Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

There is a difference. Educate yourself.
your right its harder to aim a rifle your more likely to hit something else than the person your aiming at with the rifle.

Try Googling "rapes home invasion." Does happen.
i never said it didn't. i'm saying that as an overall threat its just not that big of a threat. its a statistically unlikely event. using that as an argument is an overreaction.
 
Seriously guys:
I wonder if your obsession with the subject at hand is a positive or a negative.
Well................................................(I suppose that everyone needs a hobby)
And, I almost admire your single minded mania that doesn't let ignorance of our history, or the law, or the weapons involved stand in your way. (Something to be said for shear guts, determination and obstinate continuance in a course of action no matter how poorly founded.)

Anyway
A brief history of the "assault rifle"
Machine guns were becoming common in the 1860s, but right up through ww1 they were heavy and difficult to move about and maintain and were most commonly deployed like artillery or mortar crews.
And then came John Moses Browning who took the proven technology of the browning 1917 and produced the browning 1918, aka the Browning Automatic Rifle, or BAR. However the thing was still heavy at 16 pounds(empty). If in the hands of a marksman, it had/has an effective range of 500-600 yards.(if in the hands of a schmuck it was just a worthless heavy boat anchor.)

Meanwhile automatic pistols had been developed, Including What would become the Thompson sub-machine gun, aka tommy-gun--aka trench broom(for sweeping enemy trenches).
These machine pistols only had an accurate/effective range of something less than 50 yards.

OK so warfare is changing with mechanized cavalry, blitzkrieg, mobile infantry, etc. right up through ww1 part 2
About this time, it dawned on the military leaders that most combat was very mobile and occurred between 100 and 200 yards, and the search began for an intermediate range weapon.
And, we have the Sturmgewehr 44
300px-MP44_-_Tyskland_-_8x33mm_Kurz_-_Arm%C3%A9museum.jpg

Which may properly be called the first assault rifle with a range under 300 yards. It came late to the party and was mostly deployed on the eastern front, where it impressed Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov.
And, we have the AK47

NOW That's an assault rifle, and in my humble(?) opinion far superior to the mattel 16.

An AK-47 is just a rifle. Short-barreled in most forms, and not very accurate unless you get your hands on a Valmet or something similar.

In my book, an assault rifle is more along the lines of an M249 Bravo. Just saying...

And to Gawd, pjdude and numerous others, argument from ignorance doesn't tend to win, except in your minds. Educate yourselves, please? As far as overpenetration goes, I load my 9mm with Fiocchi 100gr frangible rounds.
 
your right its harder to aim a rifle your more likely to hit something else than the person your aiming at with the rifle.


i never said it didn't. i'm saying that as an overall threat its just not that big of a threat. its a statistically unlikely event. using that as an argument is an overreaction.

Got grammar? Nah, nor the sense to realize that many rapes and home invasions are thwarted by people with guns. Go live in London and let mayor Sadiq Khan protect you by outlawing knives, as well as guns.

Outlaw toasters, because you could throw one into someone's bath. Oh my God!

Damned fools.
 
An AK-47 is just a rifle. Short-barreled in most forms, and not very accurate unless you get your hands on a Valmet or something similar.

In my book, an assault rifle is more along the lines of an M249 Bravo. Just saying...

.

Yeh-ok the m249 has well over twice the range of the ak47, but at 17lbs empty, 22 loaded is is well over 2x the weight of the ak47.
If you consider an assault weapon to be a lightweight medium range weapon, then maybe the ak47 is better.
Personally, I'd rather take a long shot, but I wouldn't want to lug the the thing about.

FN Herstal/ Wallonia does make some interesting stuff.
 
Got grammar? Nah, nor the sense to realize that many rapes and home invasions are thwarted by people with guns. Go live in London and let mayor Sadiq Khan protect you by outlawing knives, as well as guns.
irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that the likely hood of preventing such of an event is minuscule compared to it accidentally being used to harm someone.
 
And to Gawd, pjdude and numerous others, argument from ignorance doesn't tend to win, except in your minds. Educate yourselves, please? As far as overpenetration goes, I load my 9mm with Fiocchi 100gr frangible rounds.
its not from ignorance. another pro gun crybaby that considers anything that proves him wrong made up and fake.
 
your right its harder to aim a rifle your more likely to hit something else than the person your aiming at with the rifle.
Hahaha!
Thanks. Your ignorance keeps making my argument for me.
Maybe you should look up "sight radius."
Try Googling "rapes home invasion." Does happen.
i never said it didn't. i'm saying that as an overall threat its just not that big of a threat. its a statistically unlikely event. using that as an argument is an overreaction.
Mass shootings in schools, or anywhere, are statistically unlikely. Are those arguments "fantasies" too?
Or are they just a special pleading double standard?
 
its not from ignorance. another pro gun crybaby that considers anything that proves him wrong made up and fake.

"It's not from ignorance." Do you even have a GED?

Likelihood is one word, and your ignorance is fucking appalling. Go teach spelling to the SJWs and leave firearms "discussions" to the like of that David Hogg puppet. He knows just as much as you do, but he's got CNN backing, and all you have is a mouth.
 
"It's not from ignorance." Do you even have a GED?

Likelihood is one word, and your ignorance is fucking appalling. Go teach spelling to the SJWs and leave firearms "discussions" to the like of that David Hogg puppet. He knows just as much as you do, but he's got CNN backing, and all you have is a mouth.
and thank you for showing the world why you people aren't to be trusted. you think its ok to belittle the victims of your crusade.
 
Sorry, man. Not them, just you.

And where the hell do you get off assuming I'm one of "those" people? What exactly are "those" people, anyway?

If you're not trolling, you are just stupid. That makes you a "victim", eh? Don't breed.
 
Who said "only way?"
But aside from the deterrent effect of a house alarm, what else do you have? How are the police response times in your area?
You have guns, you didn't even consider any other way.
I just considered a house alarm, so obviously that's not true.
Only if you live with irresponsible adults.
Really? You mean like the person who was irresponsible in storing his gun?
No, like people who don't follow very basic gun safety, like assuming every gun is loaded, keeping finger off the trigger until intending to shoot something, etc..
I guess you're unfamiliar with these.
 
I just considered a house alarm, so obviously that's not true.

You shouldn't be allowed to own a gun if your priority is to have one before you've even considered home alarms.

No, like people who don't follow very basic gun safety, like assuming every gun is loaded, keeping finger off the trigger until intending to shoot something, etc..
I guess you're unfamiliar with these.

Assume every gun is loaded, keep the finger off the trigger until intending to shoot... Follow these basic tips and you'll be good to go just like Rambo, lock and load!
 
I just considered a house alarm, so obviously that's not true.
Yeah, and a gun.
No, like people who don't follow very basic gun safety, like assuming every gun is loaded, keeping finger off the trigger until intending to shoot something, etc..
I guess you're unfamiliar with these.
But you have the gun ready to use without a moment's notice. Not safe.
 
Sorry, man. Not them, just you.

And where the hell do you get off assuming I'm one of "those" people? What exactly are "those" people, anyway?

If you're not trolling, you are just stupid. That makes you a "victim", eh? Don't breed.
do you always ask questions when the answer is right in front of you? try reading what you responded to your answer is right there
 
Those were not my words. They came from
You are somehow confusing two different quotes from your own posting. You changed the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and that change was in your words.
But we can repeat in more detail the response to the source you have decided is inerrant gospel, and then misread:
In the United States, as of the early 2000s, the National Guard serves as the nation's militia .
Made up of volunteers, the National Guard acts under the dual authority of both the federal and state governments.
Serving as a militia, occasionally, does not make it a militia. It's not a militia. It occasionally serves as an emergency medical and disaster response outfit, police force, etc, as well. It is none of those things. It is a standing State and Federal military force.

Apparently this is poorly understood - some history:
From Wiki:
The National Guard Bureau is the federal instrument responsible for the administration of the United States National Guardestablished by the United States Congress as a joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force
Pay attention now:
It's not made up of "volunteers" like a militia (or a posse, say), but enlistees (exactly like the US Army, and the other military forces commanded by the State). It's paid, trained, professionally organized, uniformed, and completely equipped by the US and State Governments. It is under the command of the US and State Governments, by way of officers with military rank appointed and commissioned by the US Government. None of that is true of any militia.

Now the origins of the Guard were in actual militia, especially State militia (not town or county or regional militia, as were prevalent in 1780). And the co-option into the professional military took more than a century, during which the characteristic features of a militia were replaced with the characteristic features of a State standing military force, as it is today.

A brief timeline, quoted from Wiki, so you can see the alteration by stages, and by reversing it mentally can come to realize what the word "militia" meant to the authors of the Constitution, and what it means to educated people today:

1) Bill of Rights - 1780, more or less.
Ten years later, the regular Army has had some problems:

2 Wiki) The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the secondUnited States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection.
{ notice: prior to that, such as in 1780, militias were not necessarily organized or identified by State}

2 cont.) The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[3]
- - - -
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)
- -
Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack
{notice: every militia member, meaning every adult male citizen under 45 not in the military, was not merely expected but required to provide his own firearm upon notification of deployment, and rifles were ordinary militia weapons}
The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct. - - - - Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders
{notice: before that time, such as in 1780, militia themselves arranged their own command structure and enforcement of orders}

So passed the first 125 years, including several wars, of US Army and Navy deployment and - much differently organized - occasional militia involvement.

Then:
3 Wiki) United States Secretary of War Elihu Root - - - argued that state militias should be more like the Army in discipline, uniforms, equipment, and training,
-
Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support - -

{notice: this separated the National Guard units from the former militia as understood in 1780 - they are still government labeled "militia", but as we will see they will otherwise increasingly resemble regular military forces}

3 cont) Guardsmen had to answer a presidential call or face court-martial. States had to organize, equip, and train their units in accordance with the policies and procedures of the regular Army. If Guard units failed to meet Army standards, they would lose federal recognition and federal funding
- -
The Dick Act was modified by the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, the National Defense Act of 1920, and the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933.[23] In 1908, The nine-month limit on federal service was dropped, - - The ban on National Guard units serving outside the United States was also dropped - - during a mobilization the National Guard had to be federalized - - - the creation of the Division of Militia Affairs as the Army agency -

{this "organized militia" is now a branch of the military, under Army command and control}

4 Wiki) The National Defense Act of 1916 - - - the War Department was enabled to centrally plan for the National Guard's authorized strength, and the number and types of National Guard units in each state. - -
- - implement uniform enlistment contracts and officer commissioning requirements for the National Guard. - -
- - replaced the federal subsidy with an annual budget - - division of Militia Affairs was expanded to form the Militia Bureau (now National Guard Bureau).
- - - stipulating that they would be drafted into federal service, thus removing the National Guard from its status as the militia of the states when operating under federal authority.

{notice: they did eventually drop even the pretense of the label "militia"}

5 Wiki) In 1933, an amendment to the National Defense Act of 1916 created a separate reserve component of the United States Army called the National Guard of the United States. Since 1933, all National Guardsmen have been members of both their State National Guard (or militia) and the National Guard of the United States.

{ and the transformation is completed.}
- - - - -

Notice: the "unorganized militia" remain, untransformed - still actual militia, with all the characteristics thereof. The US still has militias. But the National Guard is not one of them - and it certainly is not anything like the militias of 1780.

In particular: Militia bring their own firearms. That's where the ablative clause in the 2nd Amendment comes from.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, still from Wiki, a central matter in this as in every major US political issue:
According to Professor Kelley L. Ross of the Los Angeles Valley College, one aspect of the Militia Act of 1903 was a continuation of Jim Crow-era politics, designed primarily to strengthen racist segregation laws by disarming black U.S. citizens,[47] thus making it easier to oppress and subjugate them.

One reason the US white bigots fear government disarmament is that they know why and how government disarmament has worked in the US in the past.
 
Last edited:
Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support - -
Organized = Well Regulated.
Thus a Well Regulated Militia (by any organizational means) is the term used in the Constitution.
It has nothing to do with the Right to bear arms, but more with the Privilige to bear arms.
 
Organized = Well Regulated.
And also well equipped. A militia must have proper gear, especially firearms, to be well regulated. And this gear is provided by its members, when they answer the summons or respond to the emergency. They have to have it, to bring it. Read, above, what weaponry was regarded as minimum provisions by a militia member when called up, in 1792: not just the firearm, but the spare flints and shot and so forth. That was expected of any adult man under the age of 45.
Especially then, but also now, regulation refers to equipment, gear. That's just dictionary meaning and usage of the term. If you read things like the British Navy's Midshipman's Manual of the time, you will find references to a well-regulated ship - meaning the ropes are properly stored and in sufficient quantity and in good condition, the sails likewise, things like that.
The citizenry has to own militia weapons in order to form a well-regulated militia. The authors of the Constitution had family and life experience with disarmament by a central government, and local militia reduced to defending against assault with farm implements as weapons - never again, was their response.
It has nothing to do with the Right to bear arms, but more with the Privilige to bear arms.
Utterly and bizarrely false. The exact opposite is the entire focus of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It says "right" - uses that word, explicitly. There is no possibility of mistaking that, and no chance at all that the author did not mean what they wrote. The right to keep and bear arms - that's the central, only, subject.
It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges. That's its reason for existing.

The fear that a central government would dole out these basic rights to a privileged few only - that keeping and bearing arms, say, would be a privilege that could be denied to the common citizen and distributed according to the favor of the powerful, as was the case in European feudal governments - is the explicit motive behind the Bill of Rights. Reducing these basic rights to authority-revocable privileges is exactly what the Bill of Rights was written and included to prevent.
 
Back
Top