Do you want a solution to gun ownership?

liberty · Post by **liberty** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:53 am

Would you accept the proposition that only the militia could legally own guns and ammunition? Possession by anyone else would be a serious felony; even police officers would have to belong to the militia to possess weapons.

The civilian militia being anyone ( civilian ) willing to defend the country in time of emergency provided the individual has no criminal record and is a mentally competent adult citizen of the US with no serious mental or personality defects.

Please vote only, no commentary

Bicycle Bill · Post by **Bicycle Bill** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:20 am

The civilian militia being anyone ( civilian ) willing to defend the country in time of emergency provided the individual has no criminal record and is a mentally competent adult citizen of the US with no serious mental or personality defects.

Even the Second Amendment refers to a "well-regulated militia". What you describe is not a militia or even an Old West-style posse; it's little more than an armed rabble — a slightly more lethal version of the mob that stormed the Bastille in 1789.

And as for your request to 'Please vote only, no commentary' —

-"BB"-

Econoline · Post by **Econoline** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:30 am

"A solution to gun ownership": Bang Bang Sanity

Edited to add: Would you, liberty, accept the proposition that only a WELL REGULATED militia could legally own guns and ammunition?

liberty · Post by **liberty** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:51 pm

Yes of course, but each state would determine what rules they want for regulating their militia.

Got to go, got a service call to run.

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:20 pm

There was no option to vote for "the author of the OP is a moron" so I abstained.

BoSoxGal · Post by **BoSoxGal** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:14 pm

That's commentary!!

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:18 pm

I was never one for following the rules established by a moron, either.

Joe Guy · Post by **Joe Guy** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:36 pm

I've chosen to invoke my right to freedom of speech as guaranteed in the 1st amendment of our constitution in order to comment that I'm not voting.

dales · Post by **dales** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:46 pm

Flintlocks for all!

BoSoxGal · Post by **BoSoxGal** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:50 pm

The commentary's getting thick in here. You rebels!

Lord Jim · Post by **Lord Jim** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:43 pm

Please vote only, no commentary

How's that workin' out for you lib?

MajGenl.Meade · Post by **MajGenl.Meade** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:57 pm

Oh I didn't see that "militia" nonsense. Nor the "no commentary". I feel like a rebel.

rubato · Post by **rubato** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:34 pm

Simple. The shooting sports pay all of the costs of guns in society via insurance. All gun owners are required to have insurance on all the guns they own. Insurance companies can decide who are better and worse risks and set rates accordingly. They can, as does car insurance, take into account age, gender, education, profession and whether the insured can demonstrate that they keep their guns in locked gun safes &c.

yrs,
rubato

Lord Jim · Post by **Lord Jim** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:51 pm

"Please vote only, no commentary "

That's a close cousin of "there's no need for you to respond" or "please don't respond"...

(Which in my now 20 plus years of experience on three boards has always proven to be the surest way to assure a response...(It always has been in my case...

)

It's kind of silly to ask people not to engage in commentary in a place that exists for the sole purpose of providing a forum for their commentary...

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:15 pm

You're trying to be logical with a guy who wears his underwear outside of his pants. At least, when he's not wearing them on his head.

RayThom · Post by **RayThom** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:02 am

I see lib is using the power of subliminal suggestion in this poll.

"1. Yes 2. NO"

Do you see "NO" is in all capital letters? He's forcing the reader to pick his predetermined answer.

Well, I for one, didn't fall for it. I'm going to wait for a less moronic poll.

BoSoxGal · Post by **BoSoxGal** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:06 am

It actually look like N0 - N + zero.

Am I the only one who sees that?

liberty · Post by **liberty** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:59 am

Lord Jim wrote:
Please vote only, no commentary
How's that workin' out for you lib?

I figured it would turn out as it did; it is kind a like brer rabbit and brer fox and please don’t throw me in that brier patch.

But I figured it was worth a try. It would be nice if the bandwagon effect could be mitigated and it could be determined what people really would support. There are many that don’t have the courage to go against the group so a secret ballot is better.

Don’t you think that restricting gun ownership to individual that have been determined to be trustworthy would reduce the misuse of guns?

liberty · Post by **liberty** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:29 am

You guys are so smart you all should have no problem answering this question: Besides lower gun violence and providing a ready pool of short term draftees for the military what other outcome could my proposals eventually have on private gun ownership? Think, you can do it. Any question I would ask can’t be that hard.

Bicycle Bill · Post by **Bicycle Bill** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:20 am

liberty wrote:Would you accept the proposition that only the militia could legally own guns and ammunition? Possession by anyone else would be a serious felony; even police officers would have to belong to the militia to possess weapons.
The civilian militia being anyone ( civilian ) willing to defend the country in time of emergency provided the individual has no criminal record and is a mentally competent adult citizen of the US with no serious mental or personality defects.

liberty wrote:Don’t you think that restricting gun ownership to individual that have been determined to be trustworthy would reduce the misuse of guns?

liberty wrote:Besides lower gun violence and providing a ready pool of short term draftees for the military what other outcome could my proposals eventually have on private gun ownership?

So far you've asked three different questions. Not to mention that your qualifications are woefully inadequate — "anyone willing to defend the country ... provided the individual has no criminal record and is a mentally competent adult citizen" and "...has been determined to be trustworthy". Just what would be required to have a disqualifying criminal record? Murder? Rape? Drunk and disorderly? Shoplifting? Possession and use of marijuana? Shit almighty, even at sixty-two years old my near-sighted ass would qualify to be a member of your 'militia', as would just about every random shooter and serial killer . Even Donald Trump would probably be able to get over a bar that low. Do you seriously want someone like him or me having your back?

And "short-term draftees"? Seriously? We all know from history — think Valley Forge and the Continental Army, or Germany's last-ditch effort to hold off the Allies with young boys and older men being given inadequate weapons and shoved into combat — just how dependable and effective a force made up of citizen-volunteers actually is.

Sorry, lib; this is just talk over your third (or fourth, or fifth) beer down at the "Tattooed Freeper" Bar and Grill and Trailer Park, and should be taken for exactly what it is worth .....

-"BB"-

Plan B Forum