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

[DeMilled]

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]

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]

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!

 

[heavydluxe]

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)

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]

"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.

 

[leadaddict]

"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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Ivy Mike]

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.

 

[Ivy Mike]

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]

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]

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]

Substitute SKS for AR and I'm in...

 

[TRX]

No ARs here, but any excuse for a new gun is a good excuse, right?

 

[mortablunt]

^ You use an excuse for a new gun??

 

[ID-shooting]

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]

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.

 

[Ivy Mike]

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.