Questions for the 'confiscation' advocates...

One distinction with respect to the military (theoretically). By the time the young person is packing up to go off and "fight" they've had a lot of supervised training to engage in the activity ahead of them, have been effectively "culled" in the process, and will be engaging in that activity customarily with immediate and intense supervision.

A lot more than they get with drinking and handling firearms at home or in public school! So ... apples and oranges. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Okay. Something is definitely wrong with this world recently. Again I agree with you 100%.

In the almost 2 years I was in the service, the only times I held a loaded M-16 in my hands was at the firing range under strict supervision. I walked guard duty with an unloaded M-16. The only people I saw on post with loaded weapons were the Officer of the Day who had a handgun on, which I assume was loaded, and possibly the MPs, and I'm not even sure about them.

Okay. Something is definitely wrong with this world recently. Again I agree with you 100%. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

May be it's not "wrong" with the world, you're just getting "right"!

Okay. Something is definitely wrong with this world recently. Again I agree with you 100%.

In the almost 2 years I was in the service, the only times I held a loaded M-16 in my hands was at the firing range under strict supervision. I walked guard duty with an unloaded M-16. The only people I saw on post with loaded weapons were the Officer of the Day who had a handgun on, which I assume was loaded, and possibly the MPs, and I'm not even sure about them. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What were you guarding with an unloaded weapon?


Jim

What were you guarding with an unloaded weapon?


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

He could hit them over the head with it .... because ....

He posted:

The only people I saw on post with loaded weapons were the Officer of the Day who had a handgun on, which I assume was loaded, and possibly the MPs,.....

This is just a guess:

He was "carrying" the "loads" in a magazine or two!

BTW: In the "use of force continuum" ... "presence" is a deterrence!

And the likelihood of this happening, given our current state of financial structure, or lack thereof, seems to be growing everyday. Spot on that gun control = people control.

Not to overlook, that the whole 2nd amendment construct actually involves crushing more that just that one. You also have to pretty much trash the 1st, 4th and certainly that pesky 10th to smoosh the 2nd. Hmmm, on second thought, they would pretty much have to suspend the entire bill of rights and the only way to do that is to collapse the economy. So what is the likelihood looking like that that could happen? Too danged likely for my comfort level...

They won't have to go door to door to confiscate firearms. If the Government decides to disarm Americans they'll do it in ways which will not involve the deployment of man power to engage in armed confrontations. One possible scenario would be to create a situation of Martial Law. Banks would close. Money, Food sources and fuel would be limited. Most people would submit to this type of hardship by disarming themselves and allowing the Government to take care of them. This would be the ultimate control of the people by the Government, which is what "Gun Control" really is about. So when you hear talk about "Gun Control" forget about the Governments concern for anyone's safety. The control they really have in mind is controlling you.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

....and the only way to do that is to collapse the economy. So what is the likelihood looking like that that could happen? Too danged likely for my comfort level... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I'm sorry your candidate didn't win, and Trump did.

How's your 401K been doing the past year or so?

What were you guarding with an unloaded weapon?


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

The PX, the bank, the ammo dump are what I remember. Guard duty was at night after the PX and bank had closed and we were outside the buildings walking around them. If someone tried to rob the bank while I was on guard duty I'm not sure what my orders were to do. No cell phones back then. Been a long time.

I will admit that TRUMP wasn't my pick in the beginning of the primary season, but he certainly was later into it. I would rather gargle with battery acid than even say Shitlery's name in public, much less vote for her.

But as to your question, I've moved a lot of it to cash a few weeks back.

I'm sorry your candidate didn't win, and Trump did.

How's your 401K been doing the past year or so? Originally Posted by LexusLover

....

Guard duty was at night after the PX and bank had closed and we were outside the buildings walking around them. If someone tried to rob the bank while I was on guard duty I'm not sure what my orders were to do.... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Perhaps: Laugh .....

.... and take them into custody for public intoxication until MP's arrived?

Cell phones are useless when congested with copious amounts of laughter!

That's another subject entirely. MANY people i've seen, have been pushing the "take guns away from someone who's mental..
Now if the court orders it, they at least had proper due process. BUT what then, does that mean for everyone else in that home (like say mom-dad-sis etc)>> DO they also lose THEIR GUNS cause sonny boy is wonko??



So if they don't leave till they are 30 anyway, HOW CAN ONE claim they are mature enough to drive at 16 and vote at 17??



Cause its just like smoking/drinking etc, someone at some point in time, decided that there needed to be an age on when someone's mature enough to own a weapon.. AND SINCE 18 is the age someone can join the military and fight, 18 then should be good enough for anyone else.. Originally Posted by garhkal

I would wager that it has more to do with the age of a typical high school student who has completed high school. Seventeen-year-olds can actually enlist to serve with the consent of a parent, but it's the high school (GED) degree requirement that won't be waived. A high school degree signifies that that individual has successfully met at least the minimal mandated educational requirements for becoming a functioning U.S. citizen. If my memory serves me correctly, James Webb, in his book "Fields of Fire" (1978), wrote that, "There was never anything so deadly as an American teenager with an M16."

The PX, the bank, the ammo dump are what I remember. Guard duty was at night after the PX and bank had closed and we were outside the buildings walking around them. If someone tried to rob the bank while I was on guard duty I'm not sure what my orders were to do. No cell phones back then. Been a long time. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I guess you would have had to wing it. Not a good position to be in.


Jim

So you don't support President Trump on raising the minimum age for to 21 for purchasing any semi-automatic gun? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No i don't. Cause that's just caving INTO THe whiners on the left.

Okay. Something is definitely wrong with this world recently. Again I agree with you 100%.

In the almost 2 years I was in the service, the only times I held a loaded M-16 in my hands was at the firing range under strict supervision. I walked guard duty with an unloaded M-16. The only people I saw on post with loaded weapons were the Officer of the Day who had a handgun on, which I assume was loaded, and possibly the MPs, and I'm not even sure about them. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

During my 20 years..
Boot camp - we actually were in the black out period where boots didn't GET range time or shooting/gun practice.. The ONLY 4 guys who had a weapon, were our 4 man drill/flag squad.

ET-A school, no gun stuff.

First ship, qualled on pistol and shotgun every 8 mo or so and carried a loaded pistol when i did POOW.. Ship went into yard, and carried a loaded pistol as gate guard into the yards.
2nd ship same.
BOTH ships also carried loaded shotguns for our transits of the suez canal.

JMF St Mawgan in the UK, no gun stuff needed. Base security provided by RAF MPs.

Bahrain, LOTS OF GUNS, as was part of base's ASF (Auxillery security force), qualled on M4/16, M9 and shotgun (got expert pistol, 4 off max three of the 4 times i shot, and sharpshooter on rifle). Had loaded guns EVERY TIME Was activated and was on watch somewhere..

London, again like St Mawgan, all security provided for by RAF/local cops in building.

Guam on Frank cable, qualled and carried loaded pistol when did POOW duties. Otherwise nothing.

Gulfport with Seabees.. Qualled and trained with M4/16, and M9 again, kept scores relatively close to what had before, and other than when doing transits from base to base when deployed, weapons kept in armory. BUT when was doing transits, both guns fully loaded..

BTW: In the "use of force continuum" ... "presence" is a deterrence!

That it is lexus.. In fact, its the first STEP of the continuoum of force.. Or as we called it in the Navy, the Escalation of Force chart.
1) Presence
2) Verbal and physical commands
3) Attack dog if have it
4) Baton
5) CS spray
6) firearm.. (note i might be mistaking step 3 to 5)..

Customarily, the "use of force continuum" is founded on the quality of force exerted in response to the threat or force, as opposed to the instrumentality used, since he "tools" may vary, but the response won't.

Example, since you mentioned "Navy" ... I was on an island and it happened to be "election day" the next day for that country and a "naval" vessel flying that country's flag pulled up and stood off shore (many of the the sailors came on shore and got drunk at one of the bars down the street from my digs) and later that day toward the evening a U.S. "frigate" pulled up just "outside" the junker and crisp white uniforms lined the shore side deck while colors were raised. No one came on shore! There would be no shit.

That's presence. And in the current topic pulling up in a patrol unit.