When the KKK became classified as an illegal terrorist organization in 1871, the NRA was founded. Soon thereafter, Congress passed one of the first gun laws of the era, making it illegal for any negro to own one. Church himself was not fond of blacks (which wasn't uncommon for the time), although he was much more vocal about it, which lead some to suggest that he had been a member of the Klu Klux Klan from 1866 to 1870 (1870 being the year that the Klan began to lose power).

Found a link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/National-Rifle...6885857&sr=1-1

Guns like the AK-47 have different firing modes, though (auto, burst, and semi), and people are still able to get their hands on them (like this guy):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c

My source says Lt. Colonel in the Virginia Volunteers.

Yes I know that. But the "assault weapon" that you get over your average gun counter does not.

And you do realize getting a FA weapon isn't exactly easy right?

Lifted off of wiki regarding "assault weapons".

William Church was a Captain in the United States Volunteers, later breveted to Major and Lt. Colonel. He served for one year.

Then it's a different guy. NRA founders William Church and George Wingate were a union officers and the NRA was formed in New York (hardly KKK territory) .

Heres the story from the NRA themselves:

http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx

Just an fyi sidenote for the AK rifles.

AKs' do not have selective fire, it is either FA or on safe. There is no semi-switch for the AK.

Sure. In your situation, that is an ideal weapon. I should have prefaced my statement since I live in the city and my little slice of heaven is 120' x 45'. An AR-15 would not be so good.

I should not have jumped the gun (no pun) on the military style rifle, hunting argument. It's refreshing to hear honesty about these weapons.

I am a bit predjudiced once it comes to these weapons and urban environments. They do not mix well.

Someone mentioned the .22 LR. It is true that this round kills more than any other caliber but the reasons are: 1. Most readily available cartridge in the world. 2. They tend to become pinballs inside of a body, causing all kinds of internal damage.


I've been asked by many law abidding citizens (always after they have been burglarized) what would I recommend for home protection. .45 always comes out of my mouth, for some silly reason.

It's the SKS that is the semi auto version.

Yahoshua, not all of us treat it as a chore. I actually enjoy shooting and being more than proficient with the weapon that has saved my life on one occasion.

I think the big to-do here (and I am part of the problem) is this: If we allow citizens to carry weapons should they not qualify every year with said weapon? Officers have to at least qualify once a year if not more, and I believe the servicemen do also.

Look, about AK's, real ones--ones used on the battlefields--can fire full-auto or semi-auto. Until 1986 you could buy one such as this. After that you had to buy one that was made before that date if you wanted one with select fire.

The AK's sold today are semi-auto only. The original receivers were destroyed and semi-auto receivers were made for them and they were assembled using the parts from the AK--without the full-auto parts, of course.

If I read my state law in OK correctly, for a concealed weapon permit, you DO have to recert every year, much like a police officer. This makes sense to me, as handguns are the weapons most commonly carried 'in public', and you want anyone walking around in full view of lots of people to be familiar with it's use and the safety precautions one must take with a gun.

With weapons confined, largely, to home or range use...I don't feel this is necessary. I'm biased here; I grew up around guns and have to remind myself that not everyone is given competent instruction in their use at age five the way I was.

For civillian ownership of a fully-automatic weapon, I think the requirements (and the cost) are already strict enough.

You're an exception for the norm of Houston Police Dept. Officers. (but glad to hear it)


As far as the "Citizen Qualification Testing" I have personally had my own tug-of-war about it and although the principle at heart is a good cause, it simply is a mechanism that can be too easily abused by officials to deny citizens their right to keep and bear arms. Which it is exactly that, a right.

Regardless of my or your opinions and how well-formed and intented they may be, such things are unenforceable, unworkable, unpopular, and serve to cause a sharp division between citizen and the elected government than it wopuld be of any help.

Rather than try and force people through regulation to be responsible and proficient, it's far better to attract them with competitive matches, fun events, and postive education towards the public at large.

That, I believe, will produce far better and favorable results than the other ideas I'd mulled over before.

Yes and no. I believe the qualification part would be for those who intend to carry concealed. I would hate to have someone who does not know the difference btn the mag release and the safety carrying on the public way. For your home or business, whatever you can afford.

This is more of a safety issue than restriction upon rights. That is how I see it. I maybe misguided on my thoughts but I don't see me being swayed otherwise.

Exactly what law was that? I'm aware of the Mississippi laws, and other southern state's laws, which the 14th Amendment was drafted to combat. But a Federal law, passed by congress? Please enlighten me.