Avatar feed
Responses: 11
SSG(P) Casualty Operations Ncoic
14
14
0
On the surface, a good idea, but remember that if you allow the federal government to GIVE, it can also TAKE. For example, if you allow the government to define what IS a "Militia Rifle" then it can also define what IS NOT a "Militia Rifle" and thus ban or otherwise discriminate against it.

Let's just keep protecting the 2nd Amendment, that protects ALL firearms.
(14)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SSgt Christopher Brose
8 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
PO3 Steven Sherrill
8 y
@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?
(1)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
PO3 Steven Sherrill
8 y
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.
(1)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
PO3 Steven Sherrill
8 y
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.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Mark Million
4
4
0
Edited 8 y ago
LOOKS LIKE PROPAGANDA NEWS to me. This is a "Proposed" Executive Order, Drafted by "Virginia attorney Lenden Eakin ", NOT The PRESIDENT. There is not even an indication that the President is aware of it, let alone planning to sign it.
I.E. I can propose an Executive Order to make me a millionaire, but that doesn't mean the President will sign it.
(4)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SSgt Christopher Brose
8 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
8 y
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,
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SSgt Christopher Brose
8 y
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.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SPC Douglas Hemmingway
SPC Douglas Hemmingway
>1 y
In truth the Virginian Attorney would be more effective proposing this as a bill to his Representative and to his Senators.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Joseph Ahner
3
3
0
Sounds great up until the words Made in America and Militia rifle. This would exclude Kalashnikovs, Galils, Tavors, etc. Best to go with 0 restrictions as the Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed".
(3)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SSgt Christopher Brose
8 y
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.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SPC Douglas Hemmingway
SPC Douglas Hemmingway
>1 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close