It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
The Supreme Court needs to do some research on what it is exactly that has always won wars - and still wins wars. That is infantry on the ground. There hasn't been any army yet that was able to win a war exclusively with tanks and planes. Our very own army and Marines are finding out in Iraq and Afghanistan that all the high tech weaponry and satellites, tanks, and planes - still won't keep your ass from getting shot by or blown up by a truly determined adversary.
The American Revolutionary war was won by........ men with firearms.
The American Civil War was won by ...... men with firearms.
WW1 was won by................ massive numbers of men with firearms.
WW2 was won by.......... massive numbers of men with firearms.
Korea was fought to a stalemate by........ men with firearms.
Vietnam was fought by......... men with firearms.
Both of the Iraq wars were largely won by overwhelming firepower and high tech weaponry - the ultimate outcome of those battles were (in my opinion) not largely determined by men with rifles. There is one problem with using that as an all encompassing example ....... Iraq was largely a desert war.
Like the British, Americans and Germans fighting in North Africa during WW2 - the outcome of those battles were more determined by planes, tanks and artillery than men with rifles.
Desert warfare is not typical of most modern or ancient warfare and should not be used as the determining factor as to whether individual men with rifles will have an outcome on a battle.
Most of the US is forests or varied country - not deserts. Unless you are going to fight a war in the plains or the western deserts - individuals with firearms would still be the determining factor in any war that would be fought in the eastern portion of the country and the most western portions of the country.
So the argument that individuals or militia cannot stand up to a "modern" army is BULLSHIT. But it keeps coming up. It is largely the anti's I think who like to argue this point because they want to use this as a reason to do an end run around anybody who might argue that firearms still have value as a militia weapon - by discrediting the very idea of a militia as valid military force in modern warfare.
Again I repeat - the idea that a militia is not still valid in modern warfare is BULLSHIT and should be pounded down just as hard as the arguments that individuals should not own firearms for their own self protection.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
![[banana]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/029.GIF "Banana [banana]")
infront of those morons and tell them to SUCK IT!!!! ![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
