stupid "traditions" and other rants

[Hobbs]

And those are illegal, as in $10,000 fine and automatic 10 years in federal prison, and not that easy to do, despite what the media would have one believe(my uncle was a gunsmith)-plus let's look at how damn useless a full-auto rifle or pistol would be.

Average clip for an AR-15 holds 20-40 rounds depending on type-we'll use 40 for this simple math.

semi-auto-45 RPM=0.75 rps-clip empty in 53 seconds
3 round burst-90RPM=1.5 rps-clip empty in 27 seconds
full auto-800RPM=13rps-clip empty in 3 seconds

This is why eve the military does not have full auto on the M-16A2-all fully automatic military weapons are belt-feed, otherwise they are totally useless for anything-3 seconds of fire you may hit one or two targets max.

a pistol clip only holds 14 rounds

You make it seem like I don't know about the weapons I've been trained on. I have to say, that offends me on so many levels.

Did I say it was useful? No I think what I was saying is that, despite federal laws, people still do it. And if they weren't able to get ahold of such weapons in the first place, they couldn't modify them, now could they?

And it seems Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu didn't think it was stupid to use full-auto weapons.

um no-just no

Um, yes.

the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is not a state agency.

Splitting hairs much? The primary responsibility of the National Guard is still to the state.

The training of the militia is to be left to the states according to the constitution-yet the national guard is trained along with the regular army, not by the states. The Militia is only to be called up in times of national emergency-I'm sure the guard units in Iraq and Afghanistan called up to active duty are executing the Laws of the Union, suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions.....as the constitution says the states' militias are to be used for when federalized.
<snip>

It seems you still haven't read it. Here's the wording:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

They are executing the Laws of the Union. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. They are the Militia, and as such, part of the component that makes up the US military. They also provide the duty of "repelling Invasions" as the National Guard provides most of the air defense capabilities of the USAF.

Just because there's some belief that the federal government is out to steal your rights and "mah gunz!!" doesn't make it so.

[Tanasi]

Film cameras still exist. As do land lines and typewriters. And to an extent, people do need those things.



Calling a bolt-action rifle the "infancy" of firearms erases about 500 years of technological progress. The bolt-action, quite frankly, could never be modified to fire full-auto, which is what a lot of people do to their semi-auto AR-15's (there are even kits available). People even full-auto their pistols, for Christ sakes.

The National Guard fulfills the role quite nicely and fits the criteria for a militia. If you bothered to read the Constitution (the part before the Amendments), you would find that the Congress has authority to regulate the militia and fund it, provide for it etc. That is exactly what the National Guard is. So do I think civilians need military-grade weapons? Hell no. All you get are those anti-government militias that spawn the Timothy McVeigh's of society.

Actually a bolt action rifle has been modified to fire in semi-automatic mode. The Springfield 1903 Mk I was so modified. It was never officially adopted by the USA and only a very few still exist. It wasn't full auto but I'm certain it could be modified to fire full auto.

Converting any firearm manufactered since 1994 to fire full auto isn't easy contrary to what the antis say. An off the shelf AR-15 can accept some M-16 parts as those parts are common to most AR type rifles. The parts they can't accept is those parts make the rifle select fire. Now I know you'll say they can still be modified, and I'll answer yes they can if you have a machine shop. I know I have a M-16 and several ARs.

Now in my opinion why the AR-15 is a poor choice for deer hunting is the cartridge. The .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO is a intermediate powered cartidge of small caliber 223 thousandths of an inch (that's less than a quarter of an inch.) The most common caliber for deer hunting is 30 caliber (.308) about an third of an inch. FYI: The AR-style rifles are offered in multiple cartridges and chamberings from .22LR to .50Beowolf. As for full auto being used for hunting: My state (TN and I'd say most if not all) does not allow for the use of full-auto in any type of hunting. I can only speak for myself but I used a bolt gun for deer hunting because it was available in larger chamberings and are generally a lot more accurate as well as reliable than semi-auto rifles. Nowdays if I deer hunt I use an handgun.

The Enfield that BK hunted with while bolt rifle, could be fired in rapid volly fire of 20+ shot a minute. The British army practiced this was to be used at long range as unaimed fire with the rounds "aimed" for the beating zone of no-mans land during trench warfare.
John M. Browning's first semi-auto rifle was a modfied lever-action rifle that used a spoon at the muzzle to trap the gas that operated the linkage that operated the rifle. It wasn't praticle but it worked.
For flame-throwers there is no federal regulating laws regarding their ownership or use. Several states do regulate them. Once upon a time they were sold as surplus for agricultural purposes and that's how my Dad acquired his that I now own.

When I have more time I'll address your misconceptions of the Militia and National Guard. They are not equal and were never intended to be so.

[Hobbs]

When I have more time I'll address your misconceptions of the Militia and National Guard. They are not equal and were never intended to be so.

It's not a misconception. It is exactly as I stated it. I think I know more about the Constitution than the random gun-nuts and anti-government conspirators that roam the nation.

[BlaqueKatt]

It's not a misconception. It is exactly as I stated it.

Really so if say another civil war erupted today(for any reason) the national guard wouldn't be federalized and pulled away from the states that they are supposedly the militia for? The government would allow them to freely fight against the regular army as a state militia? If not then they are not a state militia now are they?

As I said, conflict of interest.

and considering you knew nothing of the actual content of the AWB-or previous laws regarding fully-automatic weapons(hint they were outlawed due to the likes of Al Capone and his ilk), I take your "I know more than anyone else about subjects x,y,and z" with a very large grain of salt. Remember you are not the only person on fratching with military service on their resume.

[Hobbs]

Really so if say another civil war erupted today(for any reason) the national guard wouldn't be federalized and pulled away from the states that they are supposedly the militia for? The government would allow them to freely fight against the regular army as a state militia? If not then they are not a state militia now are they?

It is illegal for any state to raise or produce funds for a military. A militia is for state defense...and in time of national emergency, federal defense.

You seem to forego the part that says, quite explicitely, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

So, do I think the state militia should fight against a state in rebellion? Yes. Because that's what the Constitution says.

and considering you knew nothing of the actual content of the AWB-or previous laws regarding fully-automatic weapons(hint they were outlawed due to the likes of Al Capone and his ilk), I take your "I know more than anyone else about subjects x,y,and z" with a very large grain of salt. Remember you are not the only person on fratching with military service on their resume.

There's the rub. Where did I say anything as to be ignorant of where the laws came from? I do admit I mis-read the ban on illegal firearms, but questioning me about a matter of history is another entirely.

You're also not the only person on fratching with military service? May I ask which branch you served, years and duties? If not, then you have less to say than I do.

[BlaqueKatt]

It is illegal for any state to raise or produce funds for a military. A militia is for state defense...and in time of national emergency, federal defense.

and wrong again-

Moreover, Congress has provided by statute that in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States.

32 USC 109 - Sec. 109

(a) In time of peace, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam or the District of Columbia may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c). (b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam or the District of Columbia to use its National Guard or its defense forces authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace, or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or constabulary. (c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam or the District of Columbia may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces. (d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence, transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the United States. (e) A person may not become a member of a defense force established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces.

May I ask which branch you served, years and duties? If not, then you have less to say than I do.

Regular army enlisted in '98-MOS 54B-not giving anymore information than that-too easy to track me down through records.

[Hobbs]

and wrong again-



<snip the bullshit>

US Constitution, Article I, Sec. 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Wrong again, soldier.

Regular army enlisted in '98-MOS 54B-not giving anymore information than that-too easy to track me down through records.

Okay. *I do expect to be called 'sir' from now on.

*Don't get your knickers in a knot. That's a joke.

Oh, and I'm sure it'd still be easy to do that. I'm quite amazed at what kind of contacts I have now.

[BlaqueKatt]

US Constitution, Article I, Sec. 10:

key words-No State shall, without the Consent of Congress

yeah but you see-32 USC 109 - Sec. 109 is congress giving consent-via passing a law-so yup consent has been given-kinda difficult for congress to make a law that goes against the constitution and have it stand for over 50 years(united states code 109 was passed in 1956)

[Hobbs]

key words-No State shall, without the Consent of Congress

yeah but you see-32 USC 109 - Sec. 109 is congress giving consent-via passing a law-so yup consent has been given-kinda difficult for congress to make a law that goes against the constitution and have it stand for over 50 years(united states code 109 was passed in 1956)

If you bother to understand where you're getting this from, it's USC Title 32, Sec. 109 (you cited it improperly) is the organization of the National Guard. Section 109 is the Maintenance of Other Troops. As paragraph A states:

(a) In time of peace, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c).

What you fail to realize, however, is that Federal authority always trumps state authority. We fought a whole war over that little debate some 140-odd years ago. So if the Federal government needs National Guardsmen to augment the Active or Reserve component of the Armed Forces, the Federal government is wholly within their right to do so.

Also, a state must have an organized and maintained defense force. These poduck, rightist and militarist militias we see are not organized by the state. Most of the time, they don't even pledge allegiance, affiliation or necessity of protecting the state in which they reside.

[BlaqueKatt]

. We fought a whole war over that little debate some 140-odd years ago. So if the Federal government needs National Guardsmen to augment the Active or Reserve component of the Armed Forces, the Federal government is wholly within their right to do so..

Point is they can have a defense force totally seperate from the national guard-paid for out of state funds-that the feds cannot order into federal service-a state militia-you claimed the constitution said they cannot-however congress has stated that they can.

In time of peace, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam or the District of Columbia may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c) .<snip> (c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam or the District of Columbia may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.

Plain language- in peacetime you can't have troops other than the national guard and a separate defense force to be used within the state/territory as it's chief executive(governor) sees fit.
it's the "other than" & "and"-they say you can have X and Y only.
X=national guard
Y=other defensive force, not subject to federal usage.

[Hobbs]

<snip bs>

Plain language- in peacetime you can't have troops other than the national guard and a separate defense force to be used within the state/territory as it's chief executive(governor) sees fit.
it's the "other than" & "and"-they say you can have X and Y only.
X=national guard
Y=other defensive force, not subject to federal usage.

Plain language. When was the last time you saw the Texas Defense Force? When was the last time you saw the Maryland Defense Force? Why do you think states utilize a federally funded national guard? It's because that costs the states money, and they'd rather get a cheaper, federally-funded defense force than a state-funded one. It fulfills the traditional role of a militia (and is, by definition of the Constitution, a militia) and fulfills a support component to the US Armed Forces.

My argument is, the so-called "militias" aren't militias because they aren't under state control. They're private citizens who (some of which) think that they're going to war against the federal government. Some of them read the Turner Diaries like the Bible, and others use the rhetoric of extreme-rightist thought to do things like the Oklahoma City bombing. So sure, go ahead and support them. But if any dumbass tries to overthrow the federal government, they'll have to get through me and several hundred thousand of my brothers and sisters first.

[Tanasi]

TNSG......

[Hobbs]

TNSG......

From the website you supplied:

...by assisting the Tennessee Army National Guard as a force multiplier...

So all they do, really, is relieve pressure on the TNG so that the TNG can provide more resources to the federal government. Thanks for helping out the federal government, Tennessee .