Its not a matter of what anyone thinks is enough guns for one person, if anyone doesnt want a gun, they are not required to posess one. if they want ten thousand guns, and can afford them, there is no reason to say they cant own them, as long as the sale is legal.The A.T.F. will tell you the same thing. Its really no body’s business but those buying, and those selling. One person’s idea of “sense” is just that, an idea,theirs alone. It does not make purchase upon other people. The reason the second ammendment is part of the constitution is to ensure the power remains with the citizenry. This means, they may need weapons of the type an army would use, in order to oppose an army intent on destroying the American way of life, even if it is the U.S. Army.
If firearms are a grave, and distressing matter for anyone, they have the right to go where ever they are more comfortable. If any nation legally decides as a people to have no firearms, that is their business.But they then must bear the consequences of their actions. For then, only their criminals will have them, No law, or act, or holding your breath till your face turns blue, can stop those who want a thing, be it drugs, alcohol, guns, or any other contrband, from getting it. Any government that strips the peoples freedoms in the name of protecting the people, is selling something brown, and bubbling.
The irony is, that there are plenty of illegal arms available, reputedly from the former Soviet countries, and are readily acquired by criminal elements. The people that acquire arms through legal channels are not the ones that are going about using them for criminal purposes, and banning the legal sale and ownership fire arms will do nothing to reduce the growing ‘gun-culture’ in the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Is it too late for Britain?..No! It is not!
Don’t let the word’s “assault rifle” fool you…They are banning guns because they have two or more features. An example…an M1 carbine with a bayonet lug in a fixed stock is okay…but put that same rifle in a folding paratrooper stack and all of a sudden its an EVIL ASSAULT RIFLE THAT the numnuts are trying to ban. Any semi automatic rifle with the following two features: Folding/telescoping stock, Protruding pistol grip, Bayonet mount, Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor is an evil assault rifle.
Why do you have your Ruger Mini 14 stored in another state? Its not an assault rifle unless its a mini 14GB. Nick, if you let these numnuts start taking away guns because they have evil features…its just a matter of time before they want you mini 14, or you carbine or garand.
yes the California ban has kept me from owning guns. I cannot go out and buy a AR15 or a bushmaster or a Ruger mini 14GB, I cant even buy a 15 round magazine for my M1 carbine and those numnuts that voted Yea on the site I showed want to keep you from owning them too.
Who in this world really thinks a mini 14 is less dangerous if it does not have a bayonet lug and a flash suppressor? And…Do you think they will stop with this ban?
Very well said Tankgeezer you say things much better and eloquently than I ever could. 
Yes I do think guns should be able to be bought and sold at gun shows, this is still America isn’t it? I also think they should have the background check and the waiting period is okay with me too. I am not against rules and restrictions, I’m against tax paying, law abiding citizens being banned from owning a weapon that some numnut politician says is evil. We already have plenty of gun laws on the books, lets just enforce the ones already there.
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/
Can you give me an example who the terror suspect was that went and bought all those weapons? Please be specific…
I agree our homeland security sucks…that’s why we need to do something about the border. For gods sake, if illegal aliens can sneak across the border into this Country by the millions im sure it wouldn’t be that hard to sneak illegal weapons across the border for the criminals use would it? We could start a whole new thread on this topic alone.
The logical extension of that argument is that citizens should be able to acquire everything in the military armoury, including nukes, missiles, fighter and bomber aircraft etc, to equal the military power arrayed against them.
The basis for the argument, being fear of a government turning against its citizens, doesn’t apply here, because we don’t fear that. Sure, it’s always a theoretical possibility, but it’s just not an issue for us in any context, let alone gun control.
Oddly, for once the law actually did what it was intended to do - the problem (once you dig through all the political cr*p) was that gangs were using “military” weapons as fashion accessories. Ban a few bits and pieces to make them look less military, and they go out of fashion with the gangs - who now appear to be using handguns instead. Given that assault rifles are a great deal easier to hit things with than handguns, this appears to be a good thing, particularly as now they’re out of fashion you can bin the ban and retain the benefits.
Just thinking that through, and tankgeezer’s comment “It is the right, and duty of the people to correct their gov’t, by means of these same weapons, and militia.” at #6.
The only times there’s been a risk of armed takeover in this country were anti-communist, predominantly ex-servicemen’s, organisations in the 1930’s and again in the late 1940’s early 1950’s.
Our most senior soldier and only field marshal, the WWII Commander in Chief of Land Forces, Gen Thomas Blamey, figured prominently in both, the first as Chief Commissioner of Police in the state of Victoria in the 1930’s and in the second as the reputed head of the organisation. Both organisations were centred around the militia, which in the 1930’s was for practical purposes the only land force we had as the regular army was just a small training cardre for the militia.
The plan in both cases was to use personal firearms (there weren’t any restrictions on owning military calibre firearms then) and to sieze militia armouries, controlled by sympathetic militia members, to take over the nation.
So, in our case, the risk to us came from citizens with personal weapons and from the militia.
Who really controls the National Guard if push comes to shove?
My understanding is that under the Insurrection Act of 1807 President can call out the National Guard to put down a rebellion, thus overriding the state governors’ control of the militia.
There is obviously scope for both the President and a state governor, or governors, on opposing sides to be giving orders to the militia. The result then depends upon which orders the militia chooses to follow, or maybe ignore both sets.
As for not enacting laws to change constitutional provisions, it looks like that’s exactly what happened with presidential control of the militia.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard
By Kavan Peterson, Staff WriterA little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.
To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state.
A conflict over who should control Guard units arose in the days after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. President Bush sought to federalize control of Guardsmen in Louisiana in the chaos after the hurricane, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) refused to relinquish command.
Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies. In a letter to Congress, the governors called the change “a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states’ ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders.”
The change adds to tensions between governors and the White House after more than four years of heavy federal deployment of state-based Guard forces to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, four out of five guardsmen have been sent overseas in the largest deployment of the National Guard since World War II. Shortage of the Guard’s military equipment – such as helicopters to drop hay to snow-stranded cattle in Colorado – also is a nagging issue as much of units’ heavy equipment is left overseas and unavailable in case of a natural disaster at home.
A bipartisan majority of both chambers of Congress adopted the change as part of the 439-page, $538 billion 2007 Defense Authorization Bill signed into law last October.
The nation’s governors through the National Governors Association (NGA) successfully lobbied to defeat a broader proposal to give the president power to federalize Guard troops without invoking the Insurrection Act. But the passage that became law also “disappointed” governors because it expands federal power and could cause confusion between state and federal authorities trying to respond to an emergency situation, said David Quam, an NGA homeland security advisor.
“Governors need to be focused on assisting their citizens during an emergency instead of looking over their shoulders to see if the federal government is going to step in,” Quam said.
Under the U.S. Constitution, each state’s National Guard unit is controlled by the governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the president. The National Guard employs 444,000 part-time soldiers between its two branches: the Army and Air National Guards.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so. Under that law, the president can declare an insurrection and call in the armed forces. The act has been invoked only a handful of times in the past 50 years, including in 1957 to desegregate schools and in 1992 during riots in south central Los Angeles after the acquittal of police accused of beating Rodney King.
Congress changed the Insurrection Act to list “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident” as conditions under which the president can deploy U.S. armed forces and federalize state Guard troops if he determines that “authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”
Backers of the new rules, including U.S. Sens. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said the changes were needed to clarify the role of the armed forces in responding to serious domestic emergencies.
Mark Smith, spokesperson for the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, said local and state emergency responders know what their communities need during a crisis better than officials in Washington.
“The president should not be able to step in and take control of the National Guard without a governor’s consent. The Guard belongs to the states, has always belonged to the states and should remain a function of the states,” Smith said.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453
The truth of the matter is that with exception of nukes, the American private citizen may indeed posess everything you mentioned. I am aquainted with many people who do own these very things. This includes explosive munitions, and though they are expensive to legally posess, it is possible here. The citizenry of The U.S. is capable of holding a regular military force, at least for a time. All the while stealing their weapons, and resources, and attriting their forces. It is alot more difficult to take a country if the citizens are right there with the tools to do business.
I do not intend that this should be a nose rub to anyone, the affairs of Australia are Her own. This is only to point out that restrictive gun control of any kind, for any reason, is at best a two edged sword that one ends up holding to their own throat. The U.S. will do as it must, to preserve our constitution, and way of life. If that means that we have more extant firearms than population, so be it. The medical profession is responsible for for more deaths each year than are gun crimes.Perhaps rampant doctor control is needed.
Many people say that drivers are licensed, why not gun owners? Lots of activities are licensed in the world, and to some licensing may sound reasonable, (there’s that favored word,) The simple truth is that in America, there is not claim of right to drive, or practice medicine. But there is a claim of right to posessing a firearm, an uninfringeable right at that. There are no limits, any firearm is fair. As long as one is a citizen,and not a convicted felon, or dishonorably discharged from military service, adjudicated in court as not sane, or mentally deranged, along with a host of other disqualifying conditions, purchasing a firearm is their right, period. And to some Americans it is a duty, and great responsiblity to keep and bear arms for the sake of our country’s security. Now, all we have to do is get them to vote, but thats another story.
Who really controls the National Guard if push comes to shove?
One point to clarify, the Army reserves, and the National Guard, are not the militia. Militia is a different wholly private citizen thing used in times of great need.and, they would be expected to go against the invading force be it an outsider, (Canada,they’ve been lusting after our strategic bacon reserves,
or a domestic threat, using what they can find.(we figure the domestic threats would co-opt any provided weaponry).
The States are in control of the National guard, regardless of any law to the contrary. The Federal Gov’t has no power but that attributed to it by Constitution. The States may allow some latitude in some cases, but can deny the Fed at any time.State’s rights is the term. The federal level military cannot be used against American citizens except by war powers act being invoked, but even this is subject to the States rights.
It would all be rhetorical, as if the people were to correct the Federal Gov’t it would be in the course of civil war. Then, all bets are off between the States, and Federal Gov’ts.
The U.S. Army is out gunned by the population many times over.Even if it came against the citizens, most of the Army personnel would not contribute to the destruction of their own people. It was bad enough in the 1860’s, i hope it never comes to that again.
That’s the heart of the difference between America and most other nations.
Americans start the debate from an entirely different position to the rest of us, because you have a right to firearms which is bound up with the larger principle of preservation of constitutional rights, and strongly felt conceptions about constitutional rights. So that even Americans who might be in favour of gun control in principle can oppose it because they see the erosion of a constitutional right as a far greater evil.
The rest of us start from a position that we’re entitled to whatever the governments we elect give us, because there’s no separate right to anything, be it firearms, drivers’ licences, or standards for registration as a doctor.
It’s one of those debates that’s a bit like a Christian and an atheist arguing about the existence of god. The Christian relies upon the bible for evidence and the atheist doesn’t accept the bible, so there’s no common ground for the debate to proceed. We end up with two separate and essentially unrelated arguments. It doesn’t undermine the validity of either argument, but it’s not really a debate in the sense that the opposing sides are talking about the same thing.
As a matter of interest, did the President try to control the militia in the South, and for that matter the North, before or during the Civil War?
Did the governors do anything with their militias?
Was the Union Army a militia or federal force?
During the war between the States, there was a federal U.S. Army, which split into the two contending forces. those who went with the South, being then the Confederate States of America Army. Jefferson Davis was made the President of the C.S.A. In the North, Honest Abe Lincoln was the President. There were many irregular forces involved, some were mercenary, hired to fill out the ranks, both Officers, and enlisted. I believe such mercs were utilized by both sides, though more in the south.
There were also civil bands of fighters involved, these were more often referred to as guerillas, but were in fact militia. I have not researched the use of militia in that war, so many enlisted in the regualar Union army, that it may have been uncommon to need any militia.Control of any mobilized militia would ultimately be held by their state gov’t,Although my gut says that they were likely not controlled by anyone beyond themselves. through whatever agencies then existed.In this war, though they would have received support from the Union army, as the C.S.A militiamen would have from their regular army.We have lots of letters from long gone relatives who were in the American civil war, but they never wrote about those sorts of things, just about daily life, and the things they personally experienced, the first drink of whiskey, a pretty girl they met, getting a picture taken, things that would kep the home folks smiling.(mostly)
This whole question from the U.S. standpoint is like mixing two colors of paint together, and then trying to separate them again.
I’m not sure which President you meant, but the Union Pres, (Lincoln) had no control over any southern military or either militia.Nor did the Confederate Pres.(Davis) have any over the northern forces or militia. The truely sad thing about that war was that most all of the casualties were Americans. And at Gettysburg in 3 days ,our nation lost just fewer than we did during all of the 10 yrs.of the Viet Nam conflict.
The Brits are doing right , trying to forbid the firearms for wide public.
You american guys do not forget that the 80-90% of the victims of firearms shoots in average state- are not victims of criminals , but just victims of the simple people who lost the control and having get the firearms.
The albsolute most of them are the victims of play of manners in families.
Don’t you really tired by the mass terror in the americnas school, when the kids get the Dad’s firearmes , goes at school and murder his classmates and teachers?
Or when the usial families scandal finish by the murdering of one of people?
Sure we have here a tonns of wearpons in former soviets countries.
I always have a couple of grenades and AK-74 in boot of my car .:)And one RPG-7 at top of my home .
In case if afro-americans or chechens want approach enough close at me. Who know what they plans to do?
You have a car, comrade?
Why isn’t a tractor good enough for you? 
(A) The number of physicians in the
U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year
are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health & Human
Services
Now think about this:
Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is
80,000,000. (Yes, that’s 80 million.)
(B) The number of accidental
gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of
accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of
FBI
So, statistically, doctors are
approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, “Guns don’t kill people, doctors
do.”
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT
LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming
threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of
hand!!!
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the
statistics on Lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and
seek medical attention.
how are you friend Chevan? keeping well?
Work out the stats for the number of deaths per visit to doctor against the number of people who died after being shot by guns. I think the survival rate with doctors is a lot, lot better.
Egorka, get onto this, 'cos you’re a whiz with stats.
Also, people usually volunteer to go to doctors, apart from accident victims taken to ER’s.
I don’t know of anyone who’s volunteered to be shot as a victim, as distinct from a suicide.
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the
statistics on Lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and
seek medical attention.
Lawyers don’t kill anyone, even in states with capital punishment.
The state kills them.
States also register doctors who kill people.
Therefore, to save lives, states should be abolished.
Ain’t logic grand.
The Reserves are federalized, but the National Guard is indeed the modern equivalent of militia…
And the increased federal use of the ANG is indeed another instance of a “conservative” violating the ideological tenet of “state’s rights” on issues where it suits them…
[i]History of the Army National Guard
By Rod Powers, About.com
In 1916, another act was passed, guaranteeing the state militias’ status as the Army’s primary reserve force, and requiring that all states rename their militia “National Guard”. The National Defense Act of 1916 prescribed qualifications for National Guard officers and allowed them to attend U.S. Army schools; required that each National Guard unit would be inspected and recognized by the War Department; and ordered that National Guard units would be organized like regular Army units. The act also specified that Guardsmen would be paid not just for annual training, but also for their drills.
The First World War
The National Defense Act of 1916 was passed while the Mexican bandit and revolutionary Pancho Villa was raiding the border towns of the Southwest. The entire National Guard was called to active duty by President Woodrow Wilson, and within four months, 158,000 Guardsmen were in place along the Mexican border.[/i]