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.
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.
