Defensive Carry banner

US Forces Readiness and 2nd amendment.

1K views 13 replies 9 participants last post by  Saint77 
#1 ·
Our forefathers were pretty smart...

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 1, 2008; Page A04

The U.S. military is not prepared to meet catastrophic threats at home, and it is suffering from an "appalling gap" in forces able to respond to chemical, biological and nuclear strikes on U.S. soil, according to a congressional commission report released yesterday...


Read all about it. I disagree with their proposed solution... I think the 2nd amendment was the solution long ago to this. And still is.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
 
#3 ·
Well... I guess perhaps I must have registered there some time ago or something as I didn't when I was searching for articles on this report. The actual particular article is not important. It was one of many after that report was released. I am fairly certain all have seen it. Unless your not keeping up or getting news.

It was the major news release of the day the end of last week.

Most of you have seen this report I would think

That the US Military is not prepared to deal with the aftermath of such attacks. Which I wonder why anyone would ever thing they would be. I would hardly think we would be able to field forces to satisfy anyone that it was "prepared" for chaos. And the tragedy is calling it 'appalling". Since when was response to disaster from attacks a Military role? If it is, then no ones been bothering to prepare for it. We would, essentially, need about every other man woman or child to do so! And is this then not about self reliance and self protection is my take on it. Are we, as a people, expecting too much of government and not enough of ourselves. And so the relationship to the 2nd amendment. The tool of self survival and self reliance and protection. Particularly during an attack of significant proportion on our home soil. Chaos will ensue and no organized group can be expected to be able to deal with everything at that time. The real reason for the 2nd amendment was the ability for "the people" to form a Militia for their own protection from whatever the threat may be. Tyranny, foreign invasion or self protection.
 
#4 ·
ummm......Isn't that a STATE responsibility? +1 Cphilip

Why does anyone think this is a DoD responsibility? no no no no no

Not our job......will do it if ordered, but we'd be making it up as we went.

Just don't put Ray Nagin in charge of FEMA....
 
#6 ·
There is a reason that we have not been openly attacked, (most attacks lately have been blindside attacks), is that there is a privately owned gun behind every blade of grass. It has been openly stated by other countries dignitaries that the reason they won't invade us is that we, as a nation, are ready ,willing, and able to defend ourselves. That is the meaning of a militia. IMHO, I believe that that is part of what the founding fathers ment the 2nd Amendment to be, a second line of defence behind our standing armies.
 
#7 ·
Well the reason behind the report as I understand it is to try to fix the problem of our current military readiness. The national gaurd who are supposed to be held in reserve and ready for state emergencies have had to bear a great portion of the so call war on terror that this current administration is fighting.

The militia as stated in the 2A will do nothing as far as our readiness against an attack. Did the people of NY all pile into the streets armed and ready to defend their city when attacked on 9/11, no. They would have been arrested on the spot.

In order to fix the problems of our military force either the current troops will continue to be deployed and held on active duty leaving our national gaurd in the state that it is now, not ready, or recruitment will have to go up, or we will have to stop some of the military actions we are engaged in, or a draft will have to be called for.

Even though the 2A is about having a militia ready for action the fact is that the militia is not in a state of readiness. Unless your in your states national gaurd, or signed up in the state militia, you are simply another citizen that may or may not own and know how to use a firearm, with no organized way for the government to call you for immediate action in a situation where some tragic event or attack is brought against this country.

We have overextended our military and national gaurd without adaquate resources and time spent on how to keep the forces at their highest readiness levels. I believe that is what the report is about. That is what the hearings were about.
 
#10 ·
....Unless your in your states national gaurd, or signed up in the state militia, you are simply another citizen .....
Not entirely true...
Militia (United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
All able bodied male citizens are, were, or will be part of the 'backup' militia. I believe it was this militia that the 2nd admendment was referring to in the (unfortuantely poor choice of words) first part of the 2nd admendment.
 
#8 ·
I don't exactly agree completely that the National Guard was supposed to be held in readiness for dealing with the "aftermath" of attacks or natural disasters though.

Constitutionally the Federal Government is not supposed to maintain a standing army. The National Guards "National responsibility was to affect a smooth and quick assembly of a large standing army when needed. A concept along those lines of drawing down Federal standing army but lets face it... it resulted in a real void because now it became the Federal forces. We certainly agree on that I think.

The issue is that the National Guard "federalization" resulted in a void because they were also being used as State Militia. In fact they cannot do both as you point out. You cannot fix the level of problems we might encounter with a standing force. You will need state civilian forces. And the State Militia programs need boosting up now as well. These are non deployable resources that must be in place. And then from that point down you still need Civilian and Individual responsibility too. No amount of forces can be afforded that would deal with catastrophic attack or disaster. But we do have our arms and we do have our people. Always... People did attempt to protect themselves in New Orleans. They did protect themselves in LA... they had too there. After all, the forces supposed to couldn't.
 
#12 ·
I have had this discussion many times with my libreal brethren about the "what ifs" concerning another nation invading us; I told them that if anybody were foolish or suicidal enough to attempt something like that, every ******* cracker, gang banger, crazy brave and other concerned citizen would flock to every US border to be the first on their block to log a CONFIRMED KILL......

And I guarantee you that the Geneva convention would not exist either. No FMJ ammo would be used. Personally, I would be loading nothing but ballistic tips in the AR-15..
 
#13 ·
Yea, thats going to work, with a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack. Everyone running to the area with rifle in hand. Better invest in a bunch of body bags.

This report is not about an invasion from some foriegn country.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top