1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Arms of "Common Useage".

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by nicki, Jul 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nicki

    nicki Member

    Nov 19, 2007
    Fresno ca
    Many on this board think that the Heller case may lead to full auto.

    Well, here is my observation.

    Bakc in 1934 common arms for the infantry were bolt action rifles. It was this way through WW2 except for the United States, we adopted the semi auto Garand in the late 1930's.

    It gave US troops a significant advantage over both Germans and Japanese.

    During this time, a home guard full of armed volunteers patrolled our coast lines, in short, a armed civilian population was critical to the war effort.

    Even the English recognized the need for a armed population and was gladly accepted donated guns from Americans to arm their citizens in case of Nazi invasion. Seems like the English forgot history, but that's for another post.

    During world war 2, the Germans developed the first assault rifles, although it was too little, too late. The Russians were impressed enough by the effectiveness of the German Assault rifles that they developed their own gun, the AK47.

    While the M1 Garand was a great gun, the next common arm was a M1 with modern upgrades, the M14. Upgrades, detachable magazine, select fire.

    The next upgrade, or downgrade depending on one's view, the M16.

    Where I am going. While the 2nd amendment is a individual right, I believe it is was meant to be a "Collective Duty", that those where were part of the citizen militia have a duty to maintain appropriate and common use Militia suitable arms.

    Considering that we didn't have a large standing army for many years, the militia represented the bulk of nation security.

    Perhaps we need to bring back the Militia, that would be more effective for homeland security rather than destroying our bill of rights.

    Just my 2 cents.

  2. Mongrel

    Mongrel Member

    Jun 27, 2008
    I see and agree with your line of thinking...

    However, NONE of this was ever about Homeland Security. It was and always has been about "destroying our bill of rights (sic)".

    Certainly, if *they* wanted to secure our borders it could have been and still could be done virtually overnight, without ONE American giving up anything wether it was an M16 or a pair of nail clippers...

    The sooner more people realize that we are already at war within our own borders the better chance we have of victory.
  3. Lonestar49

    Lonestar49 Member

    Feb 17, 2007
    So. Calif.
    Words of truth


    + 2

    IN a nutshell

  4. Cmdr. Gravez0r

    Cmdr. Gravez0r Member

    Aug 26, 2007
    I think the "common usage" clause is going to be one of the most important phrases in 2A law for the next few years, based on what I've seen so far. The prognosis is good.
  5. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Jun 11, 2005
    I also think the "common usage" wording willl be the second most important part of the Heller decision favoring "individual rights" rather than a collective right. When the next major legislative push toward the AWB happens, this wording will get the most attention by the legislature. I don't know what common usage means other than firearms commonly used for civilian purposes. Fully automatic firearms have no relevance unless you include the military and law enforcement weapons as commonly used. I would prefer an all inclusive interpretation which would include select fire/fully automatic firearms.

    No need to bring back the militia. As far as I know, it is still valid wording and completely legal except when the activities are anti-American in nature.
  6. Thernlund

    Thernlund Member

    Apr 12, 2007
    Phoenix, AZ
    I have this one buddy of mine that I've known for almost 15 years. Best friend if ever there was one. We still talk nearly daily.

    There was a time when both he and I used to have to go out and trim our trees and prune the bushes by ourselves. We'd assist each other, but it was a pain, especially in the summer (Arizona!). But we did it because it needed to be done. Certainly NOT because we enjoyed it, but because it was necessary.

    Now we are much more successful and can both afford to pay other more willing folks to do that work for us. They want the pay, we want nice yards. Everybody is happy.

    But you know... at no time did I forfeit my right to trim my trees and prune my bushes myself. Just because I pay someone else to do it doesn't mean I am now prevented from doing it. It's still my yard, eh?

    Bringing back the militia isn't the answer. But specifically banning it isn't either. We may not do it ourselves, but we certainly retain the right.

    Everyone get me on that?

  7. GhostlyKarliion

    GhostlyKarliion Member

    Dec 5, 2006
  8. koja48

    koja48 member

    Feb 21, 2005
    SE WA State
    I'm past 45, but if my country calls or a threat encroaches, I'm in. Can't run fast anymore, but I still shoot DAMN good!
  9. romma

    romma Member

    Jun 28, 2005
    Trust me, if we can get a window for full auto, you will see common usage.

    Probably a good percentage of people will still fire them in sem-auto, but who here would not want an AK-47, M4, AR-15 or m-16 with a selector switch?

    I know I do!
  10. RPCVYemen

    RPCVYemen Member

    Sep 7, 2006
    I think you're right. I am very puzzled by what that means. How is it related to "military usage"?

    Is it a way to prevent select fire or full auto? "Common usage" when and where?

    Semi-auto? Is that what is meant by common usage?

    I can't tell what was meant.

  11. DFW1911

    DFW1911 Member

    Sep 21, 2006
    Hill Country, TX
    I like your premise. What's it going to take, though? I feel it will most likely be an individual state who steps forward to make it happen. I guess their punishment will be losing highway funding or the like.

    However, if the voters so choose, they could pay additional taxes to cover the missed federal money.

    I think the impact on other states would be fascinating: some would be for it while others would be against it, right up 'til they need a militia.

    Good points in your argument.

    Take care,
  12. GhostlyKarliion

    GhostlyKarliion Member

    Dec 5, 2006
    Here is my thinking on the whole "common useage" thing, if the arms are militia-esque, then wouldn't the question really be "what arms are common useage amongst the military?" any attorney worth his weight in gold bricks should be able to argue that without any difficulty.
  13. Old Grump

    Old Grump Member

    Jun 30, 2008
    Blue River Wisconsin
    Free Citizen

    I have the right and duty to defend my life, liberty, property and health. I do not need the 2nd amendment to tell me that and it does not give us any right we do not already have it only enumerates that right. I will as a good citizen extend my ability as much as possible to doing the same for my family, my neighbors, my friends and my fellow citizens. The first step to losing that right came considerably before the GCA of 1968 but that is the act that is plaguing us now and it must be overturned. Heller was a good decision but it was a very narrow decision for a specific situation and much more needs to be done.

    I believe in the minds of reasonable people that common usage will refer to the state of art in weapons whether it be single shot pistols firing rifle calibers or 454 Casull's capable of blowing away large chunks of a brick wall. Unfortunately it will take another case in front of the Supreme Court to settle that issue and past history indicates they will be very reluctant to hear another gun rights case in the near future. It is going to take a long time. We need to stay the course and no matter how hard it is to 'be nice' we must do so at all costs.

    The anti's will argue the militia was to provide for a free state and we now have a standing army to do that but that was not the founding fathers intent. Free state referred to us being free from tyranny and it does not make a speck of difference if that tyranny is from foreigh nations or from our own government. Think Mayor Daley of Chicago, he qualifies as a tyrant as soon as he stands up on his hind legs and tells the public they have no right to bear arms for their protection.

    Okay, preaching to the choir and I'm off my soap box.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2008
  14. Shung

    Shung Member

    Jun 11, 2008
    Geneva, Switzerland
    not only english... Most of european countries forgot history and the lessons it taught to us..

    and those guys think that it cannot happend again... damn fools.. history only repeat istelf.. again and again.. its only matter of time..
  15. Clerihew

    Clerihew Member

    Mar 23, 2008
    Michigan Militia never went away http://www.michiganmilitia.com/ I just with they held events closer to where I live. They get it, here is a quote from the home page "Because a well-armed citizenry is the best Homeland Security, and can better deter crime, invasion, terrorism, or tyranny...The intention of this MichiganMilitia.com website is to inform, promote and facilitate the development and training of the militia. Everyone is welcome, regardless of race, creed, color, tint, or hue; regardless of your religion (or lack thereof); regardless of your political affiliation (or lack thereof, with this caveat: If you intend to bring harm or destruction to our fellow citizens, you are NOT welcome); regardless of anything else: if you are a US Citizen or have declared your intent to become such, who is capable of bearing arms, or wishes to support someone doing so, then you ARE the militia..." I couldn't say it any better myself!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page