Why Gun Control Legislation Affects National Security

Self- Vanity Post | 5/9/03 | Judicial Meanz

[judicial meanz]

Once again, the siren song of gun legislation is being sounded by liberals. Before the season starts, I must ask a question.

Has anyone in the liberal mindset examined the effect of gun control legislation on our national security before they start their legislative attempts to eliminate them?. In their short-sighted and emotional grab at ending the ability of citizens to own firearms, they are affecting the future defense of our country.

Before we get started, I want to state for the record I am not a militia member, and never have been. I am a veteran, and have served in the military in war and peace. I was a police officer for many years. I have an advanced degree in law. My most heinous crime was a traffic ticket.

My purpose for writing this is to point out the fact gun control legislation can affect national security.

We have a strong and vital military in this day and age, and we can protect ourselves from most any threat that exists today. Can we always guarantee that? Who is to say that we will have a strong military in 200 years?

The American Militia is the final line of defense of our nation, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. This excerpt from Title 10, US Code, is still in effect:

United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 13-The Militia, Section 311

"Militia: composition and classes-(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Title 10 was constructed to help give further direction and codify the principles of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. It states:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...."

By examining these excerpts, we see that the Militia is a very important part of national security. It is not used often in our day and age, because we have a professional, first class military and we dont need to draw from it, but it is definitely a needed component. The Militia helped win the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, and Spanish American War before the National Guard and US Military grew to the point it wasnt needed very much.

The National Guard is the Organized Militia of the United States by law, and fills its role wonderfully. It has a dual state and federal mission, and divides its time between the two performing the tasking they are called to respond to. As the National Guard becomes increasingly federalized, it is increasingly being called to foreign shoes to intervene in conflicts.

In some future hypothetical and catastrophic war, with the National Guard federalized, and the United States threatened with its survival, how would we use the unorganized militia, as our forefathers did, if they cannot field arms?

The Unorganized Militia is the citizenry as stated in Title 10, USC, and they are the final line of defense after the National Guard to suppress insurrections, repel invasions, and perform defense duties. This differs from citizens militias in a very important respect.

The Militia is called out by the President or Congress in a call for volunteers. The call specifies the numbers and types of troops needed, and the duration of service they are needed for. The states recieve the call, and the Governors raise the troops, train them and make them available to the United States for military service. The US Government inspects the troops, states whether they are acceptable or not acceptable for service, and then, if they are acceptable, puts them into service.

If the forces that are aligned against firearms and liberal Democrats take away the ability to carry modern firearms, how can the militia function in the future??

Food for thought.

[judicial meanz]

I was interrupted bout 20 times while writing this, but I feel it is important to the gun control issues. I apologize if it sounds amateurish.

[45Auto]

No one has put it better than Judge Kozinski of the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in his dissent from the recent decision in the case, Silviera v Lockyer.:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

So, of course the Constitutional Militia as defined by US Code is important for national security/defense from an outside aggressors, but its main purpose is to assure that the citizens have the means to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical. In this, the armed citizenry should be a reminder to corrupt and ambitious politicians that they should "keep in line", i.e., stay within Constitutional bounds. Today's so-called 'liberal' is really nothing more than a shill for the commie takeover of the Republic; the goal is to destroy the Constitution. Before that can be accomplished, the citzenry will have to be disarmed. Hence, the near irrational hysteria about "gun control". Finally, you are trying to use a logical argument with people whose minds are already made up and who, indeed, rely on illogic and irrational fear to whip the "sheep" into a frenzy.

[judicial meanz]

Finally, you are trying to use a logical argument with people whose minds are already made up and who, indeed, rely on illogic and irrational fear to whip the "sheep" into a frenzy

Thanks for the compliment man. I appreciate your well informed view. Our country was born of revolution, and it continued to show in the founding fathers hatred of tyranny and oppression at all levels. I can appreciate your well formed argument.

[Swordmaker]

The answer to your question is "Yes!" they have considered the affect of gun control on our national security. Remember, these are people who believe in a one world government. For such a thing to come about national and personal sovereignity MUST be subject to the sovereignity of the World Government.

While the United States is militarily strong, its sovereign ability to defend itself is a threat to their goal. Anything that can weaken that military strength and preparedness is therefore an advantage to them. Making our recruits unfamiliar with firearms means that training must be longer and more intense... and that fewer volunteers will offer their service.

Personal sovereignity is the basis for our Representative Republic. Only in the United States of America does sovereignity rest in the People who the authorize the government to operate in their behalf utilizing borrowed powers delegated to it by the people themselves. One insignia of sovereignity is the Keeping and Bearing of Arms. Remove those arms and that insignia and the sovereignity has been stolen from them and reset in the central government.

These two sub goals are just waystations on the way to the liberals' ultimate goal, the subjugation of the United States to a World Socialist order.

You bet your life they have considered it... and that is why they are so intent on achieving gun control.

[DuncanWaring]

In a similar vein, Hubert Humphrey:

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which ... historically has proven to be always possible."

[Jay D. Dyson]

BTTT

[BikerTrash]

Who is to say that we will have a strong military in 200 years?

Or even in two years, if certain crud regains power.

[backhoe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/711949/posts
Do Guns Save Lives?

-Empty-Barrel Gun Policies-A legacy of nonsense from Clinton, Blair, and the Left--

-A Problem With Guns (Long... but SOOOO good)--

Shooting More Holes in Gun Control

Gun Control Down Under

HCI Aussie Style (read it and weep-or laugh)

The Great Australian Gun Law CON!

British Gun Crime Soars

Gun Crimes Surge in London

More Guns on Street - Cops Fearing Increased Bloodshed (more Canadian gun control "success")

Through the Looking Glass and Back Again - From Anti-gunner to Firearms Instructor in Four Months

Swiss Gun Laws- and some rebuttal to HCI "spin"-- Thread II

Statistical Facts Gun-haters Run From