Who needs an AR? Um, you have a duty to have one


PDA






ID-shooting
January 17, 2013, 08:06 PM
Was having a melow debate with a decidedly anti at my desk today at work. He asked the same old tired question "why wouldbanyone need an AR?" My first quick reply was, "You don't need one, you have a duty to own one."

Seeing his now puzzled look I fired google up, showed him the Second Amendment. I focused him to the Militia clause of it. In the pulled up the site to U.S. law and let him read the make up of the militia. I asked him to tell me if he was in the militia, he thought and answered in the afirmative. Then I asked him to think back, did the initial minute men get thier guns from the government or did they bring thier own? I then asked him how he planned to be in the militia if it were called if he wasnt familiar with or was able to bring his own gun.

He left thinking it over.

If you enjoyed reading about "Who needs an AR? Um, you have a duty to have one" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Texan Scott
January 17, 2013, 08:16 PM
I'll run this by the wife... "hon, it's my DUTY to own one". I'll let you know how it holds up to marital scrutiny.

Double Naught Spy
January 17, 2013, 08:52 PM
The militia as defined by the Militia Acts of 1792 (about 6 months after the Bill of Rights) were temporary, but later made permanent in 1795, changed some in 1862 and 1865, and then replaced in 1903. The "militia" as defined by that act is now the National Guard. The original definitions are not current and not covered by current law. So unless your friend is in the National Guard, he doesn't fit the legal definition with the militia act that is current today.

Nobody has a duty to own an AR.

ID-shooting
January 17, 2013, 08:56 PM
10 USC 311

(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 members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areó
(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.

So um, ya

tyeo098
January 17, 2013, 08:56 PM
The militia as defined by the Militia Acts of 1792 (about 6 months after the Bill of Rights) were temporary, but later made permanent in 1795, changed some in 1862 and 1865, and then replaced in 1903. The "militia" as defined by that act is now the National Guard. The original definitions are not current and not covered by current law. So unless your friend is in the National Guard, he doesn't fit the legal definition with the militia act that is current today.

Nobody has a duty to own an AR.
Where did you read this?
The Militia Act of 1903 CLEARLY states:

The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

351 WINCHESTER
January 17, 2013, 08:59 PM
We may not have the duty to own an ar, but we sure as heck have the right.

Mr. Happy
January 17, 2013, 09:02 PM
Crap. I'm 57.

ID-shooting
January 17, 2013, 09:05 PM
Maybe be clearer in that we are unorganized, but militia none the less.

MR Happy, Idaho will have you.

Title 46. Idaho Code


MILITIA AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 1
STATE MILITIA -- ORGANIZATION AND STAFF
46-103. STATE MILITIA -- DIVISION INTO CLASSES. The militia of the state of Idaho shall be divided into three (3) classes, to wit:
The national guard, the organized militia, and the unorganized militia. The national guard shall consist of enlisted personnel between the ages of seventeen (17) and sixty-four (64), organized and equipped and armed as provided in the national defense act, and of commissioned officers between the ages of eighteen (18)and sixty-four (64) years, who shall be appointed and commissioned by the governor as commander-in-chief, in conformity with the provisions of the national defense act, the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and as authorized by the provisions of this act. The organized militia shall include any portion of the unorganized militia called into service by the governor, and not federally recognized. The unorganized militia shall include all of the militia of the state of Idaho not included in the national guard or the organized militia.

figment
January 17, 2013, 09:08 PM
Crap. I'm 57.
Thats OK, you can still be an armory...

blakec3686
January 17, 2013, 09:23 PM
Hey there ID..I couldn't believe there was an anti here in the great state of Idaho but then I saw your in Nampa...Just kidding lol I'm in the magic valley. In all seriousness though a buddy at work just brought up that subject and we all agreed (thankfully I already own one) Thanks for posting the actual article !

EBK
January 17, 2013, 10:02 PM
The militia as defined by the Militia Acts of 1792 (about 6 months after the Bill of Rights) were temporary, but later made permanent in 1795, changed some in 1862 and 1865, and then replaced in 1903. The "militia" as defined by that act is now the National Guard. The original definitions are not current and not covered by current law. So unless your friend is in the National Guard, he doesn't fit the legal definition with the militia act that is current today.

Nobody has a duty to own an AR.
Wow! divide and conquer.

as the founding fathers wrote it We THE PEOPLE are the millita and have a duty to own a military serviceable firearm in case we are called up for the defense of this country from enemies both foreign and domestic.

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 10:04 PM
The militia as defined by the Militia Acts of 1792 (about 6 months after the Bill of Rights) were temporary, but later made permanent in 1795, changed some in 1862 and 1865, and then replaced in 1903. The "militia" as defined by that act is now the National Guard. The original definitions are not current and not covered by current law. So unless your friend is in the National Guard, he doesn't fit the legal definition with the militia act that is current today.

Nobody has a duty to own an AR.
False. Militia Act of 1903.

Edit: seems I'm late to that party.

PRM
January 17, 2013, 10:16 PM
You know, I've never owned one an AR type rifle, never even wanted one. I'm more into revolvers and lever actions. But, I support anyone's right to own what they want. The government got no business telling law abiding folks what they can and can't do, when the Constitution says its OK.


As of recent, all this liberal BS has got me to thinking, a nice M4 would be a great addition. I might just have to get one, pick a liberal anti, and name it after them.

Trent
January 17, 2013, 10:20 PM
As of recent, all this liberal BS has got me to thinking, a nice M4 would be a great addition. I might just have to get one, pick a liberal anti, and name it after them.

I could post soooo many suggestions but it would be against THR policy. :)

ID-shooting
January 17, 2013, 10:56 PM
Still fail to see where unogranized militia was abolished. That means you are still part of it.

armoredman
January 17, 2013, 10:59 PM
Umm, can I show up to the party with a different rifle? I don't like ARs...

This one uses AR magazines, will that work? :D

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/vz%2058%205%2056mm/vz58ad.jpg

sidheshooter
January 17, 2013, 11:12 PM
You know, I've never owned one an AR type rifle, never even wanted one. I'm more into revolvers and lever actions. But, I support anyone's right to own what they want. The government got no business telling law abiding folks what they can and can't do, when the Constitution says its OK.


As of recent, all this liberal BS has got me to thinking, a nice M4 would be a great addition. I might just have to get one, pick a liberal anti, and name it after them.

^^^This (though I hasten to point out that there are libs who find this whole "control" movement repugnant, as well).

Any other non-AR owners planning on picking up a "Feinstein stick", just because, when the house kills her dream and prices/demand come back down?

nathan
January 18, 2013, 12:32 AM
Tell them the AR is the culmination of many years of trial and error. The epitome of modern design and timetested efficiency to deliver firepower in a small light package. The world of guns has evolved in the last 300 plus years and so does with bad elements of society . The right to own one is necessary to ensure you have the best tool to defend your life , family and friends in the event public order goes heywire.

We are living in trying times. Even bad people are armed with the latest weaponry and they dont come in singles, they come in multiple persons . So an AR with a high cap is a must to fight against such multiple attackers like in a home invasion scenario . A six shooter revolver is good but can be a handicap limited by the number of bullets in the moment of utmost stress defending your very life. All you want at that very moment is to keep squeezing the trigger to stop the threats . The AR and Ak semiauto platform s are the way to go nowadays. Proven in combat the world over .

hso
January 18, 2013, 01:22 AM
Most firearms evolution comes through military development of firearms. Just as the small crossover wagons/suvs are the evolution or the military Jeep, the AR is the current evolutionary stage of firearms designed to be rugged, reliable, simple and modular with excellent quality control to produce an easier to use rifle with more versatility.

A single gun can be purchased and by changing the top half for different calibers it can be used to shoot bottle tops to moving targets in competition, small game like rabbits to large game wild boar hunting, and it can be used to protect pets, livestock and homes. There literally is no more versatile rifle that allow an entire family to put one gun to so many different recreational, sporting, hunting and defensive uses. It is an American design with innovation and versatility designed into it. It is an American rifle supporting Americans in one of the few growing manufacturing fields in the United States. It is the American Rifle for this generation.

usmarine0352_2005
January 18, 2013, 01:25 AM
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f191/usmarine0352/NeedAR-15.jpg

evan price
January 18, 2013, 08:32 AM
ARs quite honestly have no appeal to me. Are FN-FALs and AKs ok in your world or is AR snobbery the rule?

Pilot
January 18, 2013, 08:37 AM
So Double Naught, does this pass your smell test? Curious to hear your reaction.

Double Naught Spy
January 18, 2013, 09:08 AM
So what part of being in the unorganized militia says a person has a duty to have an AR? And what of those not in the unorganized militia?

DeMilled
January 18, 2013, 09:51 AM
I see it as a personal choice to be armed with a proper battle rifle.

Now, as an American I feel that everyone should be a member of the unorganized militia but I wouldn't go so far as to make it mandatory.

From my experience with the fuel specialists and truck drivers that didn't want to be in the Army, I can tell you guys that it's a very bad idea to have people in your unit that don't want to be there.

So, let's not call it a duty but rather an option that we should feel morally inclined to be ready to exercise.

DeMilled
January 18, 2013, 09:58 AM
So what part of being in the unorganized militia says a person has a duty to have an AR? And what of those not in the unorganized militia?

You can be called upon to help stand up an unorganized militia, during a time when defending our homeland is needed, and never fire a shot. Cooks, mechanics, doctors, truck drivers, etc. etc. would all be positions needing filled.

I say we all have a duty to answer the call of standing up the militia but that's not to say you need to bring a rifle.

DeMilled
January 18, 2013, 10:01 AM
ARs quite honestly have no appeal to me. Are FN-FALs and AKs ok in your world or is AR snobbery the rule?

I sure hope FALs are alright 'cause that's all I have!

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/desertford/Straight%20Jacket/SJFAL011.jpg

heavydluxe
January 18, 2013, 10:32 AM
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f191/usmarine0352/NeedAR-15.jpg
Not to be a killjoy, but.... you guys do realize this isn't actually a correct quote, right?

Washington actually said: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy." (Citation) (http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/union/state1.html)

Look, I'm fully in favor of the interpretation of the Second Amendment that is suggested in the fake quote. But, let's make sure we're not allowing ourselves to publicly misrepresent facts as others on the anti-gun side of the aisle do so often.

sleepyone
January 18, 2013, 10:40 AM
"It is everyone's duty to own an AR." That is purely your opinion. Nothing you quoted supported your opinion. I think the firearm with which you are most competent and can afford to purchase and operate without putting your family in financial straits is the one you should own.

Gregaw
January 18, 2013, 10:42 AM
"Feinstein stick"

Bwah-ha-ha-ha!

That's the first time I've heard an AR15 called that. It gave me a much needed laugh this morning. (The server gremlins at work are strong today.)

Skribs
January 18, 2013, 10:47 AM
Sleepy, I'd say the rifle you can own in those circumstances. We can argue pistol/rifle/shotgun for HD all we want, but if you're called up to defend as part of a militia, there is no denying that the rifle is the superior option.

I agree with the premise of the OP. We don't "need" an AR for 99% of our daily activities, even in the shooting sports. We need it for those very few times when we need a weapon.

ball3006
January 18, 2013, 10:50 AM
I don't have an AR because I just don't care for them..My M1 Garand does the job just fine for me.....chris3

rdhood
January 18, 2013, 11:22 AM
Are FN-FALs and AKs ok in your world or is AR snobbery the rule?

As long as the Brady bunch, Dianne Feinstein , the NY state government, POTUS and Piers Morgan hate them, they are fine by me!

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 12:22 PM
I would be very careful in trying to use such an argument. The NRA and gun rights groups in general have worked very hard to sever the link between militia service and the right to keep and bear arms. It was not all that long ago that the courts believed the former to be a condition of the latter. You didn't have a right to keep and bear arms outside your militia service according to some. That right also did not extend to slaves and even freed slaves until near the end of the 19th century depending on where you lived. Sorry black people...you aren't actually people, therefore no guns for you. DC vs. Heller was a huge turning point although arguably McDonald v. Chicago was even more important as it incorporated the 2nd amendment against the states.

and contrary to the first post, the government did issue firearms under certain conditions back in the late 18th century. Those men got to keep those firearms in their homes and those muskets and their owners were noted in the public register.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 12:23 PM
I believe it is my duty as an American to tell you to get bent for telling me what I should own.
I will decide that for myself.

Romeo 33 Delta
January 18, 2013, 12:50 PM
I'm convinced that we have a duty to own SOME firearm of this type because of the opinions in US v Miller 1939. I am under the impression from my readings that McReynolds' point was that he had no problem with Miller's contention that he was part of the Militia, only that, since no evidence to support the position that a short-barreled shotgun had any MILITARY or MILITIA UTILITY, the Court could not render an opinion as to it being protected under the 2nd Amendment.

I also don't see this as muddying the water about militia rights vs individual rights because the 2nd Amendment CANNOT be read (using English Grammar rules) to mean that the right belongs to other than the people and this is now established law that it is an individual right.


"A well educated electorate being necessary to the continuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed".


1. Nowhere therein can it be construed that the "people" need to be part of the "electorate" in order to exercise the right to keep and read books.

2. Nowhere therein can it be construed that certain books are excluded from the non-infringement statement.

3. Nowhere therein can it be construed that only certain types of books are covered under the non-infringement statement.

4. Nowhere therein can it be construed that the non-infringement statement
contains a modifier (eg. "but", "if", "however", "unless", etc.) which conveys the intent to lessen the scope of the statement, to express or imply the possibility of an exception, or which would permit instances of infringement under certain conditions.

(With liberties taken and thanks to J. Neil Schuman)

Westfair
January 18, 2013, 02:09 PM
I don't have an AR because I just don't care for them..My M1 Garand does the job just fine for me.....chris3
Garand owner here as well. Just can't live without that piiiiiiiiiing!

MuleRyder
January 18, 2013, 02:50 PM
Substitute SKS for AR and I'm in...

TRX
January 18, 2013, 02:58 PM
No ARs here, but any excuse for a new gun is a good excuse, right?

ID-shooting
January 18, 2013, 08:13 PM
Geeeeeeeeeeese! Don't get bent over the symantics of the make/model. My feelings are certainly a carry over from my Army days and the sense of service my famiy raised me in. Guess that why I work at the VA now. This was merely to show the sentiment that AR/AK/SKS/M1/mini/BB gun/urine filled water pistols are more than mere toys. Besides, mine is a mini-30. There are no AR's in this house.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 08:19 PM
Crap. I'm 57.
You can't own any guns then. Me neither.

The militia reference is prefatory, not qualifying of the statement that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The right resides with the PEOPLE, not the militia per se.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 08:31 PM
Don't worry folks, I may have sold my AK74 clone but I still have plenty of long range tools when you need to really reach out and touch someone.

If you enjoyed reading about "Who needs an AR? Um, you have a duty to have one" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!