I complete concur with the juvenile view some take to war, apparently having never having grown up from their little boy or "hollywoodized" world. But this is completely different from your last sentence.
I guess some men take their militia responsibility more seriously than others or express it in different ways. I wouldn't even have a pocket knife with me in a first responder situation myself, and just a lever action if I could make it home in a Pearl Harbor situation. But I certainly appreciate the militia citizenry who are prepared just as I appreciate those in the military in my stead and service. As a geek my militia service would mainly be in information and communications. But computers aren't protected by the law of the land - arms are.
Would an active military or reserve training exercise scare you? It meets the attributes you posted. It scares me to some extent, but that's because of a view of standing armies that I share with our founding fathers.
I do not mean to seem rude, just want to challenge your thinking a little. And if we ultimately disagree, the constitution allows for such disagreement as well.
Been reading this thread for awhile now, and responed once, but feel the need to do so again due to people not understanding the views of Jackie an Al.
They both make good points, and the "scary weapon" comment is valid. Posting a quote from wikipedia.
"The term sniper was first attested in 1824 in the sense of the word "sharpshooter".[2] The verb "to snipe" originated in the 1770s among soldiers in British India where a hunter skilled enough to kill the elusive snipe was dubbed a "sniper".[2]
During the American Civil War, the common term used in the United States was "skirmisher". Throughout history armies have used skirmishers to break up enemy formations and to thwart the enemy from flanking the main body of their attack force.[3] They were deployed individually on the extremes of the moving army primarily to scout for the possibility of an enemy ambush. Consequently, a "skirmish" denotes a clash of small scope between these forces.[4] In general, a skirmish was a limited combat, involving troops other than those of the main body.[3] The term "sniper" was not in widespread use in the United States until after the American Civil War.
In the last few decades, the term "sniper" has been used very loosely. Gun control advocates used this term so loosely that some people even called it sniping when a handgun was used; the term "sniper rifle" was considered very "scary sounding" and was very effective in inciting fear, evoking a lot of unsettling images, such as "a lone gunman, undetectable, on the hunt".[5][6]
The term "sniper" has been used in more serious tones especially by media in association with police precision riflemen, those responsible for assassination, any shooting from all but the shortest range in war, and any criminal equipped with a rifle in a civil context. This has rather expanded the meaning of the term. It has also given the term "sniper" mixed connotations. Official sources often use more positive connotative terms to describe snipers, especially for police snipers: "counter-sniper", "precision marksman", "tactical marksman", "sharpshooter", "precision riflemen", and "precision shooter". Some of these alternatives have been in common use for a long time; others are closer to undisguised euphemisms."
So as the last 2 paragraphs state the terms "Sniper", and "Sniper Rifle" have been used by the media and gun control advocates for years as a way to invoke fear and and anti-gun sentiment.
As far as the comment of active military,reserve training exercises, which I take to include the National Guard, here is another Quote.
"The Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units, and the "unorganized" militia consisting of all males from ages 17 to 45, with the exception of certain officials and others, which is codified in 10 U.S.C. § 311. Some states, such as Texas and California, created separate State Defense Forces for assistance in local emergencies. Congress later established [43] a system of "dual enlistment" for the National Guard, so that anyone who enlisted in the National Guard also enlisted in the U.S. Army. [44]"
So by that rule, any Reserves or National Guard units that train in Camos, combat boots, carry Scary looking weapons, and pretend to make war, are doing so because that is thier Job.
The term "Militia" came into disfavor in the late 80s and early 90s as we had paramilitary groups stockpileing weapons, explosives, and running around in camos,combat boots, carrying Scary Looking Weapons, and playing war while spewing anti-sementics, and anti-government propaganda. This again gave the anti-gun movement more ammunition to frighten the populace of this country and further thier cause.
If you want to participate in these types of activities, it is your right to do so, but I will not. My camos and camoed rifle will only be used for deer hunting or other varmint hunting activities. If the need ever arises that I have to defend my life, liberty, and country from threats both foreign and domestic, my camos,combat boots, and "Sniper Rifle" will be ready, willing, and able to do so. Till then I will not give the people who wish to take away my rights to own firearms any ammunition to use against me.
I will use your last sentence in closing as it fits.
I do not mean to seem rude, just want to challenge your thinking a little. And if we ultimately disagree, the constitution allows for such disagreement as well.
DR
