Posted by Kromey at 3:34pm Jun 29 '10You can clearly see, in Iraq and Afghanistan, even a pre-armed populace can't drive off a modern occupying force (that's us). Sure, they can kill some soldiers here and there, and incur great retaliatory wrath on themselves and their countrymen, but it's not effective.
It's effective in driving down the morale of the invaders' home country and making a pull-out more and more likely every day, while also being effective in preventing the invaders from fully gaining control of the country.
You also have to realize, though, that in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan a very large percentage of the populace was oppressed under the previous regimes, and therefore in fact do welcome the invaders; the insurgents represent a minority of the populace. In the case of a free country like the US, however, you would see the opposite: The majority of the people here would fight against just about any foreign power that chose to invade. Provided the anti-gunners don't succeed in disarming the populace, that is.
I'm not sure why you went off on your cherised 'militia' tangent...
You did go there, when you brought up the justification clause by quoting "security of a free State". At any rate, I didn't go on that "tangent" solely in response to you, but rather it was preemptive against the inevitable "but guns are only for the militia" arguments.
Well, actually, yes (who here rigourously obeys laws on speeding, jaywalking, drugs, alcohol age limits etc?).
In all of those examples, you can get ticketed, fined, and/or jailed if you're caught. But you seemed to be saying that it's okay for the government to pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist at all, with no consequences. Governments free of laws and legal restrictions like that are called "tyrannies", and they are (in part) exactly why the 2nd Amendment was created (see my post sig).
But you should really read the thread before responding so aggressively, because I explicitly said I think the law should be changed, not just ignored.
I had read the entire thread when I started writing that post. If you didn't notice, it's a rather long post, and is filled with numerous citations and quotes. It took a fair bit of time to write. When I started writing it, you'd asserted the 2A right to keep and bear arms was "no longer relevant", but you had not yet stated that it should be changed.
It's effective in driving down the morale of the invaders' home country and making a pull-out more and more likely every day, while also being effective in preventing the invaders from fully gaining control of the country.
You also have to realize, though, that in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan a very large percentage of the populace was oppressed under the previous regimes, and therefore in fact do welcome the invaders; the insurgents represent a minority of the populace. In the case of a free country like the US, however, you would see the opposite: The majority of the people here would fight against just about any foreign power that chose to invade. Provided the anti-gunners don't succeed in disarming the populace, that is.
I'm not sure why you went off on your cherised 'militia' tangent...
You did go there, when you brought up the justification clause by quoting "security of a free State". At any rate, I didn't go on that "tangent" solely in response to you, but rather it was preemptive against the inevitable "but guns are only for the militia" arguments.
Well, actually, yes (who here rigourously obeys laws on speeding, jaywalking, drugs, alcohol age limits etc?).
In all of those examples, you can get ticketed, fined, and/or jailed if you're caught. But you seemed to be saying that it's okay for the government to pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist at all, with no consequences. Governments free of laws and legal restrictions like that are called "tyrannies", and they are (in part) exactly why the 2nd Amendment was created (see my post sig).
But you should really read the thread before responding so aggressively, because I explicitly said I think the law should be changed, not just ignored.
I had read the entire thread when I started writing that post. If you didn't notice, it's a rather long post, and is filled with numerous citations and quotes. It took a fair bit of time to write. When I started writing it, you'd asserted the 2A right to keep and bear arms was "no longer relevant", but you had not yet stated that it should be changed.
Re: Here's some news for you - Kromey