Militia Rifles – a modest proposal


PDA






glummer
February 22, 2007, 11:19 AM
I would like to see if we can start a change in the way the gun rights issue is discussed by the general public.

I propose a concerted effort to use the term “militia rifle” when speaking of ARs, AKs, etc.

This would have many advantages:
1) It’s concise: Much easier to say than “civilian versions of military weapons”, or “military look-alike weapons”, or “legal guns with the cosmetic appearance of military weapons.”
2) It’s accurate: These are the perfect “unorganized militia” arms. Similar to standard military guns, for familiarity; using widely available military ammo; but also with ordinary “civilian” uses, like hunting, collecting, target shooting competition, etc.
3) It emphasizes the tie to the RKBA, via the militia clause, making it harder to argue for restrictions. It’s one thing to try to outlaw “assault weapons”; attacking “militia weapons” is more obviously unconstitutional.
4) It makes opposition to “assault weapon” bans self-justifying: if some of the powers-that-be are worried about militia arms, they must have something in mind that might trigger the use of those arms. Why fear armed rebellion, unless you plan to provoke it?

Perhaps the NRA could create a Militia Rifle category of competition to further establish such weapons as standard items for civilian use.

Picture Midway and Cabela’s with a “Militia Rifle Accessories” catalog section.

If we could push this usage in discussions, print, advertising by gun-related companies, etc., it could alter the rhetorical landscape in our favor.

Ready on the range.

If you enjoyed reading about "Militia Rifles – a modest proposal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DaveP (UK)
February 22, 2007, 11:39 AM
I realise things may be different over there but UK news programmes are making unfavourable references to "militia" fairly frequently, like every time Africa comes up for discussion.

I understand that Militia were respectable patriotic organisations during the War of Independence, but times and usages change and it isn't a term I would care to associate with myself or my hobbies at the present time. :)

Titan6
February 22, 2007, 11:39 AM
Closer to the truth perhaps but no different than the Homeland Security Rifle already propsed and voted on here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=256570&page=2

Gordon Fink
February 22, 2007, 11:42 AM
Why not “semi-automatic rifle”? I suspect “militia rifle” would be just as scary as “assault weapon.”

~G. Fink

ATW525
February 22, 2007, 11:44 AM
Outside of the RKBA community the term "militia" is not viewed in a favorable light. It doesn't conjure up images of patriots... it conjures up images of wackos who blow up federal buildings.

rangermonroe
February 22, 2007, 11:44 AM
It wasn't that long ago that the term 'militia' was used to describe a mall segment of our society that was more on the fringe.

McVeigh and others.

I am not sure that we wouldn't be painted as 'wannabe's in the woods with guns'. I could be wrong here, but I could see that as negative connotation.

Outlaws
February 22, 2007, 11:46 AM
Why not “semi-automatic rifle”? I suspect “militia rifle” would be just as scary as “assault weapon.”

Yep. Not to mention "militia" already conjures "paranoid rednecks" in many peoples minds.

HGUNHNTR
February 22, 2007, 11:50 AM
I prefer the term SPORTING RIFLE. Why not, it sounds warm and fuzzy, and is totally correct.

bthest86
February 22, 2007, 11:52 AM
"Militia rifle" sounds like it was made up by anti's.

Like the term "Assault Weapon," I think it would create a false mindset in masses that these weapons are MORE deadly and dangerous than "non-militia rilfes."

"Semi-automatic rifle" is fine.

ARKIESTEEL
February 22, 2007, 11:55 AM
A rose by any other name is still a rose

1911austin
February 22, 2007, 12:04 PM
I does not matter what they are called. The elite left do not want us to have the means to defend ourselves. You can come up with the most politically correct name in the world. They will still try to ban them.

As a group, people who support the second amendment need to get in sync. Our forefathers did not write the second amendment to secure our rights to “hunt” or engage in “shooting sports”. We have the right to bear arms as a means of protecting ourselves both from criminals as well as a tyrannical and oppressive government. Stop trying to sugar coat everything. We need to address the issue of the right to bear as it pertains to our security instead of our hobbies. While, I hope to never fire a round in anger, it is my responsibility to protect myself and my family.

Libertylover
February 22, 2007, 12:05 PM
A few problems with this terminology.

First, ask your average dookie-for-brains American sheep what they think of the term "militia" and you're going to get some colorful adjectives.

Secondly, in the perfect world, a "militia weapon" would be NO DIFFERENT than what one might see in the hands of ACTIVE DUTY soldiers, meaning happy switches for everyone! Also, "militia weaponry" would also have to cover MG's, possibly even man-portable anti-air and anti-armor stuff, because individual foot soldiers can carry and use them.

In reality, there is no catch-phrase out there that will EVER seem to put a positive light on these implements, save for POSSIBLY "defense rifle" or something else with defensive connotation.

jlbraun
February 22, 2007, 12:12 PM
I prefer the term "Civil Defense Rifle". "Civil Defense" is a term that resonates well with the older folks who lived through the Cold War, and doesn't have the "Deutschland Uber Alles" connotations that "Homeland Defense Rifle" does, nor does it have the media negativity surrounding it that "Militia Rifle" does.

Kaylee
February 22, 2007, 12:24 PM
What jlbraun said. Or simply "defensive rifle" or just plain "rifle" :)

armoredman
February 22, 2007, 12:25 PM
I like Alan Korwin's suggestion - "household firearms."

Zundfolge
February 22, 2007, 12:32 PM
I agree that we shouldn't use the term "militia" to describe any type of arm ... remember there are folk out there that believe that "militia" = White Supremacist or anti-government kooks that want to kill the families of government employees.


Sport Utility Rifle seems to me to be a better term for what are often called "Assault" rifles.

Professor K
February 22, 2007, 12:45 PM
I think the self loading rifle is the best.

Militia rifle wouldnt be a good name, since militias get unfavorable publicity.

illspirit
February 22, 2007, 12:51 PM
x3 on jlbraun's Civil Defense Rifle. This could conjure positive memories of the Civil Defense programs of WWII, and of the civilians who took up arms and fortified the coastlines in case of attack. Yea, we all know that's part of what a militia really is, but since the term has been hijacked and made into something scary, Civil Defense should work.

DogBonz
February 22, 2007, 12:59 PM
well two things pop into my mind.
1. the response will be only militia members should have them. What, not a milita member... Give me that AR...
2. The connotation of the word Militia has been warped to mean camo wearing neo nazi whit supremist types running around in the woods "playing army". Long story short the media has turned it into: Milita = nut job.

Trebor
February 22, 2007, 01:08 PM
I agree, "Militia Rifle" is NOT the way to go. The word "Militia" has been thoroughly demonized and we aren't going to get it back anytime soon.

jimmyraythomason
February 22, 2007, 01:15 PM
Although it is technically inaccurate, the term "assault rifle" has stuck and the anti-gun media and the gun banners won't give it up

Daemon688
February 22, 2007, 01:17 PM
"Militia" does not conjure up good images for the general public. "Sporting rifle" is BS, the second amendment is not there to protect hunting. Rifle classifications should be simple like:

Automatic rifle, semi-automatic rifle, lever action rifle, etc. That way, there is no confusion as to how these rifles function, no reference to "scarry" cosmetic changes, and no charged words that liberals can use to their advantage.

B.D. Turner
February 22, 2007, 01:30 PM
I agree, "Militia Rifle" is NOT the way to go. The word "Militia" has been thoroughly demonized and we aren't going to get it back anytime soon.
Very well said.

glummer
February 22, 2007, 02:13 PM
It seems most posters are missing the point.

It doesn’t matter what the sheeple think, if the courts buy it.

A “militia rifle” is the one weapon that is certainly covered by the 2A, under the militia clause.

For that reason, I would expect the antis to fight tooth and nail to prevent EBRs being seen as militia rifles. But that would be difficult to do, without positively specifying what a militia rifle is. This would put them in a very awkward, defensive position – they would need to identify SOMETHING as an appropriate militia arm, in order to say that an AR is not.
The ensuing argument would propagate the idea that the 2A is still in effect, and that it definitely covers SOME weapons; both of which ideas, if commonly accepted, are beneficial to our side.

armedandsafe
February 22, 2007, 02:42 PM
For that reason, I would expect the antis to fight tooth and nail to prevent EBRs being seen as militia rifles. But that would be difficult to do, without positively specifying what a militia rifle is. This would put them in a very awkward, defensive position – they would need to identify SOMETHING as an appropriate militia arm, in order to say that an AR is not.

Glummer, I do believe you have seen the light. :D

Pops

ATW525
February 22, 2007, 02:55 PM
It seems most posters are missing the point.

It doesn’t matter what the sheeple think, if the courts buy it.

A “militia rifle” is the one weapon that is certainly covered by the 2A, under the militia clause.

For that reason, I would expect the antis to fight tooth and nail to prevent EBRs being seen as militia rifles. But that would be difficult to do, without positively specifying what a militia rifle is. This would put them in a very awkward, defensive position – they would need to identify SOMETHING as an appropriate militia arm, in order to say that an AR is not.
The ensuing argument would propagate the idea that the 2A is still in effect, and that it definitely covers SOME weapons; both of which ideas, if commonly accepted, are beneficial to our side.

The position of the anti-gunners is that the National Guard is the militia. It wouldn't be difficult at all for them to positively specify that a "militia rifle" is one issued by Uncle Sam to the National Guard. They will then claim that civillian so-called "militia rifles" are implements of death marketed to neo-nazi wackos who like to blow up Federal Buildings.

Declaration Day
February 22, 2007, 02:56 PM
I agree, "Militia Rifle" is NOT the way to go. The word "Militia" has been thoroughly demonized and we aren't going to get it back anytime soon.

Unfortunately, you are right. At least some of us are trying to change that.

Please take the time to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJXmumvgt68

I am a proud member of this group.

And I have no idea what the fixation with vegetarians is, but I got a good laugh out of it.

ArfinGreebly
February 22, 2007, 03:08 PM
I have in my safe a number of General Purpose Rifles which I also sometimes call Utility Rifles.

The beauty of a general purpose rifle is that it will defend the home, defend the community, feed the family, and provide recreation.

A utility rifle is quite useful to have around. It provides a good platform for introduction and teaching of firearms, varmint control, and protection from the various and sundry threats that intrude occasionally into our otherwise productive lives.

A good general purpose rifle should be light enough to carry, compact enough to store in a vehicle, easily aimed, ergonomically friendly so as to reduce repetitive stress and improve accuracy. It should be quick to load and easily unloaded for transport.

As with any tool, the utility rifle may be required to fulfill any of a variety of tasks and may thus be chambered in a variety of calibres depending on the duty at hand. One might easily have a .22 calibre utility rifle for target practice and training, a .223 or .357 calibre for varmints and general defense, something in a .30 or .44 calibre for hunting tasks.

Since not all applications will involve an outdoors venue, a useful utility rifle might need to be shorter and/or have a folding stock for such needs as home defense.

Yes, like any assortment of tools needed to perform the various jobs that come up, a good assortment of high-quality general purpose and utility rifles is a must for the responsible homeowner or citizen at large.

glummer
February 22, 2007, 05:57 PM
The position of the anti-gunners is that the National Guard is the militia. It wouldn't be difficult at all for them to positively specify that a "militia rifle" is one issued by Uncle Sam to the National Guard.
And, having specified that the official rifle for the Guard (organized militia) is a full selective-fire assault rifle, what will be their position in court when someone calls for the same for the equally legal unorganized militia? They will have to specify something, or accept someone else's opinion. If we have established "militia rifle" as a 'term of art', referring to semi-auto ARs and the like, that would be the likely default choice.
(Claims about neo-Nazi wackos have no significance in court.)
If we get the Brady Bunch arguing about what a real militia rifle is, we are shifting the battle to our benefit.

45crittergitter
March 2, 2007, 08:45 PM
Constitutional Rifle?

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 2, 2007, 09:19 PM
I think trying to out-logic the antis, while certainly noble, and possible, is a waste of time. They don't care how logical your argument is. So trapping them in a "define a militia" rifle argument isn't really going to do much.

If these people could be reasoned with, the mountains of data showing crime rates dropping in shall carry states, and the plain text of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", would have already done the job and settled these arguments long ago. The fact that we are still arguing with the antis shows that no amount of arguing is really going to convince them to use rational thought.

wooderson
March 2, 2007, 09:24 PM
You're never going to win the semantic argument - 'assault rifle' is the term of the realm. Better to just call them rifles - clearly, 'no different from grandpa's hunting rifle' - and be done with it.

P5 Guy
March 2, 2007, 10:00 PM
I know that this is a serious thread but, I do not care what the media elites think because they do not care what we think. We are wrong and they know what is best for all us citizens.
So, call the spade a spade, forget PC speak. It is a TYRANT ELIMINATION WEAPON.
I'm proud to be a gun owner and one of 80 million.
P5

Autolycus
March 2, 2007, 10:11 PM
Decleration Day:

Check out the file footage from this link to the other one you posted.

Molon Labe
March 2, 2007, 11:02 PM
Not to mention "militia" already conjures "paranoid rednecks" in many peoples minds.
I agree. And I'm one of those "militia guys."

Today's militias are nothing like the militias of the1990's (thank God). We're more mature, professional, and lawful. Take me, for example... I'm in the process of getting may MS in electrical engineering. And I started a militia group (http://champaigncounty.tripod.com/).

If you enjoyed reading about "Militia Rifles – a modest proposal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!