Errr, counter-argument?

[Bruno]

One of Hitler's first steps to gaining power and control was to gather up the citizen's weapons.

 

[pdavis]

Are you sure you're not thinking of another law? I've never heard of this Federal law in the US (although many states passed mandatory militia service). The Militia Act of 1797 does exactly what you said, but for Scotland.

Yes, there is a federal law (The Militia Act of 1903) that mandates all able bodied adult males, ages 17-45, part of the unorganized militia of the United States. (The organized "militia" is the National Guard and all military reserves)

 

[Carbine556]

WOW! - you are just a fountain of mis-information this morning! Assault RIFLE is a real, military term for a ruggedized, lightweight rifle that can fire either single shot or full automatic (ie: it's a "machine gun"). A Assault WEAPON is a legal fiction made up by gun grabbers to ban "evil looking" guns and to make the public believe they are banning machine guns.

Right. I should have been more clear. I had been awake for a long time when I made my post.

The "notable exception of the AR15" is total BS! Just because you obviously own one does not make it any more or less powerful than any other weapon in it's class. You are right that one of the benefits of a assault rifle (or their semi-auto brethren, for the civilian market in the USA) is that it's less likely to kill, but rather wound.

Actually, the "notable exception of the AR15" isn't total BS. The round will typically tumble twice when passing through a person's body and will leave (generally) a six inch exit wound. Yes, I own a CAR-15. I don't own it because I ascribe some mythical, deadly capability to it. After four years in the Marines I developed a slight proficiency with the M16 and, being that a CAR-15 is virtually the same without the full auto or burst feature, it was a natural choice. It has it's flaws of course, but I can deal with them.

Are you sure you're not thinking of another law? I've never heard of this Federal law in the US (although many states passed mandatory militia service). The Militia Act of 1797 does exactly what you said, but for Scotland.

This is the one I was thinking of. Granted, it has a racial requirement, but it was 1792.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The Militia Act of 1903 is what basically established the National Guard of today. It also has a provision for the unorganized militia, which is nearly the same as it was in 1792.

 

[torchbearer]

Simple:
Your right to bear arms is not determined by need but by birth.
If we get our rights from our creator. The person who pretends they can abridge that right puts themselves in the place of God.
We have god-emperors in D.C who think rights are negotiable and they have the power as our creator to abridge them.

 

[torchbearer]

bump-22