A School Shooting in Maryland

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Shinagami

For these reasons I am glad I do not live in America. From an outsiders perspective American society is riddled with hypocrisy and contradictions....

You are certainly entitled to that opinion.
Sadly, what I see outsiders saying is based on the impression they get from the media, and from the failed policies of Progressives in the US.
Most of these school shootings took place in the 1990s up until the mid-2000s. They started declining when school districts started putting armed, and trained resource officers in the schools. Unfortunately that is not a fool-proof system as was illustrated by the cowardice of the Broward County Sheriff's department when they failed to confront Nicolas Cruz.
Compare that to the Maryland shooting, and the Arapahoe High School shooting in 2013 in Colorado, and we can see that when resource officers engage these shooters, the loss of life is minimal and a mass shooting is avoided.

As for our right to keep and bear arms.
The problem is that the left-wing Progressives (Neo-Libs, and Neo-Cons) dismantled the US's militia system that Theodore Roosevelt (a right-wing Progressive) had created with the Militia Act of 1903. All persons who purchased arms were supposed to enroll for reserve militia training.
It states how the National Guard was to become the "active militia" (it has been legislated into the normal armed forces since 1903 by numerous acts of congress), and the "inactive/reserve/unorganized militia". The reserve militia was to have:

Rifle ranges also are needed, not only for the National Guard,
but also for the citizen population. To shoot well is a large part
of the education of the soldier ; and if the Government can arouse
such an interest in shooting, in not only the organized but also
the unorganized militia, that our male population shall be familiar
with the accurate use of the rifle, we shall have gone far towards
evening up the advantage the foreigner gains by his universal
conscription. Much can be accomplished in this direction, if the
United States will offer free the use of the military rifle on ranges
to be established near our large towns. Such ranges would also
be available for the instruction of the National Guard. Their cost
would be little in comparison with the benefits to be obtained.
The cost of sufficient target ranges and camp sites for the whole
country will hardly exceed that of one or two new battle-ships.


We're supposed to have actual military arms, but only for training for the militia. They are supposed to be paid for by each citizen, along with the ammunition for said arms.
The problem we have in the US is that the NRA turned gun ownership into a "hunting and sporting right".
It is not.
We here in the US have NO RIGHT to hunt, or shoot for sport under the 2nd amendment (other amendments, such as the 9th and 10th cover that).
The right to keep and bear military arms was to ensure that the responsibilities of the US citizenry to the Federal government could be met.
It is insane to assume that the requirements of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 for the male population between the ages of 17 and 45 to be called forth to put down insurrections, repel invasions, or execute the laws of the Union (protect the constitution and Bill of rights) can be done with obsolete and inferior weapons (i.e. hunting and sporting arms and their low-capacity magazines).
However, it is just as insane to allow a free-for-all that has no requirements.
I've been a member of the CMP for 20-years and see no reason why this should not be a requirement (joining the CMP) to buy paramilitary arms.
http://thecmp.org/

Regulating (mandatory training, and drills) for the reserve/unorganized militia is part of the 2nd amendment and is called for in the US constitution, but our Military Industrial Complex helped crush that system because they make far more money off huge government contracts for mass numbers of rifles and ammunition bought in bulk for the armed forces, militarized police forces, and Federal agencies.
Not too mention the leftists in the US who desire to disarm the population so that there is no resistance to their utopian dreams.
Many factors contribute to the disfunction of our militia system, and hence we now have a problem.
We here in the United States also allowed corporations like Colt, Ruger, Armalite, and Remington to lobby for the dismantling of our government arsenals where citizens used to buy both surplus military arms, ammunition, and equipment. The government used to know who purchased said items in an indirect registration system (using bill of sales) in that system.

Back then, we had a healthy militia system as part of the Civil Defense Corps.
What we here in the US need is for that system to be rebuilt and the government arsenals to be reopened/restored.
That way, the government will be able to arm those who qualify, and it will be able to screen those wishing to purchase said arms and prohibit people on psychiatric drugs, have violent felony convictions, and/or are criminally insane. It will also be able to regulate/train the militia the way it is supposed to via the CMP. The Department of Civilian Marksmanship should be restored as well.
It is an easy fix that worked well in the past as evidenced by the fact that when machine guns were legal to buy via gun dealers prior to 1968, we didn't have these mass shootings. You could buy paramilitary arms through the paper or Sears catalog and our homicide rate was less. There were far more households that reported having arms (impossible to say how many have them today since people are reluctant to report that they have a firearm according to Gallup).
We have the means to properly deal with this issue, we just don't have politicians willing to do it on either side of the issue.
The Dems are living in some Progressive fantasy about total disarmament, and the GOP is trying to protect the corporations that comprise the Military Industrial Complex which finances their campaigns (the NRA is far from the biggest contributor to the GOP on this issue).

Originally Posted by OH&S

This thread has been intense so far.

Rather than arguing a particular position, I've got to ask for comparison's sake (as well as being better informed):

1. What are the minimum requirements to obtain a firearm license and buy a gun in the US?

1a. If there is a background check, what does said check consist of?

2. Who is ultimately barred from purchasing a firearm or going through the process of obtaining a license? i.e. Is there a prohibited persons list?

3. Are gun safety courses a mandatory part of the process of obtaining a firearm license?

4. Outside of sport/target shooting; recreational hunting/vermin/pest control; primary production; Business or Employment; Rural Occupation/Farming; Animal Welfare and Firearm Collection (All classified as genuine reasons for obtaining a firearms license in my State in Australia), what reason would a normal citizen have for buying a gun?

4a. If the reason is "protection", protection from who or what?

4b. Is the US just a generally unsafe place compared to Australia such that the average citizen feels the need to buy a gun to give them some sort of feeling of safety?

4c. Or is this just a case of people exercising their rights and a complete refusal to budge on watering down anything that would lead to one step closer to having that right taken away (even though that's one hell of a pipe dream; even those Florida school shooting survivors weren't arguing that)?

I'll answer your questions.

1) You must be 21-years of age, have no criminal record, pay for the FFL (Federal Firearms License), go through an FBI background check, be approved by ATF, have a place of business (you can do it out of your home if your state and local laws allow, but it must be a designated area of the house that is lockable), and conform to the security measures required by ATF.

1a) The background check consists of filling out the form for it. The FBI is then called (some states also have their own system), a computerized check is done to see if you are a person disqualified from purchase. You are then either cleared or denied.

2) Since the right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege in the US, you do not need a license to purchase a firearm. Some states require it, but the constitutionality of that is questionable. That said, on the Federal level no license is required because if one was, compliance with Federal law would become nonexistent and they know that from the 1994-2004 ban. However, persons who are mentally ill, a felon, convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, and non-resident aliens are all prohibited from buying a firearm.

3) There is no licensing on the Federal level, so no training requirement exists on the Federal level. States and counties have training requirements. There should be mandatory enrollment in the CMP to purchase a paramilitary arm, but there is not.

4a, 4b, 4c) Those three can all be answered together with one simple fact of being a US citizen. We are all part of the reserve militia and service is not voluntary it is mandatory. We are also expected to appear (should congress ever call us into service) with arms we own.

Militia Act of 1903:

The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sections give the Presi-
dent authority, in ease of invasion by a foreign power, rebellion,
or when the laws of the Union cannot be executed with the other
forces at his command, to call out " the militia " in such numbers
as may be necessary.* He may specify the period of service, not
exceeding nine months ; and any officer or enlisted man who fails
to present himself to the United States mustering officer, when so
called out, may be court-martialled.

* The reserve militia may also be called out under this authority.

The Act defines the reserve militia as follows:

The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia
shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and
forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized
militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.

The only thing the 1903 act did was create the "active militia/National Guard". It did not replace or repeal the 1793 act which reads.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

The 1792 Act was amended in 1862 to remove the racist language of the act and removed "white", it also removed the detailed requirements of weapons and made the requirement to be arms of the day and required equipment of the soldier. Hence the 1862 act made the arms requirements and equipment requirements "living" in that they change with the evolution of war.

The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld these acts and the intent of said acts throughout the 19th, 20th, and 21st Century in various major decisions. The problem is we have political zealots who are trashing what is left of our militia system for their own reasons. The Dems are doing it because they want total disarmament (Dianne Feinstein has been clear on this since the 1980s). The GOP is doing it to protect the corporations that make large sums of money via massive government contracts on smallarms.
So there is a movement to not just water down the ability of the reserve militia to train and meet their obligations to the Federal government, but in the case of the gun-prohibitionists, they are calling for a ban on paramilitary arms and standard capacity magazines (15-round for pistol, 20-30 round for rifle: but not more or less) which are the very arms the male citizens of these United States need to fulfill their obligation.
As I said above to the other gent/lady, we have the means to fix this problem, but neither major party is willing to do it because rebuilding the militia system, creating a Civil Defense Corps, and legalizing paramilitary arms (which are perfect for the reserve militia), is diametrically opposed to their agendas.

[Ithekro]

There was also one other reason the ERA failed in the 1970s and 1980s. Equal Rights means equal rights....meaning that women would also be required to sign up for the draft (US militia) between the ages of 18 and 45 and if Congress called, they too would be required to serve in the military as part of the National Defense.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

1) You must be 21-years of age, have no criminal record, pay for the FFL (Federal Firearms License), go through an FBI background check, be approved by ATF, have a place of business (you can do it out of your home if your state and local laws allow, but it must be a designated area of the house that is lockable), and conform to the security measures required by ATF.

1a) The background check consists of filling out the form for it. The FBI is then called (some states also have their own system), a computerized check is done to see if you are a person disqualified from purchase. You are then either cleared or denied.

One thing still have to be said about the background check, there's a few holes in it, the ''gunshow loophole'' being the most infamous one. If the one selling the gun(s)s is a private citizen ( instead of a business), there is no background check either, and the Build-it-yourself loophole also allow to bypass it.

I don't know if it is still true but, there at least one state than if the background check didn't give answer fast enough (like after 3 day) the business can take it as a pass.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

There was also one other reason the ERA failed in the 1970s and 1980s. Equal Rights means equal rights....meaning that women would also be required to sign up for the draft (US militia) between the ages of 18 and 45 and if Congress called, they too would be required to serve in the military as part of the National Defense.

I think in today's world that would be different.
I see no reason why women should not be added in a new militia act. They are citizens of these United States so they should also be forced into the militia.

Originally Posted by ganbaru

One thing still have to be said about the background check, there's a few holes in it, the ''gunshow loophole'' being the most infamous one. If the one selling the gun(s)s is a private citizen ( instead of a business), there is no background check either, and the Build-it-yourself loophole also allow to bypass it.

I don't know if it is still true but, there at least one state than if the background check didn't give answer fast enough (like after 3 day) the business can take it as a pass.

Here in Colorado ALL firearm purchases go through a background check system, and that has been that way since 1999 (because of Columbine). It has not stopped ANY mass shooting, nor lessened violent crime.
The reason is because the citizenry here has nothing but disdain for gun control. Most of the support for gun control comes from Californians who have moved here and from illegal aliens voting (according to former state Sec of State Scott Gessler).
Background checks are good for people who are already convicted of a crime, and they would be effective if mental health records were added to stop individuals who are BOTH mentally ill AND on a psychiatric drug from buying a firearm until such time that they have been off the drug(s) for whatever detox period is required (perhaps a year?).