DescentBB

now, how does all this noble talk of 18th century America relate to an unstable, radicalized young man, being watched by the FBI, being able to purchase weapons and ammo, again?

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:What rules? Who has command authority? Where do the members gather? Hell, who's qualified to be a member in the first place? Where does the equipment they'll need come from? Do they have standardized types of firearms? These are all questions that have to be answered to operate an effective militia, and all of them are much more involved than a bunch of random people grabbing whatever motley collection of firearms they have lying around and meeting up somewhere with an ill-defined purpose.

And that is NOT the way it was back in the 1700's

And this is NOT the 1700s.

Top Gun wrote:These are all questions that have to be answered to operate an effective militia, and all of them are much more involved than a bunch of random people grabbing whatever motley collection of firearms they have lying around and meeting up somewhere with an ill-defined purpose.

Duh...statement of the obvious.

All of the rules needed are in the term “well regulated” that implies the following…

1. A proper chain of command
2. Proper discipline
3. Civil behavior within the community
4. Adherence to the law, such as not taking people’s property and livestock etc.
5. etc...

Everything else is worked out on the fly…

Who has command authority?...more than likely the person that starts the militia, or perhaps the first members could vote. Natural leaders tend to start these things in the first place.

Where do the members gather?...Why is that even an issue?...wherever they need to, for gods sake.

who's qualified to be a member in the first place?...everybody

Where does the equipment they'll need come from?...first valid question, I would imagine the local civil defense for a start, then up the ladder from there…state guard…etc. And from the members of course.

Do they have standardized types of firearms?...now you are just fishing.

And yes, these questions and more need to be answered to provide an “effective” fighting force…but not a “legal” one.

Just because there are technicalities to be worked out doesn’t disqualify the right. Militias can be formed and disbanded on the fly, there is nothing in the second that prevents this.

Also remember, as in the past, we have a large pool of military trained people in the civilian population, many of which have combat experience. It is not hard to see militias springing up with the core cadre being controlled by experienced officers and NCO's. Who knows, social media could be instrumental in the formation of these groups.

your scenario is precisely what a lot of Americans fear and have feared since we went to an all-volunteer army. I don't wish former military people, if you view yourself as an example,
taking up arms on my behalf of their own accord. Thanks.

Don't worry slick, we wouldn't waste our time protecting big money enclaves like where you live. In the end it all comes down to what the threat is whether you want help or not..

woodchip wrote:Don't worry slick, we wouldn't waste our time protecting big money enclaves like where you live. In the end it all comes down to what the threat is whether you want help or not..

what a load of crap. I don't want you or anyone thinking like you anywhere near a weapon in my supposed defense. What gives you the right to
designate yourself? If the nation needs you, they will readily call you. Until then, we'll pass on your being in charge of determining what a threat is, or when it is present.

also, Woody, I don't live in 'enclaves'....they don't suit me. I live in a comfortable area around a bunch of golf courses and in a big old brick place besides one of my farms. But, for the record, I pay very hefty taxes to have a five-branch armed service around, with active and inactive reserves and a National Guard, as well. I don't really see where we don't have more than enough well-regulated armed people to keep us perfectly safe, and to date, haven't heard one proposed situation where the formation of militias would be of any real use. Now, it does seem to be the fallback of gun nuts, ideological zealots and other assorted loons, and as such, that is EXACTLY the sort of disorganzied, unfocused, counterproductive rabble that the founders specifically wished to avoid, as noted by Washington's letters and others.

So I was reading the Philly Daily News during my lunch break today. It's sort of a rag at the best of times, but frequently entertaining. They sent one of their reporters to a local gun store to find out how long it would take her to purchase an AR-15. The result, including the background "check"? SEVEN. MINUTES. Two days after 50 people get mowed down in a nightclub, and you can buy a goddamn military-grade weapon faster than you can take a dump. That's just ★■◆●ing disgusting.

Sorry TG, but she wasn't able to buy a military grade weapon as they are illegal to sell unless you have a class C license. Problem is, most people like you do not even know what a assault weapon is.

Frankly from where I’m sitting, it’s people like you slick that are forcing gun owners to take these “fallback” positions, my personal position is the second doesn’t require membership in a militia to have the right to own and carry.

It simply sets the conditions for such things as militias, self defense and other forms of protecting freedom…personal or otherwise.

I know you don’t agree with the above, but your side is doing a good job framing the issue, and twisting the argument, basically dragging people into defending from that position. Which I'm sure you think has some merit...but...pfffftttt.

And as I have said before…if that catches on as the national talking point…you won’t like the results, and you will become a victim of that thing your side is in complete denial of…the law of unintended consequences.

how so?

woodchip wrote:Sorry TG, but she wasn't able to buy a military grade weapon as they are illegal to sell unless you have a class C license. Problem is, most people like you do not even know what a assault weapon is.

I don't give a ★■◆● what class label you put on it; it's a variant of an M16 regardless. No ordinary civilian should be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle in the first place. And they sure as ★■◆● shouldn't be able to buy one in seven goddamn minutes.

Well you should care TG because there are millions of hunters who use semi-auto rifles and shotguns to hunt and use for competition. As to buying after a background check, then the onus is on the FBI for not tagging him in the process.

Top Gun wrote:So I was reading the Philly Daily News during my lunch break today. It's sort of a rag at the best of times, but frequently entertaining. They sent one of their reporters to a local gun store to find out how long it would take her to purchase an AR-15. The result, including the background "check"? SEVEN. MINUTES.

That actually makes me feel more safe.

Top Gun wrote:Two days after 50 people get mowed down in a nightclub, and you can buy a goddamn military-grade weapon faster than you can take a dump. That's just ★■◆●ing disgusting.

Something for your edutainment: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... o-shooting

Top Gun wrote:I don't give a ★■◆● what class label you put on it; it's a variant of an M16 regardless. No ordinary civilian should be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle in the first place. And they sure as ★■◆● shouldn't be able to buy one in seven goddamn minutes.

The beauty of electronic databases. Why should it take longer if I can legally buy one ?

Top Gun wrote:... And they sure as **** shouldn't be able to buy one in seven ******* minutes.

7 minutes could only mean that he was innocent until proven guilty...

An AR is a nice gun. I can only hope he took it to the range afterward to do some guilty plinking. I hope he wasn't thorough enough to go shoot up a gay bar with his 7 minute purchase... although the current administration would love him for it.

seven minutes doesn't sound so bad. that's also seven minutes to deny a person.

Grendel wrote:

Something for your edutainment: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... o-shooting

The real entertainment in your link was people referring to the old assault weapon ban. They are so ignorant that they don't know you could still buy a AR-15 when the ban was in effect. Stupid people are stupid.

A woman with no criminal record was able to buy an effective and reliable multipurpose rifle after 7 minutes thanks largely to electronic databases, and that is apparently one of the worst things ever?

The AR15 is just a penis analog to most of the men in America.

tunnelcat wrote:The AR15 is just a penis analog to most of the men in America.

And here I thought F250 trucks hold that position...

No Dodge Rams are...me makes thrusting motion

Grendel wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:The AR15 is just a penis analog to most of the men in America.

And here I thought F250 trucks hold that position...

Maybe certain insecure men need more than one analog, a big ass pickup with an AR15 hanging on the gun rack.

woodchip wrote:No Dodge Rams are...me makes thrusting motion.

Hmmmmm. So that's why men love Dodge Ram pickups. Their diesels are the loudest of the bunch and they rattle the house every time they go by, so I guess certain men like loud, obnoxious, in-your-face penis analogs that also double as prostate vibrators.

Krom wrote:A woman with no criminal record was able to buy an effective and reliable multipurpose rifle after 7 minutes thanks largely to electronic databases, and that is apparently one of the worst things ever?

Pretty much. Then again I question the basic sanity of anyone who wants to purchase one of these things in the first place, so excuse me for wanting a bit more rigorous psychological checks than a simple "oh they're not in a database, they're good!"

Top Gun wrote:

Krom wrote:A woman with no criminal record was able to buy an effective and reliable multipurpose rifle after 7 minutes thanks largely to electronic databases, and that is apparently one of the worst things ever?

Pretty much. Then again I question the basic sanity of anyone who wants to purchase one of these things in the first place, so excuse me for wanting a bit more rigorous psychological checks than a simple "oh they're not in a database, they're good!"

I understand your concern TG, but a database that's fast and easily searchable is a step in the right direction. I agree that it should contain a lot more information than what it currently has.

Behaviour profile, training grade, types and number of weapons purchased in the past, types of ammunition, accessories, when the last liscence test was taken. Similar information as per your drivers' license.

Top Gun wrote:

Krom wrote:A woman with no criminal record was able to buy an effective and reliable multipurpose rifle after 7 minutes thanks largely to electronic databases, and that is apparently one of the worst things ever?

Pretty much. Then again I question the basic sanity of anyone who wants to purchase one of these things in the first place, so excuse me for wanting a bit more rigorous psychological checks than a simple "oh they're not in a database, they're good!"

"Everyone buying a firearm, motorized vehicle, powertool, sharp implement, gravity assisted impact tool, closable glass container, any form of fuel, ammunition, etc. (go to www.regulated-dangerous-objects.gov for a full list) is required to take the new psychological evaluation test in order to pass the background checks associated with the purchase. The test can be taken at any government approved institution, see www.psych-eval-contractors.gov for your nearest location. The test processing fees are usually around $299 (can not exceed $500 by law). The test will be valid 6 months from the day of taking it. Entering the results into the NIPS database will take two to three months on top of the contractors processing time (can not exceed 30 days by law). Plan your purchase accordingly."

Ferno wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

Krom wrote:A woman with no criminal record was able to buy an effective and reliable multipurpose rifle after 7 minutes thanks largely to electronic databases, and that is apparently one of the worst things ever?

Pretty much. Then again I question the basic sanity of anyone who wants to purchase one of these things in the first place, so excuse me for wanting a bit more rigorous psychological checks than a simple "oh they're not in a database, they're good!"

I understand your concern TG, but a database that's fast and easily searchable is a step in the right direction. I agree that it should contain a lot more information than what it currently has.

Behaviour profile, training grade, types and number of weapons purchased in the past, types of ammunition, accessories, when the last liscence test was taken. Similar information as per your drivers' license.

I'll agree to this if it takes 7 minutes and a phone call to walk away from shooting someone in self-defense.

No, seriously. Not in this political climate. Nothing like having politically correct mama's boys in possession of your psyche and firearm/accessory profile, so your eligibility can change with the political winds.

Grendel wrote:"Everyone buying a firearm, motorized vehicle, powertool, sharp implement, gravity assisted impact tool, closable glass container, any form of fuel, ammunition, etc. (go to http://www.regulated-dangerous-objects.gov for a full list) is required to take the new psychological evaluation test in order to pass the background checks associated with the purchase. The test can be taken at any government approved institution, see http://www.psych-eval-contractors.gov for your nearest location. The test processing fees are usually around $299 (can not exceed $500 by law). The test will be valid 6 months from the day of taking it. Entering the results into the NIPS database will take two to three months on top of the contractors processing time (can not exceed 30 days by law). Plan your purchase accordingly."

Silly me, I forgot that motorized vehicles, power tools, sharp implements, impact tools, glass containers, and fuel were all solely designed to kill people.

Top Gun wrote: Silly me, I forgot that motorized vehicles, power tools, sharp implements, impact tools, glass containers, and fuel were all solely designed to kill people.

And you are a gift that keeps on giving. So shotguns were designed for killing? Tell that to the people who use them for skeet/trap/sporting clays...and lets not forget hunting. Rifles were designed for killing? Tell that to the people who use them to compete in the Olympics. Or use them in Palma matches. Or use them for competition at camp perry and else where. Pistols? Most people would agree they were designed for self protection. [homophobic comment about Orlando victims removed]

Top Gun wrote:Silly me, I forgot that motorized vehicles, power tools, sharp implements, impact tools, glass containers, and fuel were all solely designed to kill people.

Humans have this uncanny skill to weaponize pretty much anything -- everything on that list can be (and has been) used as a very effective weapon. If you want your unstable peers not to have access to lethal force you better start expanding that list because making it just harder to buy guns will do diddly-squat.

If you are afraid of your fellow humans w/ guns, why don't you get one yourself ? After all, as an American citizen (assuming you are one, else this whole discussion would be pointless) it is expected from you to defend the country/constitution/way-of-life from hostile forces, domestic and foreign.

Top Gun wrote:Silly me, I forgot that motorized vehicles, power tools, sharp implements, impact tools, glass containers, and fuel were all solely designed to kill people.

Motor vehicles. Since you brought that up, you should go to youtube and see all the road rage videos there. every one of those people are using their vehicles as weapons.

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote: Silly me, I forgot that motorized vehicles, power tools, sharp implements, impact tools, glass containers, and fuel were all solely designed to kill people.

And you are a gift that keeps on giving. So shotguns were designed for killing? Tell that to the people who use them for skeet/trap/sporting clays...and lets not forget hunting. Rifles were designed for killing? Tell that to the people who use them to compete in the Olympics. Or use them in Palma matches. Or use them for competition at camp perry and else where. Pistols? Most people would agree they were designed for self protection.

Each of those things was designed to kill people (or at the very least living things) first. You know as well as anyone that the whole reason target shooting is a thing in general is to better the skills needed to kill things (or should we conveniently ignore all of those human-shaped targets at firing ranges?). I have nothing at all against target shooting in principle, but if you're going to engage in it, I firmly believe that the weapons to do so should remain locked up in the establishment in question when not in use.

[homophobic comment about Orlando victims removed]

[personal shot removed]

Grendel wrote:If you are afraid of your fellow humans w/ guns, why don't you get one yourself ? After all, as an American citizen (assuming you are one, else this whole discussion would be pointless) it is expected from you to defend the country/constitution/way-of-life from hostile forces, domestic and foreign.

Because I'm not mental enough to want something designed for killing people under my roof...plus I shouldn't goddamn have to in the first place, because all of those other nutjobs shouldn't have them either! I don't even know how you can rationalize that train of thought.

Also I don't recall ever taking the armed forces oath, and I sure as ★■◆● aren't going to willingly. ★■◆● that.

Ferno wrote:Motor vehicles. Since you brought that up, you should go to youtube and see all the road rage videos there. every one of those people are using their vehicles as weapons.

Is that their primary purpose? Of course not! Also note how much rigamarole is required to obtain the ability to legally drive a car. It sure as hell takes a lot longer than a seven-minute database search.

Top Gun wrote: Is that their primary purpose? Of course not! Also note how much rigamarole is required to obtain the ability to legally drive a car. It sure as hell takes a lot longer than a seven-minute database search.

to get the licence, sure. it takes a long time. but for a renewal; under thirty minutes.

If you are afraid of your fellow humans w/ guns, why don't you get one yourself

Here's the root of the problem -- convincing people they need a gun to stop people who have a gun.

Until this circular logic is put to bed, there's always going to be gun sales because everyone's told to be afraid of each other until they get a gun, which leads to people using the gun for everything.

Ferno wrote:

Top Gun wrote: Is that their primary purpose? Of course not! Also note how much rigamarole is required to obtain the ability to legally drive a car. It sure as hell takes a lot longer than a seven-minute database search.

to get the licence, sure. it takes a long time. but for a renewal; under thirty minutes.

Yes, but unfortunately no such system exists for guns. Which is why a reporter who'd never so much as thought about owning a gun before was able to be out on the street with an AR-15 in about as much time as it takes to read through the list of Orlando victims.

Top Gun wrote:

Grendel wrote:If you are afraid of your fellow humans w/ guns, why don't you get one yourself ? After all, as an American citizen (assuming you are one, else this whole discussion would be pointless) it is expected from you to defend the country/constitution/way-of-life from hostile forces, domestic and foreign.

Because I'm not mental enough to want something designed for killing people under my roof...plus I shouldn't goddamn have to in the first place, because all of those other nutjobs shouldn't have them either!

Nobody said you have to own a gun -- it's a choice, free country and all that. I own multiple guns and I have shot many thousands of rounds, but not a single one at a living being. Do you think I'm a "mental" nutjob ?

Top Gun wrote:I don't even know how you can rationalize that train of thought.

I asked a question. The train was in your head.

Top Gun wrote:Also I don't recall ever taking the armed forces oath, and I sure as ★■◆● aren't going to willingly. ★■◆● that.

Quote from the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the USA: "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law" Guess as a born citizen you can be more picky...

Edit: Or not: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn ... sibilities

Grendel wrote:Nobody said you have to own a gun -- it's a choice, free country and all that. I own multiple guns and I have shot many thousands of rounds, but not a single one at a living being. Do you think I'm a "mental" nutjob ?

I certainly question the thought processes of anyone who would willingly seek to own multiple firearms, yes. What actually drove you to do so?

Quote from the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the USA: "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law" Guess as a born citizen you can be more picky...

Edit: Or not: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn ... sibilities

I don't recall ever signing anything to that effect, and I don't see myself as compelled to do so as long as that holds true. Put it this way: if I were to ever get drafted into an absurdist conflict like Vietnam, I'd be out of here so fast the warmongers' heads would be spinning.

Top Gun wrote:

Grendel wrote:Nobody said you have to own a gun -- it's a choice, free country and all that. I own multiple guns and I have shot many thousands of rounds, but not a single one at a living being. Do you think I'm a "mental" nutjob ?

I certainly question the thought processes of anyone who would willingly seek to own multiple firearms, yes. What would actually drove you to do so?

Like all hobbies, one thing leads to another -- starts small, grows over time: Shoot a friends gun out of curiosity, turns out it's fun. Buy myself a gun, shoot some more, get interested in different calibers and types of guns, try them out, buy another one or two. Start loading ammo, get interested in competition, start customizing. Meet interesting people, learn a lot of things...

f'kin' psycho.

Okay, I freely admit that I am coming on somewhat too strong here. It's just that the entire culture of owning firearms, or even the desire to own them, is so far removed from my own experience that I legitimately have a hard time wrapping my head around it. Hell, I remember my parents being kind of freaked out when I went to a friend's house in grade school and came back telling them that his dad owned a bunch of guns...until they found out that he was a police officer (and our current long-term police chief actually). I personally know very few people who own guns. I have an uncle who owns a few for hunting, but even in that case, their house was broken into a few years ago, and the thieves managed to make off with the entire full-size gun safe by shoving it down the stairs, so that's not exactly a comforting example. (There's a pretty hilarious story there about the cops' reaction to a mounted coyote my uncle had sitting in their bedroom at the time, but that's for another thread.)

There's probably a deeper reason too. I've had to deal with clinical depression in my past, and while I was never as far as being suicidal, at the very least I was in the general vicinity of that precipice. I know what it is to feel that kind of despair and hopelessness. If I'd had easy access to something that can take a life as simply as clicking a mouse when I hit those darkest moments...well, who's to say. I know of far too many cases where people took that route, and the statistics of how much the suicide rate spikes by among those with a firearm in the house should be sobering to anyone. So no, I never want anything like that anywhere near me.

I can respect that, "A man's got to know his limitations". All I can say is that If you ever get the chance to shoot a gun in a safe environment, go for it. The experience is unique and knowing what to expect may even come handy in case you ever have to pick one up.