Proposed Executive Order Designating Certain Rifles for 'Militia Purposes' - The Truth About Guns...

SSG(P) (Join to see) - "But the AR-15 is still a legal sporting rifle, able to be purchased by anyone not legally barred from doing so." That's if you are lucky enough to live in a state where they are not banned. If you are unlucky, then you might be cast into the category of people who are legally barred from purchasing and owning one, not because of anything you did, but because of the geographical location of your home.

@SSG (P) Matthew Unger That was my first take on reading this. If an EO is issued defining a militia use arm, by its very existence it would lead to the argument that no arms not specifically noted in the order are not protected. If such an order were written to protect the second amendment, then it would have to be highly detailed and cover a broad scope of tools. The second amendment was written simply. The only people who can screw this up are politicians and lawyers. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No stipulations, no restrictions, just pure and simple, why is it so hard to understand?

SFC (Anonymous) - The first part does not state that one has to be attached to a militia, All it states is that because there needs to be a militia of citizens in order to secure the nation, the people have the right to have weapons. The second amendment does not specify that the right is limited to firearms.

SFC (Anonymous) - The beauty of our nation is that you do not have to agree with my opinion, I do not have to agree with yours. All that is necessary is mutually respecting differing points of view. I have always thought that the simplicity of the Bill of Rights was intentional. I believe it was designed to grant a broader freedom to the people, rather than to limit it.

But if you're already a millionaire, you probably have a better chance of crafting a proposed Executive Order and having the President actually consider it.

SSgt Christopher Brose - Especial in a pay for play White house where Presidential spokeswoman openly hawk foreign made clothing and keeps her job. But there is a problem, too many Republican are sane and that make the passage of this as a law very unlikely,

1stSgt Nelson Kerr - You're funny. Any liberal complaining about "pay to play" without acknowledging that Hillary was the queen of "pay to play" is providing low-grade comedy to the rest of us.

In truth the Virginian Attorney would be more effective proposing this as a bill to his Representative and to his Senators.

Agreed. I actually like the specific mention of militia, and the argument for the suitability and protected status of militia-style weapons, but I don't like the narrow focus of which weapons qualify.

I can see why the Made in America wording though. Weapons for even the Militia should not be subject to possible blockade by an enemy if the source of the weapons, parts and ammunition are a foreign company in a nation at war with the United States or an ally who could conceivably be occupied by a foreign enemy. As it is because of Globalism most of our gear these days is made Over There instead of here. I got out just as the transition to foreign suppliers began. As a Veteran and one who still abides by my oath I would rather be able to find my replacement parts here as I have to be my own Armorer and my own Supply Sergeant these days. As it is I think this proposal should be proposed instead to the drafter's Representative and Senators rather than to be an E.O. issued by the President. Though today there are AKs and FN-FALs made here in the United States by American companies. Even Century Arms has begun to make American copies of the Spanish copies of the German G-3/ HK-91s.