Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This earlier post for instance:

Shotguns (Short-barrel/Sawn-off especially, as they're easier to handle in a tight spot, although most places have them as illegal) are a perfectly logical method of home defense. The pellets have very little penetration ability and thus they are less likely to go through a wall and damage something in a different room or, worse, a different house.

That post is completely off-base. Possession of a sawn off shotgun is a felony. And the issues of penetration was already discussed.

Spacemanvic wrote:This earlier post for instance:

Shotguns (Short-barrel/Sawn-off especially, as they're easier to handle in a tight spot, although most places have them as illegal) are a perfectly logical method of home defense. The pellets have very little penetration ability and thus they are less likely to go through a wall and damage something in a different room or, worse, a different house.

That post is completely off-base. Possession of a sawn off shotgun is a felony. And the issues of penetration was already discussed.

The post itself says that...

Melissia wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

Unless you're ex-specops, you're not gonna be able to defend yourself against a street gang by yourself, assault rifle or no.

Depends on the circumstances. Take, for example, a street gang of 10, with maybe 4-6 pistols/revolvers, where you get the initiative (i.e. probably fire first) and have access to a covered position (like behind a car's engine block). You don't need to be an operator to force such a group to break contact, especially after you drop the first 2-3 with controlled bursts. CQB firing courses are available all across the country, and typically aren't too expensive either. Hell, every POG in the Marine Corps does Table 2.

If you are in a situation where you are surrounded by 10 people that are going to attack you, especially with firearms, you've already lost initiative.

In this extraordinarily hypothetical situation, where there are ten people, versus you, and both parties are totally prepared for the combat, what would you want to have? I think any gun would do. Of those ten people, the one you are pointing a gun at is really not going to want his buddies to start shooting.

Guns are also a deterrent, though in the case of the colorado man, I don't think it would have mattered who had what. People were going to die. I wish there had been someone to shoot back, which I think is the problem. To me, crazy people who want guns are going to find a way to get guns.

I would promote a background check/psychological evaluation at the purchase of your first gun, and after that make it not difficult to get another gun, a better gun, or a conceal and carry permit. So it would be like a driver's license.

And all you can do is hope you make enoug hcover saves that you live until the police arrive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xole wrote:I would promote a background check/psychological evaluation at the purchase of your first gun, and after that make it not difficult to get another gun, a better gun, or a conceal and carry permit. So it would be like a driver's license.

As long as the psychological evaluation was also something that had to be renewed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spacemanvic wrote:This earlier post for instance:

Shotguns (Short-barrel/Sawn-off especially, as they're easier to handle in a tight spot, although most places have them as illegal) are a perfectly logical method of home defense. The pellets have very little penetration ability and thus they are less likely to go through a wall and damage something in a different room or, worse, a different house.

That post is completely off-base. Possession of a sawn off shotgun is a felony. And the issues of penetration was already discussed.

If you bothered to read my post-- which you did not-- you would note that I already noted that.

OF course, expecting you to make logical, intelligent debate is like expecting a monkey in a suit to behave in a civil manner. Well, that's unfair to the monkey. He's sane.

Melissia wrote:You are shifting the goalposts here because this has nothing to do with the utter nonsense and vile flamebait you vomited out before. Wanting to be able to defend yourself is not the same thing as not trusting anyone else. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you need to seek help? It's not a healthy position to hold.

1. I think you are confusing me with another poster. The post of mine you quoted is the first I've made in this thread so there is nothing that I've "vomited out before." Perhaps you should check your attitude at the door. It's not a healthy character trait.

2. More to the point, a desire to personally defend yourself goes hand-in-hand with a failure of trust in the other members of society. You don't TRUST the guy who knocks on your door at midnight asking to "use your phone because it's an emergency" to not rape, murder, and rob you. You don't TRUST the group of teens in the ghetto to not beat you up for walking through their turf wearing the wrong color. You don't TRUST the local government to live up to its promise to serve and protect.

Here in Okinawa no one is armed because everyone TRUSTS that other Okinawans will not commit senseless acts of random violence in public (the same trust is in no way extended to members of the American military). There's also virtually no public trash cans along the streets/sidewalks. Everyone TRUSTS that everyone else will police up their personal garbage (candy wrappers, plastic bags, empty cans, etc). accordingly....and they do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:If you are in a situation where you are surrounded by 10 people that are going to attack you, especially with firearms, you've already lost initiative.

Then you'd best seize it....with a burst of 5.56

More to the point, a desire to personally defend yourself goes hand-in-hand with a failure of trust in the other members of society.

There's a difference between being naive and trusting other people . What you describe is being naive.

I wouldn't mind letting a guy use my cell phone to make a call. But arming myself first isn't distrust, it's prudence. I don't know who this guy is. He's probably perfectly normal, just lost his way and needs help. But, just in case he isn't morally upstanding, I'm armed.

Being prepared isn't the same as distrust. To make such an assertion is nonsense, and to claim that Americans don't trust anyone is probably just trolling by an ignorant foreigner.

xole wrote: To me, crazy people who want guns are going to find a way to get guns.

Honestly, I wonder what they'll do the first time a mass casualty shooting involves:

1. A homemade submachinegun.
2. A homemade assault weapon where the shooter drafted (or downloaded) CAD files and had individual parts sent to different machine shops nation/worldwide for manufacture.

What are they gonna do, ban machine tools and CAD software?

Noble713 wrote:

xole wrote: To me, crazy people who want guns are going to find a way to get guns.

Honestly, I wonder what they'll do the first time a mass casualty shooting involves:

1. A homemade submachinegun.
2. A homemade assault weapon where the shooter drafted (or downloaded) CAD files and had individual parts sent to different machine shops nation/worldwide for manufacture.

What are they gonna do, ban machine tools and CAD software?

Obviously not...
There's reasonable lengths to go to in order to stop gun violence and there are unreasonable lengths.
That is unreasonable.

Spacemanvic wrote:
101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”
Oh this should be a good amount of fail.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 1. to help continue the American tradition of citizen/soldier.

See the National and various State Guard units. That is a citizen soldier, your "well regulated militia" as it were.

And before you have an aneurysm, no, I am not advocating any form of gun control here. Just pointing out the facts.

National Guards keeps alive that tradition. Look up US Volunteers because it can still go into effect

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 2. for recreation.

Too vague to count as a point.

To go out to a range and fire with your buddies and other weapon enthusists.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 3. to collect military small arms.

You don't need the weapon to be capable of full-auto to collect it. Or even to be ABLE to shoot it at all. So sure, you can have your AK47, but its barrel is filled with concrete.

No one is allowed a automatic (unless federaly license) filling a barrel with concrete makes that barrel no good. Can always buy another barrel. He's refering to semi assualt weapons

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 4. to get quick extra shots at more game while hunting.

Try sucking less next time instead.

Never hunted have you.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 5. to get quick extra shots at the same game while hunting.

Doesn't count as an additional point.

agreed

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 6. for more fun plinking.

If you have to fire full auto to plink, you're pathetic.

You ASSUME here. Semi assualt rifle

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

Unless you're ex-specops, you're not gonna be able to defend yourself against a street gang by yourself, assault rifle or no.

Inexperience shows here on handling a weapon and situation

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 8. to defend yourself against mob violence.

Against a mob, a shotgun will do just fine.

Inexperience again. How many rounds does a shotgun hold and do you really want that mob to be that close

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 9. to defend yourself against looters.

Shotgun.

If in house and folding stock shotgun is good. Outside I really don't want the looters that close.


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 10. to shoot in a Civilian Marksmanship Program competition.

Bolt actions are better for marksmanship than assault rifles and semi-automatics.

Inexperience again. You have to reaquire the sight picture wasting time. Semi Assualt rifles

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 11. to shoot in an “Action Rifle” or “Practical Rifle” target match.

This might count.

agreed

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 12. to assist the police in an emergency (e.g. 1966 Texas Tower Sniper incident, citizens assisted with M1′s).

Most of the time, civilians just get in the way.

Agree if inexperience in a shooting match. Most citizen never been under fire before.


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 13. to help defend the country from a foreign invasion.

Aside from the fact that this is never going to happen (even Russia would have to be insane to really consider actually invading the USA), you're not gonna put one up on disciplined military soldiers.

wrong...so wrong. Insurgent is living proof. Also if anyone does invade the US we have a crap load of "snipers" against them. US Military will not always be the dominate force in the world and "crap happens"


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 14. to help defend the country from an internal takeover.

Nutjobs like you are more likely to be the ones trying to do the takeover.

He's prior military. He will be called back up if a armed insurrection against the US gov't takes place. Ease up on the name calling.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 15. to help the firearms industry remain economically strong.

It needs no help from you.

supply and demand

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 16. to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife.

Donate money to charity.

Some perfer not to donate to charity

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 17. to encourage further research into new firearm technology.

It needs no help from you.

His money as countless others will continue the evolution of fire arms.


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 18. to save time while shooting

You're more dangerous to everyone around you than your target if you honestly think this way.

You ASSUME again that a human is the target

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 19. to have increased reliability in functioning.

Assault rifles are less reliable than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Wrong. Totally wrong. Its how you maintain your weapons.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 20. to have a longer lasting firearm.

Assault rifles suffer wear and tear more than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

True but again it comes down to how you maintain your weapon


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 21. to have a less costly/ more affordable firearm.

Assault rifles are more expensive than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Depends on the bolt action or semi auto weapon your buying. You need to look further into this on prices

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 22. to have an easier to manufacture firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to manufacture than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Seriously? Think we're way past handmade weapons to mold injection

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 23. to have an easier to repair firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to repair than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Can't compare. Depends on the part that breaks and how much a weapon smith charges. Common break. The fire pin on all

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 24. to have an easier to take apart and clean firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to maintain than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Kept my weapon pretty clean in the desert. Goes to how well you maintain your weapons


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 25. to have a more versatile firearm.

Perhaps. But for what purpose?

hunting, defense, to name a few


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 26. to own a highly weather resistant firearm.

Assault rifles are not more weather resistant than other kinds of weapons.

agreed. Also how well you maintain your weapon

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 27. to appreciate the evolution of firearm technology.

Needs no help from you.

Misread this? P90 seems nifty as all get go


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 28. to defend your business.
* 29. to defend your home.
* 30. to defend your boat.
* 31. to defend your camp.
* 32. to defend your ranch.
* 33. to defend your farm.
* 34. to defend your family.

A shotgun will work fine.

Enclosed spaces yes for a shotgun. Drawback is how many rounds does the shotgun carry. Also distance between aggressor and you


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 35. to have reduced recoil when shooting.

You haven't ever fired a weapon, have you? Assault rifles do not have reduced recoil, especially when fired on full auto.

Your so wrong Mel. Its muzzle climb on a auto. Guess you never fired a automatic weapon before have you

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 36. as an investment.

Go invest in stocks or property.

Some people do invest and actually own fire arms

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 37. as a military souvenir.

Go take your dog tags.

Inexperience owning a historic weapon. How many here would love to get their hands on Pattons 45's?


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 38. as a hedge against inflation.

Useless in this fashion.

Looters

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 39. because criminals statistically prefer revolvers over all other firearms.

Not relevant

.

Agreed


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 40. to have a more psychologically intimidating firearm. (often the mere presence of a firearm will stop a crime)

A shotgun works just fine.

Depends on the distance between aggressor and you. SHotgun devastating closeup and say a M4 works well at all range

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 41. to own a firearm least likely to be used in a crime. (less than 1% are assault firearms.)

Utter nonsense. The reason why so few assault rifles are used in crimes is because they're so hard to get.

Wrong. Go to your local Gander, Caleba, or gunshop

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 42. to own a firearm which purposely functions slower than other firearms thereby reducing recoil. (e.g. Remington 1100.)

See? Shotguns work just fine

.

Space clarify that for me in grunt 11B terms

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 43. to own a firearm used in Olympic competition.

Unless you're actually participating, then this is irrelevant.

Then someone owning a weapon similiar to the ones being used in the Olypics shouldn't bother you.....and what Assualt weapons are being used in the Olympics?

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 44. to appreciate the mechanical genius of firearm designers.

You don't need to own the weapon to appreciate it.

I like my M4...its simple to use and easily to maintain. I also enjoy shooting with it

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 45. to have a firearm which uses external magazines.

Most weapons do, so this is irrelevant.

You keep bringing up bolt action but I agree on the rest.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 46. to shoot at the National Matches at Camp Perry.

Maybe.

agreed

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 47. to reject anti-gun bias.

Utter nonsense.

thats a gray area not really sure I can answer that

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 48. to challenge “Big Brotherism”.

Utter nonsense. Republicans are far more "big brother" than Democrats anyway.

Gray area. Not chancing a comment


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 49. to protect yourself against a pack of feral dogs.

Again, shotgun.

Screw that. I've seen a feral pack that would render a shotgun useless due to the amount of rounds it can hold. 30 round mag in my M4 is better

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 50. to own a firearm better for the physically handicapped.

An assault rifle isn't better for the physically handicapped.

Ergonomics

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 51. to save all firearms by not giving in to “salami” tactics.

Utter nonsense

.

WTH is Salami tactics?

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 52. to do trick shooting (e.g. multiple aerial targets).

Semi-automatic is better for this purpose.

He's refering to semi auto

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 53. to shoot military ammunition. (Inexpensive surplus)

Irrelevant. There's plenty of non-assault firearms that can shoot military ammunition

.

Marketing scheme

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 54. to be part of an armed populous, creating a tactical disadvantage for any potential enemies.

This is a repeat of points you tried and failed to make before

.

Same as the country being invaded

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 55. to familiarize yourself with your country’s military rifle.

Go join the military or the national guard.

A lot of people perfer not to but would like to fire the same type of weapons. Why take a chance of getting killed in the middle east

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 56. to familiarize yourself with a foreign country’s military rifle.

Why? Don't give me the nonsense about invading armies.

AK47/AK74 are kind of neat to shoot but aiming on them kinda blows.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 57. because they are interesting.

You don't need to own a working model for this.

Why not. Same as someone that collects muskets

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 58. to hang on your wall.

You don't need to own a working model for this.

I don't advertise what can be potentially stolen

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 59. to shoot clay targets.
* 60. to shoot paper targets.
* 61. to shoot Metallic Silhouettes.

Semi-auto and shotguns are better for this.

He's refering to semi not automatic

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 62. to exercise your constitutional rights.* 63. to exercise a natural right.
* 64. to exercise a civil right.
* 65. to exercise a fundamental right.
* 66. to exercise an inalienable right.
* 67. to exercise a human right.

Aside from most of these being utter nonsense and padding, you don't need assault rifles for these.

Why not. If the individual want to own a semi assualt rifle then shouldn't be an issue

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 68. to defend yourself after a New York City-type blackout.
* 69. to defend yourself against a Miami-type riot.
* 70. to defend yourself after a St. Croix-type hurricane in which both officers and escaped prisoners have run amok.

Shotguns and semi-autos work just fine

.

Again looters and mob grps. Shotgun is useless

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 71. to avoid a “Tiananmen Square” in the U.S.

Utter nonsense.

Aye thats China.


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 72. to own a firearm in common use and therefore protected under the Heller decision.

Heller did not restrict state rights to ban firearms.

Agreed

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 73. to protect livestock from predators.

Shotguns.

Negative. Depending on the predator a semi assualt do just fine

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 74. to show support for political ideals of the founding fathers.

Utter nonsense. Your views are far removed from that of the various founding fathers.

Reaching Space

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 75. to own a firearm designed to wound rather than kill (according to the Dir. Of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory).

Utter nonsense. Assault weapons are designed to kill.

All fire arms are designed to kill

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 76. to own a firearm not readily convertible to full automatic.

You contradict yourself

.

He's talking about semi assualt weapons

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 77. to own a firearm with that “shoulder thingy that goes up.”

You really don't know anything about firearms if you don't know what a folding stock is.

Clarify. I'm with Mel on this

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 78. to own a “state-of-the-art” firearm (e.g. FN SCAR).

FN Herstal sells semi-auto FN SCAR-L and FN SCAR-H to civilians. It is completely legal.

Its an assualt rifle Mel

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 79. to own a “turn-of-the-century” firearm (e.g. Borchardt).

The Borchardt C-93? That's a semi-automatic pistol, not something likely to be classified as an assault weapon. The Luger Parabellum is better though.

I'm tried and true. Colt 45 or 9mm. perfer 9mm due to it works in combat

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 80. which is more pleasant to shoot (lighter and less recoil).

This is not true about assault rifles.

Its true. M4 being one

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 81. because all of your other firearms will be banned next.

Utter nonsense.

Aye we're not at that point...yet

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 82. to own a firearm which is difficult to conceal.

Shotgun.

WTH. Reaching here. Both of you

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 83. to own a firearm which the media glamorizes.

Shotguns and magnum revolvers

.

Also assualt rifles.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 84. to own a firearm which might be banned.

Utter nonsense.

Not really. Its the mystique of the possibility

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 85. to own a firearm which is banned.

Utter nonsense.

Not chancing a fine or jail time. Reaching Space


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 86. to own a firearm that is no frills and practical in design.

Many, if not most, non-assault weapons fit under this definition.

M4

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 87. to own on of the most mechanically-safe firearms. (e.g. Uzi).

Are you fething kidding me? The Uzi, especially under full auto, is ANYTHING but safe.

Muzzle control and fire discipline

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 88. to own a firearm that is a “work of art”.

Revolvers.

Agreed and historic rifles

Spacemanvic wrote:

* 89. to own a Valmet M-76 which the BATF says has no sporting use.

A modified AK47 isn't considered a good rifle for sporting? You don't say. Next you'll be saying that a club isn't suitable for cleaving meat.

Nice weapon. Seems fun to fool around with on the range.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 90. to own a Valmet Hunter which the BATF says has sporting use.

You're really reaching here.

Agreed

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 91. to own a firearm that made history (e.g. M-1 Carbine).
* 92. to shoot a firearm that made history.

The M-1 Carbine is available in semi-auto. And you don't need it to work to own it.

An assualt rifle though in the later stages of developement/wars

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 93. to own a firearm that can be dropped and still function.
]Revolver.
Spacemanvic wrote:
* 94. to own a firearm that can be coated in mud and still function.
You don't want an assault rifle for this.
Spacemanvic wrote:
* 95. to own a firearm that can be dunked in water and function.
There are many weapons that can operate underwater. You don't need an assault rifle for this.
Spacemanvic wrote:
* 96. to own a firearm that can be frozen solid and still function.
Most assault rifles won't.
Spacemanvic wrote:
* 97. to own a firearm that can be buried in sand and still function.
Most weapons can be, provided you clean them afterwards.

Your both out of your mind.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 98. to be a prepared member of the unorganized militia as defined in the US Code (10 US Code Sect. 311 (a)).

A law created because the militia was proven to be too weak, even when armed with military grade weapons.

US Volunteers/title ten orders

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 99. to distinguish between an object and its misuse.
* 100.because you believe in freedom.

Utter nonsense

Seriously in a gray area

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 101.if YOU say you need one. In America, an individual’s need should not be determined by the state.

Oh really now? I want a nuke.

Thats a WMD and a flip answer Mel

Grey Templar wrote:
Vehicles = legal

Arms = legal


Arms + Vehicle = legal

Not quite. You have no right to a tank, or any vehicle for that matter. There is nothing stopping the federal government from banning the private ownership of tanks, just as there is nothing stopping them from banning private ownership of cars, or planes.

In case you want to try though for some

http://visual.ly/owning-tank-what-you-need-know


Don't go all out and be a Wittmann

I would like to point out that the National Guard are NOT citizen soldiers. They are soldiers in the army of whatever state they are in. Just because they never get sent beyond the national borders doesn't make them any less of a professional soldier.

A true citizen soldier is one that does what Militia once were. A group of local volunteers(without pay) who got together at the county capital once a month for drill practice and were occasionally used as honor guards at some official event. They would only fight if their local area was threatened.

Its the tradition the National Guards have. They become federal with title 10 orders

US Volunteers "brofist"

Grey Templar wrote:I would like to point out that the National Guard are NOT citizen soldiers. They are soldiers in the army of whatever state they are in.

No they aren't. The national guard is a militia. They are not professional soldiers, and the vast majority of guardsmen pursue full-time jobs in parallel to their service in the Guard. The ones that don't are usually in college, or temporarily unemployed.

They are as close to being citizen-soldiers as you can get.

They're still a military organization that gets paid. Ergo, not a militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

one weekend a month 2 weeks in a year by the state. Weekend drill is four day pay. The two week is reg. pay. Anything over 30 days they have to be on orders.

Grey Templar wrote:They're still a military organization that gets paid. Ergo, not a militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

Perhaps you should have read a bit further down:

An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.

And then of course the article on the National Guard itself:

National Guard members are a subset of the Militia as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311.

The word militia has several different meanings. Moreover, a citizen-soldier is essentially just a person for whom being a soldier is not their sole profession. For example, members of the National Guard.

Thats only in the definition because the organization is called a Militia by other organizations.

The proper definition of Militia is people volunteering for the defense of their homeland without pay in a time of drastic need. Not the current state army that the National Guard is today. It may be part time, but its still an army.

Grey Templar wrote:Thats only in the definition because the organization is called a Militia by other organizations.

Yeah, that's usually how words acquire their meanings. People start calling X a militia, and X eventually becomes incorporated into the meaning of "militia".

Grey Templar wrote:
The proper definition of Militia is people volunteering for the defense of their homeland without pay in a time of drastic need. Not the current state army that the National Guard is today. It may be part time, but its still an army.

First, there's no such thing as a "proper definition". Something is either a possible definition or it isn't, propriety doesn't enter into it.

Second, the National Guard is most definitely not an army per the modern understanding of the term, as it is not a standing force. Though, in its broadest sense, the term "army" doesn't necessarily conflict with the term "militia". Either way, legally the National Guard is a militia, it further fits several definitions of what a militia is in that its members are not professional, or full time members of the service (this is one of the reason all draft eligible people can be considered a militia). And, more importantly for the purposes of this conversation, even it were not a militia it does not follow that its members aren't citizen-soldiers.

Spacemanvic wrote:

reds8n wrote:Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

Especially from the British SAS? Much like the Americans received from the French in the AWI? Or the VC received from both China and the USSR? You still needed a populace willing to pull themselves from mediocrity, to rise above their "paygrade".

lol, no.

You need media coverage, and a sympathetic global community.

Melissia wrote:Wanting to be able to defend yourself is not the same thing as not trusting anyone else. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you need to seek help? It's not a healthy position to hold.

Feeling like you have to defend yourself is the same as not trusting people.

Melissia wrote:

OF course, expecting you to make logical, intelligent debate is like expecting a monkey in a suit to behave in a civil manner. Well, that's unfair to the monkey. He's sane.

THIS is the best youve got Melissa? Do you know ANYTHING about firearms, or firearms laws?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:I would like to point out that the National Guard are NOT citizen soldiers. They are soldiers in the army of whatever state they are in.

No they aren't. The national guard is a militia. They are not professional soldiers, and the vast majority of guardsmen pursue full-time jobs in parallel to their service in the Guard. The ones that don't are usually in college, or temporarily unemployed.

They are as close to being citizen-soldiers as you can get.

Umm, no.

10 US Code §311, defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

Do you see the difference?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.

Focus on the thread, we are talking about THIS country (the United States).

National Guard members are a subset of the Militia as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311.

The word militia has several different meanings. Moreover, a citizen-soldier is essentially just a person for whom being a soldier is not their sole profession. For example, members of the National Guard.

And in regards to 10 USC: 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Second, the National Guard is most definitely not an army per the modern understanding of the term, as it is not a standing force. Though, in its broadest sense, the term "army" doesn't necessarily conflict with the term "militia". Either way, legally the National Guard is a militia, it further fits several definitions of what a militia is in that its members are not professional, or full time members of the service (this is one of the reason all draft eligible people can be considered a militia). And, more importantly for the purposes of this conversation, even it were not a militia it does not follow that its members aren't citizen-soldiers.

The National Guard is an organized militia, but not the only militia. 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

It cant get any simpler to explain.

National Guard is equipped by the state funds. Though additional equipment are regulated down to the Guards.

Noble713 wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

Unless you're ex-specops, you're not gonna be able to defend yourself against a street gang by yourself, assault rifle or no.

Depends on the circumstances. Take, for example, a street gang of 10, with maybe 4-6 pistols/revolvers, where you get the initiative (i.e. probably fire first) and have access to a covered position (like behind a car's engine block). You don't need to be an operator to force such a group to break contact, especially after you drop the first 2-3 with controlled bursts. CQB firing courses are available all across the country, and typically aren't too expensive either. Hell, every POG in the Marine Corps does Table 2.

Its better to have a weapon to defend yourself against a mob/gang than to be defenceless and faced with one.

Usually mobs are a loosely organized group of cowards. Shoot one or two, and they disperse. Gangs are a bit more organized and some will know how to shoot back. Usually ineffectively.

When I was in my 20's, I could shoot alot faster. Now though, with a 3# CMC trigger on one of my ARs (way smoother than the original trigger), I can only empty a 30 round magazine in about 8-10 seconds. If your SA (situational awareness) is up and you move quickly, you can slice up the group like a pie as you seek better cover and address more manageable "slices" . No guarantees though, but better than just sitting there awaiting the gangs "tender" mercies.

Speaking of cover, modern car engine blocks provide almost no cover.

A well documented shootout in Nuevo Laredo Mexico with fully automatic weapons (not what you can get at a gun store) details the lack of protective cover a vehicle offers. The report is extremely graphic in nature and intended for law enforcement. For the young and squeamish, I strongly advise against Googling the report.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:National Guard is equipped by the state funds. Though additional equipment are regulated down to the Guards.

Yes, and non NG militia fund themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just across the transom:
Will you look at that! Darn evil guns...

http://www.wistv.com/story/19112018/gun-toting-89-year-old-sc-widow-scares-burglars

Gun-toting 89-year-old SC widow scares burglars

Posted: Jul 25, 2012 2:34 PM EDT
Updated: Jul 25, 2012 2:42 PM EDT


Nelson Hawkins and Ronnie Stevenson (Source: WMBF)

BLENHEIM, SC (AP) - An 89-year-old South Carolina widow surprised and chased off two burglars who broke into her home by using a fully-loaded .38 caliber pistol she pulled from under her mattress.

Marlboro County Sheriff Fred Knight told the Florence Morning News he arrived at Ruby Hodge's home Monday morning after she'd used her lifeline emergency device to call authorities.

Knight says 42-year-old Nelson Hawkins of Darlington and 31-year-old Ronnie Stevenson of Lydia were apprehended after a passerby saw a vehicle in Hodge's driveway and took down the license plate number.

Hodge told the paper two men broke in through her back door and they ran away after she confronted them with the gun. The widow says the weapon belonged to her late husband, who died 22 years ago.

Spacemanvic wrote:
Speaking of cover, modern car engine blocks provide almost no cover.

If you have to duck behind a car go for the wheel well, more cover and concealment

South Carolina and she didn't have a shotgun? The pistol hasn't been clean in how long? Still though she kept her head on straight and remember the pistol.

Depends on the circumstances. Take, for example, a street gang of 10, with maybe 4-6 pistols/revolvers, where you get the initiative (i.e. probably fire first) and have access to a covered position (like behind a car's engine block). You don't need to be an operator to force such a group to break contact, especially after you drop the first 2-3 with controlled bursts. CQB firing courses are available all across the country, and typically aren't too expensive either. Hell, every POG in the Marine Corps does Table 2.

Also you able to guess who the leader is to and his "LT's" eventually before a actual shoot out occur. Also no one has "burst" on their M4's

edit

If you have to duck behind a car go for the wheel well, more cover and concealment

I fired quite a few times deliberately under a vehicle to nail a target thats using it for cover. Most of the time there's a cement berm the car park alongside of

Spacemanvic wrote:
Umm, no.

10 US Code §311, defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I see a difference. The difference is "unorganized" versus "organized", but both are militias by your own statement.

I'm not even sure what you're objecting to. That I said Guardsmen are citizen-soldiers?

Or, to rephrase: do you even know what you're objecting to?

Spacemanvic wrote:
Focus on the thread, we are talking about THIS country (the United States).

It was a quote from an article sourced by the person I was responding to.

Spacemanvic wrote:
And in regards to 10 USC: 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

And?

Spacemanvic wrote:
The National Guard is an organized militia, but not the only militia.

I didn't say it was.

Spacemanvic wrote:
It cant get any simpler to explain.

Somehow I feel as though a 10 year old is trying to talk down to me.

Spacemanvic wrote:
Speaking of cover, modern car engine blocks provide almost no cover.

A well documented shootout in Nuevo Laredo Mexico with fully automatic weapons (not what you can get at a gun store) details the lack of protective cover a vehicle offers.

Yes, cars provide almost no physical cover. But engine blocks are damn near impossible to penetrate with lethal force, lest we're discussing anything of cast aluminium and even then that's dicey with anything under .338 Lapua. You can disable a car with much less though, which is the point generally.

You don't take cover behind a door, like they do in the movies (and if you do its about concealment not direct protection), anyone that isn't stupid has known this for decades.

possible mix up with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Volunteers ?

dogma wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:
Umm, no.

10 US Code §311, defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I see a difference. The difference is "unorganized" versus "organized", but both are militias by your own statement.

I'm not even sure what you're objecting to. That I said Guardsmen are citizen-soldiers?

Or, to rephrase: do you even know what you're objecting to?

Spacemanvic wrote:
Focus on the thread, we are talking about THIS country (the United States).

It was a quote from an article sourced by the person I was responding to.

Spacemanvic wrote:
And in regards to 10 USC: 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

And?

Spacemanvic wrote:
The National Guard is an organized militia, but not the only militia.

I didn't say it was.

Spacemanvic wrote:
It cant get any simpler to explain.

Somehow I feel as though a 10 year old is trying to talk down to me.

Spacemanvic wrote:
Speaking of cover, modern car engine blocks provide almost no cover.

A well documented shootout in Nuevo Laredo Mexico with fully automatic weapons (not what you can get at a gun store) details the lack of protective cover a vehicle offers.

Yes, cars provide almost no physical cover. But engine blocks are damn near impossible to penetrate with lethal force, lest we're discussing anything of cast aluminium and even then that's dicey with anything under .338 Lapua. You can disable a car with much less though, which is the point generally.

You don't take cover behind a door, like they do in the movies (and if you do its about concealment not direct protection), anyone that isn't stupid has known this for decades.

My apologies. I took your post to mean that only the National Guard is the militia, when clearly it is not.

Are you really going to try to curl yourself behind an engine block though? Especially since the skin around the block is paper thin? And modern car engines are relatively small. Maybe if you have absolutely no where to go, then yeah, maybe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:possible mix up with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Volunteers ?

I wouldnt bother with Wikipedia as a primary source for anything. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is militia defined as this Wikipedia entry asserts.