The 2nd Amendment STILL Important to National Defense?

It has been said and repeated thousands of times that during World War Two, the Commander of the Japanese Navy Isoroku Yamamoto said that attacking the United States' mainland would be impossible, as there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Whether or not this is true is up for debate, but the statement seems to ring true. An armed nation may indeed defend itself from the tyranny of it's own government. But we seem to forget that we are also more able to repel invasions of foreign occupiers.

Discuss.

reply to post by therealdemoboy


The trouble is in this modern age the only countries doing the Invading is NATO and there's not much point in invading yourself is there. NATO and the UN is in place to collectivly defend Countries if invaded, so the likelyness of a foreign invasion on American soil is pratically nill. You pay a heavy price for your second ammendmant, it is up to you as American people if you wish to continue paying that heavy price just so you can own a gun and convince yourselves that owning a gun makes you any safer than before.

Any nation with nukes and a willingness to use them is able to adequately defend itself as if country x attacks country y with nukes and y destroys x also with nukes then we're back at the cold war days

But America doesn't do combat with nuclear capable countries as who want to be the president that turned 99% of the world into glass?

No. An armed population has no chance against an modern military force. While partian activtity would be possible the problem would be if the enemy did not have a problem killing civilians. Against say most western nations it would be possible because they would not say exterminate an entire town for a single attack. If you were dealing with Chinese or the Russians on the other hand... So no the Red Dawn fantasy is just that a fantasy. However, that does not make the second amendment any less valid.

With the advances our military has made over everyone else since that famous line was spoken, its highly improbable that without approval of our government, no foreign army gets close. In that scary scenario our guns likely won't do much. However I still advocate that no changes to gun regulation are necessary. Haneous mass murders(Gov sponsored or not) occur in gun free zones, where people with legal weapons and carry permits can be imprisoned for carrying. Address that backwards unamerican law first, leave my constitution alone.

Yes if you believe Thomas Jefferson that America need not fear being overthrown from outside her borders....but rather from within. Those in military and law enforcement service who swore an oath to the Constitution made that oath against all enemies (of the Constitution and the country) both foreign and domestic. In the improbable instance that a country or axis of enemies tried to "red dawn" us (knocking out our "eyes" at NORAD...hmmm I wonder why the Russian Special Forces, Spetznaz, were given a tour there a few months ago) then the citizens would truly have to be the "armed citizenry" that our Founders wrote about. So, in either case, Yes.

The communist Chinese leadership has already wished us luck on the gun control issue.

There is your answer.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by therealdemoboy

 

The trouble is in this modern age the only countries doing the Invading is NATO and there's not much point in invading yourself is there. NATO and the UN is in place to collectivly defend Countries if invaded, so the likelyness of a foreign invasion on American soil is pratically nill. You pay a heavy price for your second ammendmant, it is up to you as American people if you wish to continue paying that heavy price just so you can own a gun and convince yourselves that owning a gun makes you any safer than before.

what price? I haven't paid any price nor has anyone i know.

Most likely the threat will come from within. Look at the kooks the Republican party ran last election. Imagine if those religious crazies wanted to remove your right to have an abortion, or your right to pray to a different god other than Christian, or your right to vote for any leader other than a religious leader.
No country could come to your defence, its up to the citizens to defend their own freedoms.
brice

reply to post by WP4YT


So 20 of your children dead is not a price to pay for lax gun laws? I'd say it is a pretty damn high and unacceptable price to pay. But as it wasn't your kids at your school your inherant selfishness means that you probably don't give a #.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by WP4YT

 

So 20 of your children dead is not a price to pay for lax gun laws? I'd say it is a pretty damn high and unacceptable price to pay. But as it wasn't your kids at your school your inherant selfishness means that you probably don't give a #.

Lax gun laws? That part of the country has some of the strictest gun laws there are. That's what people like you don't get. Those intent on doing harm don't abide by laws. Outlaw something....anything....and the black market will provide it and provide it more abundantly. Look at drugs. Look at alcohol during the period of prohibition. Look at human trafficking. Laws against these things merely create shadow suppliers and a black market for them.

Originally posted by queenofswords

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by WP4YT

 

So 20 of your children dead is not a price to pay for lax gun laws? I'd say it is a pretty damn high and unacceptable price to pay. But as it wasn't your kids at your school your inherant selfishness means that you probably don't give a #.

Lax gun laws? That part of the country has some of the strictest gun laws there are. That's what people like you don't get. Those intent on doing harm don't abide by laws. Outlaw something....anything....and the black market will provide it and provide it more abundantly. Look at drugs. Look at alcohol during the period of prohibition. Look at human traficking. Laws against these things merely create shadow suppliers and a black market for them.

It makes me laugh when you Americans say that this particular state has some of the Strictest laws in the USA on guns. You just don't get it do you, that doesn't make it strict just because it is more difficult to get a gun than the state next door where you can pick one up from Walmart. Your gun laws are totally outdated, you are no longer waiting on reprisal attacks from the Native Americans of whom your nation performed mass genocide on.

Also why do you Americans keep using the excuse that you will still get them in the black market, yes to a degree you are correct but for god' sake look at the statistics of nations where Guns are completely banned like the UK, we have a fraction of gun related deaths and injuries of that of the USA and that is even when comparing per capita and even then most of the crime is criminal on criminal. The fact that none of you gun advocates will even look at the truth in other nations without guns means that you are just too damned selfish to want to make an effort to make your country safer. You'd rather have a gun in your kitchen draw to make up for the lack of length you have in the trouser department.

reply to post by michael1983l


Say what you will, you don't know, we can't even tell how much of the news is at all accurate.Or maybe you trust the US government.I don't.
I have millions of vets who agree with what I just said,that TOTALLY trumps any ground army's capability.If aircraft are used,they have to land somewhere attack that site, if tanks are used they need infantry support and fuel,attack the infrastructure and logistics fall.
Is a black widow spider poisonous?It will die quite quickly on an ant hill.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by michael1983l

 

Say what you will, you don't know, we can't even tell how much of the news is at all accurate.Or maybe you trust the US government.I don't.
I have millions of vets who agree with what I just said,that TOTALLY trumps any ground army's capability.If aircraft are used,they have to land somewhere attack that site, if tanks are used they need infantry support and fuel,attack the infrastructure and logistics fall.
Is a black widow spider poisonous?It will die quite quickly on an ant hill.

Like I have said previously, paranoia is not a valid reason to advocate guns.

reply to post by michael1983l


Paranoia is a diagnosable illness of someone who is FALSELY worried about conspiracies.I'm armed so I'm not worried.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


I know your not worried but I am worried for your neighbours, you probably think they are out to get you too so how long will it be before you turn your fire arm on them?

No they are fine. we smile and say "hello" accept for the gangsta type who drop their heads. But my country is SOOO big no one can id the type of people we ALL are,rendering your effort an insult to those of us who are normal,sane,Americans,unless you are simply prejudice against all of America with your myopic opinion.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


So please do induldge me, can you please explain exactly who you are expecting to invade the USA anytime soon? Because you seem to be basing a lot of your opinion on the right to bear arms as this being a real possibility?

reply to post by michael1983l


I truly feel sorry for you. I don't say that to be condescending, but there is a deeper layer to this issue that many people don't comprehend. They don't place the same value or depth of meaning on Liberty. Liberty is a living breathing part of the American spirit. It's a personal thing and we maintain it by sacrifice and holding tightly to our 2A. (This doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws against convicted felons and the mentally ill obtaining guns, however.)