Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan
Having said that, I'd still love to have one [FN FAL] in my possession at home if it was legal.  |
So say we all. As I continue to read on the Rhodesian War 80-90% of the commentary about the FAL is positive. One of my room mates in Cork, Ireland was a reservist in the Army of Ireland while we were attending University College Cork. He loved the FAL. He was trained as a sniper, and one of the things he liked about the FAL was that it offered the ability to reach out and touch targets with something approaching the range and power he was accustomed to, compared to the M16 or AK-47, yet with a semi-auto ability. I've never fired one. I've never even held one in my hands. I wouldn't choose it for a primary weapon in the US due to ammunition commonality considerations. But I do hear good things.
It occurs to me that I never addressed your question, Targan, which is whether gun owners in the United States think they are part of a militia by dint of owning a gun. I can’t think of an easy answer to that question, though you’d think there should be one.
Do most Americans think they are part of a militia that would be recognized by their 1780’s counterparts? Goodness, no! Keep the Devil between me and monthly drill.
Do most Americans think they are part of the so-called “unorganized militia”? This is harder to answer. I can say with confidence that many American gun owners believe whole-heartedly in the “unorganized militia”. And why not? Suppressing the cognitive dissonance resulting from using the term “unorganized militia” enables one to believe that one should have access to the weapons of overthrowing tyranny without having any obligations associated with said possession. Blame Title 10 and Alexander Hamilton for this. I rather doubt that very many gun owners who just have handguns believe they are part of a militia, but that’s just speculation on my part.
There’s a fair amount of mythology associated with the “unorganized militia”. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations started the ball rolling on this thing only a few years after the Constitution was ratified. This is the origin of the term “unorganized militia”. Doubtless you will discern my contempt for the term, my friends. I find “unorganized militia” has all the etymological logic of “dehydrated water”. Calling a mass of civilians in possession of firearms an “unorganized militia” is like calling a truckload of lumber and a bucket of nails an “unorganized house”. Suggesting that the republic shall be kept warm and dry by this “unorganized house” is a farce. Yet Title 10 as written has standing.
Belief in the idea of the “unorganized militia” is reinforced by popular mythology about the American Revolution in general and Lexington and Concord in particular. Americans seem to widely believe that farmers ran in from the fields, grabbed their muskets off the wall, and went off to defeat one of the best professional armies in the world as necessary. The expedient of hiding behind trees and rocks, combined with “true patriotism”, is held up as a force equal to organization, training, and discipline on the part of the British and their mercenaries. While this fantasy does not bear up under the slightest scrutiny, it dovetails with the traditional American aversion to militarization. Americans hate the draft. Believing that it is possible to defeat a well-trained, well-equipped, and well-disciplined professional force by employing a few basic tricks and calling on one’s deep love of country helps justify a general refusal to countenance compulsory service.