Yet Another Mass Shooting in the US

proIsrael-nonIsraeli

proIsrael-nonIsraeli

Legendary Member
"The way to prevent more poisonings is to give everyone poison." - The National Poison Association.
I just checked statistics and I could not find a single case of mass shooting at a gun shows and at those places guns outnumber people by tenfold if not more.
 
  • Advertisement
  • NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    Guns are necessary to self protection
    No Restrictions on the Crusaders right to self defense
    Killers are mentally insane plus decline of traditional values
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    The Crusader in Chief
    gust 05, 2019 - 02:55 PM EDTJudge questions Barr's handling of Mueller findings
    BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN TWEET SHARE MORE

    A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday pressed Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers on why the public shouldn’t be allowed to see redacted portions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, suggesting that he may be willing to consider releasing at least some of the restricted document.
    Judge Reggie Walton, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, posed the questions during a hearing on a pair of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits seeking the redacted portions of the report.
    The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and BuzzFeed News reporter Jason Leopold filed the lawsuits earlier this year. The cases have since been consolidated, and attorneys for each party split the arguments during Monday’s hearing.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Walton in particular raised concerns about Attorney General William Barr’s initial handling of Mueller’s report, indicating that he believed there were discrepancies in how Barr characterized the report and the former special counsel’s actual findings.
    “I do have some concerns because it seems to me difficult to reconcile the contents of the Mueller report and statements made by the attorney general” about the report, Walton said.
    The judge pointed to a letter authored by Barr weeks ahead of the report's release that said Mueller determined there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election and Barr’s suggestion that the president was cleared by the report.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Mueller has since stated that his office did not investigate collusion but instead whether any Trump campaign officials conspired with Russians in 2016. And the former special counsel has repeatedly stated that his report does not exonerate President Trump.
    DOJ lawyer Courtney Enlow pushed back, saying that Barr was not required to release the report at all under the special counsel regulations but did so anyway. She said the attorney general's actions were in “good faith.”
    But EPIC attorney Alan Butler raised concerns over the timeline of the redactions. The DOJ released a second redacted version of the Mueller report in response to the FOIA lawsuits weeks after the initial report. But Butler noted that the exemptions in the FOIA version of the report were effectively the same as the redactions made in the originally released version of Mueller's report.
    Judge Walton raised that prospect to Enlow, suggesting that the DOJ officials tasked with making the FOIA exemptions could have been following directions from higher-ups. He cited his own time working in the DOJ, saying that sometimes “the body does what the head wants.”
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Enlow said that Barr worked with members of the special counsel’s office to make the redactions and that the information withheld under FOIA in that version of the report was in line with FOIA exemptions.
    Attorneys for those seeking the unredacted portions of the report pressed Walton to request that the disputed redactions be given to him privately so that he could review them and determine if any of the information was already publicly available and no longer needed to redacted.
    Enlow argued that rulings in previous FOIA cases mean that the administration doesn’t necessarily have to make that information publicly available.
    However, Walton appeared skeptical. At several times throughout the hearing, he noted the high level of public interest in the redacted versions of the documents.
    Mathew Topic, who was arguing on behalf of Leopold in court, also noted that releasing more details of the report could help resolve disputes about the origins of the Mueller investigation.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Topic pointed to Trump repeatedly referring to the probe as a politically motivated “witch hunt” and said that making the investigators’ findings fully available could help affirm or disprove those claims.
    And the lawyer said that providing a fuller reasoning for why certain figures such as Donald Trump Jr. were not charged or even brought before a grand jury would further clarify the intent and actions of prosecutors working under Mueller.
    “That information has strong public interest in multiple ways,” Topic said of the details redacted because of privacy interests.
    Enlow countered by saying Americans contacted by Russians during the 2016 election could be thrust into the public spotlight if that information was released and that being publicly tied to the investigation “places stigma on that person.”
    Among the redacted information in the report being sought in these cases is grand jury information. The House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), also filed an application in court last week seeking the grand jury materials.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    But Enlow, in arguing that Walton should not make the information public, cited an opinion from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down earlier this year that found a court doesn’t have the inherent authority to release grand jury materials.
    And she said that a suggestion from Tropic that an FOIA exemption made in relation to grand jury materials appeared related to Trump’s questioning in the probe as “baseless” speculation.
    Topic had questioned why information appearing to relate to Trump’s questioning was redacted under the grand jury provision, when the president never appeared before a grand jury.
    Walton did not provide a timeline as to when he might issue a decision, saying that he is facing a “heavy” caseload at the moment.
    But he noted the high level of public interest in the case — and the inevitable prospect that whatever ruling he issues will be appealed — in saying he will work to make a decision soon.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    August 06, 2019 - 08:21 AM EDTTrump fires back at Obama over statement on mass shootings
    BY JUSTIN WISETWEET SHARE MORE

    President Trump on Tuesday morning addressed former President Obama's statement about the mass shootings last weekend, tweeting a quote from "Fox & Friends" co-anchor Brian Kilmeade criticizing the former president's response to mass shootings during his presidency.
    Trump tweeted the quote shortly after Kilmeade expressed dismay with Obama's statements regarding the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, over the weekend that left at least 32 people dead.
    “I’m just wondering did [George W. Bush] ever condemn President Obama after Sandy Hook?" Kilmeade asked, referring to a 2012 mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. "[Obama] had 32 mass shootings of four or more during his reign. Not many people said, 'wow President Obama is out of control.' 17 so far for President Trump. It's way too high."
    ADVERTISEMENT
    "But I have news for you. Mass shootings were happening before the president thought about even running for president of the United States," he continued.
    “Did George Bush ever condemn President Obama after Sandy Hook. President Obama had 32 mass shootings during his reign. Not many people said Obama is out of Control. Mass shootings were happening before the President even thought about running for Pres.” @kilmeade @foxandfriends
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 6, 2019
    ADVERTISEMENT
    In the wake of the shootings, Obama on Monday issued a lengthy statement urging Americans to reject leaders who feed "a climate of fear and hatred."
    “We should soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred and normalizes racist sentiment," he said. "Leaders who demonize those who don't look like us, or suggest that other people, including immigrants, threaten our way of life, or refer to other people as sub-human, or imply that America belongs to just one certain type of people."
    Obama did not mention Trump by name, but his words amounted to an implicit rebuke of Trump.
    Obama's statement came as many Democratic lawmakers called for greater regulations surrounding gun purchases. It also came as more details emerged about the alleged shooter in El Paso. The suspect is believed to have posted an anti-immigrant manifesto on the fringe social networking platform 8chan before carrying out the attack on Saturday.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Some have argued that the manifesto, which refers to Hispanics coming to the U.S. as an invasion, echoed Trump's rhetoric related to immigration.
    Trump on Monday urged the nation to condemn bigotry and white supremacy while delivering remarks from the White House. He also placed support behind "red flag" laws that would allow law enforcement to confiscate guns with a court order.
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    An interesting approach to gun reform. What do you think @proIsrael-nonIsraeli? I bolded the main arguments for the proposed solution (in red).

    The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
    By Jeff Yang

    (CNN) The modest proposal I'm going to make here may come off as absurd.

    But nothing could possibly be as absurd — and horrific — as the fact that this past weekend, in the space of just 24 hours, we saw three major mass shootings in the United States: The deadly spree at an El Paso, Texas Walmart, which left 22 dead and over two dozen wounded. The attack on a bar in Dayton, Ohio, where the shooter killed nine — including his sister — and injured at least 26. And a relatively unpublicized shooting at a Chicago playground, which resulted in no deaths, but seven victims with severe gunshot wounds.

    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.

    In fact, around 60 nations have programs requiring mandatory military enlistment for many or all adult males for terms ranging from one month to three years -- including some of our President's favorite countries: Russia, the UAE, North Korea and Israel. The latter two, along with Armenia, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Eritrea, Norway and Sweden, require military service by both men and women.

    But this proposal isn't a turning back of the clock to the days of the draft. It preserves our fundamental goal of having a volunteer armed forces. It just specifies that choosing to own a firearm should be equivalent to deciding to join our nation's "well-regulated militia."

    Would requiring gun owners to join the Reserve be an undue hardship? Well, being a reservist means undergoing basic training, then returning to civilian life -- and spending a minimum of one weekend a month and two weeks per year training to keep your skills sharp. Sounds reasonable for any patriot who wants to have continued access to a lethal weapon. Reserve status would ensure that all guns are registered; there are currently no legal requirements for gun registration in order to purchase and own a firearm in 36 states -- no permit or license needed -- and, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, only 12 states and the District of Columbia require universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers. Importantly, it would also ensure that gun owners learn how to use and store them safely, and that they are monitored at least once a year for mental health, during their two-week mandatory extended training.

    Now, there are some limitations imposed for reservist status. For example, generally one needs to enlist before the age of 42. Recognizing the value of serving one's country, this proposal would waive all restrictions to enlistment -- age, gender, sexuality, and so on -- as long as the enlistee is physically and mentally capable of service. Even the "physical capability" aspect could be waived, allowing for desk work or other participation for those not capable of field combat. (Of course, even for noncombatant enlistees, the compulsory gun safety training would still be required.)

    The only barriers imposed would be standard mental health and background checks — the same ones all military enlistees are required to undergo. Do you have a criminal record? An "adverse disposition" (such as, say, a history of domestic violence)? Unfortunately, you wouldn't be eligible to serve — and as a result, not eligible to carry a weapon. The proposal would keep the lower age limit of 18 for enlistment too; if you're not allowed to sign contracts or vote, you wouldn't be allowed to serve (or own a gun), at least not without parental consent.

    This proposal should address every issue that Republicans generally raise as a way to block gun reform from moving forward. It's fundamentally patriotic, weaving military service back into the fabric of American life. It imposes no restrictions on gun owners other than the ones we already place on our military service people. And it is by definition entirely constitutional, reflecting the literal language in our nation's charter document. It's hard to see how the right could argue against this proposal without arguing the Constitution they claim to revere, or attacking the military they say they love, or making it seem like their passion for defending gun rights is only about the money they get from the NRA.

    Of course, it's not like I'm under the illusion that this proposal is likely to pass. The fear of being seen as a coward or hypocrite hasn't motivated those who are standing in the way of reducing gun violence so far, after all. But what it should do is to underscore the fact that the dialogue around the Second Amendment has been preoccupied with the personal right to bear arms — and completely ignored the part of the text that focuses on the role of such arms in our nation's defense.

    That is to say, the Second Amendment doesn't just guarantee an individual freedom; it's also a proclamation of a collective duty, which can be seen in countries like Switzerland, where gun ownership is mandatory — specifically to be used in defense of that nation against invasion -- for adult males 18 to 34 who are viewed as fit for service.

    In that sense, the MILITIA Act isn't entirely meant to be tongue-in-cheek. How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren't on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    An interesting approach to gun reform. What do you think @proIsrael-nonIsraeli? I bolded the main arguments for the proposed solution (in red).

    The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
    By Jeff Yang

    (CNN) The modest proposal I'm going to make here may come off as absurd.

    But nothing could possibly be as absurd — and horrific — as the fact that this past weekend, in the space of just 24 hours, we saw three major mass shootings in the United States: The deadly spree at an El Paso, Texas Walmart, which left 22 dead and over two dozen wounded. The attack on a bar in Dayton, Ohio, where the shooter killed nine — including his sister — and injured at least 26. And a relatively unpublicized shooting at a Chicago playground, which resulted in no deaths, but seven victims with severe gunshot wounds.

    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.

    In fact, around 60 nations have programs requiring mandatory military enlistment for many or all adult males for terms ranging from one month to three years -- including some of our President's favorite countries: Russia, the UAE, North Korea and Israel. The latter two, along with Armenia, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Eritrea, Norway and Sweden, require military service by both men and women.

    But this proposal isn't a turning back of the clock to the days of the draft. It preserves our fundamental goal of having a volunteer armed forces. It just specifies that choosing to own a firearm should be equivalent to deciding to join our nation's "well-regulated militia."

    Would requiring gun owners to join the Reserve be an undue hardship? Well, being a reservist means undergoing basic training, then returning to civilian life -- and spending a minimum of one weekend a month and two weeks per year training to keep your skills sharp. Sounds reasonable for any patriot who wants to have continued access to a lethal weapon. Reserve status would ensure that all guns are registered; there are currently no legal requirements for gun registration in order to purchase and own a firearm in 36 states -- no permit or license needed -- and, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, only 12 states and the District of Columbia require universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers. Importantly, it would also ensure that gun owners learn how to use and store them safely, and that they are monitored at least once a year for mental health, during their two-week mandatory extended training.

    Now, there are some limitations imposed for reservist status. For example, generally one needs to enlist before the age of 42. Recognizing the value of serving one's country, this proposal would waive all restrictions to enlistment -- age, gender, sexuality, and so on -- as long as the enlistee is physically and mentally capable of service. Even the "physical capability" aspect could be waived, allowing for desk work or other participation for those not capable of field combat. (Of course, even for noncombatant enlistees, the compulsory gun safety training would still be required.)

    The only barriers imposed would be standard mental health and background checks — the same ones all military enlistees are required to undergo. Do you have a criminal record? An "adverse disposition" (such as, say, a history of domestic violence)? Unfortunately, you wouldn't be eligible to serve — and as a result, not eligible to carry a weapon. The proposal would keep the lower age limit of 18 for enlistment too; if you're not allowed to sign contracts or vote, you wouldn't be allowed to serve (or own a gun), at least not without parental consent.

    This proposal should address every issue that Republicans generally raise as a way to block gun reform from moving forward. It's fundamentally patriotic, weaving military service back into the fabric of American life. It imposes no restrictions on gun owners other than the ones we already place on our military service people. And it is by definition entirely constitutional, reflecting the literal language in our nation's charter document. It's hard to see how the right could argue against this proposal without arguing the Constitution they claim to revere, or attacking the military they say they love, or making it seem like their passion for defending gun rights is only about the money they get from the NRA.

    Of course, it's not like I'm under the illusion that this proposal is likely to pass. The fear of being seen as a coward or hypocrite hasn't motivated those who are standing in the way of reducing gun violence so far, after all. But what it should do is to underscore the fact that the dialogue around the Second Amendment has been preoccupied with the personal right to bear arms — and completely ignored the part of the text that focuses on the role of such arms in our nation's defense.

    That is to say, the Second Amendment doesn't just guarantee an individual freedom; it's also a proclamation of a collective duty, which can be seen in countries like Switzerland, where gun ownership is mandatory — specifically to be used in defense of that nation against invasion -- for adult males 18 to 34 who are viewed as fit for service.

    In that sense, the MILITIA Act isn't entirely meant to be tongue-in-cheek. How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren't on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?
    "Anyone purchasing a gun should be required to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership."

    I am against it, one has nothing to do with the other - "Second Amendment" is not a problem, nor are the guns.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    Sleepy Stupid Joe
    August 07, 2019 - 03:26 PM EDTBiden: Trump responsible for inspiring white nationalist violence in US
    BY JONATHAN EASLEYTWEET SHARE MORE

    Former Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday blamed President Trump for several high-profile incidents of racial violence in the U.S., accusing the president of inspiring deadly hate crimes by embracing white nationalist extremism.
    Speaking to a group of supporters in Burlington, Iowa, Biden lashed out at the president in his most pointed remarks to date, accusing Trump of unleashing “the deepest, darkest forces in this nation.”
    “We have a problem with this rising tide of white supremacy in America and we have a president who encourages it and emboldens it,” Biden, the 2020 Democratic frontrunner, said.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    “Indeed, we have a president with a toxic tongue who has publicly and unapologetically embraced the political strategy of hate, racism and division.” he added.
    Biden said Trump “has more in common with George Wallace than he does with George Washington,” and he cast the 2020 election as a “battle for the soul of this nation.”
    As Biden spoke, Trump fired back at him from Air Force One as he flew from Dayton, Ohio, to El Paso, Texas, in between meetings with first responders and survivors of the weekend's mass shootings.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    "Watching Sleepy Joe Biden making a speech. Sooo Boring!" Trump tweeted. "The LameStream Media will die in the ratings and clicks with this guy. It will be over for them, not to mention the fact that our Country will do poorly with him. It will be one big crash, but at least China will be happy!"
    The three major cable news networks all carried Biden’s speech live.
    The former vice president, who leads in nearly every national and early-voting state survey for the Democratic presidential nomination, pointed the finger at Trump for the mass shooting in El Paso last weekend in which the alleged gunman wrote in a manifesto that the attack was a “response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
    Trump’s critics have noted that the president has used similar language in referring to immigrants trying to enter the country illegally. The Trump campaign has placed thousands of advertisements on Facebook since January warning of an “invasion” at the U.S. southern border.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    “How far is it from Trump saying this is an invasion, to the shooter in El Paso saying ‘this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas’ How far apart are those comments?” Biden asked.
    “I don’t think that far at all,” Biden continued. “In both clear language and in code, this president has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation.”
    The White House has disputed the notion that Trump’s rhetoric was the inspiration for the El Paso shooter.
    The president on Monday gave a speech from the White House condemning white supremacy.
    “In one voice, our nation must condemn bigotry, hatred and white supremacy,” Trump said. "These sinister ideologies must be defeated.”
    ADVERTISEMENT
    But Biden said Wednesday that Trump’s body language in that speech showed a lack of conviction.
    “His low energy, vacant-eyed mouthing of the words written for him condemning white supremacists this week, I don’t think fooled anyone at home or abroad,” Biden said.
    The former vice president said Trump is mouthing the words while seeking to keep white supremacists close so that they’ll turn out to vote for his reelection campaign in 2020.
    “When he says it, he doesn’t appear to believe it,” Biden said. “He seems more concerned about losing their votes, than beating back this hateful ideology.”
    Biden also blamed Trump for recent deadly incidents in Charlottesville and Pittsburgh that were driven by racist ideologies.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    And he outlined many of Trump’s racial controversies, from his remarks on Charlottesville that there good people on “both sides,” to him saying that several women of color in the House should “go back” to their home countries, to his description of Mexican immigrants as rapists and his recent attack on Baltimore as a “rat infested” and uninhabitable city.
    Trump on Wednesday accused his opponents of “looking for political gain” by tying his comments to the shooting in Texas.
    “I think my rhetoric brings people together,” Trump said. “Our country is doing really well.”
    Biden on Wednesday sought to take a big-picture approach, saying that the inhabitant of the White House has to be someone who represents U.S. values.
    He pointed to past presidents in both parties who have sought to heal the nation after tragic events as representative of “American character.”
    “George H.W. Bush renouncing his membership in the NRA. President Clinton after Oklahoma City. George W. Bush going to a mosque after 9/11. President Obama after Charleston. Presidents who led chose to fight for the best of what American character is about,” Biden said. “There is deafening silence now ... our president has aligned himself with the darkest forces and it makes winning the battle for the soul of our nation that much tougher.”
     
    Walidos

    Walidos

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    An interesting approach to gun reform. What do you think @proIsrael-nonIsraeli? I bolded the main arguments for the proposed solution (in red).

    The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
    By Jeff Yang

    (CNN) The modest proposal I'm going to make here may come off as absurd.

    But nothing could possibly be as absurd — and horrific — as the fact that this past weekend, in the space of just 24 hours, we saw three major mass shootings in the United States: The deadly spree at an El Paso, Texas Walmart, which left 22 dead and over two dozen wounded. The attack on a bar in Dayton, Ohio, where the shooter killed nine — including his sister — and injured at least 26. And a relatively unpublicized shooting at a Chicago playground, which resulted in no deaths, but seven victims with severe gunshot wounds.

    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.

    In fact, around 60 nations have programs requiring mandatory military enlistment for many or all adult males for terms ranging from one month to three years -- including some of our President's favorite countries: Russia, the UAE, North Korea and Israel. The latter two, along with Armenia, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Eritrea, Norway and Sweden, require military service by both men and women.

    But this proposal isn't a turning back of the clock to the days of the draft. It preserves our fundamental goal of having a volunteer armed forces. It just specifies that choosing to own a firearm should be equivalent to deciding to join our nation's "well-regulated militia."

    Would requiring gun owners to join the Reserve be an undue hardship? Well, being a reservist means undergoing basic training, then returning to civilian life -- and spending a minimum of one weekend a month and two weeks per year training to keep your skills sharp. Sounds reasonable for any patriot who wants to have continued access to a lethal weapon. Reserve status would ensure that all guns are registered; there are currently no legal requirements for gun registration in order to purchase and own a firearm in 36 states -- no permit or license needed -- and, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, only 12 states and the District of Columbia require universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers. Importantly, it would also ensure that gun owners learn how to use and store them safely, and that they are monitored at least once a year for mental health, during their two-week mandatory extended training.

    Now, there are some limitations imposed for reservist status. For example, generally one needs to enlist before the age of 42. Recognizing the value of serving one's country, this proposal would waive all restrictions to enlistment -- age, gender, sexuality, and so on -- as long as the enlistee is physically and mentally capable of service. Even the "physical capability" aspect could be waived, allowing for desk work or other participation for those not capable of field combat. (Of course, even for noncombatant enlistees, the compulsory gun safety training would still be required.)

    The only barriers imposed would be standard mental health and background checks — the same ones all military enlistees are required to undergo. Do you have a criminal record? An "adverse disposition" (such as, say, a history of domestic violence)? Unfortunately, you wouldn't be eligible to serve — and as a result, not eligible to carry a weapon. The proposal would keep the lower age limit of 18 for enlistment too; if you're not allowed to sign contracts or vote, you wouldn't be allowed to serve (or own a gun), at least not without parental consent.

    This proposal should address every issue that Republicans generally raise as a way to block gun reform from moving forward. It's fundamentally patriotic, weaving military service back into the fabric of American life. It imposes no restrictions on gun owners other than the ones we already place on our military service people. And it is by definition entirely constitutional, reflecting the literal language in our nation's charter document. It's hard to see how the right could argue against this proposal without arguing the Constitution they claim to revere, or attacking the military they say they love, or making it seem like their passion for defending gun rights is only about the money they get from the NRA.

    Of course, it's not like I'm under the illusion that this proposal is likely to pass. The fear of being seen as a coward or hypocrite hasn't motivated those who are standing in the way of reducing gun violence so far, after all. But what it should do is to underscore the fact that the dialogue around the Second Amendment has been preoccupied with the personal right to bear arms — and completely ignored the part of the text that focuses on the role of such arms in our nation's defense.

    That is to say, the Second Amendment doesn't just guarantee an individual freedom; it's also a proclamation of a collective duty, which can be seen in countries like Switzerland, where gun ownership is mandatory — specifically to be used in defense of that nation against invasion -- for adult males 18 to 34 who are viewed as fit for service.

    In that sense, the MILITIA Act isn't entirely meant to be tongue-in-cheek. How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren't on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?
    How will you pay for the amount of people who enlist? This is not a serious proposal, more a cry for help...

    They simply need more controls on who gets what, more checks, and certainly more taxes and make it more difficult to procure weapons and ammunition... i.e. make it more expensive and more complex...
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    "Anyone purchasing a gun should be required to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership."

    I am against it, one has nothing to do with the other - "Second Amendment" is not a problem, nor are the guns.
    So, what's the problem and what do you propose to do about it? Or are you waiting for a family member of yours to die in a shooting, for this to become an urgent issue for you?

    The Dayton shooter was shot and killed 30 seconds after he fired the first round.

    In 30 seconds, he was able to murder 9 people.

    The type of weapon and magazine capacity is directly responsible for the shooter being able to murder this many in so little time. Any other gun with less capacity or rapid fire would have decreased the death toll dramatically.
     
    Top