[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by steingar

What the hell do you think the German Jews did in the Ghetto of Warsaw!!!!!

Most lined up like orderly sheep, to be hauled off to die in the most abominable way imaginable.

[Purpdust]

SCOTUS had to look it up

Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good read

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by seamus

I'll agree with educated. Education is what empowers the citizenry to offset the power of government. It's the uneducated, apathetic citizenry over the last 30-40 years that has brought us to the point we're at now.

Using the horrendous public school education as an example, if you can show me where picking up a gun will solve this problem, I'll go buy one today and stand next to you in the fight.

I really can't think of one instance in which picking up a gun will solve any real issues with the government.

A Coup d'Etat, where the military tosses aside the Constitution (as in Thailand).

A President which is able to somehow get the Constitution thrown out.

A government that goes so overboard with laws, the people decide they don't want to live under them.

Violent protest: Not exactly trendy, but it is in fact effective

[seamus]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I disagree.

I think the war in Iraq has shown how poorly trained, to not trained people, with a battle rifle, and maybe a few IEDs, can fight a very effective campaign of harassment against the best military forces in the world.

I see where you are coming from but these are two different arguments in my book.

Iraq is showing that an offensive force who intends to change the politics, culture and personality of a region had better truly understand it in the first place. It's also showing that warfare between a nation and a small, well armed, well connected, well funded group is hard. Our militia from the 1700s would have been decimated years ago. The tactics used in Iraq are such that to shoot, move and communicate faster than your enemy (which is a base idea that all armies use to win wars) that simply picking up a weapon and slugging it out is ridiculous. Especially without any support from the local populace.

But we're talking about our military and our 2nd amendment. Our military is a complicated, combined arms instrument of epic proportions. There is not a Soldier coming out of Iraq that wouldn't tell you the importance of being able to communicate with the artillery, aviation, and joint assets that keep him alive for 12 months while deployed. The battlefield for the American Soldier is not conducted using a series of facing movements as it was 200 years ago.

[luvtolean]

Current American fighting doctrine has grown out of our particular set of circumstances.

We have enormous industrial capacity and wealth, and thus have evolved to trade material and training for manpower.

In the kind of protection where the militia is fighting on the side of the government in the US to protect the homeland, those tactics will in some ways have to change. Integration of the population into fighting units will be necessary. And there will not be enough "toys" to go around. Anyone that has a rifle and some ammo will be awfully happy to have it.

In a situation where the population decides to fight against the military for preservation of state, it will probably be fought by the militia in a way which is more like the insurgents in Iraq. They'll be using guerilla warfare...

[luvtolean]

Just found out this case has been scheduled for oral argument on November 13 at 9:30 AM EST.

[navydevildoc]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Just found out this case has been scheduled for oral argument on November 13 at 9:30 AM EST.

Makes you wish that you could watch the SCOTUS live. C-SPAN 4 anyone?

[seamus]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Current American fighting doctrine has grown out of our particular set of circumstances.

We have enormous industrial capacity and wealth, and thus have evolved to trade material and training for manpower.

In the kind of protection where the militia is fighting on the side of the government in the US to protect the homeland, those tactics will in some ways have to change. Integration of the population into fighting units will be necessary. And there will not be enough "toys" to go around. Anyone that has a rifle and some ammo will be awfully happy to have it.

In a situation where the population decides to fight against the military for preservation of state, it will probably be fought by the militia in a way which is more like the insurgents in Iraq. They'll be using guerilla warfare...

I'm going to skip all the way to your last paragraph and ask if you think that's what happened during the Civil Waaaaarrrr? Sorry, had to throw that in there, it's Pirate's Day.

Civilians picked up their weapons and fought a war of attrition even though the south lacked the industrial base and resources the north had. To step back a couple of wars, the colonies didn't have the military resources or training the British had...and they fought a war of attrition. Current doctrine calls for...a war of attrition. It's only in the last two-three years that anyone has stepped up and really addressed the issue to get our military to get out of the fight on line, attrition theory.

But now we're stepping into another issue.

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Just found out this case has been scheduled for oral argument on November 13 at 9:30 AM EST.

I'm looking forward to the hearing. Think we'll see a speculation thread?

[seamus]

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

Makes you wish that you could watch the SCOTUS live. C-SPAN 4 anyone?

Count me in.

[luvtolean]

No kidding NDD. It almost makes me think we should burn some miles. Tourist season is over. Take Ana too, let her see the "bigs".

Seamus, my post was too short, and not well typed out.

I shouldn't even be posting right now as I'm too damn busy, but I'll respond properly a bit later.

[navydevildoc]

Supreme Court Visitor's Guide - Observing Oral Arguments - PDF

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

Supreme Court Visitor's Guide - Observing Oral Arguments - PDF

Wanna go?

[navydevildoc]

I am sitting here in the Airport (again) and I am looking all over the SCOTUS web site. Did you know that Confucious and Muhammad are both represented as "Lawgivers", depicted in statue form at the courthouse? This was way back in 1934 when the building was constructed.

LTL - Sure, but let's make sure it's after Red Mass, so there are arguments to hear. We just have to work out a time between School and Work schedules.

Maybe if we are lucky we can connect through O'Hare and descend into the Psychedelic Love Tube.

[luvtolean]

Well...I am not sure there are enough for this...but somehow I glossed over the fact it's still in appeals court in the District of Columbia, not at SCOTUS. Yet. At this point, it's a vehicle to SCOTUS...

My bad.

[seamus]

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

I am sitting here in the Airport (again) and I am looking all over the SCOTUS web site. Did you know that Confucious and Muhammad are both represented as "Lawgivers", depicted in statue form at the courthouse? This was way back in 1934 when the building was constructed.

LTL - Sure, but let's make sure it's after Red Mass, so there are arguments to hear. We just have to work out a time between School and Work schedules.

Maybe if we are lucky we can connect through O'Hare and descend into the Psychedelic Love Tube.

Swing by enroute. We can make it a .org educational ride.

[Scout]

Originally Posted by seamus

This is why I see the national guard/reserves as the militia; a trained, civilian force that supplements the regulars when deemed necessary. The difference now being that the weapons systems and complexity of the battlefield, even for infantry troops, require regular collective training of the force to be effective on the battlefield. They still have similar regulations and procedures for integrating into the regular army forces, their own pay, finance and personnel procedures and all sorts of national guard/reserve specific requirements. It really isn't that much different in execution as the militia calls ups were back in the 1700s.

Seamus, one small snag here:

The National Guard and Reserves are not considered civilians at all. They are both subject to UCMJ actions even while they are not activated, or on their weekend drills, etc.

The double jeopardy of being prosecuted in a civilian court, and then by a miltary court also apply, unlike the protections civilians are afforded.

[seamus]

Originally Posted by Scout

Seamus, one small snag here:

The National Guard and Reserves are not considered civilians at all. They are both subject to UCMJ actions even while they are not activated, or on their weekend drills, etc.

The double jeopardy of being prosecuted in a civilian court, and then by a miltary court also apply, unlike the protections civilians are afforded.

I'm looking into this as I just heard this week there are several attempts at implementing this across several states right now. I don't know yet where I stand on the matter as a civilian conviction would also affect the unit. My initial instinct is to shy away from the double jeopardy aspect but still adhere to standards of conduct (relief for cause). I don't think it would be handled much different in a militia environment 200 years ago. A commander/leader that can't be trusted to adhere to rules of common decency (lying, cheating, {except in poker games}, stealing) while in his civilian clothing, probably can't be trusted to adhere while in uniform.

The training aspect is more what I was focusing on. And the change in the requirement from merely picking up a rifle and marching versus complicated maneuvering and coordination of small units on the battlefield.

[luvtolean]

Making NG civilians?

That seems like a exceptionally poor idea.

They have to answer to military law and to the Constitution?

Uh....that seems wildly impractical. But it would be a VERY effective tool for "gun grabbers".

Seamus, why is this push on, and is it by a certain party or is it largely bipartisan?

[seamus]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Making NG civilians?

That seems like a exceptionally poor idea.

They have to answer to military law and to the Constitution?

Uh....that seems wildly impractical. But it would be a VERY effective tool for "gun grabbers".

Seamus, why is this push on, and is it by a certain party or is it largely bipartisan?

It's basically a readiness issue. If your leader/commander is a civilian miscreant, how can he stand in front of Soldiers while training or mobilized and expect them to follow his lead? The push is more military driven than any particular party from what I've seen so far.

Military law isn't too far from civilian law, it just has some additions and a few more restrictions for the purpose of "good order and discipline". On it's most basic, the difference is that you can lose your job for some of the statutes in the civilian world. You can go to prison for the same/similar offense in the military.

[steingar]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Stupid? Steingar, you don't seem stupid, so did you even think before you typed this?

This type of case is exactly why SCOTUS exists. To interpret the Constitution.

Have you ever heard of Roe vs Wade? How about Brown vs Board of Education? These seminal cases came down to clarifying and interpreting the Constitution, no amendments were needed.

A militia definition is sorely needed. Then in the future, attorneys and judges can apply a simple "test" based on SCOTUS's ruling. We'll see what they come up with here.

And all people have been doing since is hiding behind the will of the courts. I stand by my stupid statement. Abortion foes hide behind the court system, hoping against hope that Roe v. Wade holds up. Their opponents hope against hope the judges will see it a different way. That puts major US policy in the hands of a few grumpy old people. It should be in the hands of the citizenry.

The gun issue is no different. If there is some ambiguity about the Constitution, the people should ammend it to their will. It's a built in part of our democracy. I suspect that appearances are wrong, and that gun advocates are far fewer in number than I have been lead to believe in the past, and that they are unable to effect such a change in the light of day. The only way they can promote their cause is by paying off politicians, because it is a less visible way to control policy.

[lanbrown]

Supreme Court rules in favor of gun ownership rights - Yahoo! News
The supreme court has ruled:
"By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.

The court ha