Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, the argument was advanced that it's impossible to enact gun legislation in the USA because it would provoke a civil war which inevitably would be won by the side with the armed militia, i.e. gun owners.

The purpose of my postings on the ACW was to show that the armed militia might not all go to one side, and the government might win anyway.

However, if reasonable gun control legislation was enacted and did provoke a civil war which was won by the pro-gun side, the situation would arise that the militias formed with the purpose of defending the rule of law against tyranny would have ended up imposiing tyranny over the rule of law at the point of the gun. This would be most ironic, I feel.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
As such currently an extension of the States National guard, as the state gets to appoint the Militia officers.

No. . . it IS the national guard.

The national guard is something different from the Militia. The states are responsible for choosing the officers of the Militia but they don't have to come from within the national guard. The presence of the national guard does not supplant the Militia or obsolete it.

I think you need to look up the law. . . the national guard is, per federal law the "organized militia" and you're quite simply wrong here.

National guard is quite literally a reserve army. Trained in the same way as regular army by the army.

That doesn't change what I wrote. . .

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the expense of lots of people.

However the important point is that the existence of a large, well-armed militia movement did not prevent the government from winning the war.

I was simply making the point that the Union had a lot more expendable bodies to send into battle. The civil war was about who was willing to lose more men. Many died on all sides from all over the place. Today things would be much different. We appreciate life a lot more today. Look at Palestine. 50 People die in Gaza and the world reacts against it. Imagine how the world would react to hundreds of Americans dying in the same way - waving american flags and screaming about the core values of democracy...the war would be over before it even started.

Really? Then why is the Syrian civil war still going?

Because the world doesn't care for ether faction. Islamic extremist or tyranical overlord? Which side do you chose?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, the argument was advanced that it's impossible to enact gun legislation in the USA because it would provoke a civil war which inevitably would be won by the side with the armed militia, i.e. gun owners.

The purpose of my postings on the ACW was to show that the armed militia might not all go to one side, and the government might win anyway.

However, if reasonable gun control legislation was enacted and did provoke a civil war which was won by the pro-gun side, the situation would arise that the militias formed with the purpose of defending the rule of law against tyranny would have ended up imposiing tyranny over the rule of law at the point of the gun. This would be most ironic, I feel.

If somehow Congress passed new gun control legislation that was so draconian that it pushed a third of the country to take up arms against its enforcement and ignite a civil war then I would think that such legislation could not be described as “reasonable.”


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
So based solely on how this thread has derailed to all sorts of wierd topics, I am going to guess that the Santa Fe Shooting will lead to no new legislation on guns, school shootings, or anything really before the mid-terms.

People are too busy worrying about civil wars, the actual Civil War, revolution, etc. to worry about school shootings.

Why would today be different from any other day?

Nobody in authority is even going to attempt to address root causes they’re just going to push tangential issue in an effort to drive up turnout from their respective Party base in election years.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, the argument was advanced that it's impossible to enact gun legislation in the USA because it would provoke a civil war which inevitably would be won by the side with the armed militia, i.e. gun owners.

The purpose of my postings on the ACW was to show that the armed militia might not all go to one side, and the government might win anyway.

However, if reasonable gun control legislation was enacted and did provoke a civil war which was won by the pro-gun side, the situation would arise that the militias formed with the purpose of defending the rule of law against tyranny would have ended up imposiing tyranny over the rule of law at the point of the gun. This would be most ironic, I feel.

I don't know how you would define reasonable legislation but truly reasonable legislation is not going to start a war. I feel like a gun grab could incite something. Me - I would just regretfully hand over whatever the government demanded from me - because I have a good life and a lot to lose. Lots of deep south people are willing to stand for that kind of stuff and it could get really ugly real fast. Lets just go with what we know works. Make a federal law that any fire arm purchase requires a 3 day waiting period - this would reduce gun death by suicide in every state that doesn't have this requirement. Lets stop broadcasting mass shooting event's shooters names and such this could reduce the copy cat effect. Lets start a massive campaign against violence of all kinds in schools.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
As such currently an extension of the States National guard, as the state gets to appoint the Militia officers.

No. . . it IS the national guard.

The national guard is something different from the Militia. The states are responsible for choosing the officers of the Militia but they don't have to come from within the national guard. The presence of the national guard does not supplant the Militia or obsolete it.

I think you need to look up the law. . . the national guard is, per federal law the "organized militia" and you're quite simply wrong here.

There's organized and unorganized militia... federally.

Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)

Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

The 2nd amendment applies to both. However, I don't think it's kosher (not that it's very clear) to have the state choose an officer from the unorganized militia to command the national guard (organized militia).

 Easy E wrote:
So based solely on how this thread has derailed to all sorts of wierd topics, I am going to guess that the Santa Fe Shooting will lead to no new legislation on guns, school shootings, or anything really before the mid-terms.

People are too busy worrying about civil wars, the actual Civil War, revolution, etc. to worry about school shootings.

I think you're right. Plus its an election year. Plus Congress doesn't appear to be voting on anything. I think Congress has taken a multiyear vacation now.

I think Trump thinks its a win if he passes one thing a year.

Oops this is a US politics post, my bad.

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

 Frazzled wrote:

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

Common sense gun control from an avowed gun nut! A rare sight in the wild

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

Common sense gun control from an avowed gun nut! A rare sight in the wild

Honestly, no issues with these at all. (the CHL Reciprocity Act will be hard fought tho, unless there's a standard to receive a CHL).

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

Common sense gun control from an avowed gun nut! A rare sight in the wild

I am not immediately opposed to any of these except perhaps the 21 age requirement. Not because I don't think it will be effective. I just think it's a form of age discrimination. Like it's no doubt the road would be a safer place if senior citizens weren't allowed to drive - but it would still be wrong to deny them the right to drive.

I assume there already is an age requirement on buying guns and driving, it’s just not 21. Some states don’t allow drinking alcohol before 21, why not gun ownership?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the expense of lots of people.

However the important point is that the existence of a large, well-armed militia movement did not prevent the government from winning the war.

I was simply making the point that the Union had a lot more expendable bodies to send into battle. The civil war was about who was willing to lose more men. Many died on all sides from all over the place. Today things would be much different. We appreciate life a lot more today. Look at Palestine. 50 People die in Gaza and the world reacts against it. Imagine how the world would react to hundreds of Americans dying in the same way - waving american flags and screaming about the core values of democracy...the war would be over before it even started.

Really? Then why is the Syrian civil war still going?

Because the world doesn't care for ether faction. Islamic extremist or tyranical overlord? Which side do you chose?

There were more factions at first and the world didn't care when civilians got bombed, it only started caring once it had to take care of the refugees from the conflict, and then the caring was mostly "ew, foreigners, get them out!".

Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So based solely on how this thread has derailed to all sorts of wierd topics, I am going to guess that the Santa Fe Shooting will lead to no new legislation on guns, school shootings, or anything really before the mid-terms.

People are too busy worrying about civil wars, the actual Civil War, revolution, etc. to worry about school shootings.

I think you're right. Plus its an election year. Plus Congress doesn't appear to be voting on anything. I think Congress has taken a multiyear vacation now.

I think Trump thinks its a win if he passes one thing a year.

Oops this is a US politics post, my bad.

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

I would absolutely support this.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I assume there already is an age requirement on buying guns and driving, it’s just not 21. Some states don’t allow drinking alcohol before 21, why not gun ownership?

Drinking is not a constitutional right. If they aren't mature enough to handle firearms at 18 (legal age of adulthood), why are we letting them vote, or enlist in the military, or drive, or practice free speech? (That's what the pushback would be, not my personal opinion)

EDIT: Part of my text cut out, mybad.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

Common sense gun control from an avowed gun nut! A rare sight in the wild

Honestly, no issues with these at all. (the CHL Reciprocity Act will be hard fought tho, unless there's a standard to receive a CHL).

All CHL applications will be sent to me with a $50 processing fee.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So based solely on how this thread has derailed to all sorts of wierd topics, I am going to guess that the Santa Fe Shooting will lead to no new legislation on guns, school shootings, or anything really before the mid-terms.

People are too busy worrying about civil wars, the actual Civil War, revolution, etc. to worry about school shootings.

I think you're right. Plus its an election year. Plus Congress doesn't appear to be voting on anything. I think Congress has taken a multiyear vacation now.

I think Trump thinks its a win if he passes one thing a year.

Oops this is a US politics post, my bad.

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

I disagree with the age restriction. I would also add a repeal the National Firearms Act, on grounds that it is unconstitutional and doesn't improve safety. Replace it with a law simply placing an additional tax on the sale, public and private, of automatic firearms and Destructive devices. That law would also state that no restrictions may be placed upon magazine capacity or open carry by the states. Add a Federal Concealed Carry license and eliminate all State concealed carry licenses. The Federal CCW would be a "Shall Issue" document.

Other than that, I'd be ok with most of that stuff. Though its worth noting a lot of that stuff is already law. Straw sales are illegal, illegal firearm transfers are highly illegal.

As the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional Right, the practice of that right should be the same across the entire US.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I assume there already is an age requirement on buying guns and driving, it’s just not 21. Some states don’t allow drinking alcohol before 21, why not gun ownership?

It depends, but generally its 18. Same as Voting and Driving.

IMO, if you raised the age to 21 you would also have to raise the voting and driving age. It would be impossible to justify someone being allowed to vote and drive, but they can't exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

Is there an age restriction on being elected to congress or the presidency?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So based solely on how this thread has derailed to all sorts of wierd topics, I am going to guess that the Santa Fe Shooting will lead to no new legislation on guns, school shootings, or anything really before the mid-terms.

People are too busy worrying about civil wars, the actual Civil War, revolution, etc. to worry about school shootings.

I think you're right. Plus its an election year. Plus Congress doesn't appear to be voting on anything. I think Congress has taken a multiyear vacation now.

I think Trump thinks its a win if he passes one thing a year.

Oops this is a US politics post, my bad.

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

I also agree with these. We have pretty common agreement about what steps need to be taken; yet somehow* we can't get those things passed.


*= Somehow in this cases indicates that Congress simply will not act. Too scared.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I assume there already is an age requirement on buying guns and driving, it’s just not 21. Some states don’t allow drinking alcohol before 21, why not gun ownership?

It's 18 - when you are considered legally adult. Some guns require you to be 21 but I don't agree with that or alcohol being 21 ether.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is there an age restriction on being elected to congress or the presidency?

both I believe. Written in the constitution actually.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So based solely on how this thread has derailed to all sorts of wierd topics, I am going to guess that the Santa Fe Shooting will lead to no new legislation on guns, school shootings, or anything really before the mid-terms.

People are too busy worrying about civil wars, the actual Civil War, revolution, etc. to worry about school shootings.

I think you're right. Plus its an election year. Plus Congress doesn't appear to be voting on anything. I think Congress has taken a multiyear vacation now.

I think Trump thinks its a win if he passes one thing a year.

Oops this is a US politics post, my bad.

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

I disagree with the age restriction. I would also add a repeal the National Firearms Act, on grounds that it is unconstitutional and doesn't improve safety. Replace it with a law simply placing an additional tax on the sale, public and private, of automatic firearms and Destructive devices. That law would also state that no restrictions may be placed upon magazine capacity or open carry by the states. Add a Federal Concealed Carry license and eliminate all State concealed carry licenses. The Federal CCW would be a "Shall Issue" document.

Other than that, I'd be ok with most of that stuff. Though its worth noting a lot of that stuff is already law. Straw sales are illegal, illegal firearm transfers are highly illegal.

As the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional Right, the practice of that right should be the same across the entire US.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I assume there already is an age requirement on buying guns and driving, it’s just not 21. Some states don’t allow drinking alcohol before 21, why not gun ownership?

It depends, but generally its 18. Same as Voting and Driving.

IMO, if you raised the age to 21 you would also have to raise the voting and driving age. It would be impossible to justify someone being allowed to vote and drive, but they can't exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

Straw sales are illegal but not enforced. I would push enforcement and make it a capital murder level felony.

Same for illegal sales.

Age limit. I recommend the adjustment as historically, long guns were not used in crime greatly, were less concealable and had working applications. Much of that has changed.

Additionally I think, am convinced we have a mental health and culture crisis here now. By culture I don't mean video, evil music whatever, I mean it's become a method of fame to go out like this. Mental health, well that's pretty apparent.

Thats because its impossible to enforce laws against Straw Sales except for after the fact. Unless you keep everybody under constant surveillance all the time then they can't stop someone who has no criminal record of any kind from buying a gun and then later selling it to someone in a private deal. Active enforcement is pretty much impossible for any sort of law like this.

Long Guns aren't used much in crime even today. And all guns have working applications. I'm going to use my AK to go deer and hog hunting later this year.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is there an age restriction on being elected to congress or the presidency?

Yes.

In the United States, a person must be aged 35 or over to be President or Vice President, 30 or over to be a Senator, and 25 or over to be a Representative, as specified in the U.S. Constitution.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Some states don’t allow drinking alcohol before 21, why not gun ownership?

1.) As pointed out, the firearms are constitutionally protected, consumption of alcohol is not. Also the 21 and over for alcohol is relatively recent and I don't think a great idea, I think 18 would be more appropriate... but that's another thread.

2.) In rural parts of the country hunting is a way of life. You're saying that a 16 year old shouldn't be able to own a deer rifle that might be what helps his or her family get through hard winters. In most of the bottom part of the country teenagers own .22 rifles. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with an age limit on handgun ownership, though, and in most states - probably the majority - handgun ownership does have an age limit.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So based solely on how this thread has derailed to all sorts of wierd topics, I am going to guess that the Santa Fe Shooting will lead to no new legislation on guns, school shootings, or anything really before the mid-terms.

People are too busy worrying about civil wars, the actual Civil War, revolution, etc. to worry about school shootings.

I think you're right. Plus its an election year. Plus Congress doesn't appear to be voting on anything. I think Congress has taken a multiyear vacation now.

I think Trump thinks its a win if he passes one thing a year.

Oops this is a US politics post, my bad.

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

Aren't straw sales already a felony? The problem is enforcement. And that can't really happen without a register.

Over here every firearm has its unique ID that must always accompany the weapon. When you sell the gun to someone else, you register the transaction with the cops and the ID goes to the new owner.

Straw purchasing is basically nonexistent this way.

jouso wrote:


Aren't straw sales already a felony? The problem is enforcement. And that can't really happen without a register.

Over here every firearm has its unique ID that must always accompany the weapon. When you sell the gun to someone else, you register the transaction with the cops and the ID goes to the new owner.

Straw purchasing is basically nonexistent this way.

You could still have straw purchases that way. You simply say you've lost/destroyed the weapon, give the purchaser the weapon, and part ways.

And every firearm in the US an unique ID, its called a serial number, that is etched in the receiver. Its only as useful as knowing what that Serial number belongs to.

 Grey Templar wrote:

jouso wrote:


Aren't straw sales already a felony? The problem is enforcement. And that can't really happen without a register.

Over here every firearm has its unique ID that must always accompany the weapon. When you sell the gun to someone else, you register the transaction with the cops and the ID goes to the new owner.

Straw purchasing is basically nonexistent this way.

You could still have straw purchases that way. You simply say you've lost/destroyed the weapon, give the purchaser the weapon, and part ways.

That comes with lots of questions. Misplace a gun and that's grounds for having your license revoked, have it "stolen" and you better have your cabinet with a big hole or they'll slap you with improper storage.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is there an age restriction on being elected to congress or the presidency?

Yes.

In the United States, a person must be aged 35 or over to be President or Vice President, 30 or over to be a Senator, and 25 or over to be a Representative, as specified in the U.S. Constitution.
...

Exactly.

So it's not impossible to have different ages of accession to constitutional rights.

I see what you're saying.

Ultimately no right is 100% unlimited, even if constitutionally protected, because it can be amended. So I guess a better, more complete answer would have been that gun rights are protected by the constitution, and as such there is a steep political cost to infringing upon them, sure to incur litigation by a powerful and passionate lobby with a large percentage population backing it - there is no such lobby or political appetite to have an 18 year old senator.

So there is no technical reason that you can't make gun ownership only available to 35 year olds, but it's really not realistically feasible either.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is there an age restriction on being elected to congress or the presidency?

Yes.

In the United States, a person must be aged 35 or over to be President or Vice President, 30 or over to be a Senator, and 25 or over to be a Representative, as specified in the U.S. Constitution.
...

Exactly.

So it's not impossible to have different ages of accession to constitutional rights.

Hrm, broadly speaking this is not the case. In general, once you are 18, anything constitutionally protectes is open to you, the above offices being clearly spelled out exceptions (same way a naturalized citizen doesnt have the ability to run for president either since natural borne is an enumerated requirement). With firearms, about the only age related restrictions on legal adults I know of that has survived challenge is a ban on FFL's selling handguns to under 21's, but they can acquire them through private transfer/inheritance/etc

I would be shocked if age restrictions on ownership survived a court challenge, especially a broad ban on all types of firearms, and a broad ban on all purchases (not just handguns) for under 21's may run into the same issue.

Now, speaking personally, in one sense I can see the logic behind such a rule preventing under 21's from buying firearms. That demographic is disproportionatley responsible for, and victimized by, violence with firearms, in the same way as young people and alcohol. That said, I'm strongly of the opinion that someone is either an adult or not. If theyre old to vote or old enough to be issued a machinegun and told to fight, kill, and die on the other side of the planet, then theyre old enough to buy a rifle and pop open a six pack of beer. Same thing goes for charging minors as adults for crimes, not a fan of that either for the same reasons, if they're not old enough to have their own legal agency and responsibilities, then theyre not old enough for the consequences.

Just Tony wrote:I assume that people who legally own guns are aware of WHY the 2nd Amendment exists. I also assume that there's no way they'd be able to keep any sort of human rights violation quiet in any way, shape, or form. Wiping out someone they didn't like is a direct violation of due process, and therefore would be an unlawful order. Speaking as a military person, NOBODY who takes their oath of service seriously would follow that order. So it's not assumptive to think that the government takes this into consideration, it's intuitive and logical. It's also logical that certain groups do INDEED want to revoke the 2nd, and lo and behold it's the same group that isn't shy about having personal liberties taken away.

All those assumptions are very optimistic and idealised. We've seen enough example that contradict this. And regarding the last sentence: Are you talking about Republicans? Because they do want to take away personal liberties from certain minorities all the time. Are they now also trying to remove the 2nd amendment too?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
As such currently an extension of the States National guard, as the state gets to appoint the Militia officers.

No. . . it IS the national guard.

The national guard is something different from the Militia. The states are responsible for choosing the officers of the Militia but they don't have to come from within the national guard. The presence of the national guard does not supplant the Militia or obsolete it.

I think you need to look up the law. . . the national guard is, per federal law the "organized militia" and you're quite simply wrong here.

And then there is the unorganized Militia. Which is not the national guard. Which by definition does not match the original idea of the Militia because the weapons are not with the people but under state control.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I think you need to look up the law. . . the national guard is, per federal law the "organized militia" and you're quite simply wrong here.

Actually, you're the one who's wrong:

U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246 wrote:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Edit: Ah, Insurgency walker beat me to it, but I quote the actual law in question so he can't claim it doesn't really say that.

I'd also like to point to what happened in Leige. Seems if you're willing to break laws and kill people, the only real limit is your creativity.

Also, someone asked earlier about taking out a tank with things available to civilians. Here we go: One half pound coffee can, a road flare, a mix of 50% iron oxide and [ingredient omitted to avoid mod anger]. Put it all together inside the coffee can with the flare accessible and get it up on the engine deck of the AFV. Or anyplace else that it won't roll off before it does it's work. Because that will burn right through the tank.