and yet have the ability to inflict great harm. No training and less experience. Bad mix all the way.

What's the problem with the happy switch? Most people who are afraid of widespread civilian ownership of machine guns don't understand that it really isn't very different from widespread civilian ownership of AR-15's and the like. I'm certain you DO understand that, so I'm left wondering what the problem is?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the "happy switch" is a full auto capable selector switch. The problem with it is it makes the firearm much more difficult to control and so in a civilian self-defense situation improper. Great danger to bystanders and when a user gets spooked as I saw some soldiers get, they flip it on and spray. Fire discipline is very hard to achieve even in the military setting.
 
Both. They would answer to no one have no chain of command and control and yet have the ability to inflict great harm. No training and less experience. Bad mix all the way.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought; I just wanted to confirm it.
 
How come I didn't get any of that high speed training? I remember getting smoked, grabbing a rifle, getting smoked , being crated off in a cattle car to the range, getting off, getting smoked some more, getting handed ammo, being yelled at, then getting in a fox hole and shooting green targets, then getting smoked again. Wonderful army haze... I mean training..
Click to expand...

:D You must have been in the QM Corps
 
The problem with it is it makes the firearm much more difficult to control and so in a civilian self-defense situation improper. Great danger to bystanders and when a user gets spooked as I saw some soldiers get, they flip it on and spray. Fire discipline is very hard to achieve even in the military setting.
Click to expand...
I don't share your apprehension on that point. With all the ones in current circulation, how many accidents have occurred due to this increased danger? Are people spraying lead wildly around Knob Creek? ;)
 
Both. They would answer to no one have no chain of command and control and yet have the ability to inflict great harm. No training and less experience. Bad mix all the way.
Click to expand...

The chain of command is the officers who are appointed within the state. Men cannot just form up and begin practicing military discipline without being called up officially. As for what they do on their own time, such as target shooting, who needs a chain of command for that? You seem paranoid about civilians with full auto capability, yet despite the fact that we have approximately 160K-180K of full auto weapons in civilian hands, none of what you seem scared of has happened.

Ok, if you don't like plain old full auto because of the waste of ammo and the spray and pray possibilities, would you be OK with M16's and three round burst? Why or why not?
 
Can we put TG's red herrings back into the can where they belong.

As a retired military guy I am sorry to report that I do not have a lot of faith in my civilian friends to be good combat soldiers that many of them seem to want to be.
Click to expand...

Surprise - some civilians want to own machine guns and have no interest in being soldiers.

They would answer to no one have no chain of command and control and yet have the ability to inflict great harm.
Click to expand...

Some people like a little freedom and don't need to be under someone else's command and control.

I'm assuming the "happy switch" is a full auto capable selector switch. The problem with it is it makes the firearm much more difficult to control and so in a civilian self-defense situation improper. Great danger to bystanders and when a user gets spooked as I saw some soldiers get, they flip it on and spray. Fire discipline is very hard to achieve even in the military setting.
Click to expand...

Most SD situations would be inside the home with a limited range of fire. It's not likely that someone will be carrying a MG while shopping and spray the mall when they feel threatened.

And what about wasteful full-auto fire? If someone buys ammo, it's their business how they use it. It's not as though the S4 is going to ream you for using too much.

Finally, machine guns are not limited to self defense - many people like them because they are FUN.
 
A lot of my comments about civilians and full auto are coming from two thoughts I am seeing. First, this unorganized militia, written in law, but misunderstood in my opinion. How? Some here seem to have the idea that this unorganzied militia, with no training, no command structure, and loaded for bear with full auto weapons and rocket launchers are legitimate adjuncts to our Armed Forces. So, when the Chinese invade California and our regular armed forces crumble then this group of steely eyed warriors will rise up to defend our mother/fatherland. This is sort of wild stuff and this is what I am responding to with comments about lack of training, command structure, and probably sanity. The next piece is whether civilian ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers, and land mines are protected by the 2A. It is very clear to me that the SCOTUS is going to define what an arm is and that some "arms" will be heavily restricted or banned. I suggest that the standard applied and the one Mr. Gura agreed to was "arms in common use by civilians". I think that is a reasonable standard and do not like many on this board believe the 2A is an absolute right that cannot be regulated. The legal system agrees with me and I have no doubt the SCOTUS will as well.
As to machine guns per se, I don't care if people have them for hobbies and fun. They are I maintain, and will continue to maintain, unsuitable and impractical for civilian personal self defense because of the way they fire and the danger they pose to innocent bystanders. Now, that is just my opinion. If you legally own one and your state allows you to carry it, go ahead. If you use it and injure innocent bystanders then you'll paty the price. I like them and they are fun. They are too rich for my blood but I do not think they or other destructive devices are protected by the 2A as are "arms in common use". Whew!
 
So, when the Chinese invade California and our regular armed forces crumble then this group of steely eyed warriors will rise up to defend our mother/fatherland.
Click to expand...

Who knows - Americans might prove to be far inferior to Afghans and Iraqis in such a situation.
 
It is perfectly appropriate, it's just that for some stupid reason police are trusted with them and the average person isn't.
 
Right on, Yellowfin!

For that matter, no one in the military should have automatic weapons either, they can't be trusted, and besides they don't need them. The federal government does not need automatic weapons either, so lets ban the government and police from having too!

Frankly, that is the absurdity of the position, against trusting the law abiding public. But there is the key phrase, it is "OK" to infringe upon law abiding public, because after all they are law abiding.

The real issues that aren't being addressed are the non-law abiding public or criminals be definition. That is a debate that is best not argued here.

However, American politicians learned nothing from prohibition, and have repeated the mistake with the war on drugs. But again, that is really besides the point. After all people don't need guns. Just ask the BATFE, Greenbank, WA, Ruby Ridge, ID, Waco, TX!

My point is until real and meaningful dialogue about what should be done with criminals and the younger ages at which crime is being committed is addressed, all I hear from politicians and liberals will be to continue use guns as demagoguery!

Mush easier than fixing real issues, cause people don't need guns anyhow.

Someone remind why I'm American again.

To TG, some things are still worth dying for, like liberty! Patrick Henry said it best.:D
 
It is interesting to read Tennessee Gentleman make the comment that the unorganised militia idea gives him the willies. I think it gives most trained members of the military the willies.

That type of warfare works- it is working in Iraq against the allies to some extent (although I think we the allies are getting on top of it) as it worked when Lawrence of Arabia led the Arab revolt.

It is - like it or not- what the founding fathers had in mind when they considered the Right to Bear Arms. Essentially it was what the American's later called the Posse or the English of the period called the 'hue and cry' essentially all able bodied males banding together to regulate the community in a largely consensus driven way.

Remember- one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and the American founding fathers were considered in the country of my birth (UK- yes I am limey by birth, Australian by adoption) to be terrorists. Whether an activity committed that has been fascilitated by the second amendment is a terrorist act or the act of a patriot defending his rights against an unjust government is I guess a matter for posterity- and the winner- you are essentially dealing with the ultimate right of the people to take the law into their own hands- thus in Jefferson's words 'it was the right without which the other rights were deficient' (if I remember the gentleman correctly).

While historically correct what I think is the correct view of the second amendment will not sit particularly comfortably with any Court- it will to some be an anachronism, and I think it will be interesting to read the judgement, as I think the Court will have a bit both ways.

They will stick strictly to the matter at hand - handgun ownership in Washington DC. They may make some comments in obiter as part of the reasoning process, however the value of those comments (in obiter) will very much depend on how united the Court is in its decision.

It is hard to say how they will go. My guess is that they will rule the DC laws unconstitutional in so far as they deal with handguns and leave other firearms open to speculation.
 
Fire discipline is very hard to achieve even in the military setting.
Click to expand...

I am the only one professional enough...

So, when the Chinese invade California and our regular armed forces crumble then this group of steely eyed warriors will rise up to defend our mother/fatherland. This is sort of wild stuff and this is what I am responding to with comments about lack of training, command structure, and probably sanity.
Click to expand...

There are 90 million firearms in this country. They won't be a factor when we need to resist? It isn't just the Chinese. However unlikely it is now, there is always the possibility that the citizens will have to alter or abolish a government that has become destructive of their liberties.

Think a militia isn't effective? As a military man, I am sure you are familiar with: the Warsaw ghettos, the French resistance, the Viet Cong, the Sioux, the Apache, etc. In fact, many civilizations throughout History have fallen to the hordes that they consider to be the barbarians.
 
>>There are 90 million firearms in this country<<

Actually, there are about 90 million firearm OWNERS. There are probably between 200 and 300 million firearms.
 
I suggest that the standard applied and the one Mr. Gura agreed to was "arms in common use by civilians".
Click to expand...

This is not a functional constitutional standard, so much as it is a solipsistic conclusion.

If laws restrict the arms (arms such as a normally provisioned individual soldier would ordinarily carry, not crew served weapons or rocket launchers) so as to limit what arms are in common use by civilians, then the 2d Am. would permit the banning of all arms completely.

TG, individuals acting beyond a command and control structure may give you the willies; it is not uncommon for people who have spent much time is very structured environments to come to view that level of organisation as normal. However, one of the points of a written COTUS is to place law beyond the feelings, whims and willies of voters.
 
Last edited:
Think a militia isn't effective? As a military man, I am sure you are familiar with: the Warsaw ghettos, the French resistance, the Viet Cong, the Sioux, the Apache, etc.
Click to expand...

Their military effectiveness was virtually nil. They did in some cases provide political effectiveness (Viet Cong) in causing the wars to become unpopular but none of the ones you mention above won militarily. Without a disciplined military force to support them they would and did fail. Same is true in Iraq today, the insurgency pose little military threat to our forces but rather political dangers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top