I headed off to the store today with my son to buy duct tape. You know, we're on High Alert and the government has informed us that we should prepare for the possibility of sealing ourselves in our homes.

Being the mother of a Boy Scout, I take the motto "Be Prepared" a little more seriously than the average person. So please don't jump all over me for running of to make provisions that might be unneccesary. Yes, I stalked up on water for Y2K -- I'll admit it.

In the car, I was reassuring my son that we're just "being prepared"........if you're a parent, you know the drill. Anyway, his conversation turned to envisioning an invasion in the US. Not because he's afraid. He's an average boy that dreams up big ideas.

However, the conversation got me to thinking about our right to bear arms. I've always been a supporter of this constitutional right and this is the reason. I've never gotten into debates about the issue and I'm not actually trying to debate it right now. I'm merely trying to obtain some insight on the way others think about this.

I personally believe that our forefathers envisioned and bestowed our right to bear arms so we could protect ourselves from a government. Any government -- foreign or even our own. I don't believe that our right to bear arms was meant to protect ourselves from the crazy neighbor down the street. Back then, if people weren't supposed to have guns, how would the crazy neighbor down the street have them! It's obvious to me that this constitutional right was born out of the oppressive experiences of the rule under the Brittish.

So my question to this forum was created in my head as my son chattered along and I started thinking about the Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared." I started wondering how much ammunition we had on hand in the attic and if we should consider buying more. Granted, our arms only consist of various hunting rifles and shotguns -- one is a semi-automatic. We're not handgun people; however, I always wanted one for target shooting -- just never got around to buying one. The point is that we might not have much, but we do have arms in our household.

I know, it's almost inconceivable for our soil to be invaded by a foreign forces. Well, almost inconceivable to me but not 11-year-old boys. However, how can we ever truly know that this might not happen at some time in the future? We can't -- it's impossible to know. I know that my little arsenal isn't going to be much up against military artilary; however, I'd much rather go down fighting than live in a society where I could possibly face concentration camps, rape, (now I'll get religious) and God knows what else.

So here's my question..........(finally, huh!)


If you are opposed to our right to bear arms, under these unlikely circumstances do you feel it's kind of nice to have them around?


Please limit your answers to the circumstances of a military invasion. I don't want to consider the domestic issues of this issue in this discussion.

I do not own a gun and don't want to. That is my Choice as it is yours to bear arms. As for protecting myself or kids against terrorist attacks, with firearms that most people own wouldn't stand a chance on earth. We are not talking here about military combat. We are talking about a terrorist attack. They won't come in shooting guns it will be a chemical attack. Or a Virus attack. ( Hence the new vaccinations now being given out). Anyone owning a gun would still be in the same boat as one who doesn't own a gun. Very scary!

Excuse me, but I was talking about military combat. I'll repost the statement.



I'm not critizing people for not wanting to own a gun. I was just interested in knowing how people felt about this issue regarding "military invasion." However, I'm not so interested anymore if it's impossible for the anti-gun community to separate the issue out.


As for your comments about "how" these current events will play out, I am not a fool. Of course, I know that! My question wasn't about these current events but of a military invasion of our own oppressive government or a foreign force. Saying it WON'T happen EVER seems closed minded to me. I try leave room open by not using "always" and "never" because I think I should consider "possibilities." I'm not perfect, but I try.

Eva, I hope to add a post that will hearten you (if me overly affection starved cat will get off my lap and hjvhvfuo keyboard)

I am an anti=gun person. My basic philosophy is why can't people just go back to stabbing each other. 1. It's more personal, 2. Modern medicine has a pretty good track record of treating stabbing wounds. (Based on statistics pull out of my a**)

I aim my displeasure at hand guns which are all too easy to carry around and for many too enticing not too brandish.

However I am against the ban on assault rifles. Because while I do not feel competent enough to form a militia that can stop the US military from trampling my civil liberties if they ever have a true change in heart and violate their wonderful tradition of not misbehaving at home, I would like to have a multi purpose raining hellfire type of weapon if the proverbial poop ever does hit the fan and we have anarchy. If law and order breaks down I would like to have an arsenal to fall back on for my and my own to rely on (or at least go down fighting). Short of that I have no use for guns. So leave me my Robocop level assault rifles and lock it up for a really rainy day that I hope none of us ever see.

Thank you! I thought maybe I was crazy for a moment.

I wish we could go back to stabbing too but I fear then some people would be against knives!!!

I agree handguns are very dangerous. That's partly why I never got around to buying one for target practice. It's a little too dangerous to have around simply for sport. However........oh darn, I'll save my stand on that issue for another thread because I don't want this thread to get into a domestic handgun thread. But I did want to let you know that I agree they are dangerous. You and I might just have differing opinions on how to resolve that problem. Maybe we'll meet again in another thread about it someday!

Thanks for posting in the spirit I started the thread. I greatly appreciate it. By the way, I loved your "more personal" philosophy!

Mommy dear - you did misread the intent of Eva's post. It's a hypothetical you have to play "what if".

I would think that a military invasion of the US is slim to nil. If people want to buy duct tape for a WMD attack, so be it. And like Eva alluded to, if we're going to prepare with duct tape, why not also prepare with some more offensive type weapons? Sounds fair to me.

I personally won't be stockpiling any ammo. Well, at least until there is a very high risk of an invasion. But, probably by then, I'd have enlisted in the military.

Eva,

First off, let me say that I've read a lot of your intelligent posts (and all are intelligent) and find you to be a beautiful mind, as are most on this board. This is in direct relationship to the wonderful job our hosts do to keep us on an intelligent level, and this is one of the brightest idea coming out of the web in a long time.

Okay, coming up off my knees, I remember being around 11 years of age and fantasizing about being a freedom fighter in the mountains of Colorado (or any old mountains--I was just 11). Boys tend to have such fantasies, I do believe. Most eventually grow out of that, as do we grow out of many things.

Now to the meat of this subject: What would I do and think if we were to be invaded by a foreign nation.

Well, I'd get my butt out of wherever I am at to find some freedom fighter group. The adventure wouldn't be the reason--I am 50 now with no such desires. However, as you have expressed, I'd rather go down fighting than go out whimpering. Defiance has always been a part of my nature. I'm suspecting that most citizens of the United States are pretty much the same on this matter.

I'd take my stinking little 9mm Glock and the partial box of rounds I keep around here in case some punks try to break in. This has happened recently, close by, and the punks blew away two people. It was a botched robbery. But I digress, so, by arming myself and heading into the hills of Colorado by jeep or, preferably, by dual-sport motorcycle (half road, half dirt), I'd be an independent guerilla seeking out some group.

Then, if the group is found, the 9mm would likely be replaced by armament lifted from National Guard armories. If I couldn't find a group, then I'd be hunting for some invader to kill and take his/her armament.

You can see the novel in this, can't you? The story is as old as the hills, and repeated daily across the world in various countries. Why, two summers ago I heard about a biker (motorcycle) getting captured in S. America by just such a group! He was eventually released--much skinnier than when we started out. What a way to lose weight, hey? Harley guy on a dual-sport, the image this brings up is pretty funny. It was serious for him. He was being held for ransom.

Anyway, the initial invasion would probably see a lot of us crying about safety and protection from the government. That won't last long. You'd be amazed what individuals can do when the chips are down. Regarding the 2nd Amendment, yeah, I am in favor of private firearm ownership but with responsibility. I am against these weird private militias running around our national forests. The time for violent revolution against our government isn't here--and that is really why the 2nd Amendment was put there, plus to bolster up the tiny military we had back when the constitution was being ratified.

In summary, I won't train for an expected invasion. When something like this happens, I'll do what I can to resist and probably die trying.

That's not a bad way to go

From what little unclassified documents I've read, the Army and Navy War Colleges have studied contingency plans for the unlikely event of a military invasion of the US.

If I remember correctly, if a surprise attack was mounted, territory would be captured by the enemy while we consolidated our forces from around the US and our bases overseas. We are too large of a country to defend on the borders with little to no warning.

During this time, US civilians in occupied territory would be thought provide intelligence to our forces, and on a limited scale, form militia groups and take to the hills. Having the advantage of knowing the land and having overwhelming popular support, it would be expected that these groups would do well enough harassing and sabotaging enemy troops and denying logistical support to them.

Then aiding in our offensive operations as scouts and guides, we would eventually overwhelm and defeat the enemy.

All this hinges on private ownership of, and the willingness to use firearms.
Many make the case of how can my hunting rifle stop an enemy army. Those people don't count on the expert marksmanship, camouflage and tracking/counter tracking skills of our millions of hunters and sportsmen.
A hunting rifle with a scope in the hands of one who has grown up shooting is a more powerful weapon than many give credit for.

Every time I envision this type of scenario, I recall, the movie 'Red Dawn' with Patrick Swayze. Very Hollywood, but an idea of what could be accomplished.

By saying this, however, I'm not endorsing everybody going out and buying a rifle and cammies and forming neighborhood militias.

It's an interesting question. Right now, the only force that would be able to take US territory and hold it is, ironically, the forces of our allies in Europe. I don't think we'll be going to war with the EU anytime soon, in spite of the current bad blood.

What I'm more concerned about is fifty or one hundred years down the line. If by that point we have somehow disarmed ourselves and only a handful of collectors outside the military own firearms, I would worry quite a bit. We should always be a nation where an invading army will face "a rifle behind every blade of grass," as Admiral Yamamoto put it.

I live in the only state to which was actually invaded in the recent past--Alaska. The Japanese took and held several islands in the Aleutians and bombed Dutch Harbor. In hindsight, we know the whole thing was a diversion leading up to an attack on Midway. But if Midway had gone the other way, there was virtually no military force in the state able to stop the Japanese from taking Kodiak, Anchorage, and south east. Kodiak and the islands along the SE coast could have served as excellent bomber and sub bases for attacks on the US West coast. There were, however, plenty of civilians with high-powered hunting rifles. Of course, the Japanese suffered a resounding defeat at Midway and had to pull back, so we never got to see how such a conflict would have played out. But in other nations where there was a strong tradition of civilian gun ownership, invading armies have had a very difficult time. Germany's tremendous problem holding Yugoslavia is a good example.

One point, however. If you're dealing with actual invading troops, the handgun has no value at all. It's a tool for civilization. Once people are shooting to kill, you absolutely have to have something that can hit beyond 25 yards. In fact, given that invading troops will likely have assault rifles, the best bet is to use something they won't have--high-powered, scoped, magnum hunting rifles. An accurized rifle in 7mm Mag or .300 Win. Mag. can drop soldiers and penetrate standard kevlar at 400 or 500 yards. That's outside the effective range of most assault rifles.

If you are opposed to our right to bear arms...

Eva: I think your opening post might be a bit too limiting. I don't know of anyone who completely opposes "our right to bear arms". I have yet to meet a single individual, no matter how ardent their support of gun legislation and restrictions, who is advocating an outright ban of firearms. There may be such people out there, but I gather that they are very few and far between - not to mention being about as unrealistic as is humanly possible.

While I am opposed to the possession of most automatic weapons, feel there should be strict control of who can posses deadly weapons and that gun-owners should be tested and licensed (like car owners) and all guns registered, I am in no way opposed to the right to bear arms in general. Therefore, I'm not qualified to address your hypothetical. Nor does anyone else who has responded here fit the description of those from whom you wanted to hear. Maybe you should open the discussion up a bit?

I'm so glad people brought up so many interesting points. You have been able to clarify my vision by providing potential future scenarios. It clearly is an issue of protecting our future generations from a future we can't foresee. Our forefathers were amazing people to conceive a constitution that has served us well for so long.

Red Dawn -- I couldn't remember the name of it. I kept thinking it was called "Wolverines" because of the group. It really is an excellent depiction of a scenario.

So many people against the right to bear arms use the argument that we wouldn't stand a chance; however, throughout history, many groups of people have overcome extremely powerful opponents by sheer determination.



In addition to these highly skilled civilian hunters and sportsmen, there are many people in our country who excellent marksmen because they participate in the hobby of target shooting. My sisters and I would fall into this category. All four of us have a better aim in target shooting than our husbands who hunt. Granted, the sportsmen's target is moving; however, if our aim is better than theirs at fixed targets, we couldn't be too bad with moving targets. The target shooting enthusiast would be a great asset. The hunters and marksmen would lead them.

It's interesting that my sisters and I enjoy this hobby because we weren't raised in a household with firearms -- our father didn't hunt. However, he did serve in the army and raised us to believe that our citizens should bear arms. Another useful group for militia -- retired military personnel.

What about the people that have never picked up a rifle but play paintball and laser tag? I know it's hardly experience but even some kids have an excellent aim. I love paintball, by the way!



Yes! Start writing the next script to a movie for our new generation!!

(By the way, thank you for the beautiful compliment. -blushing-)

any punk can fire from across the room, but it takes a man to get close enough to stab!-chris rock, from guns for knives

I support gun rights here is why:
a well regulated militia (militia meaning all able bodied citizens above the age 17 and under 45) being necessary to he security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

the militia is what is mostly rsponsible for us winning the rvolutionary war, because without their hit and run (now known as "guerilla") tatics, the english army would have mopped the floor with the continental army. the british were superior in number and skill.

the reason the japanese never tried invading the main land. Japanese Admiral Yamamoto is qouted as saying: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." this is the same thing that kept the soviets from invading.

also, off topic, but still: please do not follow the instructions of homeland security to seal your house off from the outside world with duct tape and plastic sheeting. unless you have a means of pulling air in and purifying it before it enters your hose, you will kill your self from either suffocation or CO2 poisoning.

edited to include qoutes aboute guns

Eva: First. Encourage your son on the Trail to Eagle. It's well worth the hard work. The leadership and skills he will learn, he will remember for the rest of his life. Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, curtious, kind, obeidient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent: After 7 years of being an Eagle myself, I can still recite them like I could when I was actively involved

Now, to your question. I think the Japenese General had it pretty right. Our guns have and will protect us from any future attack. Invading America and expecting anything but defeat is ludicrous.

I'm seriously hoping that the people who think one farmer with a hunting rifle wont' stand up against an invading army, aren't the same ones who think the US will have a hard time fighting in downtown Baghdad

Whenever I picture an invasion of America, I picture some army floating up on shore in Compton, etc etc...where the Blood's and Crypt's get together and have a field day at the invading armys expense

An invasion woudln't last long. Americans wouldn't stand for it. ANd I think that if something like that ever happened, many of those opposed to guns, would have a sudden change of heart

--cheers
DP, Proud Eagle Scout since 1996

As a matter of fact, he's crossing over to Boy Scout tonight. We just got done studying the words trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, curtious, kind, obeidient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent!

I've always encouraged him -- it's fun to hear him explain to his friends that it's not dumb and it will help him get into college and obtain a good job someday. It's true -- Eagle Scouts find success by various definitions. Most of our top corporate executives achieved Eagle Scout.

I just need to work on the religion thing though. I don't believe in organizd religion and attendance is a requirement. So, I guess we'll be heading off to some sort of tollerable denomination since they won't accept the teachings of "MOM" as an achievement.

I'm glad you brought up the gangs. I thought of them too but expected to get attacked for it considering they are part of the domestic problem with this issue. I think many people brought forth excellent examples of how Americans would be able to overcome an invasion in this thread.

I believe that the right to bear arms should be protected at all costs because this right exists to ensure our future as free people. Other solutions need to be created for existing problems but our right to bear arms must remain!

An unorganized mob is going to repel an enemy invasion?

Absolutely !!!!

Certainly!

Could we get a little more constructive in our posts, please?

Awe shucks! -smiling-

If you consider for a moment how many people we have in the United States and the fact that many households have firearms, the ground forces of an opposing army would have to send enough people to overcome our quantity alone. Furthermore, I don't feel that it would be entirely unorganized mobs. There will be organized factions, snipers, people merely intending to defend their homes, to name a few.

This has happened in many countries throughout the world, hiding in the hills and resistance everywhere. The US is in a better position than those countries were because we are starting off with an incredible number of armed civilians.

You and Mike should apprciated one liners like that. Saves money by using less bandwidth. heh, that would mean Wertz should be reprimanded for being so longwinded j/k

yes, a gang could repel, or at least present a problem to, an invading army. Why? Simple. They're protecting their home and their way of life. Never underestimate mankind's desire for self-presevation.

--cheers

It didn't seem to make much of a difference when France, Poland, Czecheslovakia, Denmark, Holland and China were invaded.

What percent of the people in these countries owned arms? How overwhelmed was their traditional military? Few believe armed citizens alone can defeat an organized army. They can make a difference in a battle between armies.

2nd Amendment:
"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."

Many have argued that the 2nd amendment was intended to keep a militia armed and ready. Not to allow ordinary citizens access to arms. (Don't shoot me, I'm very pro-gun and don't agree with this).

It's that first term "A well-regulated Militia" that some anti-gun folks are concentrating on.

As there are definately some yahoos in my neighborhood that I wouldn't want anywhere near me with a firearm if a domestic incursion happened. I do believe they should have the right to defend their home and family with what-ever means they can.

There has been the argument that hunters should have the right to have assault rifles and armor piercing bullets. That is absurd to me unless the Wildlife Dept. starts issueing bullet proof vest to deer.

But I also understand the concept of: don't let them have an inch, next they'll want a foot, then a yard, then your freedom

Hercules,

Yes, the arguments are well-formed and documented on both sides of the 2nd Amendment interpretation issue.

I suspect reasonable people will agree that regulation of firearms is a desireable thing. Just how this regulation is done seems to be the sticking point. For example:

Should citizens be premitted to carry concealed firearms with nothing more than a background check and payment of a permit fee?

Should mental health patients be allowed to own firearms?

Should convicted felons be allowed to own firearms?

Should firearm safety be a required subject in high school (or earlier)?

Should background checks be required before any firearm purchase (including gun shows)?

Should fully automatic firearms be banned from private ownership?

Should certain high-powered, penetrating bullet loads be banned from private ownership?

Should citizens be issued military-grade firearms and be required to train in militias?

I am all for well-regulation, especially firearms safety training in high school or earlier. I am in favor of requiring proof of such training before purchase (military service would be good), background checks, and even required militia training. I'd also like to see a lot more indoor practice ranges. And I'd be okay with a government-issued rifle too.

I'm 100% for education over restriction(s).

As I said, there are some idiots I would not want anywhere near me with a firearm, because they have no respect for the weapon.

yeah, too many kids think guns are toys. when I have children they are getting spring loaded bb guns to learn about gun safety. they will learn you NEVER point a gun at someone unless you intend to use it. they will learn to treat the gun as if it were always loaded. (and all by the time they're 7)

guns are tools, not toys.