Should assault rifles be banned in the US?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The problem is that once you start modifying a law, even one that ingrained, it starts to become easier to modify it again, and again, until you modify it right out of existence, and nobody notices. Many will tell you that's unlikely, but you have to wonder sometimes.


That's what the anti-gun people claim. This is why the pro-gun people point the the second clause and say that it doesn't say "The Militia's right to keep and bear arms etc."


I'm not sure. I think that to work properly these days citizens would have to volunteer, and show up at a specified place and time with their own rifles to drill under State, not Federal, supervision, and agree to show up if called. That's just my idea of how it might work, and as I said I'm not sure.

For the most part, armed Militia's back then were calling an armed public to form up....It's clear they certainly had no intention on disarming the public as household guns have existed since our conception as a nation.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

But one of these.



I figure if you're going to have a knife handy, it might as well be a big one.

All this talk of knives reminds me of this

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'm not sure what you thought I meant by "Bolo". As I said in another thread some while ago, I didn't mean "Bola"

Ah my misunderstanding then. Apologies.

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

For the most part, armed Militia's back then were calling an armed public to form up....

Yes and most often led by Captains that they themselves voted into command.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I have an AR-15. Thank you.

It is way more high maintainance than the military counterpart.

Do I need it? Not really. Do I enjoy it? Do I respect it? Do I respect human life?

All yes.

I hate to spit out a cliche, of guns not killing people, but people do.

I fear gun control, because it is what Hitler and Stalin did before they plunged their nations into peril.

As said before, I am liberal on in most views except gun control.

the bill of rights is the groundwork of our constitution, and should never be changed.

Change the second amendment, it will bring about precidence to change another. Like the right to speedy trial, or the right to fair punishments.

Change the second amendment would open up a huge can of worms, that will erode our entire system.

Bill of rights is not to be messed with, it is the benchmark, our core beliefs as a people, and a "national idea".

How is an AR-15 more maintenance demanding than an M16 or M4? I fail to see the logic in that to be honest. I see no difference you clean them the exact same way you strip them the exact same way you really should clean any weapon you own after you have fired it on the range so no differences there.The rifles are pretty much identical from a maintenance respect.If someone showed how to operate, field strip and clean an M16/M4 then you also have been trained in the same procedures for any AR15. The sear that allows automatic and burst fire does not really change the process.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'm not sure. I think that to work properly these days citizens would have to volunteer, and show up at a specified place and time with their own rifles to drill under State, not Federal, supervision, and agree to show up if called. That's just my idea of how it might work, and as I said I'm not sure.

So does anyone know? I'm wondering how it would work and why it wouldn't be different to a general call up under similar conditions to WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

Found this 1915 War College discussion which points to some interesting questions about how it worked pre WWI involvement. http://archive.org/stream/militiaaso...trich_djvu.txt

[Stealhead]

I might be way off here(not really) but my understanding is that the National Guard/Air National Guard is the militia described as in the 2nd.

1)They are armed/funded by Congress
2)All members are citizens of the respective state/territory
3)They can be federalized in a time of national need
4)The governor of each state/territory has command of them
5)All members swear loyalty to the state and government* (*their oath is the same as the oath any active duty member took; our oath recall is to defend the Constitution not the government and it is binding so once you swear/affirm to it you must obey it for life or as long as you are a US citizen )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_1...ed_States_Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_3...ed_States_Code

Also why the emblem has a minute man in it.

[Sailor Steve]

Those are some interesting and forceful points. They show what was observed at the time of the Revolution, and occured again during the American Civil war, when State-supplied regiments slowly developed into Federal regiments, at least in the North. On the other hand many State-supplied regiments did perform admirably, and win honors for themselves. In the South virtually all regiments carried the names of their States, and history records the commendable job they did, almost without fail. Of course this mostly happened over time, after they had become somewhat battle-hardened.

The document shows that most military commanders of the various times mentioned observed that the local and state-supplied units were mostly useless. General Washington's observations were colored by the his biggest complaint, which was the short enlistments. He had to convince the farmers and shopkeepers that they needed to fight the revolution, and had to convince them not to just go home when their enlistments were up. There was no draft, and there was no enforced continued enlistment. When your year was up, it was up, and there was no obligation on your part and no possible enforcement from the Generals or the Congress. The Continental Congress couldn't even keep the army fed and clothed, and part of the reason for the new Constitution in 1787 was that Congress had no power to enforce anything over the States at all. Of course Washington complained.

One point I would like to mention is that while the 1915 document makes very good points, neither General Washington nor the authors of the document even hint that the uselessness of the irregular militia is a reasong the citizenry should be disarmed. Washington supported the Constitution, including its Amendments, and there is no hint that the leaders of 1915 did otherwise.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I might be way off here(not really) but my understanding is that the National Guard/Air National Guard is the militia described as in the 2nd.

They would like you to think that, and they claim in their official charter that their heritage goes back to 1636. On the other hand the National Guard didn't actually come into existence until 1903.

1)They are armed/funded by Congress

There's the biggest problem right there. Congress pays them. Congress arms them. Congress owns them. The President can call them out any time he needs them. Part of the purpose of the Militia, as originally percieved, was to stand against any possible tyranny perpetrated by the Federal Government. Argue all you like about the imbalance of citizens fighting against the army, but that was the idea, and the National Guard is caught between the two duties.

2)All members are citizens of the respective state/territory

Yes they are, but they are a part of the Federal Armed Forces.

3)They can be federalized in a time of national need

Yes they can.

4)The governor of each state/territory has command of them

At the local level. If the President calls them out to stand against their own fellows?

5)All members swear loyalty to the state and government(our oath recall is to defend the Constitution not the government)

And when the Fed and the State are at odds, and both sides claim the protection of the Constitution. This is exactly what happened during the Civil War.

Also why the emblem has a minute man in it.

Propaganda is such a lovely thing.

[Stealhead]

I agree with all of that.

I don't really think they could have foreseen the issues that would arise with the 2nd amendment that would appear in the 20th century.I think they felt that one had the right to defend themselves and of course in those times many relied on a rifle,musket or blunderbuss as part of their daily life as well and they would not have had a desire to take such a right away.

The reality is that the world has millions upon millions of firearms in it so many that banning them will not have much effect on those that really want them so reasonable regulation is most logical.I think we have it about right in the US.What can you say really? Far more people are killed by cars and vehicles every year in the US but you don't see people getting bent all out of shape about that.

And in nations where guns a scarce the nut cases find another tool I recall in Germany the killing method was driving a car down the autobahn in the wrong direction at night and they ram into someone at very high speed.They call them Geisterfahrer or ghost driver according a German Polizei once told me it happens every single day somewhere in Germany killing and injuring people not just the car they hit but also mere misses that end up losing control.