Leaderboard

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. (paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin) Unfortunately, modern America has a very short memory. Historically, when suppressions of vices and liberties are emplaced in the name of social responsibility, dictators rise to take the reigns of the socialist movement, and tragedy ensues. On the flip side, you never hear about these mass attacks occurring in places like Switzerland, where virtually the whole population is part of the militia and owns an automatic rifle. American society doesn't need more fences to keep the wolves away, it needs more people with a sheepdog mentality, along with the abolishment of entitlement, such as "it's the federal government's responsibility to protect me from everything".

Why an innocent person should lose Liberty because some people will abuse is it is beyond me... If we called for banning alcohol because people kill others via drunk driving, the progressives would lose their minds.

While I would welcome the "common sense compromise" of trading bumpfire stocks for repeal of the Hughes Amendment and re-opening the NFA registry, there are real problems with the NFA, too...especially for military members who move state-to-state every few years and have to re-elicit CLEO approval to keep their possessions. We need to be looking at repeal/replace of the NFA, too, if we are going to kick that stone. Not that the rabid gun control people (who aren't interested in giving any ground on these "compromises") would be interested in that, anyway. I don't care about using bumpfire stocks, either -- not my cup of tea -- but no f'ing way I'm going to support some new restriction based on their use in *one* illegal event. We don't make policy that curbs Constitutional protections based on outliers and singular freak events.

There are not two classes of citizens in the United States. We are all equal...and all worthy of the same rights, privileges, and restrictions under the law. Police are not "super-citizens".

And I think duty to retreat is limited to just a few far left states. Its the exception, not the rule. There are several states that allow use of force to protect PROPERTY not just life. (I.e. I can just shoot you for trying to steal my car out of my driveway)

Amend the Constitution then. Any law the prohibits a citizen from owning "Arms" is unconstitutional.

Invalid comparison because cops have a duty to protect others. I'm pretty sure there's case law saying they don't have to park in front of your house because you think you've been threatened, but my point is that while we have a duty to retreat (depending on state) they do not. You have to take driver's ed before you can get a driver's license. Driving is not a right, but driver's ed is (or at least used to be - no idea on current HS curriculum) taught in schools. Gun ownership is a right. I'd love to see some NRA Eddie the Eagle stuff taught in public schools. You want to do something for the children? Then teach them how to use them safely.

Ok, I see the logic in your argument but let me ask you this: Should people who buy those weapons be held to the same standards as police officers? Police are trained in the use and safe handling of their weapons. (Your point about the NYPD notwithstanding) They are expected to maintain some level of proficiency. They are trained extensively in the legal ramifications of discharging a weapon in public. They undergo background checks and regular drug tests. Unless you hold people to the same standards as police, I just don't see this as a valid argument.

In my opinion, as long as you meet all the minimum requirements and don't have any waivers that need approval/disapproval then you should be good to go (after the waiting game of course). Your recruiter should be able to give you a more complete answer as they have seen your package.

My mistake - didn't mean to post in this thread in addition to the WTF thread where we've been having this discussion. To your bolded comment above - do you have any NFA items? Because I do and that's not how this works. Form 4 used to require CLEO approval for individuals but not for trusts. The requirements changed in July 2016 to require every form 4 to NOTIFY CLEO. 2 key points - now even if a trust owns the item you have to notify and second that individuals no longer require approval, just notification. For PCS you don't file a Form 4, you file a Form 5320.20 to transport NFA items across state lines. The 5320.20 takes 4-6 weeks to get back and costs you a stamp and 10 minutes to fill out. The Form 4 costs you $200 and 6-9 months (really optimistic wait time) to get back. Otherwise I agree with everything you said.

That would never happen!

To the world's best squadron. Tied only with the other U-2 locations. Ask some of your KC-10 bros if they'd ever go back.

Fixed it. Waiting on the official mockup from the Bremont, but here's a rough draft. Based on the Bremont Solo. Cost will be significantly discounted from the $3995 price for the standard watch. Includes custom 8 character engraving on caseback. 15 orders minimum for the build to start. PM me if you want the info to be on the list. Limited to current/former AFSOC only.

I am not going to try to "match wits" with the 40lb brain stems on here discussing Constitutional law, all I can share is that 1) I can kill someone with a rock, so does that mean we have to outlaw rocks? 2) we not only didn't lose rights during the eight years of the Obama administration, but actually gained them; so my prediction is that absolutely nothing in terms of firearms restrictions will come from this Vegas tragedy and rightfully so, 3) it is not surprising that the kooks are coming out of the woodwork anytime an incident involving a firearm occurs, it is what their idiotic contingents expand and actually demand, and lastly, 4) good luck trying to pull an Australia in Texas...this is our governor! We don't fuck around when it comes to our firearms, BBQ, religion or football!

One of the philosophical underpinnings of the justice system is that convicted criminals serve their debt to society by “doing time”. Thus, they should be entitled to all the rights of a citizen once they have completed that debt to society. We only have one class of citizens in the United States: there are no “super citizens” who are entitled to special rights, nor are there “sub citizens” who aren’t entitled to all of the rights of a citizen. Let’s remember that the Constitution affirms that rights aren’t granted by the government, they exist outside the existence of government. Protections in the Bill of Rights don’t grant anything to citizens, the Amendments are restrictions on government violation of existing individual rights.

Absurd, to use your words. A completely arbitrary restriction on a core Constitutionally-protected right because you *think* it should be...not because of any philosophical or legal underpinning of why, and proposed without a shred of evidence as to efficacy or specific purpose. The entire point of Constitutional protection is to put the burden of proof on the proposer of new restrictions to show specifically why those restrictions should be allowed, including proving that philosophical and legal validation and as well as efficacy of the proposal...because you don't just curb rights "to see if it works". The status quo doesn't have to defend itself. So, for anyone making these proposals, start off your discussion by making these points, rather than making the statement and demanding that others prove "why not".

But my, we’ve certainly strayed far from that initial construct and philosophical intent, haven’t we.

Regarding the discussion about "answers", remember to play chess and not checkers. The RKBA is a philosophical argument, not a policy argument. Gun control folks want to argue policy, and want to do it with absolutely no proof of efficacy of any of it. So, first, make sure you understand the philosophical foundation of why the right to keep and bear arms exists, and why it is protected in the Bill of Rights. Understand that it is rooted in the right to life, and the logical derivation of the right to self defense to protect life and property under assault. Understand further what the philosophical purpose of government is. Philosophy determines the purpose of government, and in a free liberal democracy the purpose of government is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property. Remember that people have rights and governments have powers that are granted to them by the people. It isn't the government's purpose to take care of people like a parent. Remember that living in a free society means that individuals are free to think, do, say, and possess whatever they please so long as it does not infringe on the natural, constitutional, or derived civil rights of other humans. Again, it isn't the purpose of government to tell us what we can and cannot do outside their basic charter.

What's with so many people willing to give something -- anything -- up? This is the strongest legislative position the 2A has been in for decades. I'm not voting to give *anything* up.

Eagle Driver Commemorative Watch

Guard, Reserves and Internationals purchase a slot for their folks in each training course. These spots are pre-programmed by AETC so their people make it through the pipeline with minimal downtime between courses. This saves a lot of $ with man-days, per diem and moving costs while providing the units with a predictable flow of personnel.