Gun Control

This is a great idea. And so simple.

The Second Amendment solution to gun violence


So let's agree that it's time for this nation to come together to address this ongoing crisis once and for all — and that small ideas, minimalist policies and "thoughts and prayers" won't be enough to do it.
 
That's why I want to share a solution that should resolve the logjam blocking sensible reform of gun ownership in this country — one that by all rights should get overwhelming support among American patriots of both parties. I call it the "Military Induction for Licensing, Instruction and Training In Arms" Act — the MILITIA Act for short.
 

The proposal is simple: Anyone purchasing a gun should be required to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership.
 
Under this proposal, being granted a handgun license would simultaneously and automatically register you to serve as a reservist in the Armed Forces branch of your choice — it's that simple. And it should be that simple ... because it's what the framers intended.
 
Gun advocates tend to talk about the Second Amendment as if it provides the unlimited freedom for any individual to own and carry weapons. The actual language is very different: "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."
 


The literal language used in the Constitution focuses on the right to bear arms within the context of — if, arguably, not solely limited by — the security needs of our nation. As Republicans frequently proclaim, our armed forces are deeply under-resourced, with a 2017 survey showing interest in military service in decline, and the army finding it harder to meet their recruitment goals. Consider that, according to a 2018 national survey, there are an estimated one million new gun owners in the United States every year. That's just a fraction short of the size of our entire active military — which across all services, counts about 1.3 million soldiers.
 
Making reserve (or active) military service a requirement for gun ownership would ensure that our armed forces has the service pool it needs and deserves. And it's not as if there aren't plenty of countries that have some form of compulsory military service.
Click to expand...
 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
This is a great idea. And so simple.

 
Click to expand...
After first I was like "wtf! No! Should every one be registered as race car driver at their local short teach when they get a driver's license?" Then the note I think about it, the more it seems kind of reasonable and what the Constitution intended. They should also be required to attend firear.s training.

 
knapplc said:
And part of the reason why that proposal makes so much sense, is our current system is simply not working.
Click to expand...


Let's not forget that our current system is a recent development due to the bastardization of what the Second Amendment was intended for in the 50s and 60s. As late as the 1930s, the Supreme Court was bringing up the militia part of the Second Amendment and indicating that meant the Amendment did not protect individual gun ownership rights (an intent that the Federalist Papers backs up). 

Like a lot of "recent" changes to our country (from a historical perspective), bastardizing the intent of the Bill of Rights, mainly by Baby Boomers, is causing a lot of problems that subsequent generations are now having to pay for. Of course, the irony is that these same people wrap themselves in the flag and confuse jingoism with patriotism while they make these changes, which helps them frame anyone opposed to their idiocy as unpatriotic or anti-American.

BigRedBuster said:
@SandhillshuskerW can you explain why advanced back ground checks would not be popular with the NRA and Trump supporters?
Click to expand...




Because many of Trump's supporters likely won't be able to procure firearms? 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry, I've been at school and in meetings so I haven't had time to respond. First of all, most of us that are gun owners are all for stricter background checks. The guys that I hunt with and shoot with talk about it all the time. The main problem that we have is that most of the anti-gun people tend to lump all gun owners in to one big group. We also all have the thought that banning guns alone will not solve this mass shooting issue. If we don't look at the mental health of the people of our nation, we are failing in this process. I just get upset when anyone responds to what I say, because most of you just want to blame the guns and not look at the people using the gun. I don't need data to tell me that most mass shooters have some mental issues. 

@BigRedBuster, I have no idea why Trump is against background checks. I'm a Republican, but I really don't lump Trump in to the Republican party. Trump is his own special kind of president. I'm not a Trump fan, although I do agree with some of the things he is trying to do. On the other side, I was also not a big fan of Obama but I did agree with some things that he did.

I'm sorry if I didn't answer everyone, I'm taking a quick break from my teacher meeting to type this.

 
SandhillshuskerW said:
@BigRedBuster, I have no idea why Trump is against background checks. I'm a Republican, but I really don't lump Trump in to the Republican party. Trump is his own special kind of president. I'm not a Trump fan, although I do agree with some of the things he is trying to do. On the other side, I was also not a big fan of Obama but I did agree with some things that he did.
Click to expand...
But, it's not just Trump.  It's all the Republicans at the top like Moscow Mitch.

 
BigRedBuster said:
But, it's not just Trump.  It's all the Republicans at the top like Moscow Mitch.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, I see things changing with that. I could be wrong, but it seems like there are a lot of stubborn politicians that are just against legislation because someone from the other side has brought it forward. It happens on both sides. 

 
SandhillshuskerW said:
In my opinion, I see things changing with that. I could be wrong, but it seems like there are a lot of stubborn politicians that are just against legislation because someone from the other side has brought it forward. It happens on both sides. 
Click to expand...
Trump isn't the one preventing it from even being voted on in the Senate.  And Republicans have been against anything like this for much longer than Trump being in office.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Trump isn't the one preventing it from even being voted on in the Senate.  And Republicans have been against anything like this for much longer than Trump being in office.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of that, I was pointing out that it's the same with Democrats as a whole being against some things that Republicans bring to the table. It's the way politics are in this country, and it really needs to change.

If you reply, I'll try to reply tomorrow. I've got teacher back to school function tonight and won't be back on the site.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SandhillshuskerW said:
In my opinion, I see things changing with that. I could be wrong, but it seems like there are a lot of stubborn politicians that are just against legislation because someone from the other side has brought it forward. It happens on both sides. 
Click to expand...


Republicans were the ones that killed the Brady Bill, a bi-partisan bill from the mid-90s to ban assault rifles that unfortunately had an expiration date on it. It was named after the Secret Service agent that took a bullet for Reagan. 

In the early 00s, when it came time to renew, Democrats wanted to continue it, Republicans were nowhere to be found. The bill expired, Assault Rifles were available for purchase again, and here we are. This had nothing to do with whomever brought the legislation forward (since many of those folks weren't around), and everything to do with what the NRA dictated.

---

Plus, I don't care if the politicians don't like each other--they're grown-a$$ adults that should work together regardless and do what's best for the most amount of Americans each and every time. 

TheSker said:
The race with McGrath might get interesting.
Click to expand...


It already is, IMO. Plus #MoscowMitch is running against AOC, and not McGrath. That's going to bite him in his traitor arse. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SandhillshuskerW said:
I'm sorry, I've been at school and in meetings so I haven't had time to respond. First of all, most of us that are gun owners are all for stricter background checks. The guys that I hunt with and shoot with talk about it all the time. The main problem that we have is that most of the anti-gun people tend to lump all gun owners in to one big group. We also all have the thought that banning guns alone will not solve this mass shooting issue. If we don't look at the mental health of the people of our nation, we are failing in this process. I just get upset when anyone responds to what I say, because most of you just want to blame the guns and not look at the people using the gun. I don't need data to tell me that most mass shooters have some mental issues. 
Click to expand...
I think you are giving a small group of people way too much credit.

And again, no one, even in that small group, is saying taking away all guns will solve the problem without also dealing with the issues that cause these outbursts of violence.

disclaimer: I currently don’t own any guns because my wife and I felt more comfortable not having them in the house with young kids, especially if I didn’t have a chance to use them.  But I look forward to my kids being old enough to buy some again and take them hunting.

 
VectorVictor said:
Republicans were the ones that killed the Brady Bill, a bi-partisan bill from the mid-90s to ban assault rifles that unfortunately had an expiration date on it. It was named after the Secret Service agent that took a bullet for Reagan. 

In the early 00s, when it came time to renew, Democrats wanted to continue it, Republicans were nowhere to be found. The bill expired, Assault Rifles were available for purchase again, and here we are. This had nothing to do with whomever brought the legislation forward (since many of those folks weren't around), and everything to do with what the NRA dictated.

---

Plus, I don't care if the politicians don't like each other--they're grown-a$$ adults that should work together regardless and do what's best for the most amount of Americans each and every time. 

It already is, IMO. Plus #MoscowMitch is running against AOC, and not McGrath. That's going to bite him in his traitor arse. 
Click to expand...


Where did you see this?  AOC is from NY, not Kentucky.

 
VectorVictor said:
It was named after the Secret Service agent that took a bullet for Reagan. 
Click to expand...
It was actually names after James Brady, Reagan's press secretary who was shot and partially paralyzed. Tim McCarthy was the secret service agent that was shot, and Thomas Delahanty was the officer shot.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top