Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

[WBO]

It allows for a "state defense force." It is it's own entity. It can not be federally governed. State ran, and Tennessee have an active defense force.

It is not the national guard by the way that is governed by the feds.

If you are part of any branch of the federal reserved armed forces you cant be a part of it.

I believe the President has the authority to call up the Guard and direct its deployment. Have to admit though I was regular Navy for 8 years then retired from the Reserves so the Guard is not my area of expertise. The reason I believe that is because the TANG here in Knoxville provides tanker services to the active duty Air Force so there has to be some capability for the regular military to task (direct the activities of) the Guard. Plus, you don't think the state of Tennessee paid for all those KC-135s do you?

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

It’s like they want things shut down for a long time. Why? It will not benefit anyone.

It will benefit a beurocratic oligarchy...The Nanny State that tells all the poor stupid common people what to do, when to do it, and where they can go, and when...and how to wipe their ass..etc etc etc..

Edit:...Nevermind misread the post I responded to...but I do think the lib media is nothing but a leftist propaganda arm for the nanny state.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Kentucky gov is the usual disingenuous politician that does not know when to keep his mouth shut

KY
Total tests - 32,319
Positives - 2960
Deaths - 148
Population - 4.6 M

TN
Total tests - 97,908
Positives - 7070
Deaths - 148
Population - 6.8 M

Many more tests as a percentage of population, much less positives as a percentage of total tests, (which are three times more than his state), with an equal number of deaths. As usual Tennessee is kicking Kentucky's azz.

Beshear is a grandstanding PoS trying to milk every drop of political capital from this thing that is possible.

 

[benholt06]

I think the point most people ignore is that stricter gun laws will have little effect on the criminal element. The effect is on law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong in the first place. I understand and agree that gun violence is out of control, but if you want to make a difference, you need to find a way to create laws that truly strike at that criminal element. The public, in general, does not benefit from laws that make it harder to defend themselves from said criminal element.

And it might be that there is no easy answer to "criminal element". But you're perpetuating the narrative that anything I've advocated for puts restrictions on citizens who've done nothing wrong. It absolutely doesn't, and you'd still be able to buy a gun from your neighbor through virtually the same process as you would at Walmart. InVol says it's a "people problem", but when we try to restrict the problem people it somehow becomes a comprehensive attack on all gun owners.

 

[Weezer]

And it might be that there is no easy answer to "criminal element". But you're perpetuating the narrative that anything I've advocated for puts restrictions on citizens who've done nothing wrong. It absolutely doesn't, and you'd still be able to buy a gun from your neighbor through virtually the same process as you would at Walmart. InVol says it's a "people problem", but when we try to restrict the problem people it somehow becomes a comprehensive attack on all gun owners.

Criminals don't follow laws. That's why those that do are called "law abiding". What good are more laws for the criminals not to follow? Therefore more laws only affect those who were already following the existing ones.

People intent on doing bad will find a way. They'll find a way to guns, or switch to other methods, like explosives. Do you know how ridiculously easy it is to build a bomb? Why do you think our soldiers constantly face IEDs?

 

[benholt06]

I'm not clicking on your left wing radical communist propaganda. I could post reams of literature that shows much more lives are saved due to gun ownership than are lost but you would poo poo them as radical right wing NRA talking points, so there is no point.

We were discussing mass shootings and that didn't work for you so you shifted the goal post to reducing gun deaths in general. Statistically a huge percentage of gun deaths are suicide and another large percentage of gun deaths are drug/gang related. Do you think these guns are obtained at a gun show? Lol. You're extremely naive if you do.

Again, guns aren't your thing so you're ok with measures to limit other's rights. If you really want to save some lives, go start trying to get the prohibition of alcohol back in play. Your ideas what's dumb here. You haven't a clue.

The LA times is radical propaganda? Hahaha

That's the problem in trying to reason with folks that live in your bubble. Everything except for what you agree with is leftist propaganda.

This is the last time I'm gonna say it so you can continue to stomp and holler if you want to I don't care. Unless you have a violent criminal conviction or a doctor has deemed you mentally unstable (possible with you), nothing I've mentioned will affect you AT ALL.

You've circled back around to alcohol.. I thought you'd tackle abortion this time. You seem to have trouble staying on topic. But hey, next time I want to have a one-sided discussion with a high-strung provincial I'll find you.

 

[benholt06]

Criminals don't follow laws. That's why those that do are called "law abiding". What good are more laws for the criminals not to follow? Therefore more laws only affect those who were already following the existing ones.

People intent on doing bad will find a way. They'll find a way to guns, or switch to other methods, like explosives. Do you know how ridiculously easy it is to build a bomb? Why do you think our soldiers constantly face IEDs?

So why have them? Let's just abolish the laws then, since criminals don't follow them anyway. Speeders don't follow speed limits, so why make it harder for safe drivers to get to work on time? We've been doing this all wrong! Anarchy for everybody!

Seriously, what a runaway train that argument is. I honestly thought you were above it.

 

[Weezer]

So why have them? Let's just abolish the laws then, since criminals don't follow them anyway. Speeders don't follow speed limits, so why make it harder for safe drivers to get to work on time? We've been doing this all wrong! Anarchy for everybody!

Seriously, what a runaway train that argument is. I honestly thought you were above it.

You can put the sanctimony away. I'm not against reasonable laws. I don't see the laws we currently have as unreasonable. I also don't see the need for more laws that will be ineffective for the people they would supposedly be targeting. Apparently you believe in unneeded bureaucracy, I do not. But more gun laws is not the answer. They will not serve the intended purpose. This country has a serious mental health problem that we continue to ignore. If you really want to change something, that's where the focus should be. As they say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's not the guns that we need to affect. It's the people. More gun laws without addressing the people who commit these heinous crimes does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

 

[benholt06]

You can put the sanctimony away. I'm not against reasonable laws. I don't see the laws we currently have as unreasonable. I also don't see the need for more laws that will be ineffective for the people they would supposedly be targeting. Apparently you believe in unneeded bureaucracy, I do not. But more gun laws is not the answer. They will not serve the intended purpose. This country has a serious mental health problem that we continue to ignore. If you really want to change something, that's where the focus should be. As they say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's not the guns that we need to affect. It's the people. More gun laws without addressing the people who commit these heinous crimes does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

If the current laws are reasonable in a store, they're reasonable in a private sale.

It's not a one or the other issue. You can address the mental health crisis while also not wanting the mentally ill to have guns. It's literally the reasonable response.

 

[Weezer]

If the current laws are reasonable in a store, they're reasonable in a private sale.

It's not a one or the other issue. You can address the mental health crisis while also not wanting the mentally ill to have guns. It's literally the reasonable response.

Who has advocated for the mentally ill getting handguns? And do you honestly believe background checks will be effective when the mentally ill haven't been properly identified? At the very least, you've put the cart before the horse. I'm telling you, it doesn't matter how many gun laws are enacted, a determined mentally ill person will find a way. Whether it's stealing guns or resorting to other methods, they will find a way. The key to stopping violence is identifying these people early and getting them the help they need. Unless you have experienced mental illness, I firmly believe you cannot really comprehend it. And if you have experienced it, then you should know what I'm saying is truth. When someone goes over the edge, more gun laws and background checks won't mean a damn thing. I don't know how to be more clear. The only way to truly address the issue is to address the issue. And the issue is mental illness, not guns.

 

[benholt06]

Who has advocated for the mentally ill getting handguns? And do you honestly believe background checks will be effective when the mentally ill haven't been properly identified? At the very least, you've put the cart before the horse. I'm telling you, it doesn't matter how many gun laws are enacted, a determined mentally ill person will find a way. Whether it's stealing guns or resorting to other methods, they will find a way. The key to stopping violence is identifying these people early and getting them the help they need. Unless you have experienced mental illness, I firmly believe you cannot really comprehend it. And if you have experienced it, then you should know what I'm saying is truth. When someone goes over the edge, more gun laws and background checks won't mean a damn thing. I don't know how to be more clear. The only way to truly address the issue is to address the issue. And the issue is mental illness, not guns.

Again, you’re dancing this jig that because a BG check can’t identify an undiagnosed mentally ill person, it isn’t effective. It’s such a familiar refrain from NRA sheep, but it’s as intellectually dishonest as can be. They identify violent criminals and already diagnosed mental cases very effectively. And yes, a determined individual can still commit atrocities. But what if BG checks prevented only 1 out of 10 “mass shooting” incidents? Couldn’t you wait a day for your name to go thru the database? Isn’t that worth someone’s life? I’m not concerned with who has the moral high ground here. But for Christ’s sakes if you’re gonna argue that the minor inconvenience of a BG check is such a bureaucratic hassle or a infringement of rights, at least use an original idea. You’re too smart to shill this nonsense without being paid.

 

[Weezer]

Again, you’re dancing this jig that because a BG check can’t identify an undiagnosed mentally ill person, it isn’t effective. It’s such a familiar refrain from NRA sheep, but it’s as intellectually dishonest as can be. They identify violent criminals and already diagnosed mental cases very effectively. And yes, a determined individual can still commit atrocities. But what if BG checks prevented only 1 out of 10 “mass shooting” incidents? Couldn’t you wait a day for your name to go thru the database? Isn’t that worth someone’s life? I’m not concerned with who has the moral high ground here. But for Christ’s sakes if you’re gonna argue that the minor inconvenience of a BG check is such a bureaucratic hassle or a infringement of rights, at least use an original idea. You’re too smart to shill this nonsense without being paid.

LMAO You are so barking up the wrong tree. Not an NRA sheep. I don't even own a gun.

Now go back and reread my last post and maybe you'll understand my view on the subject better.

 

[benholt06]

LMAO You are so barking up the wrong tree. Not an NRA sheep. I don't even own a gun.

Now go back and reread my last post and maybe you'll understand my view on the subject better.

I'll never understand your POV if you just use retread argument.

The problem isn't guns, it's ________. Insert whatever diversionary thing you want.

I'm sorry if mental illness has hurt you in your life, but that's not the topic du jour here. They just happen to fall under the category of people who shouldn't have them.

I'm not even calling for the comprehensive gun control measures most Democrats do. Just a simple expansion of what's already in place, so a seller knows who he or she is handing a weapon to. You can bark about it not being effective all you want, it's a dishonest stance.

 

[Weezer]

I'll never understand your POV if you just use retread argument.

The problem isn't guns, it's ________. Insert whatever diversionary thing you want.

I'm sorry if mental illness has hurt you in your life, but that's not the topic du jour here. They just happen to fall under the category of people who shouldn't have them.

I'm not even calling for the comprehensive gun control measures most Democrats do. Just a simple expansion of what's already in place, so a seller knows who he or she is handing a weapon to. You can bark about it not being effective all you want, it's a dishonest stance.

lmao You are unreal. We were having a conversation on mass shootings, gun laws, and the mentally ill who generally commit mass shootings. You strike out with the NRA allegation and now you decide to entirely shift the conversation? I understand how mental illness works. Using mass shootings and the mentally ill to justify stricter gun laws is a bogus argument when you refuse to address the real issue. Real people living with broken minds need help, but all you seem to care about is making laws that make it harder for people who actually obey the law to get guns. I've laid it out for you. If you can't see it, you're choosing to be blind.

 

[benholt06]

lmao You are unreal. We were having a conversation on mass shootings, gun laws, and the mentally ill who generally commit mass shootings. You strike out with the NRA allegation and now you decide to entirely shift the conversation? I understand how mental illness works. Using mass shootings and the mentally ill to justify stricter gun laws is a bogus argument when you refuse to address the real issue. Real people living with broken minds need help, but all you seem to care about is making laws that make it harder for people who actually obey the law to get guns. I've laid it out for you. If you can't see it, you're choosing to be blind.

I had to repeat the bold several times to even believe someone would say it. I don't see a mass shooting as a springboard for idea I champion. Generally, I'm quite an unobjectionable and disinterested man. But if something simple can prevent senseless death I tend to think it's a good idea. Even if you lay your healing hands on every schizo in America, surely some will slip through the cracks. In those instances I'm glad BG checks are in place, and when they try to "find a way", as you say, it might be good if there are a few less avenues they could use.

I've never shifted the conversation. I'm still talking about the same background checks on the same private gun sales as I started with.

The issue of mass shootings was never really my drive for supporting this either, gun deaths arise from all kinds of situations. Background checks can prevent some of them, and that's a fact.

You over here wailing about the mentally ill being ignored does NOTHING to change that fact, it's just a sideshow, a diversion. Because there's nothing wrong with checking out an individual before they leave with a gun, and you know it, and the folks who fall in line with you for whatever reason know it too. If it means you have to wait for the check, who cares. It's so shallow to whine about that when the result is the same, and the process saves lives.

Your argument is bankrupt and Vai Kaho signed with San Diego St. Good day sir.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

I think the point most people ignore is that stricter gun laws will have little effect on the criminal element. The effect is on law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong in the first place. I understand and agree that gun violence is out of control, but if you want to make a difference, you need to find a way to create laws that truly strike at that criminal element. The public, in general, does not benefit from laws that make it harder to defend themselves from said criminal element.

Violent crime has decreased dramatically since the 1990s.

U.S.: violent crime rate graph 1990-2018 | Statista

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

 

[InVOLuntary]

The LA times is radical propaganda? Hahaha

That's the problem in trying to reason with folks that live in your bubble. Everything except for what you agree with is leftist propaganda.

This is the last time I'm gonna say it so you can continue to stomp and holler if you want to I don't care. Unless you have a violent criminal conviction or a doctor has deemed you mentally unstable (possible with you), nothing I've mentioned will affect you AT ALL.

You've circled back around to alcohol.. I thought you'd tackle abortion this time. You seem to have trouble staying on topic. But hey, next time I want to have a one-sided discussion with a high-strung provincial I'll find you.

You really don't get it do you? The LA times is a liberal rag like most of msm. If I produced stuff you'd just say it was NRA propaganda. That's the problem with you naive folks you just slap up all the anti-gun stuff you can find and use it to line the walls of your echo chamber.

You accuse me of not staying on topic? Why don't we revisit the whole conversation. You seem to have trouble with recall either that or maybe your points don't really have a basis so you need to shift the goal post. This started with Newt and I having a conversation about libertarians and their stance on gun control. Newt being a libertarian was conflicted on taking away liberty and solving the MASS SHOOTING problem. Someone mentioned the gun show loophole and I said it was nothing more than a liberal catch phrase to capture the weak minded (such as yourself, apparently) as it was nothing more than private sales between individuals. This is where you jumped in and claimed we had a mass shooting problem and we needed to limit gun sales by expanding background checks. I asked you one question.... What mass shootings would have been prevented by expanded background checks and which mass shootings were carried out using guns from the gun show loophole? You came up with nothing. So what do you do? You shift the goal post, something that's quite common with you anti-liberty, anti-2nd amendment crowd.

Yea, I bring up alcohol because it kills infinitely more people than guns and is not a NEED (as your side likes to call it). But do you know why alcohol isn't addressed? Because so many people use it. It's because it's not in these people's self interest to do anything about it. It's a right that they are willing to protect. Whereas, with guns they don't care about them so they're fine with trampling on other people's rights. You really don't have answer for that so again you poo poo the analogy.


Lol, and you say I'm unstable? You're the one on your bully pulpit trying advance your constitutional shredding agenda, not I. And you've never really mentioned any solution. All you've said is that we need to expand background checks and you've offered nothing as to why that would work.

Finally, see Canada yesterday.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Violent crime has decreased dramatically since the 1990s.

U.S.: violent crime rate graph 1990-2018 | Statista

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Oh shoot.

 

[InVOLuntary]

lmao You are unreal. We were having a conversation on mass shootings, gun laws, and the mentally ill who generally commit mass shootings. You strike out with the NRA allegation and now you decide to entirely shift the conversation? I understand how mental illness works. Using mass shootings and the mentally ill to justify stricter gun laws is a bogus argument when you refuse to address the real issue. Real people living with broken minds need help, but all you seem to care about is making laws that make it harder for people who actually obey the law to get guns. I've laid it out for you. If you can't see it, you're choosing to be blind.

He's a lost cause.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Oh shoot.

And I would say that this...

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago.

...is because the MSM and certain politicians continue to lie to the American public.

 

[Jackcrevol]

lmao You are unreal. We were having a conversation on mass shootings, gun laws, and the mentally ill who generally commit mass shootings. You strike out with the NRA allegation and now you decide to entirely shift the conversation? I understand how mental illness works. Using mass shootings and the mentally ill to justify stricter gun laws is a bogus argument when you refuse to address the real issue. Real people living with broken minds need help, but all you seem to care about is making laws that make it harder for people who actually obey the law to get guns. I've laid it out for you. If you can't see it, you're choosing to be blind.

Its my understanding that guns will never be outlawed in this Country. It is protected. What needs to happen is a joint agreement. We need to respect gun owners right while protecting citizens. We have as much of right to walk around unimpeded, as they do to own

-Need better sharing of info
-Database
- if you own, concealment isnt protected
- you own, great. its a great responsibility. owners must prove it. And I mean, routine tests to show knowledge, taking classes etc. This also helps small businesses who depend on the revenue.
-Im also for a Gun Tax The low low price of $250 per gun, yearly. Part of revenue goes to low income families, and some to victims of mass gun attacks. I say this partly in jest, although I would love to see it. It will never happen.
-Mentally ill cannot own. There it is.

 

[bignewt]

Glad we got that figured out! Now, back to this sterilization...

 

[InVOLuntary]

And I would say that this...

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago.

...is because the MSM and certain politicians continue to lie to the American public.

And they say there isn't a coordinated attack on the second amendment by the left and their MSM.

And, if you took Chicago out there the numbers would be even lower.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Its my understanding that guns will never be outlawed in this Country. It is protected. What needs to happen is a joint agreement. We need to respect gun owners right while protecting citizens. We have as much of right to walk around unimpeded, as they do to own

Agreed

-Need better sharing of info

Would need to know more about what this means exactly before agreeing or disagreeing.

-Database

Absolutely not, unless someone can fully explain to me how having a database actually prevents a gun crime.


- if you own, concealment isnt protected

Not exactly sure what this means, but at first glance I will probably disagree with it once you fully explain it.

- you own, great. its a great responsibility. owners must prove it. And I mean, routine tests to show knowledge, taking classes etc. This also helps small businesses who depend on the revenue.

Are you wanting to put the costs of conducting those routine tests on the federal government, i.e., the American taxpayer, because I don't agree to paying those costs out of pocket. I actually don't feel the need to prove to the anti-gun crowd that I am qualified.

-Im also for a Gun Tax The low low price of $250 per gun, yearly. Part of revenue goes to low income families, and some to victims of mass gun attacks. I say this partly in jest, although I would love to see it. It will never happen.

And there it is. The libs and there taxes. I already pay a state sales tax every time I purchase a weapon. Not- willing to pay a federal gun tax on top of that. Just another liberal tax grab that does nothing to prevent gun crime.

Mentally ill cannot own.

I suspect pretty much everyone agrees with that already.

There it is.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Yea, about all that is a big no. I can't believe one would want to tax a constitutional right. What if we taxed the first amendment? Like $.50 a word.

All that is bogus and would do the opposite of the intent. Obviously, no one wants the mentally ill to have firearms but the problem arises when you try to define mentally ill. If someone takes an anti-depressent, does that disqualify one from owning or possessing a gun?


And the concealed thing. "You can possess but just where I tell you can possess." Conceal carry has proven to lower crime and when a crime does occur, it reduces the impact. Again, doing something without any basis just to be doing something. Feel good approach.

Database. Again more unintended consequences. Having a national firearms database is one reason people do private sales, without the background check. It's not because they can't pass a background check it's because they want to avoid a firearms registry. The first step in confiscation is knowing where and who has them. You want more people to go through a background check? Eliminate the firearm data from the form. It serves no purpose. Make the background check free as well.

Impeding people because of concealed carry? What the he'll does that even mean?

Annual certifications? Another hurdle to try and stop people from owning firearms. Wouldn't that make all these mass shooters even more skillful and deadly? So we're gonna government train our mass shooters now? It's a tactic of the antigun crowd to make it difficult to practice your second amendment. They hope all these measures are not a crime deterrent but a deterrent for anyone interested in owning a firearm. Regulate it to death, tax it to death.