Here's a nice one for the gun advocates

[Setabs]

Thats some insane shooting. I'd hate to have to clean up all the shells laying around.  

[TA Pilot]

Thats the sound of freedom.

[nighthawk2099]

!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!

   nothing better than a hot woman with a full auto machine gun.

[crashwg]

!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!

   nothing better than a hot woman with a full auto machine gun.

What about a hot woman with a full auto machine gun naked in your bed?  Heck forget the whole machine gun part...

[Darkstalker]

I think what scares me the most is the fact that only about 4 or 5 people were actually shooting correctly with the automatic weapons, and that these things are available on the open market now....

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/192748

I'm all for American's rights to bear arms, but do we really NEED assault rifles to defend our homes?

[HaRuMaN]

Fully automatic weapons are STILL illegal.  The ban was on SEMI-AUTOMATIC assult weapons.

[Setabs]

I was trying to find more info on the shoot on the web.  Apperently from one website most of those people have special permits for those weapons.  I would only hope that the requirments are insane for the permit.

Darkstalker as in the other post.  Those guns in the flash post were still available to consumers.  I'm pretty sure osama's ak fully automatic.

[TA Pilot]

I think what scares me the most is the fact that only about 4 or 5 people were actually shooting correctly with the automatic weapons, and that these things are available on the open market now....

Machineguns have been tightly regulated since 1934.   The expiration of the AW ban has absolutely no effect on the availiability of machineguns.



I'm all for American's rights to bear arms, but do we really NEED assault rifles to defend our homes?

Depends on the threat, doesnt it?  If you 'beleive' in the right to arms, then you know it was protected so that it could be exercised individually and/or collectively.

If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".

[Floyd10]

I liked the Slipknot and Otep playing. I was impartial about the shooting.

[SirPeale]

Wow.  That's a bunch of shells, all right.

[Mameotron]

Sweet!!  Guns 'n' Babes.  The real reason for the internet!!

[nighthawk2099]

Fully automatic weapons are STILL illegal.  The ban was on SEMI-AUTOMATIC assult weapons.

Actually, Full Auto weapons are not Illegal.  You can own and operate a full auto weapon, but you first have to have the FBI fingure print test done, full background investigation and then pay a hefty fee.  Upon full completion, you too can be the proud owner of a full auto weapon.

[GGKoul]

I'm all for American's rights to bear arms, but do we really NEED assault rifles to defend our homes?

Depends on the threat, doesnt it?  If you 'beleive' in the right to arms, then you know it was protected so that it could be exercised individually and/or collectively.

If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".

I'm glad I don't live near you.

[TA Pilot]

If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".

I'm glad I don't live near you.

Me too - for if it ever becomes necessary to collectively exercise the right to arms, I dont want to have to carry your deadweight.

[Darkstalker]

If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".

I'm glad I don't live near you.

Me too - for if it ever becomes necessary to collectively exercise the right to arms, I dont want to have to carry your deadweight.

But it's a self perpetuating problem.  I support our right as Americans for the right to bear arms, but that breeds the desire and need to exercise the right.  By doing so, you introduce more people (Who can be seen in that video) that do not handle a firearm safely that feel the need to own such weapons because anyone can.  It instills a "cold civil war", an internal arms race that serves no purpose other than to make card carying NRA members and the Christian Coallition happy.

But, it's not the responsible gun owners that worry me.  By lifting the ban, it makes it easier for non-responsible people to get these guns.  Look at the school shootings here in the US over the past few years.  The original owner of the gun could be an exemplary member of the NRA, but it wasn't the owner of the guns that shot up the school.  

Most families in America have two working parents now.  You could follow all the gun storage safety rules, but if someone breaks into your house when you aren't there...free semi-automatic/automatic gun with no waiting period.  Who cares about the fact that if these guns were not allowed in the first place, that wouldn't be an issue.

Yes, I do support our right to bear arms given to us by the Constitution.  I also believe in a philosophy most people are quick to forget these days:

Be reasonable.

Sure, I talk on my cell phone and drive, but I do it safely.  I know the car and what's going on around me comes first, and I keep conversations as brief as I can.  However, I will gladly give up the privilage, or have imposed restrictions (Like 55mph in the slow lane) if that means stopping people that CAN'T drive while talking on the cell phone from hitting me or anyone else.  I am willing to give up that liberty because I don't NEED to talk on my cell phone when I drive.  We as Americans don't NEED semi or fully automatic weapons in every household.  Arguing that you need them because your neighbors can have them is resorting to 8 year-old mentality:  "But Jimmy has one!"

I worry about the Joe Schmo that panics and gets too trigger happy trying to take down an intruder and accidentaly shoots an unseen kid across the street that was riding their bike down the road.  I worry for the civil servants who now have an added sense of danger for what used to be a simple routine call where body armor is not the norm.  I worry about the theft of such guns from responsible gun owners by irresponsible people that end up comitting extra crimes with guns that didn't need to be there.  I worry on the 4th of July when I hear gunshots because the falling bullet might hit and kill someone, maybe me.  Are these unlikely?  Yea.  Are these possible?  Definately.  Most importantly, does the AW Ban reduce any of these concerns?  Not one bit.

[shmokes]

If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".

I'm glad I don't live near you.

Me too - for if it ever becomes necessary to collectively exercise the right to arms, I dont want to have to carry your deadweight.

Poor TA Pilot.  He's so excited about the revolution, when we'll all take to the streets and blow the crap out of anything that moves.  Unfortunately when the revolution comes TA Pilot will most likely be long dead.

At least he'll be able to look down from heaven and know that his kids or perhaps grandkids will be armed to the teeth when it comes.

That there's altruism.

[TA Pilot]

...but that breeds the desire and need to exercise the right.  By doing so, you introduce more people (Who can be seen in that video) that do not handle a firearm safely that feel the need to own such weapons because anyone can...

There will always be a fraction of the population that cant be responible - with guns or anything else.  That some people arent responible with firearms  is not an argument agianst firearms.



It instills a "cold civil war", an internal arms race that serves no purpose other than to make card carying NRA members and the Christian Coallition happy.

This is absurd.
As the population grows, the number of gun owners anbd the number of guns grow - as the % of the opulation that own guns stays more or less the same.  This is a function of population growth, not the NRA, et al.

You might as well be arguing that the increasing number of senior citizens relative to the population serves no other purpose than to make members of the AARP happy.



But, it's not the responsible gun owners that worry me.  By lifting the ban, it makes it easier for non-responsible people to get these guns.

No it doesnt.
These guns were available --during-- the ban.  There isnt a single gun that you could buy on 9-13 that you could not buy on 9-10.  I bought 2; I know people that bought 3 or more.   All perfectly legal.



Look at the school shootings here in the US over the past few years.

Yes - they all took place while the "assault weapon ban" was in effect.  Whats that tell you?




Who cares about the fact that if these guns were not allowed in the first place, that wouldn't be an issue.

Like it or not, the 'banned' weapons are exactly the kind that are protected by the 2nd amendment.  T hey clearly qualify as "arms".



I also believe in a philosophy most people are quick to forget these days: Be reasonable.

You make a 'reasonable' argument for the "AWB" and I'll consider it.  Note that I will actively question your reasoning.



We as Americans don't NEED semi or fully automatic weapons in every household.  

This is called a 'strawman'.  No one is arguing that eveyone "needs" an "assault weapon".  Thus, your argument here is meaningless.



Arguing that you need them because your neighbors can have them is resorting to 8 year-old mentality:  "But Jimmy has one!"

Another strawman

"Assault weapons" are perfectly capable of being used in any legitimate lawful role you might have for a firearm.   As such, there isnt a legitimate question of "needing" them - you clearly have the constitutionally protected right to one.

[Darkstalker]

"There will always be a fraction of the population that cant be responible - with guns or anything else.  That some people arent responible with firearms  is not an argument agianst firearms.

I'm not arguing against firearms, I'm arguing for restricted ownership via gun control laws.  Every American citizen over the age of 16 should be allowed to own small arms firearms and sporting guns given the fact that they serve a practical non-malicious purpose such as hunting.  I even had a hunting permit for what it's worth.  Supporting the AWB lift just doesn't make sense.

You might as well be arguing that the increasing number of senior citizens relative to the population serves no other purpose than to make members of the AARP happy.

I'll conced that the NRA and CC links to the ban lift are weak, but the link between accessibility to firearms and death rates has been suggested in a number of studies. One study which examined the link between gun ownership rates and firearm deaths within Canadian provinces, the United States, England/Wales and Australia concluded that 92% of the variance in death rates was explained by access to firearms in those areas. Another review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates and suicide rates.  This new lapse in legislation certainly isn't going to lower that total.

No it doesnt.
These guns were available --during-- the ban.  There isnt a single gun that you could buy on 9-13 that you could not buy on 9-10.  I bought 2; I know people that bought 3 or more.  All perfectly legal.

Actually there were 19 guns that were banned in that law, loopholes allowed a name change for some to get around it.  It was a step in the right direction, at least it warranted a new law sans loopholes to be instated instead of a complete lapse.

Yes - they all took place while the "assault weapon ban" was in effect.  Whats that tell you?

Since 1994 when the AWB was implemented, there was a LARGE drop in semi-automatic weapon related crimes.  While not 100% effective, it doesn't hurt.  
Because DUI fatalities occur even though drunken driving is illegal, is that grounds to make driving while intoxicated legal by not renewing a law should it come time?  That's the same twisted logic you are trying to spoonfeed me...

Like it or not, the 'banned' weapons are exactly the kind that are protected by the 2nd amendment.  T hey clearly qualify as "arms".

Wrong again.  The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment only protects the collective right of the people to maintain well-regulated militias.  It makes no restrictions as to what types of arms are acceptable.  That is left to federal and state law, hence the ban.  If it did make restrictions, my state's ban would have been declared unconstitutional long ago (Which was attempted and defeated in court, BTW).

"You make a 'reasonable' argument for the "AWB" and I'll consider it.  Note that I will actively question your reasoning."

1. Guns are a major cause of death: 30 countries in the UN study reported more than 200,000 deaths per year in murder, accidents and suicide. Many are preventable.  These numbers can only go up with more advanced weapons on the market.

2. Firearms are used in crime. Firearms theft fuels other crimes.  More powerful firearms, increased violence in crimes.

3. The unrestrained proliferation of firearms undermines peacebuilding, governance and civil society.

I won't step on your right to question those three, but your ethics and morals would definately come into play.

"Assault weapons" are perfectly capable of being used in any legitimate lawful role you might have for a firearm.  As such, there isnt a legitimate question of "needing" them - you clearly have the constitutionally protected right to one.

Semi-automatic weapons have only ONE PURPOSE:  To kill groups of people.  They are not "sporting" guns, they are meant to kill humans quickly and efficiently.  Since you seem to think that all arms are OK, why don't I just go out an buy some tanks, F-22s, some RPGs, and M-16s..."just in case."  I'm a responsible law-abiding citizen, why shouldn't I be allowed to since it is a constitutionally protected right to bear arms?  I'll give fingerprints, a DNA test, pee in a cup, pass an FBI background check, and sit out a three MONTH waiting period.  Of course I'm being absurd here, but in seriousness where do you draw the line?  When do things become "Not OK" to own?  Given your arguments thusfar, there should be no line given enough monitary resources because it is a constitutionally protected right to own any defensive arms I choose.  I'm stating that the line was drawn (poorly) with the AWB.

[shmokes]

It's funny.  We're all dancing around the real issue here.  Both sides.  My faction is pretending we really think that these assault weapons are a major problem that need to be banned.  Dartful's side pretends that being able to own these assault weapons is really important to them.

What neither side comes out and says, is that the real issue is handguns.  I want to ban them.  You want to keep them.  

Most of you gun nuts want an assault rifle about as much as you want a grenade.  And if you do want one, you likely don't want one bad enough to actually pay for one.

The only reason the assault weapons ban applied only to assault weapons, though, is that's just all we could get.  But both sides know that it was just a start.  You lost ground to us when that assault weapons ban went into place, and it's lapse meant you gained that ground back.

The way I see it, the lapse of the assault weapons ban is important to y'all more for the extra insulation it provides to your handguns, than it's actually putting assault weapons back on the market.

That's the way it works for me anyway.  Had the assault weapons ban been renewed, see, after a few years people would just kind of forget that assault weapons were ever really legal.  That's when we'd strike again.  We'd work like this --slowlike-- until we could start putting some real restrictions on handguns.

Now, our next victory will have to be another ban on assault weapons, and we'll have to fight for it all over again.  So we'll basically have to start over.   And that, of course, postpones the day when handgun ownership is threatened.

[GGKoul]

If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".

I'm glad I don't live near you.

Me too - for if it ever becomes necessary to collectively exercise the right to arms, I dont want to have to carry your deadweight.

I have a feeling if it comes to a "collective battle".  You'll be in your self made bunker....

[fredster]

Now, our next victory will have to be another ban on assault weapons, and we'll have to fight for it all over again.  So we'll basically have to start over.  And that, of course, postpones the day when handgun ownership is threatened.

Shmokes, I agree that there has to be some limits.  Every right has limits.  We all agree on that.  That's our common ground.

Where we differ is on what those limits should be.

The problem is that if we give an inch, then you would take a mile.  That's what polarizes people.  The gun owners realize that the ban is the ultimate goal of the gun control people.  That why it's hard to negotiate any 'good' change because it's perceived to be a first step toward the ultimate goal.  And most of the time it is.

after a few years people would just kind of forget that assault weapons were ever really legal.

 That's a blinding flash of the obvious.  

The issue here is that some of these "assault" weapons were not what most people would consider "assault" type weapons.  It was a broad generalization that included shotguns and semi-automatic weapons with big clips.  

I don't want a grenade.  I don't want a LAW or an M203.  I want an SKS or a 30/30.  They are handy because I'm lazy, I don't like to walk all the way out in my woods to shoot those varmints.  I like to do it from my porch.  

There are "nuts" on both sides of the issue, and on every issue for that matter.  

We need to hold the line on legislating for one idiot somewhere.  It's why I have to take off my #@@! shoes at the airport.  1 Billion people have flown without having a bomb in their shoes in all of aviation history.  1 guy, 1 guy does it and I have to slip off my tennies at the airport.  

[TA Pilot]

Supporting the AWB lift just doesn't make sense.

If I said this once, I said it a thousand times:
The "assault weapon ban" didnt ban anything.
Why does the "ban" make sense?

Note that the ban wasnt repealed, it expired.  The expiration was built into the original law.  


This new lapse in legislation certainly isn't going to lower that total.

You're far more likely to be murdered with a bladed weapon, a blunt object, or personal weapons (hands/feet/teeth) than an "assault weapon".  Your fear is unfounded.



Actually there were 19 guns that were banned in that law, loopholes allowed a name change for some to get around it.

And thus, there was no ban.  Thank you.
Why do you lament the expiration of a ban that didnt ban anything?



Since 1994 when the AWB was implemented, there was a LARGE drop in semi-automatic weapon related crimes.

Reeeaaallllyyyyy.
Support this claim.
Show that it cant be attributed to the general reduction on overall violent crime from 1992-on



While not 100% effective, it doesn't hurt.

Sure it does.
It violates my rigths.
Yours too.



Because DUI fatalities occur even though drunken driving is illegal, is that grounds to make driving while intoxicated legal by not renewing a law should it come time?  That's the same twisted logic you are trying to spoonfeed me...

Hardly.
DUI is a crime. Murdering people is a crime.  Making something a crime doesnt stop the crime, it creates a means through which the crime can be punished.

Gun control doesnt do this.  Gun control tries to limit access to a tool used in crime; it does not try to stop the crime.  In your DUI comparison, murder is analogous to DUI, the gun is analogous to the alcohol.

You'll note that the most effective means of reducing DUI has nothing to do with stricter control on alcohol.



Wrong again.  The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment only protects the collective right of the people to maintain well-regulated militias.

Cite the case.  Good luck.



It makes no restrictions as to what types of arms are acceptable.  That is left to federal and state law, hence the ban.

US v Miller (1939) creates a test as to determine what weapons are considered 'arms' and are thus protected.

"Assault weapons" pass this test.



If it did make restrictions, my state's ban would have been declared unconstitutional long ago (Which was attempted and defeated in court, BTW).

Show me where the USSC upheld your state ban.



1. Guns are a major cause of death: 30 countries in the UN study reported more than 200,000 deaths per year....

This is meaningless in terms of why they should be banned in the US.



2. Firearms are used in crime. Firearms theft fuels other crimes.  More powerful firearms, increased violence in crimes.

Except that:
- a minority of crime involves firearms (~25%)
- a tiny % of firerms are used in crime (~0.14%)
- a VERY tiny % of firearms are used to commit murder (~0.003%)
- a tiny % of firearm murders are committed with "assault weapons" (>3%)
- there are at least twice as many guns now as 30 years ago, and yet the crime rate is lower.

So, while some of what you said is true, the level of incident doesnt warrant the attention you give it- and as crime is at the same level as 30 years ago, the number of firearms, having doubled, clearly doesnt affect the levek of crime.



3. The unrestrained proliferation of firearms undermines peacebuilding, governance and civil society.

This is meaningless in terms of why they should be banned in the US- unless, of course, you can show that these things are a problem in the US and "assault weapons" are the cause.



I won't step on your right to question those three, but your ethics and morals would definately come into play.

Obviously not.



Semi-automatic weapons have only ONE PURPOSE:  To kill groups of people....

You arent addressing what I said:
"Assault weapons" are prefectly able to be used in any manner you might legitimately use a firearm.  Hunting, target shooting, self defense.  There isnt any of the things listed above that I cannot effectively use any of my assault weapons for.

So, clearly, they arent just for killing people.

Never mind that the right to arms is -all about- killing people, not Bambi.

[GGKoul]

Never mind that the right to arms is -all about- killing people, not Bambi.

I said it before and I'll say in again... I'm glad I don't live near you...


How is that membership with the Michigan Militia doing anyways??

[TA Pilot]

I said it before and I'll say in again... I'm glad I don't live near you...

Likewise - though you'll note that I have tetesticular fortitute as to say WHY I'm glad I dont live near you.



How is that membership with the Michigan Militia doing anyways??

I live in Ohio.

As per the Ohio Revised Code,  every able bodied male citizen of age and I are all member of the Militia of the state of Ohio.

So, I'd have to say membership is quite good.

[GGKoul]

I said it before and I'll say in again... I'm glad I don't live near you...

Likewise - though you'll note that I have tetesticular fortitute as to say WHY I'm glad I dont live near you.

Cause I don't want to get gun down one day cause I stepped on your lawn

How is that membership with the Michigan Militia doing anyways??

I live in Ohio.

As per the Ohio Revised Code,  every able bodied male citizen of age and I are all member of the Militia of the state of Ohio.

So, I'd have to say membership is quite good.

I hope the British don't attack your Militia again with left over muskets from the War of 1812.

[TA Pilot]

Cause I don't want to get gun down one day cause I stepped on your lawn

Are you REALLY so intellectually immature to think that I'll shoot you for doing that?  I mean, REALLY?

If thats the case, then once you're old enogh to own a gun, I sincerely hope you choose not to.



I hope the British don't attack your Militia again with left over muskets from the War of 1812.

What makes you think this response has any legitimate meaning?  

[GGKoul]

I hope the British don't attack your Militia again with left over muskets from the War of 1812.

What makes you think this response has any legitimate meaning?  

Ok... history lesson for you... The right to form a Militia was put in place in the 1800's when there was no central army to protect the original US colonies from attack from the British.

[GGKoul]

Cause I don't want to get gun down one day cause I stepped on your lawn

Are you REALLY so intellectually immature to think that I'll shoot you for doing that?  I mean, REALLY?

I'm not a gambling man to find out if you would or not... so I prefer to say away from your lawn.

[TA Pilot]

Ok... history lesson for you... The right to form a Militia was put in place in the 1800's when there was no central army to protect the original US colonies from attack from the British.


Ok... history lesson for you...

The units that fought the Redcoats under Smith and Pitcairn at Lexington and Concorde?  In April 1775?   They were militia.
So clearly the right to form militia predates the 19th century.


Additionally, the US Army was founded by the Continental Congress on June 14 1775.
So clearly, there WAS a central army in the 1800s.


Any other lessons you need?  I may have to start charging.

[GGKoul]

Ok... history lesson for you... The right to form a Militia was put in place in the 1800's when there was no central army to protect the original US colonies from attack from the British.

Ok... history lesson for you...

The units that fought the Redcoats under Smith and Pitcairn at Lexington and Concorde?  In April 1775?   They were militia.
So clearly the right to form militia predates the 19th century.

Additionally, the US Army was founded by the Continental Congress on June 14 1775.
So clearly, there WAS a central army in the 1800s.

Any other lessons you need?  I may have to start charging.

Ok, local Militia's were in place many many years before a centralized Army was ever founded.  And the reason they were in place, was to protect the local areas and colonies from attacks.  .

Thank you for confirming my facts.. Militia were in place to protect themselves from attacks from the British... The people who fought the British during the Battle of Lexington and Concord were a group of local militia people calling themselves Minutemen.  They were not part of a national army.

During Revelutionary War, there was no central army available at the time that could protect the all colonies... so each state had there own militia in place to fight internal & external battles in the state and could be called upon on a national level... but it wasn't required that local state militia to join the national army.... thus starting the National Guard...

But now there is a national army in place, and if a state is ever attacked.. the centralized army or National Guard is called in to protect the state... not the local militia group.  

[TA Pilot]

Ok, local Militia's were in place many many years before a centralized Army was ever founded.  And the reason they were in place, was to protect the local areas and colonies from attacks.

Among other things.
Whats your point?



Thank you for confirming my facts..

Most people will think that I refuted your "facts".



 each state had there own militia in place to fight internal & external battles in the state and could be called upon on a national level... but it wasn't required that local state militia to join the national army.... thus starting the National Guard...

No, the National Guard was created in 1903.  Its part of the standing army.  The militia, as you describe it, is/was as it always was - militia.



But now there is a national army in place, and if a state is ever attacked.. the centralized army or National Guard is called in to protect the state... not the local militia group.

Ok...
Whats your point?

Several states have militias.  Ohio is one of them.
The United States has a militia, as described in the US code.  I, like all other able bodied males of age, am part of that militia as well.

[GGKoul]

But now there is a national army in place, and if a state is ever attacked.. the centralized army or National Guard is called in to protect the state... not the local militia group.

Ok...
Whats your point?

Several states have militias.  Ohio is one of them.
The United States has a militia, as described in the US code.  I, like all other able bodied males of age, am part of that militia as well.

If the main goal of a Militia is the security of the state they are in?   Then why is a Militia still needed in the 21th century?  

Cause if the state is attacked by Redcoats again... the Army or National Guard will be called in to help protect the state.  Not the local Militia.

[TA Pilot]

If the main goal of a Militia is the security of the state they are in?   Then why is a Militia still needed in the 21th century?  

Fale premise.   The militia has 4 roles, three of which are described in the Constitution:
-repel invasions and assist the standing army in same
-enforce the laws of the land
-put down rebellion and insurrection
-provide a deterrent and/or defense from tyranny

So, even your most basic premise is flawed, in that even though there is a standing army, the militia is there to assist it in the defense of the country - and even if it were the case that the militia isnt necessary in that role, there are other jobs that they do.



Cause if the state is attacked by Redcoats again... the Army or National Guard will be called in to help protect the state.  Not the local Militia.

Same false premise.  See above.

[GGKoul]

-repel invasions and assist the standing army in same
-enforce the laws of the land
-put down rebellion and insurrection
-provide a deterrent and/or defense from tyranny

Your too funny... keep beliving that's todays purpose of a Militia.  Militia's are not regulated nor any they above any law.  Sure it's your right to form a Militia, but I'm 100% positive that if any of the items happen above, the Army or National Guard will not be needing your assistance.  Did you know the National Guard was form as a replacement for the local Militia?

Anyways, I'm glad I don't live near you and if a "rebellion or insurrection" does take place... I won't be calling your Militia to come and protect me.  Nor will I be running to your bunker to hide.

Just wondering, does your Militia have a guy that "swings a sack of doorknobs?'

[GGKoul]

If the main goal of a Militia is the security of the state they are in?   Then why is a Militia still needed in the 21th century?  

Fale premise.  

One last thing... Funny how today, one of the main reasons local Militia's were created in the 1700's, is now a "False Promise"

 

[TA Pilot]

Your too funny... keep beliving that's todays purpose of a Militia.  

Dont tell me - tell the guys that wrote the Constitution:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"
--US Constitution Article I section 8:14



Militia's are not regulated nor any they above any law.

Like I said - the Ohio revised Code and the US Code define the militia of the state of Ohio and the Militia of the United States, respectively.  They are creatures of current law; that you didnt know about them until now doesnt mean they dont exist.
 


Sure it's your right to form a Militia

So, what are you complaining about?



Did you know the National Guard was form as a replacement for the local Militia?

The National Guard is part of the standing army.  It was created under Congress' power to raise armies, not regulate the militia.  It is a reserve components subject absolutely to federal authority that can be called up by a state governor under cetain conditions.

It is an entity entirely seperate from the militia.

If it were to "replace" the militia, then there would be no current federal law concerning same.  The most recent revision to the US Code regarding the militia was made in 1992.  So much for that.



Anyways, I'm glad I don't live near you and if a "rebellion or insurrection" does take place... I won't be calling your Militia to come and protect me.  Nor will I be running to your bunker to hide.

As I said:   Thats good.   I dont need the deadweight.

Anything else?

[GGKoul]

Anything else?

Not from you....  I hope you enjoy the rest of the BYOAC boards.

[TA Pilot]

Not from you....  I hope you enjoy the rest of the BYOAC boards

Just remember:
I didnt give up trying to teach-
-you gave up trying to learn.

[GGKoul]

Just remember:
I didnt give up trying to teach-
-you gave up trying to learn.

Thanks for advise "Jack Handy."

[Dartful Dodger]

How about them Cubs?