Gun nut opens fire in Carson City, Nevada

[gabosaurus]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

[Gaffer]

Actually, it says arms


Define: assault rifle

Why are you so afraid of semi-automatics?


You tell us. You're the one who wants to take away semi-autos. You draw the line and argue for it.

Why do you get so pissy when someone expects you to argue your own case?



It's probably a 100-150 yard weapon. Beyond that , good luck hitting shit. However, in urban or guerrilla combat, you're rarely going to engage a target outside that range. Like the Uzi, it's great for its intended purpose but not so great outside its POU.

As for SAMs and shit, I once again suggest that control the National Guard be handed over to the States, not the President and that they be used to fill the role of the organized militia. They operate wholly outside the military chain of command unless the State legislature and governor agree to send the State militia to aid the military. They will continue to be trained and outfitted by the military and shall constitute a domestic defense force- a final line of defense- as well as fulfilling humanitarian missions as the respective State legislatures deem appropriate and fulfilling the original intent of the second amendment. SAMs, mortars, and other heavy weapons will be at the disposal of the State milita with a supermajority vote by the State legislature and the approval of the governor and kept in the armories under lock and key until needed. Individual citizens should be encouraged to keep their own rifles ans pistols for home defense and to ensure that, in the unlikely event the State militia were needed to defend against federal aggression, the armoury would not be faced with arming more persons than it can handle.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable and logical approach that ensures the intent of the second amendment is meant and the rights of the citizenry are protected why also taking reasonable measures to ensure that criminal elements cannot get explosive or other heavy weapons too easily and endanger public safety.

Up until the mid 70's that's the way it was. The National Guard was strictly state controlled. If the regular military needed augmentation they called up the reserves.

[ConHog]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

Tell that to the people who live along our southern border and have their lands invaded daily by INVADERS who are destroying their land and KILLING whenever they want. Yep, no need for them to be able to defend themselves.

And once again, your inane belief that we don't need to defend ourselves in NO WAY negates the fact that we do NOT have to have a reason to exercise our Second Amendment rights.

[J.T]

Up until the mid 70's that's the way it was. The National Guard was strictly state controlled. If the regular military needed augmentation they called up the reserves.

Why did we let them change that?

Do you have a link to a good history of the matter?

[ConHog]

Why did we let them change that?

Do you have a link to a good history of the matter?

It was a combination of things, mostly Vietnam and the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Between losing so many military members in Vietnam and needing so many military members because of fear of the Soviet Union there was only one place to get those numbers. That's right, the NG.

[J.T]

It was a combination of things, mostly Vietnam and the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Between losing so many military members in Vietnam and needing so many military members because of fear of the Soviet Union there was only one place to get those numbers. That's right, the NG.

If the wars were needed and the people wanted to play war against the evil reds, they shouldn't have had any trouble convincing the States to send the militias to help

Besides, they had conscription at the time

[Missileman]

Next time there is a threat of Indian attack, or if any battalions of British are spotted on the horizon, I would see the need for a "well armed militia." But why do we need one now?
Anyone who truly feels they need an Uzi, AK-47 or any other assault type weapon to "defend themselves" is truly a gun nut.

You don't have the slightest clue what the difference is between a semi-auto hunting rifle and a semi-auto "assault" rifle do you?

[ConHog]

If the wars were needed and the people wanted to play war against the evil reds, they shouldn't have had any trouble convincing the States to send the militias to help

Besides, they had conscription at the time

Hey don't shoot the messenger, I didn't say I agreed with the reasoning, I merely gave you the reasoning.

[ConHog]

You don't have the slightest clue

You could have stopped there.

[J.T]

You don't have the slightest clue what the difference is between a semi-auto hunting rifle and a semi-auto "assault" rifle do you?

One has a wood stock and the other has a scary-looking black 'plastic' stock?

[Gaffer]

If the wars were needed and the people wanted to play war against the evil reds, they shouldn't have had any trouble convincing the States to send the militias to help

Besides, they had conscription at the time

I don't need links. I lived it. Peanut carter took office in Jan of 77. The military was being neutered. The draft was done away with. We still needed a strong military and there were not enough "volunteers". So they developed the combined forces methodology. It was the only way to keep the military strength up to par. The national guard of that time was totally different than what we have today. Poorly trained and equipped. They weren't called weekend warriors for nothing. Now days they can match any regular military unit.

The media turned most people against the military. And it remained that way until the late 80's. The media has been a left wing tool since the 60's. As for fighting the reds, we're still fighting them. Now days they are called liberals. Same agenda, to destroy democracy. They just change names as needed.

[logroller]

Correct , and I clarified that I was only paraphrasing the supporting documents not quoting the COTUS.


I would also support your idea of not letting the POTUS co opt the national guard but rather keeping them under state authority.

Not to wax semantics as to what authority wields the primary power of domestic policing; you and JT are clearly correct (it is the States); but it is the National Guard, and their duty extends to upholding the laws of USA, not that of individual States.

[ConHog]

Not to wax semantics as to what authority wields the primary power of domestic policing; you and JT are clearly correct (it is the States); but it is the National Guard, and their duty extends to upholding the laws of USA, not that of individual States.

Absolutely correct. The oath I took as an Officer in the Arkansas National Guard was to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic. No mention of Arkansas law actually. Nonetheless our primary mission was to serve the State of Arkansas.

[jimnyc]

I know you don[t like my political point of view. That's fine, but have you read the responses to my attempts to elicit an intelligent response? I ask a question and get attacked. That doesn't seem to concern you, but whoa if I challenge the common theolgogy of the DP forum. Somehow that's an attack (since I'm a liberal and you don't like folks like me).

If someone posts a stupid post, including you, I'll get in your face. Ban me if you want. I'm pretty sure I'll live. I realize I'm not suffciently RW nutcase for you like RSR. Sorry if you don't like it.

I placed the above in bold only for the comedy value.

Please explain to the community how you are banned or treated differently because you have a different POV? Correct me if I'm wrong, the ONLY "adverse" reaction you have received at this board thus far was a thread ban, no? It would appear to me that you are judging and/or calling staff members biased for their decisions for no good reason. Then calling for a ban as if it's expected, when you've yet to see how and why we would pull the plug on someone.

As for this particular topic - I bet I can go back and show quite a few posts that were on topic, lengthy and well thought out - but you continue on saying how nobody is giving a good response. Is the only decent response, to you, one in which someone agrees with you? All you've done thus far really is claim there's no need for an AK47 and the rest is basically whining about others responses or your perceived shitty treatment here from other members and staff.

Either stop the inane complaining that doesn't exist, or grow a pair, and some thicker skin.

[ConHog]

I placed the above in bold only for the comedy value.

Please explain to the community how you are banned or treated differently because you have a different POV? Correct me if I'm wrong, the ONLY "adverse" reaction you have received at this board thus far was a thread ban, no? It would appear to me that you are judging and/or calling staff members biased for their decisions for no good reason. Then calling for a ban as if it's expected, when you've yet to see how and why we would pull the plug on someone.

As for this particular topic - I bet I can go back and show quite a few posts that were on topic, lengthy and well thought out - but you continue on saying how nobody is giving a good response. Is the only decent response, to you, one in which someone agrees with you? All you've done thus far really is claim there's no need for an AK47 and the rest is basically whining about others responses or your perceived shitty treatment here from other members and staff.

Either stop the inane complaining that doesn't exist, or grow a pair, and some thicker skin.

BUT JIMMY, if you can't give me a good goddamn reason why you feel the need to enjoy the full freedoms that you are guaranteed well then you don't really get to enjoy them.