Yes. Should a war rage with enough intensity to burn through our standing military and reservists, we would then need cituzens to take up the cause to defend the US.
The US citizen also needs weapons of war to keep the US Government in check. Public service is a slippery slope to tyranny. Today they ban bumpstocks, tomorrow they ban ammunition of a type or amount. Once they've critically limited the ability of the people to respond with force, what is their incentive to rule for the people instead of themselves?
Under the current Geneva Conventions, three different types of military are recognized. The first is the full time military, what we would call "regular" service members. The second is the official organized actively training reserve personnel. We have them as either Reserve or Guard. Both do the same thing but have slightly different missions. Lastly is levee en masse. That is when the civilian population (not regular, not reserve) takes up arms to repel an invader. That would be like the Free French Underground in World War II. The requirement for the last is they have to obey the rest of the Geneva Conventions (like regular and reserve) plus they have to be under the command and control of the national authority. (No RED SUN type stuff, no self organized troops or militia doing their own thing.) This command and control can be via the regular or reserve forces, or under the control of the Governor. Now, just how can the average everyday citizen do that if they have no weapons at all? And if they are going to do it then they need weapons at least close to what the enemy is going to be using. We certainly do not want our civilian levee en masse going against an enemy with machine guns when all they have is revolvers and lever action rifles. I think a civilian army of millions would be a problem for any invader.
Only a tiny percentage of murders and illegal shootings in the USA involves long arms of any type.
Nearly all of the murders and illegal shootings in the USA each year involve people who know each other and who are having a dispute. The # 1 motive for the disputes is drug trafficking and # 2 is domestic violence.
At least 75% of the murders and illegal shootings involve ethnic minorities as both perpetrators and victims. The percentage is actually higher since murders/shootings with "unknown perpetrator" typically happen in ethnic minority neighborhoods.
The above statistics are from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report: www.fbi-gov
It is already illegal to murder someone.
It is already illegal to shoot someone except in legitimate self defense.
It is already illegal for rights-suspended convicted felons and mentally ill people to possess a firearm.
Having proof of identity and passing a background check are already required to buy a firearm in a commercial sale.
It is already illegal to possess a number of "military type"firearms without having a federal permit.
All of the above means the problem of violence involving firearms is a social problem and not a gun problem or a law problem. Social problems are best solved with public education, but violent crime in the USA is concentrated in the parts of the country politically dominated by Democrats. The Democrat Party ensures that the public education system is garbage in the areas they control.
Note the correlation between the murder map and the Democrat map:
The reason for the Second amendment and the mention of a well organized militia is not to supplement the military but in case the government is taken over by a faction that threatens our Republic and its form of government say it is taken over by a military dictatorship then the citizens would need weapons to oppose the illegal coup.
Weapons of war are helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, aircraft, warships, missiles,,,, are these the things you want everyday people parking in their garages.
Comments
We could send the enemy our liberals to undermine and destroy their way of life.
People believe yes, but the answer is no.
Yes. Should a war rage with enough intensity to burn through our standing military and reservists, we would then need cituzens to take up the cause to defend the US.
The US citizen also needs weapons of war to keep the US Government in check. Public service is a slippery slope to tyranny. Today they ban bumpstocks, tomorrow they ban ammunition of a type or amount. Once they've critically limited the ability of the people to respond with force, what is their incentive to rule for the people instead of themselves?
Under the current Geneva Conventions, three different types of military are recognized. The first is the full time military, what we would call "regular" service members. The second is the official organized actively training reserve personnel. We have them as either Reserve or Guard. Both do the same thing but have slightly different missions. Lastly is levee en masse. That is when the civilian population (not regular, not reserve) takes up arms to repel an invader. That would be like the Free French Underground in World War II. The requirement for the last is they have to obey the rest of the Geneva Conventions (like regular and reserve) plus they have to be under the command and control of the national authority. (No RED SUN type stuff, no self organized troops or militia doing their own thing.) This command and control can be via the regular or reserve forces, or under the control of the Governor. Now, just how can the average everyday citizen do that if they have no weapons at all? And if they are going to do it then they need weapons at least close to what the enemy is going to be using. We certainly do not want our civilian levee en masse going against an enemy with machine guns when all they have is revolvers and lever action rifles. I think a civilian army of millions would be a problem for any invader.
Reality:
Only a tiny percentage of murders and illegal shootings in the USA involves long arms of any type.
Nearly all of the murders and illegal shootings in the USA each year involve people who know each other and who are having a dispute. The # 1 motive for the disputes is drug trafficking and # 2 is domestic violence.
At least 75% of the murders and illegal shootings involve ethnic minorities as both perpetrators and victims. The percentage is actually higher since murders/shootings with "unknown perpetrator" typically happen in ethnic minority neighborhoods.
The above statistics are from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report: www.fbi-gov
It is already illegal to murder someone.
It is already illegal to shoot someone except in legitimate self defense.
It is already illegal for rights-suspended convicted felons and mentally ill people to possess a firearm.
Having proof of identity and passing a background check are already required to buy a firearm in a commercial sale.
It is already illegal to possess a number of "military type"firearms without having a federal permit.
All of the above means the problem of violence involving firearms is a social problem and not a gun problem or a law problem. Social problems are best solved with public education, but violent crime in the USA is concentrated in the parts of the country politically dominated by Democrats. The Democrat Party ensures that the public education system is garbage in the areas they control.
Note the correlation between the murder map and the Democrat map:
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-c...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thu...
I need a nuclear missile in my backyard. Change my mind.
What weapons do you need in a psychological war?
Win this war so you don't need to use any weapons to war.
The reason for the Second amendment and the mention of a well organized militia is not to supplement the military but in case the government is taken over by a faction that threatens our Republic and its form of government say it is taken over by a military dictatorship then the citizens would need weapons to oppose the illegal coup.
Weapons of war are helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, aircraft, warships, missiles,,,, are these the things you want everyday people parking in their garages.
Yes the leftist/loser argument goes something like this: Firearms were only meant for militias. Militias have no chance against the US military.
That necessitates this rebuttal: Then Those in the militias need to be able to keep and carry better weapons.
~ Go Figure ~