The ability to leave a country whose laws I don’t agree with, nor is the ability to do what I want in my free time a matter of money — Obscuration

Everything you've described can be bought with money. — Benkei

It seems as I said before, not everything I described can be bought with money.

It appears to me that you aren't yet speaking about what freedom means in a political sense. — Benkei

In my experience, freedom is dictated by the powers of the people in charge of the lands political system. In a republic, freedom is determined by representatives. In a dictatorship, one person holds the power and he/she decides what freedom is for their people. "Freedom in a political sense," is as variable as everyones favorite dessert. What I believe freedom to be may not be good enough for others. They should have the right to live somewhere they agree with the freedoms which are dictated by laws.

Freedoms should not be universal. Thats why we have prisons for rapists, murderers, and the like.

I think you’re “missing” the straws you’re trying to grasp for, because they aren’t there. The ability to leave a country whose laws I don’t agree with, nor is the ability to do what I want in my free time a matter of money. Taking care of my family involves money, yes. My own moral code will not allow us to live on the street so that is not exactly an option. A fine tinned pipe tobacco and a bottle of mediocre whiskey? They are indeed vices that cost money, but to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln; men without vices rarely have many virtues.
Perhaps your idea of freedom is simply different from mine. Responsibility doesn’t allow me to not make money. Is there a land I do not know about where my family is taken care of and happy without any monetary cost? If so I’d gladly trade my pipe and Jameson for the opportunity provided there isn’t a sinister plot behind it all.

Until then however, I shall enjoy my smoke, and drink as I relax watching my children play gayly in the backyard while my wife enjoys the breeze, and landscape after a decently fulfilling day of dutiful paid service.

if I wanted money I wouldn’t be in the military.

My bills being paid, my family having their needs met, being able to have a few glasses of whisky and soda on the weekend, not spending $20 on a tin of Three Nuns because of sin taxes, and doing what I want in my spare time within the confines of the law. And being able to leave if I disagree with the laws of that land.

Exactly, assymetrical warfare will cause havoc to a uniformed service who must adhere to laws of war. Rules of engagement can dictate life or death while men have their hands tied behind their back by a strong moral code that must be followed.

Practice is what veterans would more than likely take care of. They’d teach the citizens how to fight.

Being an expert in explosives, I can tell you industrial grade dynamite are not hard to acquire, and Homemade Explosives are not hard to make.

Missile systems... can’t really think of anything other than finding a battery and attempting to seize their assets.

Yes I have served and continue to serve to this day. It’s not much, but it’s work, it pays the bills, and allows me to take care of my family which is what I care most about.

Wars have been fought for a millennia. Understandable, text is small and can fool the eye. But yes, death is terrible, but if it’s me and my loved ones or them that has to die or we lose our freedoms, it will be him who meets his end.

I agree with statement one. Your second statement doesn’t take into account the bloody history of the United States. Wars have been fought for millennia, and we have gotten pretty damn good at it. I’d much rather be skilled in the art of violence so that I can protect myself and loved ones than allow our lives to be turned upside down or lost begging for peace.

Your knowledge of combat and tactics seems pretty diverse. My buddies and I watched a couple men with nothing more than man robes, sandals, an AK, an rpg, and a cell phone take out a good sized convoy, and engaged close air support successfully. This happened to American and joint forces operating all across Afghanistan. Two to six men with no training annihilating companies worth of Marines and soldiers. And of course let’s not forget our squid Corpsman brethren.

Underestimating the perceived enemy is as deadly as not perceiving an enemy at all.

The good thing about the citizens at large is that most combat arms Marines get out of active service after 4-8 years and carry a wealth of knowledge on techniques, tactics, and procedures.

So you’re right in saying my buddies and I aren’t going to get our good ol’ reliable hunting rifles to make contact head on with an Abrams. Mostly because no one is that silly.

Will victory still be a tangible goal? More likely than your perception of how war works will seem to allow.

i would call it infantile to think all military personnel would continue to follow all orders from those appointed over them if they were given an op order to assault and detain innocent civilians (which is an unlawful order... most of the time). Short though it may be, many people would rather die than lose their freedom, and their right to do so shouldn’t be infringed upon.

the point is that the citizens should be able to fight the military if the need occur, not the mitigation of damage to life or infrastructure. I suppose the loss of freedom by force is the damage that I mean to be perceived.

So to start off I, I have personal experience with the military of the United States of America. I am not stating any sort of affiliation with any entity, and my opinions are my own based on my background with weapons. I am trained in the combat arms profession. Though not a particularly liked by most people, I believe my knowledge lends credibility to what will be said.

The purpose of the second ammendment was to allow the civilian population the same access to weaponry that the government has in the case that the powers of the government decide to overstep their boundaries in the eyes of the majority. An example would be the employment of Marshall law, the military used to control the citizenry.

A platoon of infantrymen is armed with 30 Rifles chambered in 5.56 with the capability to fire accurately up to 500 meters. 9 rifles with automatic fire capabilities which can be used for suppression in maneuver tactics so that the other 30 personnel can move closer with a perceived enemy pinned down by coordinated fire. A platoon is nothing compared the amount of men the military service has.

This does not include heavier weaponry such as artillery, main battle tanks, crew-served machine guns able to accurately fire upon a target over a kilometer away. If anyone has seen what a .50 cal round can do, they will understand where I'm coming from. If you don't, simply google it if you can stomach it.

The perceived threat is the military in the grand scheme of things, NOT Joe Schmoe who became excessively upset his boyfriend/girllfriend, or even extremist group personnel. Is Joe a threat? Of course, but not as large as a threat as the government entity trying to care for me.

30 people can do massive damage to an area when the citizens do not have the same weapons and tactical knowledge when they themselves are highly trained and capable.