Author Topic: The 2nd Amendment  (Read 1317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 26924
The 2nd Amendment
« on: June 16, 2016, 01:21:36 pm »
"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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States has been highly contentious over the last 200 years. Some people argue that it has nothing to do with giving individual people the right to bear arms, but instead focuses mainly on militias to keep and bear arms. And yet other people say that it means both a militia and individual people's right to bear arms. And still more people interpret the 2nd Amendment for various more reasons.

What do you think the 2nd Amendment is supposed to mean?

Is it about militias only? About individual people's right to keep and bear arms? Or both?
Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1163
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2016, 07:57:29 pm »
What's the difference? Historically (and the Constitution must obviously be interpreted in the historical context in which it was written), the word "militia" simply meant "armed citizens", nothing more (in fact, to this day this is still the primary definition in some dictionaries). This is also close to the definition listed in U.S. Federal law:

Quote from: U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The U.S. militia consists of all U.S. citizens except women, children, the elderly, and disabled. The Second Amendment states that allowing these citizens to take up arms is necessary to ensure the security of the country (presumably against everything from criminals to enemy invasion). That's the plain meaning of the words, and there's not much room for interpretation.
“Hmm... They have the Internet on computers now.” - Homer Simpson

“Art doesn't work without pain. Art exists for compensating pain.” - Till Lindemann

“There's a fine line between sayings that make sense.” - Too Much Coffee Man

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 26924
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2016, 08:03:59 pm »
Why not women? Surely they can help defend the U.S. just as much, if not more, than the men can.
Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline Old Rabbit

  • Species: Rabbit Artist
  • Offical Birthday Wisher.
  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 14411
    • Art by Oldrabbit
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2016, 08:16:11 am »
Why not women? Surely they can help defend the U.S. just as much, if not more, than the men can.

Women did fight along with the men. Seems I remember reading of a woman who
helped fire cannons after her husband was killed. Mostly women cared for the injured
and sick though.

One needs to remember 200 years ago women were looked at in a different light.
Just house maids and bearing children. Partly a religious and cultural belief that
women should be protected by the menfolk. A belief many probably have yet today.


Also 200 years ago people needed firearms for hunting, and protection against
wildlife, and indian raids. Not counting the odd thief. I have always felt those
who wrote the consiitution knew colonial powers might try to invade one or more
of the states. So having a armed citizenry might well be needed. Mobilization of an
army took much longer in those days.. Also having it in the constitution helped
prevent some idiot or treasonous politician from disarming the citizens of a state
in the future.

We tend to forget about colonization, a practice that pretty much ended with
world war II .

Of course some people feel since the state doesn't need citizen militias any more
the second amendment no longer applies. Thats another reason having it in the
constitution was a good idea. There will always be short sighted people who are
looking for quick fixes. Good or bad.


« Last Edit: June 19, 2016, 08:52:30 am by Old Rabbit »
oldrabbit.com
Avatar drawn by me.

Offline cause the rat

  • Hero Member
  • Species: rat
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 811
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2016, 09:35:41 am »
There's nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment. There's a ton of things wrong with the NRA.
It's been said that rats can gain access to your home by climbing up threw your toilet. I prefer to use the front door.

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 26924
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2016, 10:22:06 am »
There's nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment. There's a ton of things wrong with the NRA.

And those would be what?
Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline Rocco

  • Full Member
  • Species: German Shepherd
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 150
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2016, 04:38:09 pm »
Why not women? Surely they can help defend the U.S. just as much, if not more, than the men can.
The Marine Corps actually did field tests, and found that all male combat units were better than integrated or all female units.


Offline cause the rat

  • Hero Member
  • Species: rat
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 811
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2016, 04:55:31 pm »
First. Their entire no registration fight is based  on money. They would loose money if their members could prove they owned the guns that got stollen.
Their absolute fear based propaganda that any mental test is going to take guns rights away.
Their complete fear based propaganda that any legislation  restricting dangerous weapons will lead to all weapons being banned.
They used to be all about gun rights, safety and training. Now their nothing more than a tin foil hat wearing disease. Screaming out fear and propaganda. Then paying politicians millions to make sure they get their way.

Perhaps if the next mass shooting was at a large NRA event they would at least admit there is a problem.

It's been said that rats can gain access to your home by climbing up threw your toilet. I prefer to use the front door.

Offline Loc

  • Tea-obsessed transhumanist and Buddhist.
  • Species: Cyborg snow leopard
  • The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
  • *
  • Posts: 4308
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2016, 05:17:26 pm »
Why not women? Surely they can help defend the U.S. just as much, if not more, than the men can.
The Marine Corps actually did field tests, and found that all male combat units were better than integrated or all female units.

Citation needed.

Avatar by Shibara,  sig by Miser

0.1.0 carrot tail leopard gecko, Gelbstoff
0.1.0 bearded dragon, Dany
0.0.1 amel stripe het hypo corn snake, Vivec


Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 26924
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2016, 08:17:27 pm »
I've got a thread for discussing women in the military here:
http://forums.furtopia.org/general-non-furry-discussion/women-in-defensivecombat-roles/
Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline Rocket T. Coyote

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Canis Latrans Rocketus
  • The Furry Model Rocketeer
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1830
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2016, 11:59:33 am »
First. Their entire no registration fight is based  on money. They would loose money if their members could prove they owned the guns that got stollen.
Their absolute fear based propaganda that any mental test is going to take guns rights away.
Their complete fear based propaganda that any legislation  restricting dangerous weapons will lead to all weapons being banned.
They used to be all about gun rights, safety and training. Now their nothing more than a tin foil hat wearing disease. Screaming out fear and propaganda. Then paying politicians millions to make sure they get their way.

Perhaps if the next mass shooting was at a large NRA event they would at least admit there is a problem.

Almost word-for-word from the sham gun owners for Obama front group headed by former Redskins QB.

It's not fear-mongering/paranoia if it's actually being advanced. In recent years, it has become clear that the gloves are off. Even Hilrod thinks the NRA is a bigger enemy than ISIS.

If someone were foolish enough to try a mass shooting at an NRA-sponsored event, then he would be prime candidate for a Darwin Award. These events are definitely not gun-free zones and have far better security than any school, church, or night club.
"The coyote is a living, breathing allegory of Want. He is always hungry. He is always poor, out of luck, and friendless. The meanest creatures despise him. And even the fleas would dessert him for a velocipide."~Mark Twain
(Baps the old humorist.)

Online animagusurreal

  • Hero Member
  • Finishing the Hat
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1233
    • VividGroovy.com
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2016, 10:40:08 pm »
Conditions in the U.S. were very different when the Second Amendment was created. I'm currently reading the Ron Chernow bio of Alexander Hamilton, and at the point I'm up to, having a "standing army" of professional soldiers to defend the country (like the one we have now) is seen as extremely controversial. Also, "guns" were things like pistols and muskets. I don't think they conceived of modern guns that can kill multiple people in a very short amount of time.

I don't think the conspiracy theories about gun laws being a slippery slope towards total disarmament and fascism do anything to help the pro-gun side's case. I don't oppose private citizens' having the right to own guns for self-defense, hunting, etc., and I'm not aware of anyone who does. It seems like something should be done to prevent guns from winding up in the hands of obvious madmen, but the same debate between the pro- and anti-gun sides just seems to repeat every time there's a new shooting in the news.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2016, 10:53:12 pm by animagusurreal »


DA         FA

Offline Rocco

  • Full Member
  • Species: German Shepherd
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 150
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2016, 12:53:09 am »
Conditions in the U.S. were very different when the constitution was created. I don't think they conceived of modern computers that could allow you to speak to people all across the nation and world effortlessly. Therefore, I think you all need to shut up. And I don't think they could have thought about people doing bombings, so let's suspend the Fourth and Fifth Amendments while were at it.

Self defense, hunting, and target shooting are all great, but no one likes to talk about the real reason for the Second Amendment. If, God forbid, the government were to ever go tyrannical, the Second Amendment is there as a final line of defense for the people. I am not advocating armed resistance, and I pray it never comes to that in my lifetime, but that is the main reason.

Thomas Jefferson quotes

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security

George Washington

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

And I won't go quoting dictators who disarmed their people and then killed tens of millions of people. It is the main reason for the Second Amendment. I pray it never comes to that. That is why the 'assault rifles' (A true assault rifle has selective fire. They are already heavily regulated. So why would that term be recycled? Hmmm.) can not be banned or too heavily regulated.


I have presented why not. I am interested to hear opposing opinions. And also what others think should be done.

Online animagusurreal

  • Hero Member
  • Finishing the Hat
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1233
    • VividGroovy.com
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2016, 04:44:05 am »
Conditions in the U.S. were very different when the constitution was created. I don't think they conceived of modern computers that could allow you to speak to people all across the nation and world effortlessly. Therefore, I think you all need to shut up. And I don't think they could have thought about people doing bombings, so let's suspend the Fourth and Fifth Amendments while were at it.

(Assuming this is a response to my post because it begins with the same words).

I never advocated "suspending" the Second Amendment because conditions were different then. I'm just saying we can think about how things were when the amendment was created vs. how they are now.

Here are a few other things I've always wondered:

- If guns are the greatest defense against government tyranny, people with guns should be the most confident. Yet gun advocates seem to be the most worried about tyranny, specifically that the government will take their guns away. If they believe the government can do that, then what good are the guns against tyranny?

- How would a militia armed with guns fight a government that (unlike in Jefferson and Washington's time) has access to tanks, fighter jets, missles, nuclear weapons, etc.?

- Why is it assumed that if a random assortment of gun owners seized power, that they would abuse it any less than the tyrannical government?

That said, if some see the need to prepare for a hypothetical armed resistance against a tyrannical government, it seems to me there should be some way to balance that with dealing with the mass-shooting problem that is happening right now. I don't know what the answer is, which is why I usually don't get involved in political debates, but my point was basically that the conversation on gun control just seems to go in circles. I'm not blaming the pro-gun side entirely for this, I'm just saying that labeling anyone who proposes any sort of gun control law as a potential fascist doesn't help.

I am glad to see that you don't advocate armed resistance. What makes American democracy great, (in theory, at least) is the transfer of power without bloodshed. Jefferson's quote about watering the Tree of Liberty with blood creeps me out a little, making it sound like it's a requirement rather than a last resort.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 04:57:39 am by animagusurreal »


DA         FA

Offline Natura Wolf

  • *****
  • Posts: 1679
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2016, 05:27:17 am »
it sounds very much of having a gun to protect against the government rather than criminals.

Question to this I'd ask is, do you believe law and government are the same, or law and politics are the same.

I say this because I've met lawyers and they hate government MPs

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 26924
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2016, 07:37:13 am »
Quote
- How would a militia armed with guns fight a government that (unlike in Jefferson and Washington's time) has access to tanks, fighter jets, missles, nuclear weapons, etc.?

Call it whatever you want:
Armed rebellion
Militia group
Anti-gov't militants
Freedom fighters
.......etc., etc.  It comes down to one thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

Quote
Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.

This type of warfare is almost always hardest to suppress/put down by gov't forces.
Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline Rocco

  • Full Member
  • Species: German Shepherd
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 150
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2016, 10:41:00 am »

I never advocated "suspending" the Second Amendment because conditions were different then. I'm just saying we can think about how things were when the amendment was created vs. how they are now.

Here are a few other things I've always wondered:

- If guns are the greatest defense against government tyranny, people with guns should be the most confident. Yet gun advocates seem to be the most worried about tyranny, specifically that the government will take their guns away. If they believe the government can do that, then what good are the guns against tyranny?

- How would a militia armed with guns fight a government that (unlike in Jefferson and Washington's time) has access to tanks, fighter jets, missles, nuclear weapons, etc.?

- Why is it assumed that if a random assortment of gun owners seized power, that they would abuse it any less than the tyrannical government?

That said, if some see the need to prepare for a hypothetical armed resistance against a tyrannical government, it seems to me there should be some way to balance that with dealing with the mass-shooting problem that is happening right now. I don't know what the answer is, which is why I usually don't get involved in political debates, but my point was basically that the conversation on gun control just seems to go in circles. I'm not blaming the pro-gun side entirely for this, I'm just saying that labeling anyone who proposes any sort of gun control law as a potential fascist doesn't help.

I am glad to see that you don't advocate armed resistance. What makes American democracy great, (in theory, at least) is the transfer of power without bloodshed. Jefferson's quote about watering the Tree of Liberty with blood creeps me out a little, making it sound like it's a requirement rather than a last resort.

Let's take a look at how it was different back then for the Fourth. They didn't have terrorist attacks like we do today, and Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMDS) weren't invented. One terrorist could take out a city. Or one terrorist with multiple conventional bombs could shut down a city. Therefore, the police need to be able to search people and their property whenever they feel like it might help.
We can't go down the slippery slope of "It was different then".

We are worried about it because we see it as the biggest threat to America. An all of a sudden confiscation will not happen anytime soon because that WOULD start Civil War 2. They (the hopeful tyrants) will use the how to boil a frog method, just like with Nazi Germany. It started off small, and ended with confiscation and millions dead. On why we are the most worried, consider this. I don't believe global warming is a threat(I believe the Earth goes through hot and cold times, not influenced by man). Therefore, I'm not worried about it. But if you (I don't know what you believe, I'm just using you as an example) do believe it, you will take note and worry when you see higher temperature averages. 

A militia could definitely take on the government. Our military at the top of its game with international allies couldn't take out jihadis in Iraq or Afghanistan. The military families were thousands of miles away, safe. I hate to say it, but no one, even women and children, would be safe in a revolution/civil war/ armed insurrection. Neither would storage facilities, high ranking officials (all it takes is one guy with a scoped rifle, training, and one round), etc. If the government were to turn on the people, you would see large defection or refusal from all branches of the military, that slows down, shrinks, and decreases combat efficiency. Would all defect/refuse? No, but a good amount would. Those military members that defected to the people? They will bring some of their equipment. All those wars we have been in? Those are combat veterans, many of them will take up arms and carry out their oath. Then you have ordinary civilians who will rise up. All those ARs, AK, etc. and billions of rounds of ammo will be available.
And in a scenario like this, the economy would go into depression or collapse. Not only would patriots be hitting government convoys, you would see road gangs pop up like pirates, plundering where they could. You would almost guaranteed be looking at hundreds of thousands or millions dead. If you can't guess, I study in depth threats to America. I won't go into hypothetical like viruses, famine, EMP, outside intervention, etc. though.

You are absolutely correct, there is no guarantee that the new government wouldn't be as bad or worse. But if it is, the people are already armed and in combat mode. The war just continues. However, I would say a majority of the people who rise up would want to go back to following the Constitution closely. Does that mean we are safe? No. But if the people are fed up enough to fight a tyrannical government, you can bet they will want to fight until they feel safe.

If anyone here has any ideas on how to stop or decrease the amount of mass shootings, I am all ears. Say it, please! If I don't like it, I'll debate it with you. Maybe you'll change your mind, maybe I'll change mine, maybe we will figure something out that sounds good to both parties. If there is very little to no communication between sides, how are they to get along and agree on anything? The worst we can do is agree to disagree.

I think what makes America great is the people, and that they are free. They are free to, as long as it doesn't infringe on others (still working on it in areas, never will be perfect) you can do as you wish. You can worship as you please or don't, you can speak freely. You can defend yourself. You can be safe from government intrusion in your home and life. If you don't like something, you have the ability to go try to change it. Leaders, good and bad, come and go peacefully. And when in times of crisis, we band together, yet still have debate to make sure our nation is doing what is right. We have fought in numerous wars for survival, always banding together. We have seen economic depression, and economic prosperity. What makes America great are Americans. Every group contributes something. From far right to far left, we all have a place, and we all contribute. No one group has all the answers. But united we stand.


Natura. Yes, that is their most important purpose. However, self defense, hunting, target shooting, etc. are all allowed, protected, and (by me and many others) encouraged.
Lex Rex. The law is king. Law is above all. The government and politics should follow the law just the same as every individual American. And the Constitution is the top law of the land.

Kobuk. It would definitely be heavy guerilla warfare. And seeing that we couldn't defeat the North Koreans, North Vietnamese, or jihads (Soviets couldn't defeat these guys either), I have full faith a tyrannical government could not win. It would be horrific, but should be worth it.

Offline Old Rabbit

  • Species: Rabbit Artist
  • Offical Birthday Wisher.
  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 14411
    • Art by Oldrabbit
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2016, 09:09:29 am »
Firearms in the public hands for defense agains a bad government is no longer
an option. The military could put down amost any armed organization. Even at
the time of the civil war it was no longer an option. Look how the indian tribes
were defeated.

The best defense against government tyranny is public involvement. Voting for
good responsible people to be the caretakers of government. If we don't
then those in government get the idea they know what's best for the people, and
that can lead to tyranny.

Firearms in the hands of the people would make an invading power more difficult, but
likely would cause more death and destruction for the defenders than anything else.
Though many would rather die with a gun in their hands than surrender.

Of course if we ever have boarder raids from outlaws firearms would be handy if
the government was a bit slow about coming to ones aid. Firearms will always be
a good deterant and defense against law breakers.  Not long ago a ex-employee tried
to kidnap his old boss using a gun, only to find the boss had a gun too. No shots
were exchanged, but the ex-employee went to jaii, and the boss is fine.




« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 09:15:36 am by Old Rabbit »
oldrabbit.com
Avatar drawn by me.

Offline Rocco

  • Full Member
  • Species: German Shepherd
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 150
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2016, 10:26:47 am »
Firearms in the public hands for defense agains a bad government is no longer
an option.
I fully disagree. The South lost the Civil War because they went toe to toe with the North. I haven't studied the Indian Wars, but I know there was one big thing against the Indians: public support. The nation was behind the Army. The Indians were killing their friends and families, so the nation supported the Army.

Public involvement is the first, and I pray will be the only involvement ever needed. I don't remember who/where the quote is from but "All that is required for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing"

Firearms in the hands of a few with people who aren't willing to fully support the military equals an, up to now, un winnable situation. Somalia. Warlords control the area. We move in to help the people, to give them food, water, medical attention, and safety. What did we get? Dead Americans and Blackhawk Down. Korea. We had lots of dead Americans and Koreans. What did we get? A divided Korea. We pulled out aka lost. Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands dead. We pulled out because we lost. Iraq. Afghanistan by America and the Soviets. All were guerilla wars/insurgencies. All of them, the invaders pulled out because they couldn't pacify the people. The big guys lost. Those militaries were at the top of their games. Massive funding, families and infrastructure safe back home, and, for the most part until the people back home saw the wars couldn't be won, public support.
The goal in a guerrilla war/insurgency isn't to defeat an invader, it is to make the cost so horrible that the invaders lose the will to fight so you can exit the conflict. In the case of a war in America, there are two exit strategies. 1 Make peace with the old government and divide the country, classified as a revolutionary guerilla war/insurgency. 2 Turn it into a civil war and try to take out the old government. The danger with that is it would require you to change from a guerrilla war/insurgency to a conventional war. And you would then be having to try to keep together a country that tried to kill each other.
America has done both, but I would see the patriot forces pursue option one.

I'd describe how a guerrilla war/insurgency would be fought, but that would probably be off topic. I will only post it if Kobuk wants me to.

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 26924
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2016, 04:20:44 pm »
Quote
I'd describe how a guerrilla war/insurgency would be fought, but that would probably be off topic. I will only post it if Kobuk wants me to.

No thanks. I think we both know how that will turn out, especially if it were in America. Simply put: Not good.  x_x

Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline Old Rabbit

  • Species: Rabbit Artist
  • Offical Birthday Wisher.
  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 14411
    • Art by Oldrabbit
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2016, 09:59:11 am »
Having guns give many people a feeling of control and protection.

I understand the hit and run attacks work best with the support of the people. If we had had to fight
Japan without the bomb instead of them surrendering. It would have been a bloodbath for both sides. 
They would have died as a people for their emperor.

In viet nam we killed probably over a half a million, but with the support of China and the Soviets they
hung on till we quit due to public demands. I personally think LBJ should have pulled out of that
conflict instead of escalating it. I may be wrong, but I read someplace it was more about oil interests
than communist expansion..

Partly why the Indians lost was due to sickness. Europeans carried deases the Indians had
no immunity to.. And of course government greed did the rest. Breaking treaties at will when
greedy people wanted the land or minerals. Also the Indians often faught each other instead.
Tribel conflicts are common around the world.

Gorilla warfare along with terrorist style attacks can work, look at the middle east, but that depends on
how far the guys they are fighting wish to go. Neutron bombs could wipe out entire populations, even
the fighters hiding in most undergound areas.

I am sure if the U.S. was ever invaded they would meet many defenders, and short of using nukes or
other nasty tactics would have a long  bloody time gaining control, if ever. An example would be how
the Russians faught the German invasion during ww2.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 10:05:52 am by Old Rabbit »
oldrabbit.com
Avatar drawn by me.

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 26924
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2016, 10:18:06 am »
But whether a people win or lose isn't just dependent on numbers, technology, or tactics. But also on the will, determination, courage, sacrifice, drive, and morale of the people. Those who lack the will and drive to fight will almost always lose.
Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline Rocco

  • Full Member
  • Species: German Shepherd
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 150
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2016, 11:15:04 am »
Yes, NVA had communist support. But we had a fully up and running military with a safe homeland. Just like in the Revolutionary War, patriots would get aid. If it were to happen today, I'd bet good money patriots would get aid from Russia and maybe China. Why? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just like how we support 'moderates' in the Middle East.

Yes, N bombs could be devastating. However, would they be willing to hit big cities under their own control? If so, you create more new angry fighters. If not, you create fighters who join the cause because it is strong.

Kobuk. Do we have permission to continue on this path, or do you think we are getting too far off topic?

Offline Old Rabbit

  • Species: Rabbit Artist
  • Offical Birthday Wisher.
  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 14411
    • Art by Oldrabbit
Re: The 2nd Amendment
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2016, 09:20:04 am »
Though the second amendment is largly about regular people protecting their freedom. Perhaps we
should start a new thread  that is more in line with that theme. Instead of just guns.

Rocco if you wish to continue the debate about civilian/gorilla defense start a new thread on it.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 09:22:08 am by Old Rabbit »
oldrabbit.com
Avatar drawn by me.