Should assault rifles be banned in the US?

[TarJak]

Found an interesting article discussing the "Secret history of Guns" in America today. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...f-guns/308608/

In particular this on the Founding Father's gun controls of the time:

... "The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

"For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the 'individual mandate' that has proved so controversial in President Obama's health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters -- where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls."

I'd say that in any discussion of what the Founding Fathers intended with the second amendment, this regulation gives a very clear indication. It's not all about rights and no regulation.


And something a little more modern from elsewhere:

• In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the US Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, beyond that of "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

• The Court's decision also held:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Found an interesting article discussing the "Secret history of Guns" in America today. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...f-guns/308608/

A good article. I liked the story of Huey Newton and the police. It's what America is about.

In particular this on the Founding Father's gun controls of the time:
I'd say that in any discussion of what the Founding Fathers intended with the second amendment, this regulation gives a very clear indication. It's not all about rights and no regulation.

I do have to disagree here. The article cites the denial of slaves as a form of gun control. That's a very limited viewpoint. They were slaves, and as such were denied all human rights. The ownership of weapons for defense was still considered a right for all citizens. Slaves weren't considered citizens, as was shown by the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott petitioned the court for his freedom, since his late owner had lived in several states where slavery was outlawed. Rather than decide the case on its own merits the court said that Scott had no right to petition the court at all, since as a slave he wasn't a citizen.

So the Founders didn't have a gun-control law denying a certain segment of the population what they considered a basic right. They denied a certain segment of the population access to all basic human rights, on the principle that they weren't citizens. Kind of like the whole Guantanamo thing. Gun ownership was indeed considered a right that citizens could enjoy.

As for a law requiring all male citizens of militia age to own a gun? You can argue that that constitues gun control, but I doubt you'll get much joy from the Brady group.

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

And something a little more modern from elsewhere:

You'll notice that nowhere in that paragraph does it say that firearms can't be owned and possessed by sane and law abiding citizens.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A good article. I liked the story of Huey Newton and the police. It's what America is about.


I do have to disagree here. The article cites the denial of slaves as a form of gun control. That's a very limited viewpoint. They were slaves, and as such were denied all human rights. The ownership of weapons for defense was still considered a right for all citizens. Slaves weren't considered citizens, as was shown by the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott petitioned the court for his freedom, since his late owner had lived in several states where slavery was outlawed. Rather than decide the case on its own merits the court said that Scott had no right to petition the court at all, since as a slave he wasn't a citizen.

So the Founders didn't have a gun-control law denying a certain segment of the population what they considered a basic right. They denied a certain segment of the population access to all basic human rights, on the principle that they weren't citizens. Kind of like the whole Guantanamo thing. Gun ownership was indeed considered a right that citizens could enjoy.

As for a law requiring all male citizens of militia age to own a gun? You can argue that that constitues gun control, but I doubt you'll get much joy from the Brady group.

The points I got from this were that there were controls which excluded some segments of the community (including some with human rights), and that regular compulsory musters and inspections constitute higher levels of control than exist now. In particular the requirement to own and register a weapon for service in the militia AND muster for regular inspections gives credence to the intent of the 2nd amendment right of gun ownership being linked very strongly to militia membership.

Granted the slaves had no rights at all, but that does not invalidate the rest of the commentary.

Originally Posted by August

You'll notice that nowhere in that paragraph does it say that firearms can't be owned and possessed by sane and law abiding citizens.

Noted. But that's not the point.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by TarJak

The points I got from this were that there were controls which excluded some segments of the community (including some with human rights), and that regular compulsory musters and inspections constitute higher levels of control than exist now. In particular the requirement to own and register a weapon for service in the militia AND muster for regular inspections gives credence to the intent of the 2nd amendment right of gun ownership being linked very strongly to militia membership.

Granted the slaves had no rights at all, but that does not invalidate the rest of the commentary.

And my point was that the article tries to equate the deprivation of all rights to a certain segment of the population with firearms regulation, and the two have nothing to do with each other. My second point was that a law requiring all male members of a certain age to own a firearm also is not an attempt at reglulating said arms. There is, however, something to be said for the requirement to meet and drill with those firearms.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

There is, however, something to be said for the requirement to meet and drill with those firearms.

I'd love it if the Federal or state government fulfilled their obligation of training and equipping the militia but they choose not to.

[yubba]

Heard something funny in the last day or so that China was upset that there was so many weapons in American households, I say,, now that's funny.. and by the looks of it today as the doorman for a day for the gunshop across the way there are more...

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by August

I'd love it if the Federal or state government fulfilled their obligation of training and equipping the militia but they choose not to.

Cough* National Guard *cough. http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Cough* National Guard *cough. http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx

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?

[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.

[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.