View Full Version : Those with guns can go fight ISIS
kidicarus13
11-21-2015, 07:09
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lets-send-our-gun-packing-watercooler-warriors-to-fight-isis-2015-11-20?dist=beforebell
In these dangerous times, it’s good to know America has a secret army that is armed, ready and able to serve — even if they don’t know it yet.
Official data show that there are an estimated 40 million U.S. gun owners who are of military age, and who could be drafted and sent to fight ISIS in Syria or elsewhere.

The Census Bureau says we have about 125 million people between ages 20 and 50, and the best estimates are that about one person in three in America is armed. Even if half of those were drafted and sent to Syria, that would constitute an overwhelming force of at least 20 million people.

Most gun owners know they have a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms,” but they may not realize the government also has a constitutional right to draft them to serve in the country’s defense.
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep arms to maintain a “well-regulated militia” for the security of the state, meaning a force of citizen-soldiers that the federal government can send into battle. Anyone availing themselves of the right to keep and bear arms is thereby making themselves available for the militia.
Presumably the National Rifle Association is reminding its members of that fact right now.
While there is some debate about whether the right to keep and bear arms applies only when serving in the militia, no one disputes that it at least applies when serving.
The idea of drafting gun owners and sending them to war might sound controversial today, but it would not be to the Founding Fathers. It’s exactly what they recommended. They believed in citizen-soldiers rather than a professional army. Indeed, that’s the whole point of the second amendment — a point that often is conveniently forgotten when the subject comes up.
What the Founding Fathers meant by a “well-regulated militia” is not open to serious dispute, as they spelled it out in their writings at the time. They meant a properly trained, ordered and disciplined military force, but one consisting of part-time citizen-soldiers rather than professionals. It’s effectively what we call the National Guard today.
You could argue that the Second Amendment has worked as planned. Thanks to its provisions, the United States is the most heavily armed country on the planet. There are nearly 300 million guns in private hands, including hundreds of thousands of assault weapons and even sub-machine guns. Never has a country had such an army of private citizens armed and ready to fight. Surely, George Washington would be proud.
Requiring all gun owners between, say, 18 and 50 to register with Selective Service, and make themselves available for basic training and overseas deployment to Syria, could be a smart move for President Obama.
At the very least, he could require registration from everyone who owns a semi-automatic assault weapon such as an AK-47. Why not? What sort of patriotic American owns an AK-47 and high-capacity clips and yet refuses to answer his country’s call when asked?
According to the federal government, there are more than half a million machine guns registered in private hands in the U.S., 300,000 short-barreled shotguns and rifles, and over 2 million other high-potency weapons such as grenades, rockets and bombs. This doesn’t even include semiautomatic weapons.
In the past week, President Obama has come in for a lot of criticism for his supposedly “weak” response to the ISIS attacks in Paris. America is now teeming once again with armies of watercooler warriors and coffee-klatsch commandoes demanding strong, tough, bold action in the Middle East. Sending a few million of our most heavily armed citizens to Syria would be the boldest move imaginable.
What’s the use of having the most heavily armed population in human history if we can’t use them?
Many of America’s most aggressive hawks are presumably already armed, and have spent years practicing their marksmanship against doves, deer, ducks and other domestic enemies. This is a magnificent chance for them to put it into action against foreign enemies too.
Meanwhile, many of our gun owners have a surplus of aggression that needs an outlet. They manage to shoot and kill about 30 U.S. citizens every day, meaning we suffer our own “Paris attacks” every few days at the hands of a few of our own citizens. Why not deploy them against ISIS?
encorehunter
11-21-2015, 07:24
I have no problem defending our soil. Now you want to send me to another country? My luck, they wouldn't let me come back. I say we put the non gun owners up front for our first line defense, then we can back them up. They should make a good shield.
That's possibly the worst disguised piece of anti-gun drivel I've seen in a while.
Here's all I got out of it....
Obama would be smart to make everyone who owns a firearm put their name into a database. Especially those who own "assault rifles".
Umm, no thanks.
Trying to dupe gun owners to agree to a national registration by appealing to the fact that a large percentage of them are patriots isn't going to work. Might trick a few of the bubba/inbred/redneck fudd types but I would hope most gun owners wouldn't be fooled by such a ruse.
Bailey Guns
11-21-2015, 08:29
That's possibly the worst disguised piece of anti-gun drivel I've seen in a while.
I completely disagree. It wasn't disguised at all.
What I got from that article; "If you don't own a gun, you are not prepared to defend yourself, your family, your nation, and thereby could be considered unpatriotic and a coward." Rather than equate the unorganized citizen militia with the National Guard, I think of the militia as our country's "Home Guard." Normally I oppose government activity as feckless and wasteful, but I would support federal and state legislation that encouraged free citizens to obtain, improve, and train with modern weapons of war, in the event that they are called upon, formally or informally to defend themselves, innocent people, and other free citizens from tyranny, violence and terrorism, whether the source is foreign or domestic.
To then identify and register members of The Home Guard would be a felony as it would permit enemies to locate and target our last line of defense as a nation. We the People are the nation and our elected representatives should support and encourage our ability to provide for the common defense.
The author of the marketwatch article above is either a coward, ignorant, or unpatriotic. I don't rule out the possibility that the author is all three.
Be safe.
BPTactical
11-21-2015, 08:43
Wait, so the liberals want us to protect them?
Uhmmm, no........carry your own load.
Scanker19
11-21-2015, 08:45
Too bad title 10 section 311 says all males, not just gun owners. To include Brett or whatever his stupid name is.
Yeah, get all of the gun owners out of the country. They can't control their surplus aggression. [Sarcasm2]
Another libtard that can't keep their fantasies to themself.
wctriumph
11-21-2015, 09:19
That was truly tragedy and comedy rolled into one piece of ignorance. The stupidity never ends.
Great-Kazoo
11-21-2015, 09:37
#1 yes it's a shitty write up with the usual crap thrown in. Not even a comments section to voice ones opinion, as usual
However
IF it was a matter of isis / islamist actively attacking the U.S. and there were no standing .mil
Would one not offer their services to keep the menace at bay, be it at home or abroad?
Unfortunately, by that time it would be more a localized fighting on U.S soil.
WE did have civilians offer their services to the .gov during the South East Asian War Games
In November 1965 Barger sent a letter to president Lyndon Johnson at the White House in support of the war in Vietnam: "I volunteer a group of loyal Americans for behind-the-line duty in Vietnam. We are available for training and duty immediately." Barger received a letter in response from an officer stating if they wanted to fight they would have to enlist in the army.
Barger and the Hells Angels made international headlines when a small group disrupted hundreds of anti-war protesters in Berkeley, California in 1965.
Why would I have to go to Syria or Iraq.
My government brings them to me.
However
IF it was a matter of isis / islamist actively attacking the U.S. and there were no standing .mil Would one not offer their services to keep the menace at bay, be it at home or abroad? Unfortunately, by that time it would be more a localized fighting on U.S soil.
This is a 'given'.
However, the author's idea was to send all gun owners "overseas". The other point that I found funny is that he's talking about 20 million gun owners to Syria, but we can't have a rational discussion about sending 11 million illegals back to Mexico.
i say send all the liberals and anti-gun folks first, let them show how good their tactics work by talking sense and logic to the enemy. Then we will back them up if their plan fails.
BPTactical
11-21-2015, 10:21
i say send all the liberals and anti-gun folks first, let them show how good their tactics work by talking sense and logic to the enemy. Then we will back them up if their plan fails.
I like the way you think.
68Charger
11-21-2015, 10:23
yeah, if they send that many "gun totin' rednecks" to Dabiq, and they'll praise Allah that the "crusaders" have been brought to them in accordance with their prophecy.
Every issue of Dabiq begins with the same quote: "The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify -- by Allah's permission -- until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq." And here's where the magazine gets its name.
And he really shows his bias, ignorance, bigotry and hatred of gun owners when he states this:
Meanwhile, many of our gun owners have a surplus of aggression that needs an outlet. They manage to shoot and kill about 30 U.S (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/). citizens every day, meaning we suffer our own “Paris attacks” every few days at the hands of a few of our own citizens. Why not deploy them against ISIS?
So let's send Mr. Arends to Chicago (and the other inner cities) to convince all the gang-bangers that they need to go over to Syria to peddle their drugs & fight turf wars... because those are the ones committing those murders he's referring to- not the millions of law-abiding gun owners.
If all of us gun owners were that aggressive and dangerous, he wouldn't be alive after posting this article.
Wow, that was twisted in a lot of ways.
What the article doesn't seem to address is that we have a volunteer army- people that want to serve our country usually join and do just that. If the tepid leadership seems to put a kibosh on that, enforcing the Selective Service to go overseas and fight is a nightmare of epic proportions. Gun owners aren't the two-dimensional rednecks the author implies; for the most art they're smart, canny and quite independent. They didn't trade their brains in for their weapons.
Great-Kazoo
11-21-2015, 10:45
Wow, that was twisted in a lot of ways.
What the article doesn't seem to address is that we have a volunteer army- people that want to serve our country usually join and do just that. If the tepid leadership seems to put a kibosh on that, enforcing the Selective Service to go overseas and fight is a nightmare of epic proportions. Gun owners aren't the two-dimensional rednecks the author implies; for the most art they're smart, canny and quite independent. They didn't trade their brains in for their weapons.
Unfortunately some of todays "Volunteer" army is composed of kids who want to go to college and not pay for it. I heard it many a time during the last presidents term[s] BUT, BUT i signed up so i could go to college, not go to war.
UM yeah what exactly do you think the .mil does. WELL................... i didn't think it would happen while i was in
Unfortunately some of todays "Volunteer" army is composed of kids who want to go to college and not pay for it. I heard it many a time during the last presidents term[s] BUT, BUT i signed up so i could go to college, not go to war.
UM yeah what exactly do you think the .mil does. WELL................... i didn't think it would happen while i was in
I had plenty of those types in my flight when I was going through Basic. I'd never heard of or met any malingerers until I joined up. Contemptible idiots.
Gun owners aren't the two-dimensional rednecks the author implies; for the most art they're smart, canny and quite independent. They didn't trade their brains in for their weapons.
The left loves thinking this is what gun owners are. Stereotyping is ok when it fits the agenda.
Wow, that was twisted in a lot of ways.
What the article doesn't seem to address is that we have a volunteer army- people that want to serve our country usually join and do just that. If the tepid leadership seems to put a kibosh on that, enforcing the Selective Service to go overseas and fight is a nightmare of epic proportions. Gun owners aren't the two-dimensional rednecks the author implies; for the most art they're smart, canny and quite independent. They didn't trade their brains in for their weapons.
Author doesn't want that. And he doesn't want gun owners going to fight ISIS because, as you point out, we would win and make Libtards look stupid.
He wants another test on collective gun ownership. Saying if gun owners aren't going to go fight, they can't own guns because they are unwilling to be the militia. Therefore 2A is null and void in his mind. And that's all the exercise is intended to do. Not actually solve any problems/issues.
Kind of like the refugee settlement... We aren't solving any problems there either (because nothing has changed in Syria), just importing more Democrat change agents.
i say send all the liberals and anti-gun folks first, let them show how good their tactics work by talking sense and logic to the enemy. Then we will back them up if their plan fails.
If they like their back up, they can keep it.
Unfortunately this may really play out if terrorists attack here. They will go for soft targets in population centers = Liberals.
68Charger
11-21-2015, 12:49
I can see the comments section now (if it actually existed)
Margie from Arkansas "Hey buddy, that's my husband you're talking about sending there! Why don't you send YOUR husband first!"
Hmmm, send US gun owners to Muzzie countries, but hamper them with ROE that prevents them from actually doing what obviously needs to be done. No thanks, having our armed forces there hampered by that PC BS is plenty for now.
If they like their back up, they can keep it.
Unfortunately this may really play out if terrorists attack here. They will go for soft targets in population centers = Liberals.
Sounds familiar...like no gun zones. Those seem like they would never get attacked. I just wish liberals would learn something, they are sooooo fucking stupid they don't get that they create these spaces, then wonder why they get attacked. Evil exists in this world. It's a fact.
even if the liberal infested areas get hit, those stupid fucks still won't get it. They can't get beyond their disease. Makes me wonder if they are even worth worrying about any more.
i know my opinion has changed over the years on a threat scenario. Unless me or my family is in immediate danger, fuck em I'm outta there. Same with car accidents. Watched one in LA last month about 100 yards behind the street I had just crossed (using the crosswalk with the walk light on) two retards smashed into each other pretty good. I kept walking, way too many stories or people getting sued after trying to help, or getting hurt themselves. I know it's sad and it goes against my instinct but I am all about protecting me and my family and that's it.
Sounds familiar...like no gun zones. Those seem like they would never get attacked. I just wish liberals would learn something, they are sooooo fucking stupid they don't get that they create these spaces, then wonder why they get attacked. Evil exists in this world. It's a fact.
even if the liberal infested areas get hit, those stupid fucks still won't get it. They can't get beyond their disease. Makes me wonder if they are even worth worrying about any more.
i know my opinion has changed over the years on a threat scenario. Unless me or my family is in immediate danger, fuck em I'm outta there. Same with car accidents. Watched one in LA last month about 100 yards behind the street I had just crossed (using the crosswalk with the walk light on) two retards smashed into each other pretty good. I kept walking, way too many stories or people getting sued after trying to help, or getting hurt themselves. I know it's sad and it goes against my instinct but I am all about protecting me and my family and that's it.
I've never cared for Liberals but events of late have proven to me they will never learn or change their minds. Call it brainwashing or religious adherence to Liberalism or whatever you'd like, they simply see the world a different way based on emotion rather than fact. And when they violate their own stated goals/objections they never step back and say "let's fix that" thus the feedback loop is open.
If they have their own country and that worldview only impacts them, I'm fine with it. But modern Liberalism requires the unwilling participate in their suicide pact. I'm not okay with that.
If their policies start to put people in the ground, there are going to be tough decisions to make. You can't coexist with someone who requires you to be a victim.
Singlestack
11-22-2015, 08:14
Unfortunately, because Progressivism and Liberalism are emotionally driven with simple talking points and lack of critical thinking, and also because Liberal activism IS often successful (just look that the cowardly surrender of college administrators to the "Black Lives Matter" idiots of the past few weeks, for example), libs are encouraged to pursue activism and to maintain a permanent activist class. Thus, they don't tend to demonstrate a bit and just go away - they do not stop. Yes, many on welfare or jobless are part of the activist class and will remain there as long as they live. These are most definitely NOT those who subscribe to "live and let live".
We are headed to very bad times in the next few years and the dependent and activist classes will be a danger to the law-abiding people due if nothing else to fear and desperation.
68Charger
11-22-2015, 12:18
More articles by this guy (in case you were done being annoyed): http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-you-should-really-respond-to-a-terrorist-attack-2015-11-17
The one that really got me:
DON’T … forget your math. Should we indict Europe’s 20 million muslims for, say, 10 terrorists? That’s one person in 2 million. By way of comparison, for example, in the U.S. about one man in 200 (http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/public/meganReportCard.html) is a registered sex offender. Does that make the other 199 guilty?
But he's fine with violating the civil rights of ~100million gun owners because of the acts of a single mass shooter.
Too bad title 10 section 311 says all males, not just gun owners. To include Brett or whatever his stupid name is.
This alone is enough to completely discredit this "article," even among the liberals that have half a brain.
Sometimes it's best not to argue with retards [facepalm]
This X10,0000
theGinsue
11-22-2015, 15:01
I started off my response by quoting many of the posts in this thread because I thought they were spot on. The problem with that is I found I'd be quoting just about every post in this thread. Suffice it to say that I'm happy to see that so many here seem to really "get it" about what's happening in our country and the world as a whole.
Unfortunately, with the current state of affairs in our country and most of the world, I don't see the trend reversing. What I see coming is these "progressive" ideologies bringing on a complete destruction of societies. The path we're going is not only unsustainable, but it sets cultures into a dependent state that, once the floor drops out of the ability to provide for them, there will be wholesale rioting and slaughter. I believe that the best the folks who think like us can do is to prepare for ourselves and our families to ride out the tide, stand back as we watch the annihilation unfold, then pray that there are enough pieces left over that we can rebuild - also assuming that there are enough of us left after all of the collateral damage takes many of us along with the others.
68Charger
11-22-2015, 16:32
Sometimes it's best not to argue with retards [facepalm]
This could be the only thing an intelligent person can learn from Mr. Arends...
My thought when looking at his TWITter feed: "As a man with morals, I cannot attack an unarmed person- this would also apply to a battle of wits"
Zundfolge
11-22-2015, 16:43
Replace "ISIS" in that article with "The Federal Government" and maybe realize how stupid it would be to try to take our guns ya Democrat fuckwits.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.