Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Uncle Sam

Debate on gun control should ask

47 posts in this topic

So - are they State trained?

Edit: And by that - I mean trained by the individual states.

They are not trained by states... they are formed by citizens. Most militias are retired marines or soldiers who form a militia to continue upholding their oath to protect the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As hatecraft posted, they are included. They make it hard though. See my best guess why below...

New fully automatic weapons have been banned for public sale in the US since 1986. The weapons you're talking about are weapons that were bought prior to that ban, and which now have to go through a registered process to change hands.

What I find interesting is that very few people (though there are some) are asking for automatic weapons to be allowed to be sold to the general public. From where I'm standing - it looks like pretty much the same basic issue - namely: If the government aren't allowed to place restrictions on semi-automatics... then the government shouldn't be allowed to place restrictions on fully automatics either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's not against the constitution, according to you, to restrict certain weapons in the interest of safety (minimizing collateral damage)?

Yeah, but then what's the point of the 2nd ammendment? I thought everyone was up in arms about it because its there for overthrowing the enemy, whether foreign or domestic... that they need those weapons to fight a tyrant government if needed. If you're saying that it doesnt matter that, regardless of the 2nd ammendment, certain types of weapons are currently restricted because, in the event of a war against a tyrannical government, people will get those weapons, then the whole argument of keeping weapons now in defense of a portential future tyrannical government becomes irrelevent.

To answer the first question--- I can't say it's constitutional but some things just make sense. You can't hurt a lot of people and damage a lot of property with a gun so far as accidents are concerned. I'm sure there's an exception or two but it's not Hollywood and one bullet can only do so much damage. Have an accident with a rocket launcher or a grenade and unless you are alone in a wide open field or desert you're going to hurt more than yourself.

Well that's another good question with no simple answer but a couple hundred million people with a handgun is pretty formidable even an entire military was against us. And yes those bigger weapons will appear because somewhere someone has them and military defectors that joined with the people will bring something with them. But it's not irrelevant. We must keep them as a deterrent. We must keep them to instill fear into our government and other enemies. We don't want something crazy to happen but if we are disarmed the likely hood that something crazy happens increases greatly.

As I said it isn't an easy question but if you think you finally have your gotcha moment against folks like me you are wrong.

Seriously Stellar, I think you do get it. I think by now you really understand the reasonings. I've seen you post in other matters and you are sensible. You don't need to nitpick me because we've been adversaries on this matter. I don't mind that you don't see the need for 30 round magazines but I'd like you to finally admit you understand the second amendment or at least see why we hold it in such high regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not trained by states... they are formed by citizens. Most militias are retired marines or soldiers who form a militia to continue upholding their oath to protect the constitution.

Interesting. I thought militia's were supposed to be trained by the state, with state-appointed officers.

In fact - that's what I thought the national guard was, more or less.

So - are there no militia's at State level, anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New fully automatic weapons have been banned for public sale in the US since 1986. The weapons you're talking about are weapons that were bought prior to that ban, and which now have to go through a registered process to change hands.

What I find interesting is that very few people (though there are some) are asking for automatic weapons to be allowed to be sold to the general public. From where I'm standing - it looks like pretty much the same basic issue - namely: If the government aren't allowed to place restrictions on semi-automatics... then the government shouldn't be allowed to place restrictions on fully automatics either.

1986 machine gun or not it's still a machine gun. Honestly I don't mind the lack of machine guns. My neighbor could have 50 guns each with hundred round clips but in the event of an accident and a bullet heads towards my house the odds are slim that it'll be right where I am sitting. Now if a machine guns goes off accidentally, however that might happen is regardless, unless it's mounted in a vice it isn't going to hit the same spot twice. There may be dozens of bullets heading my way in various directions.

As a sensible person I can not see a valid argument on the need for an automatic weapon. However, America is about the pursuit of happiness, not needs. If you have the means and the right locations to enjoy such toys I say have at it. Don't mistake me being uncomfortable with a machine gun next door with me wanting the rights to have one hindered. I'm uncomfortable with every teenager in town driving a car but such is life.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I thought militia's were supposed to be trained by the state, with state-appointed officers.

In fact - that's what I thought the national guard was, more or less.

So - are there no militia's at State level, anymore?

No state owns a militia, but they are protected by the soldiers stationed in the States. By law, the States own the soldiers who are stationed in the forts in their state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't want something crazy to happen but if we are disarmed the likely hood that something crazy happens increases greatly.

But then, once again, isn't the likelyhood of something crazy happening also increased because you are not armed with rocket launchers, grenades and tanks?

Seriously Stellar, I think you do get it. I think by now you really understand the reasonings. I've seen you post in other matters and you are sensible. You don't need to nitpick me because we've been adversaries on this matter. I don't mind that you don't see the need for 30 round magazines but I'd like you to finally admit you understand the second amendment or at least see why we hold it in such high regards.

While I don't see the need for a 30 round magazine, I also don't see a need to restrict them. I understand the purpose of your second amendment, but just as you have demonstrated in your past couple posts, I also see room for sensible control measure to be inacted in the interests of safety. Unfortunately, and this may come off as a little bit insulting but there's no way to sugar coat it, I don't believe many Americans even understand or hold the 2nd amendment in high regard. I think that most simply use it as a crutch to argue their desire for no change, rather than truely holding up the 2nd amendment for what its supposed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then, once again, isn't the likelyhood of something crazy happening also increased because you are not armed with rocket launchers, grenades and tanks?

While I don't see the need for a 30 round magazine, I also don't see a need to restrict them. I understand the purpose of your second amendment, but just as you have demonstrated in your past couple posts, I also see room for sensible control measure to be inacted in the interests of safety. Unfortunately, and this may come off as a little bit insulting but there's no way to sugar coat it, I don't believe many Americans even understand or hold the 2nd amendment in high regard. I think that most simply use it as a crutch to argue their desire for no change, rather than truely holding up the 2nd amendment for what its supposed to be.

No because it doesn't take much to ward off evil. Simply brandishing a small gun is enough to deter a situation from going further than it should. Just ask Michelle.

Yea and a lot of people don't know planet they're on half the time either but not everybody has to understand it. They should but that's people for you. Not all will. But many many many do and so long as there are a whole bunch that do get it that's all it takes to keep it around. I hope you weren't speaking of me or many other posters here. The ones who pop in and out like trolls, ok. But those of us who return day in and day out to continue these conversations do get it and do hold it in high regards or else we'd all be hanging out in the cryptozoology threads instead. No offense to the crypto lovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1986 machine gun or not it's still a machine gun. Honestly I don't mind the lack of machine guns. My neighbor could have 50 guns each with hundred round clips but in the event of an accident and a bullet heads towards my house the odds are slim that it'll be right where I am sitting. Now if a machine guns goes off accidentally, however that might happen is regardless, unless it's mounted in a vice it isn't going to hit the same spot twice. There may be dozens of bullets heading my way in various directions.

As a sensible person I can not see a valid argument on the need for an automatic weapon. However, America is about the pursuit of happiness, not needs. If you have the means and the right locations to enjoy such toys I say have at it. Don't mistake me being uncomfortable with a machine gun next door with me wanting the rights to have one hindered. I'm uncomfortable with every teenager in town driving a car but such is life.

I think there's a trade off to be made between allowing the pursuit of happiness and the amount of lives that someone could take with relatively little effort.

I'm sure that having the power to make Mushroom-shaped clouds would make some people very happy, but given that we live in an age where people will fly planes into buildings - I think you have to accept that it's inevitable that anything which is publicly available will also be used against the public.

I think that's the argument that's being made with the proposed ban on assault rifles - I just think it's a poor argument, given that other semi-automatics exist which wouldn't be banned, and are just as deadly.

I personally don't have an issue with assault rifles being owned by the public, especially given the current wide availability of semi-automatics. Restricting the amount of ammo in a magazine? Ehn. From what I've read, the Sandy Hook shooter, for example, changed magazine often enough, with no apparent lower casualty toll.

Automatics I'd be more worried about if they were in general circulation. However - I'm fine with them being rare, expensive and needing a signed permit.

In short - I think that the laws on gun restrictions are probably fine, right where they are,

I do, however, think that there's a constitutional basis for the Government to be able to restrict which weapons are allowed to be publicly available. Which is a good thing. Because suitcase nukes.

I also believe that state-regulated militia's should be allowed access to everything. Including suitcase nukes.

Except, apparently - there are no state-level milita's - which I'm still trying to get my head around.

Edited by Tiggs
Because the UI editor keeps throwing random size tags into my posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google any State and add militia and you will find State militias. There is one in my state. Im not gonna say I agree with them at this point but it does exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google any State and add militia and you will find State militias. There is one in my state. Im not gonna say I agree with them at this point but it does exist.

Such as the State defence forces?

They're like the National guard, but can't be employed for Federal use. Which confused me at first, because I thought Militia's, as per the constitution, were available for Federal call up, but it seems as if they're like a Militia reserve, in effect, for times when the State National Guard has been deployed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may be the idea of them not being under feds control is exactly the point of their existence, to protect from forces that are under fed. control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eroding of our constitutional rights by the government. This government is trying to find every loophole they can to bypass the constitution rights we are promised,

The consitutional amendments, even if you believe that those not in a militia can have guns, are not unlimited and not unchangable.

Can you name a gun or any weapon that isn't considered dangerous?

Nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they mean is stuff like Rockets, Explosives, Tanks, 50 Caliber Mini-guns, and other weapons of war are banned by the government. Civilian uses are Rifles, Pistols, Shotguns, SMGs, Assault Rifles, and sniper rifles to name a few that can be used by civilians for different reasons.

so you're ok with government regulation of arms but don't want that regulation to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a militia formed by the civilians.

since there are almost no one in these anachronistic organizations, and since you must be in one in order to bear arms, that means that almost no one has the right to bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which confused me at first, because I thought Militia's, as per the constitution, were available for Federal call up, but it seems as if they're like a Militia reserve, in effect, for times when the State National Guard has been deployed.

no, they are a bunch of guys running around with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such as the State defence forces?

They're like the National guard, but can't be employed for Federal use. Which confused me at first, because I thought Militia's, as per the constitution, were available for Federal call up, but it seems as if they're like a Militia reserve, in effect, for times when the State National Guard has been deployed.

That is where people get things quite wrong. Militia is for the state and civilians. While the military, reserves, navy, etc etc is a government owned militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're like the National guard, but can't be employed for Federal use. Which confused me at first, because I thought Militia's, as per the constitution, were available for Federal call up, but it seems as if they're like a Militia reserve, in effect, for times when the State National Guard has been deployed.

Yes Tiggs. The National Guard I believe ...Im not certain use to be the states militia but somewhere around the Civil War it was federalized. I havent done enough research on this but I believe thats about how it went down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Tiggs. The National Guard I believe ...Im not certain use to be the states militia but somewhere around the Civil War it was federalized. I havent done enough research on this but I believe thats about how it went down.

National Guard are not a state militia, never was, they always been owned by the government and used to protect the assets of America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id double check your pre civil war info on that one. Like I said Im not certain. But I know there was a big change from a Republic to a Democracy at that time and after the Civil War everything was Federalized. In part due to the Southern militias aka National Guard rising up from the South against the North. Or if your Southerner protecting there Rights from the Federalized Govmnt. Im not sure there was even a National Guard before then as they were only referred to as militias...I could be way wrong however. Im still studying Revolutionary history. Havent gotten to the Civil War yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since there are almost no one in these anachronistic organizations, and since you must be in one in order to bear arms, that means that almost no one has the right to bear arms.

You can tell this lie over and over again yet it remains a lie. Every time I see it I will call you on it. DC v Heller

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.wdef.com/news/state/story/Woman-72-holds-men-at-gunpoint-for-police/A2w1ti54xU2u6AvR3ruxNA.cspx

Two men have been arrested because a 72-year-old great-grandmother held them at gunpoint for police.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

I thought I'd throw this into the mix for the fun of it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.