The right to bare arms.............?

Question

The way I see it, the founding fathers we brilliant. The fact that Americans own and have access to so many guns, makes it so anybody who wants to invade this country is going to find an entire population ready to throw down. If anyone tried to occupy the United States do you believe that militas would spring up lickity split or what?

We have kids making pipe bombs in their basements, im sure we could improvise against planes and armored vehicles, **** the insergents are doing it to us.

I think the point when our military cannot afford to be volunteer anymore is the day the second civil war begins.

Answer 1

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

"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."

[edit] Modern interpretations of the Second Amendment
During the last two decades, the intended meaning of the Second Amendment, and how the Amendment applies in the twenty-first century, is one of the most frequently debated topics in American politics. The reason may stem in part from the perceived encroachments on, or enhancements of, individual rights to arms, amidst the increased prominence of gun control positions in modern politics.

The modern Second Amendment debate centers on questions such as:

Who does the Amendment mean by "the People"?
Why does the Amendment protect the right to 'keep and bear arms', and not protect just the right to 'bear arms'?
Does "bear arms" or "keep and bear arms" mean the same now as it did in 1789?
Is there significance that the Amendment is constructed of two clauses?
Is there significance that the phrase "defense of himself/themselves and the State" was included in some State Constitutions at the time but not included in the Federal Second Amendment?
In addition, the debate often involves discussion focused on more precise details around the word "militia" from the first clause portion of the Second Amendment, such as:

Who or what does the Amendment mean by the "militia"?
What relationship does "militia" today have with "militia" in 1789?
What is meant by "well regulated", relative to "militia"?
Does the mention of "militia" in the Second Amendment mean that maintaining viable militia is the 'obvious purpose' of the Second Amendment?
It also often involves topics on differences in historical meanings and thoughts such as:

What does "shall not be infringed" mean?
It also expands to include discussions on the impact among states, such as:

Does the Amendment prohibit States from regulating arms?
Does the Amendment permit some States to deviate from interpretations of the Amendment as taken by other States?
The debate is not simple.

Answer 2

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the states were supposed to regulate militias (train to the level of regulars) and they have never done this so the militia fighters would be cut to pieces if they fought an invading army. In addition, later governments, for whatever reasons, have made it impossible to be armed with modern military weapons, something unforeseen by the framers since hunting rifles/muskets were just as good if not better then military arms and many a community had their own battery of cannons. Current hunting rifles have little effect on armor and aircraft. While the founders were brilliant with their idea of an armed populace, we done ruined it.

Answer 3

The original intent was that Americans would be able to defend themselves from their own government. That's less of a concern today. Considering our military, it's unlikely that we could be invaded anytime soon. Still, if it did happen, we'd certainly find militias and guerilla groups forming overnight. Occupying any nation is difficult, but between our history and our armaments, the United States would certainly be exceptionally difficult to occupy.

Answer 4

Im sure that the United States has enough nuclear weapons to prevent another nation from even contemplating from infringing on the sovereignty of the U.S.

As pointed out above, no nation currently has either the ability - militarily size or logistical capability of even contemplating an invasion of the United States. China could not possibly do it without bringing their own society to its knees....it cannot possibly afford to do it or to even feed its own troops / logistical demands of such an operation. Any chinese leader that proposed it would quickly be out of office for stupidity....

If another nation was going to infringe on U.S sovereignty, they would make a deal with Venezuala or even Cuba and place military bases there, by which to monitor the movements of U.S ships / supplies and trade. Thats as far as it could possibly go.

Its the single individuals that arrive in the U.S quietly and discreetly and THEN set up a base to disrupt U.S economic life and bring terror that we need to be worried about. And god knows that no militia is going to stop that....

Answer 5

My first theory is that the main appropriate to "bare" hands sounds greater like area of the regulations of a sea coast community. besides the incontrovertible fact that, while discussing the main appropriate to "undergo" hands, that's luckily common sufficient to be sure as being what you meant, I could desire to heartily disagree including your supposition that the founding fathers have been "speaking approximately present day weapons." you could no longer account for issues that have yet to be invented, or perhaps the form did no longer initially cope with those ideas as they have been then popular. The shape became *amended* to contain the main appropriate to undergo hands as a fashion to be sure that no one governmental employer might substitute into effective sufficient to flow right into a individual's abode illegally and without basically reason. Having a nuclear weapon is a lot and away a greater effective and unfavorable skill for harm than any single individual could desire to ever be allowed, and that i think of you know greater advantageous than to unquestionably think of we could desire to constantly have get entry to to such issues every time we want--whether we promise rather nicely by no skill to apply them after a psychotic harm. protecting one's abode, family individuals and different assets is all nicely and robust, yet with the skill to take down a small platoon on one's own--no longer to show sending radioactive fallout over a million/2 the globe--is pushing the barrier between warning and paranoia.

Answer 6

Well, to invade the U.S., they would first have to strike with fighter jets from the air, or try to take out our navy with their navy to even get to our soil. Then they would start rollin over our hills with tanks and what not. The right to bare arms and the day of the militia was for another time in history. Civilians really wouldn't have to fight in a war. The national guard would get involved before we would.

Answer 7

Yes, if we were ever invaded you would have neighborhood militias spring up in all 50 states. You could call me by my proper rank of Colonel because I'd be on the frontlines.

Answer 8

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482

Answer 9

yep!! It's too bad that most outspoken libs and left wingers don't realize that they would'nt have the 1st amendment without the 2nd!! am i right or ??? Hey lets face it--if it was'nt for this right the lapd would still be shooting it out with those bank robbers---where did they (lapd) get the weapons to fight the robbers??? The freakin gun store around the corner!! Now, they label those same weapons as "weapons of mass destruction??? WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!

Answer 10

Some think the reason Hitler did not Switzerland is because there the people are the army, all of them. If the town bell rings all the males would take their gun out of the closet and report.