bumpstock

Trump said Bumper Cars at Woodstock banging heavy metal together,

as

he couldn't mention or spell GUN in his addresses to the nation to date

bumpstock

As far as we know, he didn't use one. If we ban the manufacture and sale of what is called an "assault weapon, and in addition to that, make every private citizen turn in theirs, then the only people with "assault weapons" will be common criminals,  organized crime here in America (yes, it still exists), the Russian mob, the Asian mobs, the Mexican cartels, MS-13 and other assorted drug dealing gangs. Common sense gun laws and strict background checks are ignored by these groups.

Since it all comes down to the money, these "assault weapons" will always be attainable by a determined individual.

bumpstock

Don't need one.  Can fire semi auto by finger faster.  Besides, they are only as good as the buffer spring that's installed.

Isn’t the real answer to just arm everyone with one?  /s

I read something about the latest school shooting that struck me as an odd response to the reality of mass school shootings.  A teacher commented that he was surprised to see one of his students was wearing a bullet proof vest during the chaos.  He said his dad gave it to him to keep in his backpack for such an event.

I would think that is an easy way to be confused as being involved with the shooting.  If you are a cop sweeping the school grounds looking for a mass shooter, what would you do if you saw someone wearing a bullet proof vest?  If you were a student, teacher, etc., and saw a bullet proof vest in a kid’s backpack, would it not raise a very unwanted suspicion?

I read something about the latest school shooting that struck me as an odd response to the reality of mass school shootings. A teacher commented that he was surprised to see one of his students was wearing a bullet proof vest during the chaos. He said his dad gave it to him to keep in his backpack for such an event.

That’s a smart dad! I’d rather my son be questioned for having a bullet proof vest (easily explained), than have him killed because he didn’t have one. 

Would you rather he get shot by a cop with an itchy trigger finger, looking for a person who deserves to be shot dead?  A vest won’t do anything for a head shot.

Worse yet, if this were to catch on, wouldn’t it lessen concern for a real mass shooter that has a flak jacket hanging out of his backpack? 

Would you rather he get shot by a cop with an itchy trigger finger, looking for a person who deserves to be shot dead?

I’d rather him take the risk of being shot accidentally (which is remote) rather than be shot on purpose by a killer. 

A vest won’t do anything for a head shot.

The same is true for the police and they still think it’s worth wearing. I don’t think it makes sense to be completely unprotected just because you can’t protect everything.

Worse yet, if this were to catch on, wouldn’t it lessen concern for a real mass shooter that has a flak jacket hanging out of his backpack?

Flak jackets don’t kill people. If my option is trying to outrun a bullet or staying ahead of the guy behind me so he gets shot first, then I prefer the vest. I’ll check eBay.

Or just buy a Kevlar backpack. They make all sorts of things out of Kevlar these days. Sad commentary on our times.

If the kid is listening to police, and doesn't have a weapon, why would police shoot him?

Really? All it takes is a flinch of a finger. Cops/folks kill folk that they didn't even mean to on occasion. Shit happens.

Can you cite a time when a cop, during a mass shooting event, has shot an innocent?

Isn’t the real answer to just arm everyone with one?

No, just qualified people. Why don't they have school shootings in Israel?

Why don't they have school shootings in Israel?

Aren't all Israeli's required to perform military service ?

If Canada and Mexico despised us and were constantly basically at War with US, we would probably come together as a country like we did after 911, where we were Americans first, as opposed to now, where our POTUS is afraid to condemn Russia or enact sanctions   WTF ! 

Why don't they have school shootings in Israel?

Um, gee, I don't know. Could it be that Israel tightly controls guns and has strict registration requirements?

Of all the dumb questions. All you have to do to spare yourself this embarrassment is look before you ask...

Israel exists under constant threat of attack — and requires citizens to serve in the military — but still has much stricter gun laws than the United States.

And those laws limit violence.

Israel has a lower gun-related homicide rate — and that’s not because it’s an intrinsically peaceful society.

In fact, public health literature suggests that if Israel had more guns, it would have more firearm deaths.

Even those Israelis who pass through extensive hoops to get a firearm permit can only own one gun. And that’s a handgun — not a semi-automatic rifle capable of rapid fire. There are also limits on ammunition.

Many US states grant gun permits liberally, but Israel limits gun permits to people who meet strict requirements of residency, occupation, or army rank.

For instance, security workers, jewelers, hunters and West Bank residents are eligible for permits.

Forty percent of all gun permit applicants are flat-out rejected by the Israeli government.

Gun owners must renew their permits every year and immediately report any change of eligibility status to the Israeli federal government.

Israel relies on professional members of the military and police force for security, rather than “good guys with guns” or even Civil Guard volunteers.

The Israeli government has even restricted firearm access to current Israeli soldiers when off-duty on weekends as part of a successful prevention program that has halved firearm suicide — and 80 percent of the suicide reduction appears to have come from the gun restrictions, rather than counseling.

In the past 15 years, the US suicide rate has increased by 24 percent, and two-thirds of firearm deaths are suicides.

Suicides are seen as private tragedies, whereas mass shooting events are seen as communal tragedies.

Israel considered the soldier suicide rate to be a communal tragedy, and its restriction on guns for the only part of society with gun access reduced these deaths.

The US should follow Israel’s lead.

Janet Rosenbaum is an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York Downstate in Brooklyn. She‘s studied firearm access and ownership in Israel, which has a considerably lower gun-related homicide rate than the US.

nypost

  Of all the dumb questions. All you have to do to spare yourself this embarrassment is look before you ask...

Ummm... You do see the flaw in your reasoning, here, I presume..

I say a blanket ban on all automatic and semi automatic weapons, no matter the make or model. Similar to what they did in Australia. They haven't had an incident like this in what, 20 years since they did it? 

a blanket ban on all automatic and semi automatic weapons

Many here feel your pain and might agree with your sentiment, but it ain't gonna happen.

Better to just come up with some common sense laws on age & background checks.

That is all, if lucky, you're going to get.

Similar to what they did in Australia.

we are unique - australia does not have a second amendment. - nor does any other country

unless you pass an amendment to the constitution - what happened there is not going to happen in the usa.  

not even a chance of it.

The second amendment does not affirm the right to own "assault weapons". 

If it did , individual state bans of "assault weapons" would have been disallowed by the Supreme Court. That has not happened. 

npr

"assault weapons"

from your link

Assault Rifle Bans Find Life On State Level

the states surely have the power to regulate their militia's under our current constitution

the feds? not so much.

It is not unconstitutional to ban assault weapons. Show me something from the Supreme Court that says it is. 

Individual gun ownership was not decided in the SC on the basis of conforming with the needs of state militias. It was decided that the 2nd amendment affirmed an "individual" right. 

bla bla bla

Legally, an "assault weapon" is whatever the enacted law says it is. 

Individual gun ownership was not decided in the SC on the basis of conforming with the needs of state militias. It was decided that the 2nd amendment affirmed an "individual" right.

militia = body of people in a state = every individual included.

SC can do what it wants... try pushing that on other states and watch what happens next.

even if they try, in your wildest dreams and current political climate. your law will never even see the congressional floor with much less chance of being signed by trump.

kick a dead horse much?

SC= supreme court.

SC= supreme court.

my bad... no coffee yet.. LOL

however, the overall argument still stands.

the case affirmed the individuals right and  did nothing to undermine the militias rights

the feds will not be disarming the states. I promise.

The LAW has to have a DEFENDABLE definition.

They do. 

"Civilians DON'T own "assault weapons"...   they are owned and operated by the military and some law enforcement agencies."

.

How hard is it to actually modify them ...

If you don't know what you're doing, quite difficult

I've seen it done and understand your points, please take a moment and listen to mine.

.

While you and so many others parse words about what distinguishable characteristics would or could be used to classify a weapon, while peppering people with assaults on ones intelligence, believe you do realize many guns can be rather quickly modified to ALL become, your definition, of an actual Assault Weapon.

Maybe we could get past the definition of "Assault" Weapon if looked at from this perspective.

we are unique - australia does not have a second amendment. - nor does any other country

Nor does any other country have frequent mass shootings. Gee... maybe there's a causal link... 

In reality, any and all items can then be classified as an 'assault weapon'.

True. Of course... you can also use the word "white" to describe an absence of color. You can use "hammer" for a tool to set screws. Or "submarine" for a flying machine. You can abuse words however you please.

Personally, I prefer a more explicit term: mass-murder-weapon. High-capacity and rapid-fire. Those two characteristics together have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people very quickly. A game hunter doesn't need them. A target shooter doesn't need them. A mass murderer needs them.

Right?

The two fold purpose of owning semi-automatic rifles is noted below.  Should the anti-American left (and that includes idiots like Kasich) try and take away our firearms including AR-15s, there will be a second civil war.

The Supreme Court has twice upheld our right to have weapons comparable to the foot soldier

US v Miller and District of Columbia v Heller- SCOTUS has established the limits to types of weapons

And most importantly to this debate- this conclusion from SCOTUS in DC v Heller

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

supremecourt

A.  Self defense against criminals or tyranny in government

B.  ALL Able bodied men are part of the US militia per US Law with a few exceptions

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Section 312. Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several
States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workers employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the
United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the
United States.

"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier , are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, writing in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“ A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee,  Federal Farmer No. 18 , January 25, 1788

Maybe we could get past the definition of "Assault" Weapon if looked at from this perspective.

Or maybe not. The exact definition of words is essential when dealing with government action, particularly when your aim is sending armed police out to steal people's property (and yes, that's exactly what it would come down to).  If the definition comes down to all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, which it might well if you don't rely on cosmetic features that have no real function, then you're confiscating (stealing) almost all semi automatic weapons.  If you try to develop a definition of an "assault weapon" that actually uses functional features for the definition, you would be outlawing almost all semi automatic firearms in the country.  If you just use cosmetic features, the manufacturers would simply remove those cosmetic features and continue selling the basic weapon functionally unchanged, just as happened in the Clinton AW ban.

The two fold purpose

How do you understand the word "purpose"? Your post seems to give "legal justification", rather than "purpose".

Ask the source of your copy/paste...

gpo

How hard is it to actually modify them ...

Actually, it's quite difficult.  It's more than just a few new holes drilled in the lower like gun control advocates dream.  It takes a considerable amount of machining of the trigger group, as well as a special seer that will reset when the trigger is released.  Add to that is the fact that most civilian available bolt carrier groups (BCGs) and gas systems were never designed for full auto sustained fire. 

Think of it like this:  Can you turn a 5-speed manual transmission into an automatic?  Yes, but it requires a hell of a lot of work, and machining.

I've only seen the finished product, and I admit I know not what it took to accomplish, my buddy said it wasn't that big a deal, but that was years ago and i'll take your word on it.

but that was years ago

Years ago the same Lower for the military Full auto or Burst auto was used in the manufacture and sale of the Semi-Auto civilian version.  This was changed by a ruling from the ATF, because, yes, years ago there was a kit available to do so.  I don't know when the change took place, but the lowers available to civilians now cannot be converted without serious machining.

cannot be converted without serious machining

This was probably a gun and kit from before they switched it

If i recall correctly, pretty sure it was an AK   

I agree, and so does a Republican prominent donor evidently;

Prominent Republican Donor Issues Ultimatum on Assault Weapons
msn

Looks like it may be time for Congress to listen to the people instead of the NRA. 

Hey.......when money talks, lawmakers listen, no matter who they are. Money today is all any political party wants to hear about. 

Do you really think that all the infighting here on NT regarding guns will in any way impact lawmakers, be they state or Congressional?

No, it is only money they care about. They only pay attention to the people who will help get them elected. The only time they bother to consider the American people is when they need their votes, and once they are elected to their intended position, they could care less about the people or what the want. And that goes for all sides of the political spectrum. 

So, spend the next month denigrating and insulting each other here on NT, it will make no difference in the long run. Why not try putting that energy into screaming at your lawmakers about it. Not that they care, but, with enough loud voices, they just might wonder what all the fuss is about. 

Just my opinion. 

"Actually, I DO contact my local, state and federal legislators regularly."

Good for you. I am truly glad to hear it. You are likely one of the few here that do. And I agree with much of what you are asking for. I am also in contact regularly with the local, state and Congressional lawmakers on sides, and although I know they don't really care what I think as an individual, I voice my views and opinions anyway.

If we don't question them and make our voices heard, then we can't complain when they don't act in the best interest of the people.  

I don't care which way it goes as long as the American people get to vote on it!

I don't care which way it goes as long as the American people get to vote on it!

unless your thinking about passing an amendment to the constitution? the american people have no means to actually vote on the issue and not just the person pushing the agenda.    but alas there is simply no way 3/4's of the states would ratify that amendment. (a pipe dream at best)

if you want to vote on it? I suggest a state referendum or initiative

but alas there is simply no way 3/4's of the states would ratify that amendment.

Then that's too bad

Then that's too bad

I know.. the thought of states not wanting to limit their militia's ability to defend the country form enemies foreign and domestic is such a pain in the ass  (for some)  the states should just forfeit all power to the feds... because we have evolved or something... LOL

Cheers

I don't care which way it goes as long as the American people get to vote on it!

God forbid it all against the anti-gun liberals.  You think they are in a tantrum now, another vote not going their way would only make it worse.

You think they are in a tantrum now, another vote not going their way would only make it worse.

Yup, the majority is a killer, thus the need for a federal judge and/or protests

I feel just the opposite stock up now before the morons strip you of your freedom. Expect big spikes in gun sales in the coming weeks. 

stock up now before the morons strip you of your freedom. Expect big spikes in gun sales in the coming weeks.

So do you see the school shooting as a marketing ploy by the NRA ?

Wonder if it will out generate sales surpassing that of when they said Obama was going to take their guns away, cause that also caused a serious spike in gun sales.

stock up now

How many do you need? 

Almost everything I own I don't need. I live here because I can acquire what I want. 

You do realize, you can only kill people once, correct ?

.

Now I know your background, so what benefit does it do one to own a ridiculous amount of gun weaponry ?

Can you short more than 2 at a time ?     Do you have some special feet talents or something ?

Yea, yea, yea, certain guns are for close quarter combat and others for the battlefield, but do you actually think someone is coming to take your guns away ? Cause i'll at least give you credit enough to not believe that you do.

What would be your solution, the status quo (?)ause that's worked out really swell for psychos wanting to be infamous mass murders, for the rest of US Americans, not so much.

Lol.  I’m picturing you standing in front of your arsenal, debating which killing machine to use while a perp is coming up the steps.  You guys are unreal.

You are obviously paranoid.  Is that better?

Every firearm I own, has it's own use and purpose.

What do you use your AR15 for?

Lol. I’m picturing you standing in front of your arsenal, debating which killing machine to use while a perp is coming up the steps. You guys are unreal.

Then the perp slowly backs down his steps and goes over to your house where I’m picturing you standing on your steps screaming “HELP ME. Shoot him, XD, shoot him!”

I’m picturing you standing on your steps screaming “HELP ME. Shoot him, XD, shoot him!”

While a huge lump grows in the back of your pants an down your leg and a big yellow puddle grows around your feet

While a huge lump grows in the back of your pants an down your leg and a big yellow puddle grows around your feet.

No doubt that’s your response every time a door slams. 

My comment was not really durected at you but as a continuation of you comment 5.2.15

Varmints, predators (4 leg variety) like coyote, and if the need requires, 2 legged predators.

Thirty rounds for a coyote? Wow. Great White Hunter!

Then I rescind my comment. 

Sorry for the confusion. It seemed that ther was no good way of making my statement adequately as i wanted. 

Thank you for again for illustrating your ignorance on shooting and hunting, especially predators that travel in packs, you Know what a pack is don't you Bob?

There's a coyote pack that lives near the golf course where I play every few days. I can just see them all standing around, waiting their turn, once one of them has been shot...    Gonna need thirty rounds...    

No real debate.  Depending on the circumstances, either my shotgun or my AR

Your illustration gives a perfect example on why you need multiple rounds and the ability to fire rapidly, you just don't have the...shall we say ability? to see it.

So... You would spray the pack on full auto. That's your idea of hunting. OK. Cool.

Maybe before you bemoan fairness, you should look at Bob's article. 

This site will not tolerate calling for killing of fellow Americans. 

they can and do run in packs

... and you expect to spray bullets and kill a bunch of them...

And so do two legged predators.

My, oh my.  What a nightmare your life must be with fears of running packs of humans in your head.

It's not about the magazine capacity it's about the CALIBER.

I just have to laugh every time they play the "we're the font of all knowledge on guns" card (and, yes, it is always the Joker).

fire extinguishers
spare tire and jack
bottled water
'survival' foods

You forgot safety pins, band aids, extra shoelaces, and bungee cords in your list of items that are totally irrelevant in this discussion.

Go ahead and define what it is that you are preparing for with your military grade murder machines.

Lowlife scumbag thugs that believe what's mine is theirs and will do whatever it takes to make it so. I will do whatever I can to STOP a threat to my loved ones, myself and other innocents against the predators of the world.

Your language makes it quite clear that you value your stuff more than human life.  I imagine that if you walked in on someone trying to steal your tv, you wouldn't bother trying to handle it any other way than to empty a clip into them until they were dead, since your default position is that they will "do anything to make it their stuff".  It's people like you that should not even be allowed to have access to guns.

Can you include killing Canadians in that ban?

I feel just the opposite stock up now before the morons strip you of your freedom

LOL  as if.  too funny

the chance of this administration trying to do that? a big fat zero

Cheers

There's a good consumer of NRA propaganda on behalf of the gun makers of the world.  How they must laugh as they carry the booty from the easily terrified to their banks.

Ban the sale of assault weapons. Everywhere under every circumstance. 

we will not be disarming our state militias or reducing their firepower against any enemies foreign or domestic without an amendment to the constitution.

you can try to pass an amendment to ban assault weapons, but your efforts would not be worth a plugged nickel

we will not be disarming our state militias or reducing their firepower against any enemies foreign or domestic without an amendment to the constitution.

You're already helping Russia fuck with our elections (or more accurately, supporting PresidentShitbag's efforts to help Putin continue to do so) so your patriotic claims are not particularly reassuring.  But still that you'd think it carried any weight.

While shopping I checked the prices yesterday

N ...

Gun loving rednecks don’t change their position on gun control .... until they are victims themselves.

google

I’m sure there are plenty out there that went and bought guns after being the victims of crime too. The liberal media doesn’t like to publicize those stories. 

Do you think they settled on several AR-15s with bump stocks and extended clips of armor piercing bullets?  Is that what it takes to feel safe?

The liberal media doesn’t like to publicize those stories.

Then do what gun freaks and the NRA do best:  Make up shit.

Is that what it takes to feel safe?

It's been obvious for a long time is that these are people who'll never feel safe.  Paranoia seems to be driving their lives.

Yours and the other comments are simply silly.

not really. tell me the difference between a "defense weapon and "assault weapon? can you?

when you have a solid definition of "assault weapon" for your version of an assault weapons ban

get back to us... lets chat.

however,  if you are talking about something defined, like the U.S. Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004?

we could try that again. lets do it. seriously I am down for that. 10 yrs is not long and we have plenty available for now.

so far it has been untested in the supreme court. any challenge was stopped at the lower courts.

en.wikipedia

Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by reviewing courts. 

I am totally ok with sending that all the way to the supreme court... but I want the states to bring the case in defense of their militia's...  and then?  let the chips fall where they may.

so... we can agree... our problem now? my other arguments above... never get thru congress and trump aint going to sign that into law if it did...  no chance in hell

Cheers

Hmmm.  No.

More education for the anti gun rights left and their ignorance about firearms
These psychos who have used AR-15s do so for the psychological effects of their appearance. Most firearms sold in America have equal or greater firing rates to the AR-15
washingtonexaminer
All the rates shown here including those of the AR-15 and military automatic are THEORETICAL rates. Gassing, misfires, jams, and the individual all affect actual performance.
guncite

Widely popular handguns like the Glock 17 easily can fire approximately 550 rounds per minute rate. Given magazine limitations it still can fire at twice the rate of an AR-15.
Using 10 round magazines which restrictive states like CA permit or the more widely accepted 17 round magazines a determined murderer with limited training could easily kill 40-50 people per minute
A practiced shooter with a Bolt action rifle with a 3 cartridge chamber capacity can fire about 25-30 rounds per minute (some have achieved even higher rates)
The Winchester Super X3 12 gauge Shotgun has a capability of more than 500 rounds per minute.
tacshooter.wordpress

And remember when Joe Biden recommended that an old fashioned pump shotgun (which remains the most popular sold) with a 5-8 shell capacity can fire up to 500 shells per minute if the targets are at close range

All this information which is never shared by either the media or anti-gun rights politicians would dramatically change the debate if it was actually part of our national conversation. Unfortunately the media share in this assault on our rights and thus will never be honest in their presentations

The two fold purpose of owning semi-automatic rifles is noted below.  Should the anti-American left (and that includes idiots like Kasich) try and take away our firearms including AR-15s, there will be a second civil war.

The Supreme Court has twice upheld our right to have weapons comparable to the foot soldier

US v Miller and District of Columbia v Heller- SCOTUS has established the limits to types of weapons

And most importantly to this debate- this conclusion from SCOTUS in DC v Heller

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

supremecourt

A.  Self defense against criminals or tyranny in government

B.  ALL Able bodied men are part of the US militia per US Law with a few exceptions

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Section 312. Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several
States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workers employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the
United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the
United States.

"Their swords,  and every other terrible instrument of the soldier , are the birth right of an American. ... The  unlimited  power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."  -- Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, writing in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette,  Feb. 20, 1788

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“ A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee,  Federal Farmer No. 18 , January 25, 1788

You lost the first time and you'll lose the next time you commit treason. 

All my family fought for the Union.  One relative from the PA infantry died at Gettysburg.  Another was a Calvary officer and we still have his sword. He later lost a leg when shot in the knee

this debate is about defending liberty from those like yourself who share the ideology of Stalin, Hitler, and other totalitarians to disarm the citizenry

Off Topic [ph]

Tessylo you are abusing the emoticons. Stop it or I will remove them from you.

this debate is about defending liberty from those like yourself who share the ideology of Stalin, Hitler, and other totalitarians to disarm the citizenry

Well, then;  since you're either advocating for armed overthrow of the government or the extermination of people on a political basis it appears you're a traitor to your own ancestors (alleged) who fought against treason and to preserve the Constitution of the United States of America.  At the very least you've perverted the idea of freedom and democracy that your ancestors (alleged) fought for. 

You have it backwards.  We are upholding our Constitutional Republic against the tyranny of Skirting the CoC [ph]

Off Topic [ph]

We are upholding our Constitutional Republic against the tyranny of you America hating leftists

Making that "we" a rightwing extremist group.  Thanks for coming out from under that rock.  It's remarkable (not meant as a compliment) how you can welcome a hostile foreign power into our political system with the help of that power's puppet in the presidency and still convince yourselves you're patriots.  Well, maybe you are but not to this country.  

Should the anti-American left (and that includes idiots like Kasich) try and take away our firearms including AR-15s, there will be a second civil war.

Skirting the CoC [ph]... while our children get blasted to hamburger...

Bravo !

All very good points, especially the last one about vulnerable  to foreign  invasion

Didn't kill anyone last night.

Oooooo, a real live rightwing gun freak circle jerk in progress.  

Skirting the CoC [ph]

Can you back that up, or are you just trying to skirt the CoC?

skirting the CoC [ph] 

That's the second skirting comment.  

Bullshit?  You're soaking in it!!

We can't ban the sale of AR-15s, because if we do then the third graders in Missouri would have to find something else to raffle off.  Mind you, this is in todays news, less than a week after the Florida school mass shooting:

Third-graders are selling AR-15 raffle tickets in Missouri

"John Kasich was on CNN this morning. He also said AR-15's should be banned , and he asked the rhetorical question, " If you couldn't buy an AR-15 would you have lost your 2nd amendment rights?"  
And of course, he answered "no".  Kasich understands that it IS constitutional to place restrictions on the types of firearms that can be privately owned.  All that is needed is the will to do so from Congress."

Not that I care, but lets assume we ban the AR-15 tomorrow. Does that do it for you?  Or are you going to want other firearms banned every time an insane person, who shouldn't be on the streets to begin with (ya, I know, they got "rights"), tries to imitate the last school shooting mega story?

I have been trying and trying to remember how the anti-gun people blamed guns when a cop shot someone, or how they called for stricter gun laws after Kate Steinle's murder.

Can someone help me out?

Would be fine with me to ban the type weapons that are all too often utilized in mass shootings.  Hubby's M1 (inherited) sits in the closet, think it was out on a range once last year.   He'd have no issue never using it again.  We've enough handguns for target shooting and personal protection...should the unlikely need ever arise.