Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

19 April 1775 vs. The D.C. Gun Case

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by WayneConrad, Apr 17, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    19 APRIL 1775 vs. THE D.C. GUN CASE By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

     
  2. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    There's more to protecting your family, your rights and your country than having a rifle. Do you know how to shoot it without having to have a bench? More important, do you know your neighbors, and do they know you? And do you and your neighbors take political action? Stockpiling ammunition, and then not working like the devil to avoid having to use it, is fatalistic at best, and probably kind of sick.

    Being prepared means having a plan, and then having a backup plan. Plan A is your politics. Plan B is your rifle. The ballot box, the ammo box. You've heard it before.

    Show of hands. How many of you have a rifle, but only shoot it from the bench, and don't know your neighbors? You don't have a plan B, no matter how many rifles and how much ammo you have.

    Do you vote? Do you write your legislators? Are you active in your local and national civil rights organizations? If you don't vote, and write your state and federal legislators, and do all that awful political stuff, you're not taking part in plan A. You must want to have a war. That's sick. It's not just sick, it's wrong. Plan B barely worked the first time. Do you think Americans are better prepared for plan B this time, or worse?

    If you don't have the guts to get off of the couch and write a letter to a politician, you don't have what it takes to get in a shooting war with the government. You are not a patriot, you are a weapon collector patriot wannabe. It's that simple.

    But the great part is, if you do get off that couch and write those letters, and take part in the politics, and get your neighbor doing the same, plan B never happens.
     
  3. REOIV

    REOIV Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    Messages:
    263
    Interesting article but the author has some gaping flaws in his logic.

    1. The militia was never this super trained force he's thinking it was. It would be much more akin to the thousands of people that showed up to donate blood after 9/11 and being told to get your guns and meet back in the city square. Then being taught some basic drills, divided up into squads and sent out.

    The Militia has pretty much always been an armed mob but an armed mob that fights to defend the country. It is widely known that British had little to no fear of the Militias and that the Militia always broke and ran in almost every major battle.

    Do you do drills with your fire extinguisher?

    How many of you still do fire drills at home and at work unless made to do so?

    2. In this day and age of Walkie Talkies, Cell Phones, Email and Telephones having a pre-determined system of alerts of bells and signal fires makes no sense. So to say they were better organized is just silly. They made due with what they had.

    The Iraqi militias use cell phones and satellite phones to coordinate attacks on our troops now, and they sure as heck didn't have the loads and loads of training this guy thinks the militias of old had.

    There is no reason for the systems yet, but when that situation occurs, they will show up all over the place.

    The thing the author is forgetting is that by showing everyone your plans and strategies before hand it allows others to plan and set up to counter you.

    The beauty of a militia is it is a loosely organized rabble of citizens defending themselves. You can't prepare for it and you can't kill it off entirely, in fact history has show the harder you fight against militias/guerrillas, the worse it gets.

    3. We are complacent as a society. I can guarantee that when something unconscionable happens you'll have people stand up and be ready to fight. Right now we are whining and moaning over loans and economic problems we did to ourselves. No one's to blame for our current economic situation but Americans. Kind of hard to feel rebellious when you're the one at fault.
     
  4. Kitchen_Duty

    Kitchen_Duty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    guerrilla tactics would be the major form of defense of the common citizen vs an invading army. No militia could stand up to an invading tank force or a highly trained rifleman group. But we could fire shots into their camps from 400 yards away and run. Just enough time to maybe slow them down and let the real army take care of them.

    Those tactics worked well for the Vietnamese, I'm sure it would work for us with our massive amount of square mileage.
     
  5. IllHunter

    IllHunter Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    474
    Location:
    ChicagoLand
    The lack of responses...

    indicates not that we don't care, but that we are working on A while preparing for B. Just playin politics and waitin in the weeds:mad:
     
  6. Wheeler44

    Wheeler44 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    962
    Reoiv

    I respectfully disagree with your statement that the ORIGINAL PATRIOTS were not trained.....History tells of the French and Indian war lasting 9 years just 12 years prior to 1775... The young men that fought in that war would be older and wiser.... The "seasoned" veterans of that war would have had plenty of opportunity to observe the field tactics of the French Army, the British Army and of course the Native Americans that fought on both sides... They had 12 years to reflect on the different styles of warfare and consider which might work best for an Army of citizen soldiers in a vast and somewhat untamed land....

    As to them not being trained I feel the need to remind you of the Minutemen...'nuf said....

    As for them breaking ranks in the face of a massed column of advancing "Redcoats"..... I will only say " He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day"...sort of like adapt and overcome...

    Wheeler44
     
  7. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    IllHunter, Exactly the response I want. Those who do exercise both their politics and their marksmanship are too busy to respond here.
     
  8. xjchief

    xjchief Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    443
    Location:
    People's Banana Republic of Hawaii
    I think a militia, especially a State sanctioned one, would be invaluable. I'd love to claim credit but some really old guys with wigs thought of it first. ;)
     
  9. Jdude

    Jdude Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    380
    For the lurkers out there, If you want to know what to do, or how to contact your politicians-
    Visit Activism right here on this very forum. Writing to your legislatures, calling them, and voting are the ways to go.
     
  10. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    Acknowledging the "individual right" IS important. Without it, there is no "collective right", for the elements of the collective cannot contribute. What is commonly called a "collective right" is really the "soveriegn right": the right of the highest human power to dictate to its subjects, who have no right but to obey. The smallest element of our nation is the individual; the individual is 1/300,000,000th of this nation - not a subject thereof.

    WHAT lack of responses? Yessh, man, it's only a few hours since the first post was made! We've got other stuff to do!
     
  11. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    The militia concept is moribund. Only a few states even have organized, non-federalized state militias. While there might be some policy arguments behind a revival, you need to remember that it's the ANTIS who have been trying to link the militias with the RKBA's. Any attempt to couple those concepts risks supporting the "collective rights" theory.

    In short, I don't have a RKBA because I'm useful to some local militia.

    Moreover, the collective defense is controlled and regulated by our collective governments. They have long opted to move away from the old militia system for a number of reasons, some more sound than others. But it's a policy question to be decided by the people through elected reps. There is no "right" to form militias without state approval.

    Personally, I'd like to see the standing military gradually broken apart and dissolved. As part of that we could revive some form of organized militia, though the old model of the 18th century was outmoted by 1861, let alone today. Too many men with too many officers in too many uniforms with too many ideas of their own. That was the first year or two of the CW. By 1864 both sides had been forced to standardize and nationalize their military forces as much as possible, and certainly by WWI it was recognized that we could not rely on the Poughkeepsie militia to get its act together and sail to France. The last expression of the old ideal was the Rough Riders, and even then the unit was the extraordinary creation of one man with a will of iron and a lot of political clout. Today, we could probably modify the existing National Guard structure to serve in the capacity of a national militia, provided we stopped using it for overseas adventures.
     
  12. Trisha

    Trisha Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,310
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Um, getting together in a group of , say, twenty? Regularly? Communicating the purpose of establishing basic martial tactics, this group of civilians? Enacting said plans on private, and/or public lands?

    I'd bet a pan of my best cinnamon rolls and a pound of my fresh roast coffee that Homeland Security et al would surveil and mine each and every one down to the fillings in their teeth, read the computers and possibly even bug the homes of said group extending to all associates - before the raids.

    However - maybe paintball teams are slipping under the radar?

    Just my $.02
     
  13. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    I live in a housing development of about 150 homes. Loosely knit as we may be, we are a community (HOA board, amenities, one entrance, named community). Thanks to the "individual right", I'm sure that in a pinch I could rouse a self-armed group, complete with hastily-arranged reasonable organization (surely some have military leadership experience), in about an hour. Not that we've ever discussed such a thing, but thanks to RKBA we'd do pretty well on short notice ... just like our forefathers did around 1775.
     
  14. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    But those were plainly doing so without gov't permission.

    Deer season.
    18,000,000 snipers at work on live targets, anually.

    IDPA & IPSC, et al.
    'nuf said.

    Gunsite.
    Storm Mountain.
    LFI.
    Thunder Ranch.
    ...lots more.

    Katrina's (and other natural disasters) neighborhood "U LOOT WE SHOOT" posses.

    Given the "individual right" exercised, don't underestimate the organization that can be achieved on short notice ... or which has already been achieved, and drills regularly.
     
  15. Trisha

    Trisha Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,310
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    I spoke in the terms of the original article.

    Yep, here in Bailey, it would take little to "raise the alarm."

    Maybe IDPA could start a new COF involving "Defensive Urban Shoots" where there might actually be teams of ten? The larger ranges might be able to support it. . .

    Qualifying for that would be interesting - though the nightmare of RO'ing such a thing would be difficult.
     
  16. JCMAG

    JCMAG Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    287
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I will now erupt into my personal beliefs that I have so strenuously refrained from for so long now... This will be a rant of the first class...

    It doesn't take a brilliant scholar of the English language to read. This is the structure of that sentence:

    Noun Phrase, Adjectival, Noun Phrase + Compound Verb, Compound Verb + Adjective.

    Now, an adjectival can be eliminated from a sentence without changing the essential meaning. A silly, but equivalent, example: Bill, who is great at golf, a champion at checkers, is very funny. --> Bill, a champion at checkers, is very funny.

    Therefore: ...

    The new structure:

    Noun Phrase, Noun Phrase + Compound Verb, Compound Verb + Adjective.

    I may not know a whole lot about grammar, but any schmuck with a basic education can tell you that a sentence has a subject, a verb, and a predicate. Reading this elementarily, using the essential units of the sentence:

    Subject, Subject + Verb, Verb + Predicate.

    The Second Amendment is a list. A, B, is C. In other words, A = B.

    ...

    Some of you might be doubtful. Okay, let me put it this way. Let's say the supreme court decide that individuals do not have the right to bear arms, but only militias do. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to eliminate the militia. But the militia is eliminated by default because there are no individuals to compose it because none of them can bear arms. :cuss:

    That's like saying "A well regulated Hospital, being necessary for the health of a healthy State, the right of doctors to practice medicine, shall not be infringed.

    What good is a hospital if only it can practice medicine, but the doctor's cannot? A standing army by definition is not a militia.

    Look at the basic meaning of the sentence. You cannot remove the "right or the people to keep and bear arms" from the sentence. A thing cannot be infringed, but a right can.

    ...

    There is an essential law to grammar: Excepting few exceptions, all rules of grammar must be consistent. If they are not then they are not rules, they are instances of judgment. And is a conjunction. And is not a noun. Even though the previous sentence has "and" behaving as a noun, it is still a conjunction. It means the same thing.

    This is not simply an essential law of grammar, it is the law of all human knowledge. Therefore...

    I do not care what you believe, but if you will ever argue anything from any point of view, I but insist that you are consistent.

    There are ten articles to the Bill of Rights and every one of them rephrases the "the right of the people to ____." If one article means the right of individual citizens of the United States of America, then they all do.

    :cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead::cuss:

    So what about the Bill of Rights is so confusing? Even someone who dropped out before entering high school can figure it out. It is basic grammar. It is language. Only someone who is illiterate and completely devoid of any capacity for logic and argumentation can possibly misunderstand it.

    Rant over. :fire:
     
  17. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    It's simply a matter of cooperation.
    If they don't like what it says, deny it says that - and watch us tie ourselves in knots trying to prove what they simply won't accept.
     
  18. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    Very well done JCMAG.
    You deserve a tall one to cool off now.A great, elucidating rant.
     
  19. Macpherson

    Macpherson Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    161
    JCMAG,

    Truly as eloquent a rant as I have seen on my travels of the internet, thank you!

    It opens up the argument from a whole new perspective, leaving out all the legal precedent and penumbral nonsense, this is plain English, and really doesn't leave any room for conjecture or debate.
     
  20. yokel

    yokel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,193
    Forget the airy-fairy, everyone must get down to the nitty-gritty

    We must constantly emphasize that the Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow Americans to entertain themselves with guns, defend and promote America's hunting and sporting traditions, or intimidate common criminals and social misfits.
     
  21. dalepres

    dalepres Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    467
    This whole discussion is predicated on the assumption that SCOTUS will find the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right. But guess what? They're not going to. Moot discussion.
     
  22. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    Agreed.And we must make sure the 3 surviving political aspirants for our highest office are well aware of this fact.
    Thank you for this post.
     
  23. oldfart

    oldfart Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    767
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1EXKLVgEx0

    I posted this at a couple of other forums the other day, thinking it might make someone think a bit. The few responses I read indicated the readers were amused by the ‘redneck’ method the narrator used to deliver his message but no one – insofar as I was able to tell – gave that message any serious thought.

    Today I see this thread in which a writer is attempting to show that we (that’s US; you, me and the guy down the street) are not only incapable of forming a viable militia, we don’t even want to entertain the thought such a thing might be necessary.

    REOIV, you said “I can guarantee that when something unconscionable happens you’ll have people stand up and be ready to fight.”

    Have you actually gone out to your neighbors and asked them about that? Not just the guys you go shoot with on weekends but the family next door or the one across the street. Considering the way neighborhoods are these days, I’d be surprised if you even know all of them so why should I believe you’ll all watch each others’ backs?

    Cosmoline said “There is no “right” to form militias without state approval.”

    When one purpose of a militia is to right the wrongs perpetrated by the state I think it’s a bit naïve to expect that state to give it’s blessing to your endeavor. If a militia intends to train it’ll have to do so in spite of the state. Will that require the members to take a risk? Of course, but perhaps we need to swear an oath of some sort… something like a cross between the oath most of us took upon entering the military and the oath the founders took upon signing the “Unanimous Declaration,” pledgeing to “our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor.”

    Take this simple test: What did you do to help the Branch Davidians? How about the Weavers? Did you show up at Jarbridge or at Klamath Falls? If you aren’t willing to risk your life or your fortune what makes you think you have any honor?

    Shamefully, I have to admit that I missed three out of that four. But when I did show up at the fourth one I took a rifle and plenty of ammo. I’m happy to say that I wasn’t the only one to do so either. We didn’t wave them around or shake them in the faces of the police but we were ready to use them if they were needed. Happily, they weren’t.

    That was a militia though and the government forces recognized it as well as we did. Sun Tzu would have been proud of us, we broke “the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”

    Sooner or later though, we’re going to have to fight. Who’s going to do it? You? Your neighbor… yeah, the one who plays his music too loud while you’re trying to sleep? Do you even know if he has a rifle? If he does, would he use it for you or against you? The only way you can know is to take that first step and go ask those neighbors… all of them! Sitting behind a keyboard, wrapped in the cocoon of anonymity won’t build a militia any more than it’ll save your life when they take you up on that offer to pry the gun out of your cold, dead hands.

    Wake up folks, the politicians aren’t the problem… YOU are the problem! But so am I...

    :cuss:
     
  24. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    Why would I want to help the Branch Davidians? My gripe with that situation was the idiotic and reckless behavior of the BATF and other federal agencies involved, from start to finish. A few Texas Rangers could have sorted it out and arrested the head man without troubles, just as they did with those "Republic of Texas" yahoos. But the feds came in, guns blazing, because they knew nothing of the cult and nothing of the local conditions. They treated it as a war against enemies, not an investigation of a possible crime.

    The Weaver incident is another example of gross recklessness on the part of the feds. Their incompetence turned what had been a commonplace violation of federal gun law into a slaughter. But I have no sympathy for Weaver, who was a neonazi clown. If that's your example of why why need a militia, I think you need better examples.

    Besides which, the MILITIA was and has always been an arm of government. I have no idea where some of you folks got the idea that the militia is something you can just create on your own authority. In the case of the Revolution, the militias were formed by rebel GOVERNMENTS, in each of the colonies and by the Continental Congress. Votes were taken, representatives chosen, and sovereign authority was reclaimed, all under the rule of law--albeit a new law not recognized by the Brits. In the case of the War of 1812, the militias were again raised by the GOVERNMENTS of the invaded states to repel the British. And in the case of the CW, the militias again were organized by the GOVERNMENTS of the states involved. Nobody just grabbed a rifle and marched off under his own orders.

    The very notion of the organized and unorganized militias is a creation of statute. Nothing prevents a state from disbanding the militia (most have) or from eliminating the laws that define an unorganized militia. They control their militias. The modern equivalent would not be the Branch Davidians, but rather the revolt of a state or states against some expression of federal authority. In that case the state could call up its militia under its own rules and sovereign power. But if it's just some neighobors getting together to kill FBI agents, they're nothing but criminals.

    Many of us have sworn an oath, to the Constitution created by those founders.
     
  25. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    Dunno about you, but I don't think these guys prepared much, yet methinks they've thought about the possibility, and not many would want to take them on.

    [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page