How The Second Amendment Prevents Tyranny

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
That role is alternately embraced in rather simplistic form or dismissed as an absurdity: how could ragtag bands of rednecks with AR-15s ever hope to take on the U.S. military, with its full panoply of tanks, helicopters, and elite troops? The same people who say this will also insist that any American military action overseas is a mistake, because the U.S. military, with its full panoply of tanks, helicopters, and elite troops, can never hope to defeat ragtag bands of insurgents with AK-47s. But don’t look for consistency in partisan politics, and don’t be surprised when a Democratic politician wanders off script and suggests that if President Trump were to “ignore the courts,” then “this is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly.”

[clip]

Their solution was to make sure that the government drew its military power from the citizens themselves. That is the meaning of the much misinterpreted preamble to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The idea was to rely for our defense primarily on an armed citizenry that can be called up as a militia. If the people themselves are the military power of the state, then that power cannot be used against the people. That’s what they meant when they called this system “necessary to the security of a free state.”

None of this is obsolete, despite advances in weapons, training, tactics, and the professionalization of the military. We still adhere to this system, both in letter and in spirit, in three ways: an armed citizenry, a military of citizen soldiers, and the National Guard.


How The Second Amendment Prevents Tyranny
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Developing Citizen Soldiers

Let’s start with an armed citizenry. Throughout the twentieth century, for example, the U.S. government operated or supported the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which sponsored shooting competitions at rifle ranges and offered participants steeply discounted semi-automatic military surplus rifles. That these were military rifles wasn’t an accident. The program began as a way of encouraging civilians who were used to bolt-action rifles to train with the new semi-automatic rifles adopted by the military. It continued as a way of developing a reserve of trained marksmen among the civilian population. The point was that in time of war, when the military recruits thousands or millions of new soldiers, they want as large a supply as possible of men who can put ten rounds into the black at 400 yards with iron sights.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Tyrants already exists in positions of power in this country and not a single bullet needed to be fired. Only fear is needed.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
That role is alternately embraced in rather simplistic form or dismissed as an absurdity: how could ragtag bands of rednecks with AR-15s ever hope to take on the U.S. military, with its full panoply of tanks, helicopters, and elite troops? The same people who say this will also insist that any American military action overseas is a mistake, because the U.S. military, with its full panoply of tanks, helicopters, and elite troops, can never hope to defeat ragtag bands of insurgents with AK-47s. But don’t look for consistency in partisan politics, and don’t be surprised when a Democratic politician wanders off script and suggests that if President Trump were to “ignore the courts,” then “this is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly.”

[clip]

Their solution was to make sure that the government drew its military power from the citizens themselves. That is the meaning of the much misinterpreted preamble to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The idea was to rely for our defense primarily on an armed citizenry that can be called up as a militia. If the people themselves are the military power of the state, then that power cannot be used against the people. That’s what they meant when they called this system “necessary to the security of a free state.”

None of this is obsolete, despite advances in weapons, training, tactics, and the professionalization of the military. We still adhere to this system, both in letter and in spirit, in three ways: an armed citizenry, a military of citizen soldiers, and the National Guard.


How The Second Amendment Prevents Tyranny

How many times do you plan on posting this article????
 

black dog

Free America
How many times do you plan on posting this article????

He will stop when you agree to go to Camp Perry and Camp Atterbury for the Nationals this summer with me on my dime, if you take a class on shooting High Power you will qualify to buy a M1 Garand from the DCM.. They will even mail it to your house, just like before 1968.. That in it's self should just blow your Liberal mind, I can buy semi auto long range GI rifles that were used buy the Army, Navy and Marines from the GOVERNMENT.
Bring your birth certificate and drivers license..
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
He will stop when Merlin99 agrees to go to Camp Perry and Camp Atterbury for the Nationals this summer with me on my dime, if you take a class on shooting High Power you will qualify to buy a M1 Garand from the DCM.. They will even mail it to your house, just like before 1968.. That in it's self should just blow your Liberal mind, I can buy semi auto long range GI rifles that were used buy the Army, Navy and Marines from the GOVERNMENT.
Bring your birth certificate and drivers license..

Deal
 
Top