Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

[Trausti]

So the argument against the 2nd is that now that we've allowed a large powerful standing army to come about, under control of an expanding executive branch, we should dismantle the one right specifically identified in the constitution to stand against it? The exact reason for the 2nd, somehow becomes the driving reason to get rid of it?

It may help if we interpret the 2nd Amendment by the vantage point of those who wrote it. Up to independence, the authors were British subjects. British history, English history, was their history; King John, Simon de Montfort, Henry VIII, Charles I, Rump Parliament, Cromwell, English Bill of Rights, etc. To this history add the views of the Enlightenment writers, who the framers surely read. Thus, the 2nd Amendment was adopted by those who understood that for a people to be and remain free, the natural right to keep and bear arms for self defense must be preserved. Hence, the "US military is too powerful today" argument is a bit of a canard.

 

[dismal]

So the argument against the 2nd is that now that we've allowed a large powerful standing army to come about, under control of an expanding executive branch, we should dismantle the one right specifically identified in the constitution to stand against it? The exact reason for the 2nd, somehow becomes the driving reason to get rid of it?

I would add that the "well regulated militia" language in the 2nd amendment was never intended to constrain or limit the individual right to gun ownership. Its drafting reflects a few related ideas separated by semicolons and some later editing down.

It's clear from contemporaneous state constitutions and proposed amendment language a constraint or limit was never intended. (it was after all a bill of rights...) The concept that there was not an individual right to gun ownership but that the 2nd amendment protects something like the states' right to have a militia springs into being from the aether in the 20th century with no contemporary support.

 

[dismal]

Contemporary language from state constitutions:

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11

Proposed amendments from the states during ratification:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

Here is the amendment as it was first presented by Madison. (the link has the history of how it was edited to its current form.)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

 

[bilby]

So the argument against the 2nd is that now that we've allowed a large powerful standing army to come about, under control of an expanding executive branch, we should dismantle the one right specifically identified in the constitution to stand against it? The exact reason for the 2nd, somehow becomes the driving reason to get rid of it?

I would add that the "well regulated militia" language in the 2nd amendment was never intended to constrain or limit the individual right to gun ownership. Its drafting reflects a few related ideas separated by semicolons and some later editing down.

It's clear from contemporaneous state constitutions and proposed amendment language a constraint or limit was never intended. (it was after all a bill of rights...) The concept that there was not an individual right to gun ownership but that the 2nd amendment protects something like the states' right to have a militia springs into being from the aether in the 20th century with no contemporary support.

So what?

The debate is about what the law should be. It is of only passing relevance to consider what it is, or was.

Unless you think the US Constitution was handed down by the Gods, and must remain static for all time.

The 2nd may or may not have granted a valuable right when the Bill of Rights was enacted. But it is valueless today - and has positively harmful side-effects. So it should be changed.

 

[Trausti]

I would add that the "well regulated militia" language in the 2nd amendment was never intended to constrain or limit the individual right to gun ownership. Its drafting reflects a few related ideas separated by semicolons and some later editing down.

It's clear from contemporaneous state constitutions and proposed amendment language a constraint or limit was never intended. (it was after all a bill of rights...) The concept that there was not an individual right to gun ownership but that the 2nd amendment protects something like the states' right to have a militia springs into being from the aether in the 20th century with no contemporary support.

So what?

The debate is about what the law should be. It is of only passing relevance to consider what it is, or was.

Unless you think the US Constitution was handed down by the Gods, and must remain static for all time.

The 2nd may or may not have granted a valuable right when the Bill of Rights was enacted. But it is valueless today - and has positively harmful side-effects. So it should be changed.

Regressive leftist is regressive.

 

[dismal]

I would add that the "well regulated militia" language in the 2nd amendment was never intended to constrain or limit the individual right to gun ownership. Its drafting reflects a few related ideas separated by semicolons and some later editing down.

It's clear from contemporaneous state constitutions and proposed amendment language a constraint or limit was never intended. (it was after all a bill of rights...) The concept that there was not an individual right to gun ownership but that the 2nd amendment protects something like the states' right to have a militia springs into being from the aether in the 20th century with no contemporary support.

So what?

The debate is about what the law should be. It is of only passing relevance to consider what it is, or was.

Unless you think the US Constitution was handed down by the Gods, and must remain static for all time.

The 2nd may or may not have granted a valuable right when the Bill of Rights was enacted. But it is valueless today - and has positively harmful side-effects. So it should be changed.

Courts don't make rulings on what a law should be, but what it is.

But if you want to change the law to what you think it should be you are welcome to try.

 

[bilby]

So what?

The debate is about what the law should be. It is of only passing relevance to consider what it is, or was.

Unless you think the US Constitution was handed down by the Gods, and must remain static for all time.

The 2nd may or may not have granted a valuable right when the Bill of Rights was enacted. But it is valueless today - and has positively harmful side-effects. So it should be changed.

Courts don't make rulings on what a law should be, but what it is.

But if you want to change the law to what you think it should be you are welcome to try.

I don't live in a jurisdiction where this law applies; and I do not have a vote, nor official representation, in that jurisdiction. So all I can do is try to explain to those who do have the appropriate franchise to excercise it in such a way as to protect themselves.

So, yes, I am welcome to try; and here I am, trying.

Just as I can't stop my alcoholic mate from drinking; I nevertheless can and should try to dissuade him from doing so. He may not realise the harm he is doing; so I have a duty to point it out. He might like what he is doing, and not want to change; so I have a duty to try to persuade him that he is wrong.

At the end of the day, it's his choice, not mine. But I have a duty to at least try to help. Even if the only help I can offer is unwanted advice, and facts that he would rather ignore.

 

[arkirk]

I think this question perhaps deserves a one word answer....NO. As we already have seven pages of thread dealing with this. Legalese and constitutional literalism are just excuses for not dealing with this obvious flaw in our government. The second amendment should be scrapped. A 38 in every dresser drawer does not make for a safer country. Neither does a contract for an F-35. Neither do U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in Europe and Turkey in violation of the NNP treaty. We as a nation have come to regard ourselves as needing to overkill every person government or organization that proposes to do thing differently from what our rich want. So we go around the world blowing up whole nations, leaving them in wreckage and then deciding we actually can't leave. This is all just part of a sweet deal to keep the the defense industry wheels turning...just imagine we have a carrier named after Gerald R. Ford. Perhaps our next big gun we can name after John Holmes...

 

[ImGod]

After the Republicans win the house, senate, and presidency over this issue (which has little to do with our suicide and violence homicide issues), they'll appoint a justice or two to hep define the issue.

On top of it, they'll open up abortion, marriage, and repeal healthcare, etc. It seems like such and odd issue for Democrats to bring to the forefront, given the problems with the country and our gun and violence rates dropping yearly. We're safer than we were in the 60s in all but liberal cities with stricter gun laws.

 

[untermensche]

After the Republicans win the house, senate, and presidency over this issue (which has little to do with our suicide and violence homicide issues), they'll appoint a justice or two to hep define the issue.

For good?

 

[ImGod]

Just because Clinton doesn't see it, doesn't mean it's not true. If she were to get the nomination, I'd expect no swing state democrats inviting her to campaign with them. And hundreds of op-eds lIke this one.

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_28992672/hillary-clintons-suggestion-gun-buyback-is-step-back

But maybe I'm wrong and she can win without states like Florida, Ohio, and Colorado.

 

[corpsman]

I would add that the "well regulated militia" language in the 2nd amendment was never intended to constrain or limit the individual right to gun ownership. Its drafting reflects a few related ideas separated by semicolons and some later editing down.

It's clear from contemporaneous state constitutions and proposed amendment language a constraint or limit was never intended. (it was after all a bill of rights...) The concept that there was not an individual right to gun ownership but that the 2nd amendment protects something like the states' right to have a militia springs into being from the aether in the 20th century with no contemporary support.

So what?

The debate is about what the law should be. It is of only passing relevance to consider what it is, or was.

Unless you think the US Constitution was handed down by the Gods, and must remain static for all time.

The 2nd may or may not have granted a valuable right when the Bill of Rights was enacted. But it is valueless today - and has positively harmful side-effects. So it should be changed.

Bull, etc, etc... The Constitution was designed to be interpreted rigorously and with no latitude for change other than the amendment process, which was deliberately made difficult. Most definitely undemocratic as the intent was to protect the Constitutional rights of any sort of minority from the majority. That evil people gain political power is a reality that always has, and always will be, part of the human condition. The 2nd Amendment was designed to address that issue. Subversion of the Constitution is unlawful and grounds for implementation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bilby]

So what?

The debate is about what the law should be. It is of only passing relevance to consider what it is, or was.

Unless you think the US Constitution was handed down by the Gods, and must remain static for all time.

The 2nd may or may not have granted a valuable right when the Bill of Rights was enacted. But it is valueless today - and has positively harmful side-effects. So it should be changed.

Bull, etc, etc... The Constitution was designed to be interpreted rigorously and with no latitude for change other than the amendment process, which was deliberately made difficult. Most definitely undemocratic as the intent was to protect the Constitutional rights of any sort of minority from the majority. That evil people gain political power is a reality that always has, and always will be, part of the human condition. The 2nd Amendment was designed to address that issue. Subversion of the Constitution is unlawful and grounds for implementation of the 2nd Amendment.

Sure. The ability to prevent a changes is a strength when the conditions that inspired the constitution don't change, but the political environment does. It's a great idea to render changes difficult.

But it is a major problem when the circumstances that inspired the constitution have changed. And in the case of the 2nd, they have changed dramatically.

Breech loading rapid fire rifled weapons were simply not a consideration in the 18th Century - any more than nuclear weapons were.

Of course some people think that the right to bear arms should include private nukes. But those people are fucking nuts.

Let the people have the right to bear any arms that were available before 1790. Anything else, they need licence, registration and insurance. No licences for under 21s, written and practical competency tests before licensing; mandatory insurance, registration of all transfers of ownership and penalties for the last registered owner if a gun is used in a crime and has not been reported stolen.

I have no problem with people owning guns. But it isn't a right to own a modern weapon in a sane society.

Regardless of your national obsession with your constitution, even the guys who wrote it included an amendment mechanism. It's well past time you used it. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Trausti]

Bull, etc, etc... The Constitution was designed to be interpreted rigorously and with no latitude for change other than the amendment process, which was deliberately made difficult. Most definitely undemocratic as the intent was to protect the Constitutional rights of any sort of minority from the majority. That evil people gain political power is a reality that always has, and always will be, part of the human condition. The 2nd Amendment was designed to address that issue. Subversion of the Constitution is unlawful and grounds for implementation of the 2nd Amendment.

Sure. The ability to prevent a changes is a strength when the conditions that inspired the constitution don't change, but the political environment does. It's a great idea to render changes difficult.

But it is a major problem when the circumstances that inspired the constitution have changed. And in the case of the 2nd, they have changed dramatically.

Breech loading rapid fire rifled weapons were simply not a consideration in the 18th Century - any more than nuclear weapons were.

Of course some people think that the right to bear arms should include private nukes. But those people are fucking nuts.

Let the people have the right to bear any arms that were available before 1790. Anything else, they need licence, registration and insurance. No licences for under 21s, written and practical competency tests before licensing; mandatory insurance, registration of all transfers of ownership and penalties for the last registered owner if a gun is used in a crime and has not been reported stolen.

I have no problem with people owning guns. But it isn't a right to own a modern weapon in a sane society.

Regardless of your national obsession with your constitution, even the guys who wrote it included an amendment mechanism. It's well past time you used it. I won't hold my breath.

You could make that argument about all of the Bill of Rights. They didn't have the internet or twitter. These changed circumstances make the 1st Amendment outdated. Nah, I'll keep my freedoms comrade.

 

[bilby]

Sure. The ability to prevent a changes is a strength when the conditions that inspired the constitution don't change, but the political environment does. It's a great idea to render changes difficult.

But it is a major problem when the circumstances that inspired the constitution have changed. And in the case of the 2nd, they have changed dramatically.

Breech loading rapid fire rifled weapons were simply not a consideration in the 18th Century - any more than nuclear weapons were.

Of course some people think that the right to bear arms should include private nukes. But those people are fucking nuts.

Let the people have the right to bear any arms that were available before 1790. Anything else, they need licence, registration and insurance. No licences for under 21s, written and practical competency tests before licensing; mandatory insurance, registration of all transfers of ownership and penalties for the last registered owner if a gun is used in a crime and has not been reported stolen.

I have no problem with people owning guns. But it isn't a right to own a modern weapon in a sane society.

Regardless of your national obsession with your constitution, even the guys who wrote it included an amendment mechanism. It's well past time you used it. I won't hold my breath.

You could make that argument about all of the Bill of Rights. They didn't have the internet or twitter. These changed circumstances make the 1st Amendment outdated. Nah, I'll keep my freedoms comrade.

It's rather cute when Americans talk about keeping their freedoms, as though they don't live in the developed nation with by far the largest proportion of their population in jail; where the cops routinely shoot people dead in the streets; and where being suspected of a crime allows the cops to seize your stuff for their own use.

But whatever. Enjoy your 'freedoms', comrade. Just don't get sick or have an accident without the best possible medical insurance. So that means don't dare lose your job - from which you can be fired at will. Keep kissing your boss's arse while dreaming of freedom. It costs nothing to dream. Maybe that's why you imagine that you are 'free'.

 

[corpsman]

Bull, etc, etc... The Constitution was designed to be interpreted rigorously and with no latitude for change other than the amendment process, which was deliberately made difficult. Most definitely undemocratic as the intent was to protect the Constitutional rights of any sort of minority from the majority. That evil people gain political power is a reality that always has, and always will be, part of the human condition. The 2nd Amendment was designed to address that issue. Subversion of the Constitution is unlawful and grounds for implementation of the 2nd Amendment.

Sure. The ability to prevent a changes is a strength when the conditions that inspired the constitution don't change, but the political environment does. It's a great idea to render changes difficult.

**

People have not changed. Nor will they short of genetic manipulation or evolution.

**
But it is a major problem when the circumstances that inspired the constitution have changed. And in the case of the 2nd, they have changed dramatically.

Breech loading rapid fire rifled weapons were simply not a consideration in the 18th Century - any more than nuclear weapons were.

**
Irrelevant. The intent was made clear, in the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and subsequent SCOTUS rulings that the militia was to be armed with contemporary military weapons. I will never forget walking into a farmers shop building in Finland and seeing a Leopard battle tank and an attack helicopter parked within. Issued to the farmer and his local militia unit by the government.

**
Of course some people think that the right to bear arms should include private nukes. But those people are fucking nuts.

Let the people have the right to bear any arms that were available before 1790. Anything else, they need licence,

**
registration and insurance. No licences for under 21s, written and practical competency tests before licensing; mandatory insurance, registration of all transfers of ownership and penalties for the last registered owner if a gun is used in a crime and has not been reported stolen.

**
Licensing is unconstitutional. It is, literally, an infringement. Break out your dictionary. preferably one that was written in the latter 18th century.

**

I have no problem with people owning guns. But it isn't a right to own a modern weapon in a sane society.

**

There is not, nor has there ever been, a "sane society". Study up on the 4% of the population who are psychopaths, a disorder for which there is no known effective treatment. I sympathize with your feelings regarding violence. Sadly, it is a simple, immutable historic and very contemporary fact that disarmed peoples are, sooner or later, enslaved.

**

Regardless of your national obsession with your constitution, even the guys who wrote it included an amendment mechanism. It's well past time you used it. I won't hold my breath.

**
What is a national obsession? I appreciate your recognition of the amendment process and enthusiastically support your right to exercise it.

All that said. in my not at all humble opinion, what you want will bring about civil war and foreign military attacks. Not exactly a sane prospect. I vehemently disagree that it is well past time to amend the 2nd Amendment, and never will be. The great irony of this debate, and the unlawful legislative infringement and regulation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, is that it is, as always happens, driving the rapid development of technology enabling the cheap production of military firearms in private homes and businesses. Create a demand, and it will be met. Illegal? Yes. Unlawful? No. Prohibitions always fail.

 

[bilby]

Sure. The ability to prevent a changes is a strength when the conditions that inspired the constitution don't change, but the political environment does. It's a great idea to render changes difficult.

**

People have not changed. Nor will they short of genetic manipulation or evolution.

**
But it is a major problem when the circumstances that inspired the constitution have changed. And in the case of the 2nd, they have changed dramatically.

Breech loading rapid fire rifled weapons were simply not a consideration in the 18th Century - any more than nuclear weapons were.

**
Irrelevant. The intent was made clear, in the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and subsequent SCOTUS rulings that the militia was to be armed with contemporary military weapons. I will never forget walking into a farmers shop building in Finland and seeing a Leopard battle tank and an attack helicopter parked within. Issued to the farmer and his local militia unit by the government.

**
Of course some people think that the right to bear arms should include private nukes. But those people are fucking nuts.

Let the people have the right to bear any arms that were available before 1790. Anything else, they need licence,

**
registration and insurance. No licences for under 21s, written and practical competency tests before licensing; mandatory insurance, registration of all transfers of ownership and penalties for the last registered owner if a gun is used in a crime and has not been reported stolen.

**
Licensing is unconstitutional. It is, literally, an infringement. Break out your dictionary. preferably one that was written in the latter 18th century.

**

I have no problem with people owning guns. But it isn't a right to own a modern weapon in a sane society.

**

There is not, nor has there ever been, a "sane society". Study up on the 4% of the population who are psychopaths, a disorder for which there is no known effective treatment. I sympathize with your feelings regarding violence. Sadly, it is a simple, immutable historic and very contemporary fact that disarmed peoples are, sooner or later, enslaved.

**

Regardless of your national obsession with your constitution, even the guys who wrote it included an amendment mechanism. It's well past time you used it. I won't hold my breath.

**
What is a national obsession? I appreciate your recognition of the amendment process and enthusiastically support your right to exercise it.

All that said. in my not at all humble opinion, what you want will bring about civil war and foreign military attacks. Not exactly a sane prospect.

I completely agree; the idea that either civil war or foreign invasion would happen if the 2nd was repealed is not at all sane.

I vehemently disagree that it is well past time to amend the 2nd Amendment, and never will be. The great irony of this debate, and the unlawful legislative infringement and regulation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, is that it is, as always happens, driving the rapid development of technology enabling the cheap production of military firearms in private homes and businesses. Create a demand, and it will be met. Illegal? Yes. Unlawful? No. Prohibitions always fail.

Nobody is talking about prohibitions. I am talking about regulation. Something that works in the 95% of the world that isn't the USA.

You seem to be unaware of its existence; but it's real, and it is not suffering from the absence of your damn fool constitution.

Land of the free my arse. I've never pledged allegiance to shit - that's for slave states (like the USA).

 

[corpsman]

All that said. in my not at all humble opinion, what you want will bring about civil war and foreign military attacks. Not exactly a sane prospect.

I completely agree; the idea that either civil war or foreign invasion would happen if the 2nd was repealed is not at all sane.

I vehemently disagree that it is well past time to amend the 2nd Amendment, and never will be. The great irony of this debate, and the unlawful legislative infringement and regulation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, is that it is, as always happens, driving the rapid development of technology enabling the cheap production of military firearms in private homes and businesses. Create a demand, and it will be met. Illegal? Yes. Unlawful? No. Prohibitions always fail.

Nobody is talking about prohibitions. I am talking about regulation. Something that works in the 95% of the world that isn't the USA.

You seem to be unaware of its existence; but it's real, and it is not suffering from the absence of your damn fool constitution.

Land of the free my arse. I've never pledged allegiance to shit - that's for slave states (like the USA).

I get it, you're an Aussie. Sigh. Tell you what. Write about how things are doing when hordes of Indonesian technicals descend on Oz.
If you don't believe that will happen, then God help you. If that does happen, and it will if the USA is not able to bail your asses out again,
you are going to be cursing your own stupidity. And you are correct. The USA is no longer the land of the free, due to just the kind of notions
you have been spouting.

 

[bilby]

I completely agree; the idea that either civil war or foreign invasion would happen if the 2nd was repealed is not at all sane.

I vehemently disagree that it is well past time to amend the 2nd Amendment, and never will be. The great irony of this debate, and the unlawful legislative infringement and regulation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, is that it is, as always happens, driving the rapid development of technology enabling the cheap production of military firearms in private homes and businesses. Create a demand, and it will be met. Illegal? Yes. Unlawful? No. Prohibitions always fail.

Nobody is talking about prohibitions. I am talking about regulation. Something that works in the 95% of the world that isn't the USA.

You seem to be unaware of its existence; but it's real, and it is not suffering from the absence of your damn fool constitution.

Land of the free my arse. I've never pledged allegiance to shit - that's for slave states (like the USA).

I get it, you're an Aussie. Sigh. Tell you what. Write about how things are doing when hordes of Indonesian technicals descend on Oz.
If you don't believe that will happen, then God help you. If that does happen, and it will if the USA is not able to bail your asses out again,
you are going to be cursing your own stupidity. And you are correct. The USA is no longer the land of the free, due to just the kind of notions
you have been spouting.

You need to look at a map. The Indonesians would run out of supplies before they got anywhere near any part of Australia they might actually want; if they invaded, they would be up to their arses in croc infested mangrove swamp full of NorForce snipers, with no chance of going any further within a day. But if they did manage to go further, all they will find is thousands of kilometres of inhospitable bush. Defended by cockies with lots and lots of (licenced and registered) rifles.

Or they could sail their fleet down the East Coast to attack Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne; through reef shoals, under air and submarine attack, and try to land at the limit of a vast and embattled supply line.

The people of Vaucluse would just call the cops to move them on - the NSW police with interior lines would chuck them back into the ocean.

Your paranoid fantasies might fly with your paranoid mates, but don't try spinning that yarn with me.

Indonesia needs every soldier they've got to maintain order in Indonesia. They haven't the desire, the logistic ability nor the military power to invade Australia. And they know it.

 

[corpsman]

I completely agree; the idea that either civil war or foreign invasion would happen if the 2nd was repealed is not at all sane.

I vehemently disagree that it is well past time to amend the 2nd Amendment, and never will be. The great irony of this debate, and the unlawful legislative infringement and regulation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, is that it is, as always happens, driving the rapid development of technology enabling the cheap production of military firearms in private homes and businesses. Create a demand, and it will be met. Illegal? Yes. Unlawful? No. Prohibitions always fail.

Nobody is talking about prohibitions. I am talking about regulation. Something that works in the 95% of the world that isn't the USA.

You seem to be unaware of its existence; but it's real, and it is not suffering from the absence of your damn fool constitution.

Land of the free my arse. I've never pledged allegiance to shit - that's for slave states (like the USA).

I get it, you're an Aussie. Sigh. Tell you what. Write about how things are doing when hordes of Indonesian technicals descend on Oz.
If you don't believe that will happen, then God help you. If that does happen, and it will if the USA is not able to bail your asses out again,
you are going to be cursing your own stupidity. And you are correct. The USA is no longer the land of the free, due to just the kind of notions
you have been spouting.

You need to look at a map. The Indonesians would run out of supplies before they got anywhere near any part of Australia they might actually want; if they invaded, they would be up to their arses in croc infested mangrove swamp full of NorForce snipers, with no chance of going any further within a day. But if they did manage to go further, all they will find is thousands of kilometres of inhospitable bush. Defended by cockies with lots and lots of (licenced and registered) rifles.

Or they could sail their fleet down the East Coast to attack Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne; through reef shoals, under air and submarine attack, and try to land at the limit of a vast and embattled supply line.

The people of Vaucluse would just call the cops to move them on - the NSW police with interior lines would chuck them back into the ocean.

Your paranoid fantasies might fly with your paranoid mates, but don't try spinning that yarn with me.

Indonesia needs every soldier they've got to maintain order in Indonesia. They haven't the desire, the logistic ability nor the military power to invade Australia. And they know it.

Wrong. You are now treading upon the turf of my life work and expertise.

1. Indonesia is a Muslim nation, and rapidly being radicalized in their government. The numbers of Indo refugees is an indicator of population pressures and the vile forms of
of religious proselytizing that goes with that "religion".

2. Your are correct, Northern Territory and Queensland are empty. Just what they need. The time I spent there in the southern areas of NT, reminded me a lot of the empty zones of Arizona and Nevada.

3. The north of Australia is sitting on a sea of oil, enough to power Indonesia into a major industrial economy for centuries. It is true they too have a lot of oil, but then so does the USA. Notice where a huge chunk of the US and NATO militaries have been parked for the past some decades?

4. You greatly overestimate the capacity of a nation of 23 million people armed with grossly outdated firearms, axes and an abysmally small, albeit extraordinarily capable military, to resist the long term aggressive pressure 250,000,000 mostly Muslims who are outraged at your greedy hold on the continent. I know as I have worked with their military. They regard Australia as a suppurating sore of an insult. They fully expect to take at least the northern half as soon as they are ready. and that they are accomplishing. The Indos currently have nearly 500,000 personnel in the active and ready reserve military. Another 1.5 million retired and discharged veterans who are legally required to report for duty at the will of the government. Another 4 million in various local government militias and private armies. The Indonesian merchant navy has 13.8 million tonnes dead weight capacity. The US merchant fleet has 11.8 million tonnes, plus about 50 million tonnes under Panamanian and Liberian flags. Australia has 45 ships in its merchant navy. Pathetic. The notion that an army composed of 500,000 conscripts motivated by a desire to die for Allah can not deal with the natural obstructions of a barely defensible land is ludicrous.

Australia has 80,000 active and reserve military personnel. I have no doubt Aussies will put up one hell of a fight. Without support from major military powers such as Japan and the US, Australia as a Euro-centric democracy is doomed. What you need is nukes and a serious navy. You have neither.