Should assault rifles be banned in the US?

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by August

I don't care what they call themselves, they're a standing federal army TarJak. Haven't you been paying attention on the difference between the organized and unorganized Militia?

Yes I have, however you were not clear in your post which one you were talking about. I merely pointed out that the organized militia IS funded by both Federal and States.

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Yes I have, however you were not clear in your post which one you were talking about. I merely pointed out that the organized militia IS funded by both Federal and States.

But the unorganized militia is not and it should be.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by August

But the unorganized militia is not and it should be.

Are you implying that gun-owning civilians should be funded because they own military-grade assault weapons for absolutely no good reason?

The whole "we need to keep a standing militia" argument is utter nonsense. It sounds like those doomsday-preppers. "if we don't own military-grade assault weapons the federal government that the people elect are going to put us into a tyrannical dictatorship!". But hey those preppers are the crazy ones.

The 2nd amendment was proposed in 1789 when we had no standing army and the government was highly unstable and had little organization.

There have been a multitude of amendments made ever SINCE then, as a result of this country progressing forward. But hey, we need to keep the 2nd amendment set in stone and completely untouched, right? Even though 2 centuries have passed? Even though there is absolutely no reason for assault weapons nor assault rifles?

There are PERFECTLY legitimate reasons for owning pistols. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for owning rifles and semi-automatics. But why would anyone EVER need an automatic weapon, especially military grade automatic weapons and assault rifles? To keep a standing militia where none is needed WHATSOEVER?

Your reasons are archaic and sad. The militia you speak of is no longer necessary. The government has been democratic for 2 and a half centuries. Democracies around the world have unrelenting gun laws yet still remain perfectly democratic. Hoarding these kinds of weapons is not useful in any sense to responsible gun owners and great for those who want to kill large groups of people in very short amounts of time.

Pistols and rifles should be about the only category of weapons people should be allowed to own. Banning assault rifles may stop these people from getting them, and while it won't stop these massacres completely, but it sure as hell is going to help.

[TarJak]

My understanding (garnered by what I read and hear from friends in the US), is that the unorganised militia is actually what is referred to as the Reserve Militia and is therefore catered for under the model used in WWII, Korea and Vietnam where, when activated eligible adults were called up into military service either as part of guard units or regular army/navy/air force formations.

If so, then this is AFAIK federally funded, trained and equipped. You just don't get the equipment and training until required by your call up.

This being the case, any military style weapon ownership by individuals would be redundant, as weapons would be provided by the standing military organisations and not by individuals.

This from Wikipedia on that subject.

The reserve militia
All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the reserve militia, also known as the unorganized militia (10 USC). Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the reserve militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 311) and former regular component veterans of the armed forces who have reached the age of 64 (32 USC 313). All female citizens who are members of National Guard units are also included in the reserve militia pool (10 USC 311).
Other persons who are exempt from call to duty (10 USC 312) and are not therefore in the reserve militia pool include:

• The Vice President (also constitutionally the President of the Senate, that body which confirms the appointment of senior armed forces officers made by the Commander in Chief).
• The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
• Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
• Customhouse clerks.
• Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
• Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
• Pilots on navigable waters.
• Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

Many individual states have additional statutes describing their residents as part of the state militia; for example Washington law specifies all able-bodied citizens or intended citizens over the age of eighteen as members of the state militia, as explicitly distinct from the National Guard and Washington State Guard.[43]

Not being familiar with all the state statutes is there any provision for an unorganised militia outside call up to military service?

[Scurvy]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Are you implying that gun-owning civilians should be funded because they own military-grade assault weapons for absolutely no good reason?

The whole "we need to keep a standing militia" argument is utter nonsense. It sounds like those doomsday-preppers. "if we don't own military-grade assault weapons the federal government that the people elect are going to put us into a tyrannical dictatorship!". But hey those preppers are the crazy ones.

The 2nd amendment was proposed in 1789 when we had no standing army and the government was highly unstable and had little organization.

There have been a multitude of amendments made ever SINCE then, as a result of this country progressing forward. But hey, we need to keep the 2nd amendment set in stone and completely untouched, right? Even though 2 centuries have passed? Even though there is absolutely no reason for assault weapons nor assault rifles?

There are PERFECTLY legitimate reasons for owning pistols. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for owning rifles and semi-automatics. But why would anyone EVER need an automatic weapon, especially military grade automatic weapons and assault rifles? To keep a standing militia where none is needed WHATSOEVER?

Your reasons are archaic and sad. The militia you speak of is no longer necessary. The government has been democratic for 2 and a half centuries. Democracies around the world have unrelenting gun laws yet still remain perfectly democratic. Hoarding these kinds of weapons is not useful in any sense to responsible gun owners and great for those who want to kill large groups of people in very short amounts of time.

Pistols and rifles should be about the only category of weapons people should be allowed to own. Banning assault rifles may stop these people from getting them, and while it won't stop these massacres completely, but it sure as hell is going to help.

I lurk here far more than I post but I jumped to the end of this thread and read this and had to reply. I might be beating a dead horse, but, anyway...

If you really live in California, this makes complete sense to me and the Liberal media has done a fine job telling you what to think. Don't take that as a personal jab at you, or anything...plenty of Americans have been brainwashed by the TV, radio and newspapers, including several of my dearest friends and family members.

Let's first address what a "military-grade assault weapon" is. That would be a firarm with a selector switch that is able to fire fully-automatic (press the trigger and the gun will fire continuously, until you take your finger off the trigger or until it runs out of ammunition, with the exception of the M-16A2 and some A4 variants, which fire a three-round burst).

Oh, yes, you can buy full-auto guns in America, as long as you pay the $200 tax and can afford a $5000 (minimum) gun that was made before 1986. Most guns cost more around the $10,000+ mark, since they're now considered collector's arms and antiques.

Of course, you're not talking about those real assault rifles because you're calling an AR-15 a "military-style" "assault weapon". That's the mainstream media presstitute's codeword for Scary-Black Gun-That's-Evil; an emotional catchword intended to send fear into the mindset of the typical low-information voter.

Time and time again, people who are for gun-control prove they don't know anything about guns. Another case that proves my point is that you think there's value in Americans owning handguns but not rifles (you later mention rifles and semi-automatics, but an AR-15 is exactly just that--a semi-automatic rifle). I don't understand your logic because the majority of violent crimes that occur in the US involves small-caliber handguns, not AR-15's or the real assault rifles, in inner-city Liberal Gun-Control Utopias. That does not mean I support banning handguns, by the way. I'm only pointing out that you are misguided in thinking that an "assault weapons" ban will stop criminals and gang members from giving political ammunition to our anti-gun politicians and their lapdog media. Fact is, Clinton's "Assault Weapons Ban" did nothing to stop gun violence and even after Bush allowed it to expire, violent crimes in America decreased, at the bewilderment of several anti-gun Congressmen, who claimed that more guns would turn the streets in America crimson, with the blood of innocents. Funny thing you won't learn from CNN or MSNBC, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals actually drives down crime.

To think that our government could never become so corrupt as to devolve into Tyranny is a pathetic excuse to disarm American law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment was primarily designed to create fear in our politicians, who would likely abandon the Constitution and create rules against the people's will. The precursor to all Tyrannical rule was to disarm the people.

Or, to scale it down to a more local arena, why do the police need AR-15's but I don't? Or, what kind of fire-extinguisher is too big and powerful for me to be allowed to own? I don't need a Ferrari, that can do more than double the speed-limit, but I should be banned from owning a certain semi-automatic rifle to defend my family's life with?

Have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens? If you haven't the time to read it, a corrupt Democrat Sheriff in McMinn County, TN was committing voter fraud for a decade. The people, including several veterans of WWII, responded after the Sheriff sent 200 sworn "Deputies" to suppress voters and eventually shot a black citizen for trying to vote. The People responded and several WWII veterans and townsfolk armed themselves and fought against the Tyrant. The deputies eventually surrendered and new laws against voter-fraud were enacted. That is the Second Amendment, in action.

We all got to see Obama, the guy who would bring "Change" to America, pretend to cry on National TV, over the senseless act in Sandy Hook. Nothing more than a knee-jerk emotional response to do something anti-American, immediately after a tragedy that occurred in a state where gun-control is one of the nation's highest priorities.

To President Obama (and his Liberal Defenders), you say you want a "serious" talk about the killing of innocent children? You defend the abortion doctors who murderously suck 150 million children out of the womb, who never have the chance to ever hide under their desks or in the closet, with their protective teachers. And you are being serious?

You want a serious talk about the same guns that you allowed the Mexican Drug Cartel and Syrian terrorist to have, but you don't trust the law-abiding American citizen to own?

I'm thinking now, more than ever, we law-abiders should stock up on guns. The pro-Islamic Arab Spring in Egypt, Libya and Syria is more important to our "Leader's" diplomacy, abroad, than his Domestic policy to protect Americans against Tyranny, here.

Twitter: MrKangaRoop
Veteran of Desert Storm, MOS: 91-A, Combat Medical Specialist in the US Army, NRA member, proud husband and father of one girl and owner of guns...one of them is an Bushmaster XM-15 that's never killed ANYONE.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by Scurvy

I lurk here far more than I post but I jumped to the end of this thread and read this and had to reply. I might be beating a dead horse, but, anyway...

If you really live in California, this makes complete sense to me and the Liberal media has done a fine job telling you what to think. Don't take that as a personal jab at you, or anything...plenty of Americans have been brainwashed by the TV, radio and newspapers, including several of my dearest friends and family members.

Let's first address what a "military-grade assault weapon" is. That would be a firarm with a selector switch that is able to fire fully-automatic (press the trigger and the gun will fire continuously, until you take your finger off the trigger or until it runs out of ammunition, with the exception of the M-16A2 and some A4 variants, which fire a three-round burst).

Oh, yes, you can buy full-auto guns in America, as long as you pay the $200 tax and can afford a $5000 (minimum) gun that was made before 1986. Most guns cost more around the $10,000+ mark, since they're now considered collector's arms and antiques.

Of course, you're not talking about those real assault rifles because you're calling an AR-15 a "military-style" "assault weapon". That's the mainstream media presstitute's codeword for Scary-Black Gun-That's-Evil; an emotional catchword intended to send fear into the mindset of the typical low-information voter.

Time and time again, people who are for gun-control prove they don't know anything about guns. Another case that proves my point is that you think there's value in Americans owning handguns but not rifles (you later mention rifles and semi-automatics, but an AR-15 is exactly just that--a semi-automatic rifle). I don't understand your logic because the majority of violent crimes that occur in the US involves small-caliber handguns, not AR-15's or the real assault rifles, in inner-city Liberal Gun-Control Utopias. That does not mean I support banning handguns, by the way. I'm only pointing out that you are misguided in thinking that an "assault weapons" ban will stop criminals and gang members from giving political ammunition to our anti-gun politicians and their lapdog media. Fact is, Clinton's "Assault Weapons Ban" did nothing to stop gun violence and even after Bush allowed it to expire, violent crimes in America decreased, at the bewilderment of several anti-gun Congressmen, who claimed that more guns would turn the streets in America crimson, with the blood of innocents. Funny thing you won't learn from CNN or MSNBC, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals actually drives down crime.

To think that our government could never become so corrupt as to devolve into Tyranny is a pathetic excuse to disarm American law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment was primarily designed to create fear in our politicians, who would likely abandon the Constitution and create rules against the people's will. The precursor to all Tyrannical rule was to disarm the people.

Or, to scale it down to a more local arena, why do the police need AR-15's but I don't? Or, what kind of fire-extinguisher is too big and powerful for me to be allowed to own? I don't need a Ferrari, that can do more than double the speed-limit, but I should be banned from owning a certain semi-automatic rifle to defend my family's life with?

Have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens? If you haven't the time to read it, a corrupt Democrat Sheriff in McMinn County, TN was committing voter fraud for a decade. The people, including several veterans of WWII, responded after the Sheriff sent 200 sworn "Deputies" to suppress voters and eventually shot a black citizen for trying to vote. The People responded and several WWII veterans and townsfolk armed themselves and fought against the Tyrant. The deputies eventually surrendered and new laws against voter-fraud were enacted. That is the Second Amendment, in action.

We all got to see Obama, the guy who would bring "Change" to America, pretend to cry on National TV, over the senseless act in Sandy Hook. Nothing more than a knee-jerk emotional response to do something anti-American, immediately after a tragedy that occurred in a state where gun-control is one of the nation's highest priorities.

To President Obama (and his Liberal Defenders), you say you want a "serious" talk about the killing of innocent children? You defend the abortion doctors who murderously suck 150 million children out of the womb, who never have the chance to ever hide under their desks or in the closet, with their protective teachers. And you are being serious?

You want a serious talk about the same guns that you allowed the Mexican Drug Cartel and Syrian terrorist to have, but you don't trust the law-abiding American citizen to own?

I'm thinking now, more than ever, we law-abiders should stock up on guns. The pro-Islamic Arab Spring in Egypt, Libya and Syria is more important to our "Leader's" diplomacy, abroad, than his Domestic policy to protect Americans against Tyranny, here.

Twitter: MrKangaRoop
Veteran of Desert Storm, MOS: 91-A, Combat Medical Specialist in the US Army, NRA member, proud husband and father of one girl and owner of guns...one of them is an Bushmaster XM-15 that's never killed ANYONE.

No, im afraid you misunderstood what i was saying.

I said that no one needs an automatic ANYTHING. Not a glock 19, not an automatic assault rifle. Not anything. I was in favor of banning automatic assault rifles. Not, as you claim, a semi-automatic AR-15 that isn't capable of fully automatic fire. In another related thread i mentioned my uncle owning an AK-47 only capable of semi-automatic fire and the fact that my uncle only buys ten round clips. It's firing rifle rounds, semi-automatic, ten round clip, therefore it is not an assault rifle but rather a rifle.

And there are legitimate reasons for having a semi-automatic rifle. Diddo with handguns. I was never for banning those. But none for automatic weapons. Absolutely no reason.

In addition, if I am the one brainwashed by "liberal media" then i could just as EASILY accuse you the the EXACT same thing, given that you were not only in the military (thank you for your service) and you are a NRA member. I wasn't indoctrinated into a damned thing. I grew up and made my own decisions. I didn't go on what i saw on the news, i didn't go on what i had simpyl heard. I make my own logical decisions because i'm not like some of my peers, who DO get sucked into lies. Hell, most americans were grown up to believe that America is the greatest country on earth and that what few wrongs it's done it's made up for plenty in good. That of course is false. Whether you think a country is the greatest is opinion (not saying that my own country is bad, but i certainly don't put it on a pedestal and worship it) and the U.S has committed a great deal of injustices and massacres. The middle east has had a ridiculous amount of civilian casualties, and for what? Trying to install democracy in the middle east? That place is going to fall apart the second we leave and the trillions spent there and the thousands of dead will be wasted on absolutely nothing. Yet so many people still think it's necessary to further our time there. now THAT'S propaganda. I also see you didn't mention FOX NEWS, one of the most propagandistic filth-spewing channels on T.V. MSNBC has a few of their own ultra-liberals (i hate al sharpton and chris matthews), but Fox news is just mind-numbingly biased.

In addition, the battle of athens was 66 years ago. That sort of thing wouldn't stand to pass at ALL today. Not with the communication and information age we live in today. If there was that kind of brutality it would just as quickly come to an end. For instance, if Rodney King had been assaulted in 1946 you think people wouldve cared, or even heard about it? The reason it caused so much anger is because we had both recordings of it happening and a progressive attitude that finally accepted blacks as full, honored, equal citizens.

Having a 200 year old stonewall interpretation of an amendment written when both severe government instability and the fact we had no standing army were very real dangers, is ridiculous. There's no good reason to have automatic weapons. Absolutely zero. If you need an automatic weapon to hunt or defend yourself then you really shouldn't be owning a gun. Learn how to use semi-automatics to their full extent. Automatic weapons are both useless for responsible gun owners and perfect for those who wish to kill wide swaths of people.

Furthermore, i explained how i knew it wasn't going to stop, necessarily, massacres, but they sure as hell help.

And, August, free speech never killed anyone. Free speech never shot the millions of now dead or injured americans that have faced gun violence. I'd say the 2nd amendment is in need of WAY more reform than the 1st. And, to say this for the hundredth time, i was never in favor of taking guns away entirely. I was never for taking rifles or pistols. Automatic weapons are different. Automatic weapons have NO purpose but to kill large groups of people. And in both self defense and hunting, there is no use for them.

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Are you implying that gun-owning civilians should be funded because they own military-grade assault weapons for absolutely no good reason?;

No I am stating that the Federal government is supposed to be training the American people in the use and operation of firearms like the law says.

The whole "we need to keep a standing militia" argument is utter nonsense.

No more or less so than you need the right to free speech which includes bathing our children in blood and violence since the day they are born in everything they watch and play.

Banning assault rifles may stop these people from getting them, and while it won't stop these massacres completely, but it sure as hell is going to help.

No, what will help more is banning violent video games and movies. Your right to free speech does more to create and motivate these monsters than any firearm.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

No, what will help more is banning violent video games and movies. Your right to free speech does more to create and motivate these monsters than any firearm.

[citation needed]

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

[citation needed]

There's this thing called Google. A 2 second search produces this:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/1...ns-aggressive/

[soopaman2]

Video games are freaking evil.

I played the campaign in Call of Duty Black ops 2, and it forced me to stick a machete into the side of a mans face.

I then got on the USS Barack Obama, as a staging point to take out Raul Menendez.

I am a freedom fighter!

Rata-tat-tat, M60 IN YOUR FACES YOU SCUM!

Yes I do have problems.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by August

There's this thing called Google. A 2 second search produces this:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/1...ns-aggressive/

But social healthcare is the supreme evil, right? Government funded mental healthcare is just some liberal communist agenda, RIGHT? Even though very few insurance policies, especially private insurance companies, cover full-blown mental healthcare?

But youre ready to rag on violent video games as a leading perpetrator? What? Violent video games have never killed anyone. Ever think that the psycho plays violent video games so much because he's psycho, instead of "playing video games so often turn an ordinary child into a psycho?"

Video games never killed anyone. Assault rifles have killed millions. Your analogy to banning assault rifles relates to banning violent games is simply a poor analogy. People use games and movies to entertain themselves. Normal human beings can very well distinguish pixelated gore and real death perfectly. Only psychos do not make this comparison. Assault weapons have only one purpose: to kill many people in VERY short amounts of time. Automatic weapons have no practical use in home defense nor hunting. It does allow psychos to get a hold of them, though. So why do we allow them? If you need to arm yourself, get a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol. You still have the tools necessary to fully use your 2nd amendment rights.