It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: mamabeth
Apparently.
That is not only unreliable, it is non-standardised. The issue with having the parents do it, is that the parents may not know what they are talking about.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Phage
The Republicans lie about everything. The Democrats lie about almost everything.
The thing I've always found interesting about the argument that the second amendment's "militia" statement actually refers to every citizen is that it often tends to forget about the "well-regulated" part.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Congress shall have power...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BIGPoJo
And it is those military personnel that break ranks who would win any potential civil-war type scenario.
Relatively untrained civilians would be minor support at best, cannon fodder as a middle ground, active hindrances at worst.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BIGPoJo
How many former military members are there in comparison to ordinary civilians?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BIGPoJo
Lets pretend that SCOTUS doesn't agree that the 2nd amendment gives the common person the right to bear arms.
Why? They do seem to agree, since they have invalided laws which unreasonably infringe upon that right.
4. New Federal regulations which will permit, without a warrant, any civil authority to enter a home of a registered gun owner to check for gun safety when it comes to the “proper” storage of guns. Said gun can be confiscated and the owner will be subject to arrest and fines if a gun does not meet governmental storage regulations. The new regulations will be devised to prevent one from using the gun in a moment’s notice.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BIGPoJo
So, about 7% of the US population are former military. I would expect many of them to be quite elderly, or debilitatingly injured.
Regardless, even if they are former military and able-bodied, they will not have access to the hardware. As I have repeatedly said, any civil war fought will, for the vast majority, be won for the people by defecting personnel who were in active service at the time.
Technology will eventually reach a point where firearms become almost totally useless in the event of an oppressive government regime coming into fruition.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BIGPoJo
So, about 7% of the US population are former military. I would expect many of them to be quite elderly, or debilitatingly injured.
Regardless, even if they are former military and able-bodied, they will not have access to the hardware. As I have repeatedly said, any civil war fought will, for the vast majority, be won for the people by defecting personnel who were in active service at the time.
Technology will eventually reach a point where firearms become almost totally useless in the event of an oppressive government regime coming into fruition.
Real life isn't like the movie "Red Dawn".