A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

[Guest avid]

Papa.

You are thoughtful, intelligent man.

I think we need look no further than the American Civil war, to see the 2nd amendment in action.

The soldiers on both sides but especially in the south were often armed with their personal weapons.

Southerners often refer to the civil war as "The war of Northern aggression"

This is completely accurate if you accept the claim that the constitution guaranteed the rights of the state over that of the federal government.

The secessionist states believed they had as much right to secede from the union as the union had to declare it's sovereignty from England.

The subsequent invasion of Federal troops into Virginia was, in the Southern view, an invasion by a foreign country.

Would the Civil war have been possible without an armed citizenry in the South?

I don't know.  but I think it is an interesting question.

I know we have civil war buffs on the board, and Southern gentleman who cherish their ties to the old South.

Maybe a new thread?

[Maxximus Redneckus]

I know the US commited treason by attacking its own Country  :'(

[PaparockArk]

Your observations about the Civil War are quite true Avid.  The level of arms in the hands of the citizenry of the United States should give pause to any military or police force if ordered to disarm said citizens against their will both in the past and the present.  The argument often centers about terms like assault rifle versus semi-auto rifle and such but any soldier with any training knows what the most effective weapon against a crew served weapon system is. There are millions of prior service men and women not to mention strict constitutionalists that will always be unwilling to give up their ability to resist ternary. Some in this country seem to think they can remove the ability of such people to resist the will of the elite through legislation, intimidation, or judicial edict.  I believe that to be a fatally flawed concept. Those schooled in Counter-Insurgency operations know the effectiveness of both Insurgent operations and the countermeasures used against them. Even during the Civil War organized raider units like John Moseby's Raiders that operated using hit and run operations were effective all out of proportion to their size. John Moseby was a key innovator in the tactics of Guerilla warfare. Our nation, I hope never witnesses the need to see firsthand again such men again rally to the aid of their friends, neighbors, and state against fellow Americans but if the need arise may it be against a common foreign enemy.

[PaparockArk]

I know the US commited treason by attacking its own Country :'(

?????? How did the US attack its own country??????

[Maxximus Redneckus]

I know the US commited treason by attacking its own Country :'(

?????? How did the US attack its own country??????

Any country attacking its own countrymen is commiting treason saddam did it to his ppl and we came to the rescue i could go on and on .But regardless of what i say it will turn to big words and finger pointing .im not saying you but there are a lot who sugarcoat many things to make it look all great and dandy on a forum.So many things look great on paper .100 diff ppl can write about one single thing and come up with many views  and all of it can be ridiculed or absorbed to whom ever picks there OWN fav story regardless

[SPEEDBEAD.]

Hmmm....any time now    :

[Guest muddy]

I think this an ELECTRONIC FLASHBACK

[Zel]

There are those that interpret our Constitution and Amendments for what they say, and those who interpret them for what they could say. The second amendment is truly one of these instances.  When it comes to the second amendment, I think we should read the Founding Fathers (the men who created the documents that guaranteed freedom for all of us) thoughts on the Second Amendment before we start interpreting it.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_ff.htm

[roadwarrior]

There are those that interpret our Constitution and Amendments for what they say, and those who interpret them for what they could say. The second amendment is truly one of these instances. When it comes to the second amendment, I think we should read the Founding Fathers (the men who created the documents that guaranteed freedom for all of us) thoughts on the Second Amendment before we start interpreting it.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_ff.htm

Hey Zel!

Great reference link.

[Guest avid]

i tend to watch alot of the dicovery and history channel an i consider myself to be at the leaast a little bit of a WW11 buff.i dont really agree with eaither side but their are instances were a military has avoided going into a hostile country due to loyal, armed citizens.i cant remember when i saw this or what show it was on but it said that the militarys use of an atom bomb on japan was that they were afraid to engage loyal japanese citizens and their remaining military an possibly lose thousands more of our soldiers, an other is a modenr day ezample with iran.a show i saw recently pointed out that not only would our military have to engage thier military in thier country but also loyal citizens thata t the very least cound creat problems or conflicts with our soldies should we have to invade, and anybody ever wonder why the nazi's attacked britain thorugh the air rather than send troops accros the channel

Howdy Redneckriot.

I think your on the right track about a few things.  But if I may, let me see if I can clarify a few things for you.

Yes, our leaders were absolutely concerned about the losses that we would incur invading Japan.

BUT, and here's the point.  We were totally prepared to do it.  

The decision to drop the atom must be taken in the context of 1945.

Japan had sneaked attacked us at Pearl Harbor killing over 2000 people and breaking the back of our Pacific fleet.

The atrocities of the Japanese to our POW's was well known.  Most famously the "Bataan death march"

Their barbaric pillaging of civilians was horrific.  Google the "rape of nanking" to see what I'm talking about.

last but not least is the thought that haunted the president and went something like this.  "How do I tell the mother's of dead American serviceman, that I sacrificed their sons lives when I had a weapon that would have ended the war?"

[burleytog]

Concerning the 2nd Amendment, examine the whole of the Bill of Rights.  Each amendment concerns the rights of THE PEOPLE.

[Micro]

I don't think Japan had any intention of "invading" the American mainland. Their intent was a land grab over a vast portion of the Pacific, including islands and other outposts necessary for the defense of their empire.

However, while the Aluetians were considered part of the United States, not a lot of people remember that the Japanese did launch attacks on the mainland United States as well - in an effort to terrorize and destroy natuaral resources, mainly forest.

In September 1942 a Kugisho E14Y "Glen" float planes flew from an aircraft carrying submarine I-25 and dropped 2 76kg incendiary bombs, in an effort to start fires, near Cape Blanco, Oregon. The second attack came the same month near Port Oregon. The later sub succeeded in sinking two tankers off the Oregon coast while they were engaged in these operations. During these early years, Japanese submarines surfaced off California and shelled oil and power installations with mixed success.

Attached are photos of the planes and sub that launched the attacks.

Also, Japan had no illusions about defeating the US. They knew they could not hope to succeed in a protracted war. Adm. Yamamoto, the mastermind of Pearl Harbor, was a very perceptive adversary noting that when he was ordered to plan the attack on Pearl Harbor, his prediction was thus, "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." That's exactly what happened. The goal was to knock the American out of the war quickly. Japan had no hope or expectation of conquering the American people - not seriously anyway.

[tyrius.]

I know the US commited treason by attacking its own Country :'(

I've seen some crazy stuff posted on message boards, but this one may just be the craziest!

The US federal gov't reacted to protect the nation when the southern states voted to seceed.  The southern states committed treason by seceeding.

[Maxximus Redneckus]

I know the US commited treason by attacking its own Country :'(

I've seen some crazy stuff posted on message boards, but this one may just be the craziest!

The US federal gov't reacted to protect the nation when the southern states voted to seceed. The southern states committed treason by seceeding.

How do u consider them commiting treason when they didnt ask for a war  .You still dont attack your own kind regardless .They wanted to be independant big diff in that and treason

[tyrius.]

How do u consider them commiting treason when they didnt ask for a war .You still dont attack your own kind regardless .They wanted to be independant big diff in that and treason

First and foremost, by definition a country can not commit treason upon itself.

By seceding from the union the southern states were in rebellion from the nation that they helped to found.  You said that they didn't ask for a war, which is strange considering the Confederacy fired the first shots in beginning the battle of Fort Sumter.  This battle began the war which clearly falls under the Constitution's definition of treason.  

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort...

What the case really was about was that the southern states lost a key vote and decided to be cry babies and take their ball and go home.  They were put down and the nation was brought back together.

[Dan:]

The Soviet Union, Turkey, Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia...come on, I'm all for the 2nd amendment but to attribute  deaths in those countries in those time periods to the fact that those countries had gun control is naive. There was much more going on in each of those countries that would have caused deaths like that regardless of gun laws.

[Guest avid]

Attached are photos of the planes and sub that launched the attacks.

Cool photo's.

Another little known fact  is that Japan used the Jet stream to attack the US

They launched balloons loaded with high explosive into the jet stream as a terror weapon.

There was actually a woman and her children killed from one of these attacks.

The government hushed it up because they thought it might spread fear and panic among the population.

Check it out.

http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/mshwfugo.htm

[Glenn]

Hmmm.... several tangents going on here.  The WWII history I find most interesting, mainly because I'm a WWII history buff.  I enjoy hearing "new" information being brought forth because the reality is, most people haven't heard of it.  Funny how many people don't know Alaska was occopied, nor did they know the west coast was attacked.  Odd that many people cannot even recite the date of Pearl Harbor, nor the date/place where the 2nd atomic bomb was dropped.  Nice to see a little educating going on here. I was beginning to lose hope that people remembered.  

The civil war topic...wow.  Didn't expect that tangent.

The 2nd ammendment topic.... is pushing the limits regarding the "no politics" rule.  

So far, it's all been respectable dialog, so I'll let it continue. But rest assured, the mods and I are watching every post on this thread.  So let's keep it civil.

Thanks!

[Guest avid]

   the mods are watching  

[Maxximus Redneckus]

How do u consider them commiting treason when they didnt ask for a war .You still dont attack your own kind regardless .They wanted to be independant big diff in that and treason

First and foremost, by definition a country can not commit treason upon itself.

By seceding from the union the southern states were in rebellion from the nation that they helped to found. You said that they didn't ask for a war, which is strange considering the Confederacy fired the first shots in beginning the battle of Fort Sumter. This battle began the war which clearly falls under the Constitution's definition of treason. If it was a battle of course they would have fired they were being invaded this was DURING war when they fired not technically the first shot .The battle was from Morris island into a UNION BATTLE ship which should not have been there

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort...

What the case really was about was that the southern states lost a key vote and decided to be cry babies and take their ball and go home. They were put down and the nation was brought back together.

                                                                        If it was a battle of course they would have fired they were being invaded this was DURING war when they fired not technically the first shot .The battle was from Morris island into a UNION BATTLE ship which should not have been there .The north engaged with battle ships apon its fellow countrymen they sure were not there fishing or sightseeing ..And if u dig really really deep you will also find that 2 guys in the streets of Baltimore Maryland were the real cause of the WBTS NO they were not confedrate  soldiers either check it out http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/may/battle-of-baltimore.htm

[Maxximus Redneckus]

**********What the case really was about was that the southern states lost a key vote and decided to be cry babies and take their ball and go home.  They were put down and the nation was brought back together.******** .................................................. Brought back together to do what ??? Go out west and destroy Native Americans Yup it was really brought back together Not only did the union show greed it also showed hypocrisy >>all the way to the next millenium

[Dan:]

[sarcasm]Yeah, it's really too bad the Union was restored...What a bummer :-? [/sarcasm]

[Catt]

The Declaration of Independence adopted by representatives of the thirteen colonies, and declared that those colonies had become Free and Independent States.

The word secession does not appear in the Constitution. The Constitution neither prohibits a state from leaving the union nor explicitly authorizes a state to do so. Nor does it explicitly authorize the federal government to forcibly retain a state that has seceded.

Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act?

[Micro]

Hmmm.... several tangents going on here. The WWII history I find most interesting, mainly because I'm a WWII history buff.

Me, too.  Mainly WWII military aviation.  

Nothing like a good, juicy debate over the vices and virtues of a P-51D Mustang.

[Guest avid]

I was born and lived virtually all of my life in New York,

Not exactly a hot bed of rebel sentiment.

I have been a student of war, and government much of my life,

I gotta tell ya, that my interpretation of the constitution not only would have condoned the confederacy from breaking away, but IMHO actually supported this kind of act.

The American Revolution did not have it's roots in a desire to be separate from England, but rather in England's refusal to allow the colonies to be represented and heard as legitimate voices in the Empire.  The insistence of the Empire on keeping America as colonies, under colonial rule, is where the unrest began.

This desire to guarantee the freedom of local entities i.e. "states" is peppered throughout the writings of the founding fathers.

I can only conclude that indeed the use of force to preserve the union may have wise in the sense of keeping us a powerful nation with peaceful borders, but to my mind was not a legitimate act under the letter and spirit of the constitution.