Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71

Thread: military base carry debate

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    goldsboro, north carolina
    Posts
    46

    military base carry debate

    interesting debate i saw on another site

    http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/s...oncealed-Carry

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by diablos30 View Post
    interesting debate i saw on another site
    I guess it's "interesting" to see how readily members of the armed forces are to surrender their RKBA. It's also "interesting" to see how few of them seem to understand why they are not allowed/permitted/required to carry their duty firearm everywhere they go on base.

    There is no question that, paradoxial as it may seem, one is required to give up many rights when serving in the armed forces. However, the attitude of active duty folks that they and their brothers/sisters in arms are inherently untrustworthy seems to bother "us" more than it does "them". That they see us civillians as inherently untrustworthy is also "interesting".

    The real question is: what will all this "interest" give us in the end?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    The one talking about fort hood made me blink. I another ft hood happens you can stop it well before police can respond. The sad thing is these same people will get deployed and be issued arms to carry all the time and that won't bother them.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    goldsboro, north carolina
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I guess it's "interesting" to see how readily members of the armed forces are to surrender their RKBA. It's also "interesting" to see how few of them seem to understand why they are not allowed/permitted/required to carry their duty firearm everywhere they go on base.

    There is no question that, paradoxial as it may seem, one is required to give up many rights when serving in the armed forces. However, the attitude of active duty folks that they and their brothers/sisters in arms are inherently untrustworthy seems to bother "us" more than it does "them". That they see us civillians as inherently untrustworthy is also "interesting".

    The real question is: what will all this "interest" give us in the end?

    stay safe.
    i found it sad that they are so willing to give up the rights that they are sworn to defend and also they find us so untrustworthy. one other thing that got me was the debate about the lack of training.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Small Arms Instructor/Range Master in my Navy days, a high percentage of folks who got 'qualified' while in, should not be allowed to carry, let alone own, after they got out.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member ncwabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    rural religious usa
    Posts
    670

    query

    when i have personally asked AF security senior NCOs what is the specific federal statute which prohibits non-security personnel from carrying on federal installations, they shrug and say they will get back to me. These good folk do not even hesitate to state the requirement comes from a service unique AFI/policy and always state is it a federal mandate.

    i have attempted to search the Federal Statues w/o success but i do not believe i am putting in the right words for the search do delinate anything of substance...

    thoughts on where i can locate the specific statues so i might read up on them?

    wabbit

    ps i am also pinging the original OPs cite to see if someone out there knows the answer to this query.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by ncwabbit View Post

    i have attempted to search the Federal Statues w/o success but i do not believe i am putting in the right words for the search do delinate anything of substance...

    thoughts on where i can locate the specific statues so i might read up on them?
    Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
    Sec. 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

    (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

    (c) A person who kills or attempts to kill any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.

    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to:

    (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

    (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law;or

    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.


    (e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

    (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph(1) or (2) of subsection (d).

    (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.

    (g) As used in this section:

    (1) The term "Federal facility" means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

    (2) The term "dangerous weapon" means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.

    (3) The term "Federal court facility" means the courtroom, judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

    (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection(a) or (e), as the case may be.

    You will NOT carry a gun, you will NOT defend yourself on base, you will NOT carry a gun to and from work or any stops during the work day. If you're out on lunch off base and you and your comrades are targets because of your uniform - TOUGH LUCK. The government would rather see your child grow up with out a father than have you carry a gun to and from work for lawful self defense off base. PERIOD This will NEVER change.

    You can carry a gun to kill people to defend your government's interests, but you better not carry a gun while driving home so your family can have a daddy growing up.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 02-08-2012 at 05:39 PM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
    Sec. 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities



    You will NOT carry a gun, you will NOT defend yourself on base, you will NOT carry a gun to and from work or any stops during the work day. If you're out on lunch off base and you and your comrades are targets because of your uniform - TOUGH LUCK. The government would rather see your child grow up with out a father than have you carry a gun to and from work for lawful self defense off base. PERIOD This will NEVER change.

    You can carry a gun to kill people to defend your government's interests, but you better not carry a gun while driving home so your family can have a daddy growing up.
    What about the bolded part that lists the exemption for "other lawful activity"? Last I checked self defense was lawful.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Ya ever stop and think that military 'leaders' kind of have a clue as to the average enlisted person's temperament and such. I'm not necessarily stating that policies that prohibit carry may not have a small, very small, element of anti-gun in them, but it may be more of mitigating potential problems due to the wide variety of backgrounds that the military has to deal with. Kind of difficult to figure out who is/would be a responsible carrier, so, just make it easy, nobody gets to carry except when their job requires them to carry. No going to the club and knocking back a few frost friendlies while on duty sort of thing.

    Ft. Hood remains the rare, very rare, exception.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Small Arms Instructor/Range Master in my Navy days, a high percentage of folks who got 'qualified' while in, should not be allowed to carry, let alone own, after they got out.
    Many of us were awkward with weapons. No way was I responsible enough to carry when I was in.

    I will say though that the safety aspect was drilled in quite nicely.


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.919543,-77.153656
    "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

  11. #11
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    So the Personnel Reliability Program was good enough for special weapons but not small arms? Either we are equal or we are not.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Ya ever stop and think that military 'leaders' kind of have a clue as to the average enlisted person's temperament and such. I'm not necessarily stating that policies that prohibit carry may not have a small, very small, element of anti-gun in them, but it may be more of mitigating potential problems due to the wide variety of backgrounds that the military has to deal with.
    > as if the base doesn't already have 18 year old kids walking around with grenade launchers (MPs)
    > as if this isn't the MILITARY and guns isn't a part of 'what we do'
    > as if random people from random career fields aren't pulled out of their duty to work security armed with M16s and M9s
    > as if we aren't (did I say this already?) the ARMED FORCES
    ^ If this was the case then sure, maybe everyone shouldn't carry. BUT WE'RE THE "ARMED" FORCES yet we can't be ARMED to defend ourselves, not even driving to and from work. While at the same time the 18 year old that scored the lowest on his ASVAB and got kicked back from his original career field is walking up and down the flight line with a M4M203

    "Potential problems" is a bull crap excuse. If you can't be trusted to be ARMED then you shouldn't have been allowed into the ARMED forces. Period. For god's sake, we work around fighter jets, bombers, bombs and missiles themselves, but I can't have a gun in my car when I drive home because there could be a POTENTIAL problem on base? lolwut?



    Ft. Hood remains the rare, very rare, exception.
    Well although it is very RARE - it sure happened. Didn't a fellow soldier throw a hand grenade into a tent full of soldiers in the beginning of this War on Terror? (not saying handguns on homestation would have prevented this, but I'm pointing out the threat from fellow servicemen) What about the armed robberies on military posts? In 2010 one person was SHOT in an ARMED robery on Ft. Carson. There is still crime happening on military installations.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 02-09-2012 at 10:58 AM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by ncwabbit View Post
    i have attempted to search the Federal Statues w/o success but i do not believe i am putting in the right words for the search do delinate anything of substance...

    thoughts on where i can locate the specific statues so i might read up on them?
    Another thing to note- The authority for installation commanders to suspend the 2nd Amendment is a BIG stretch. They have this 'authority' to suspend the 2nd Amendment because of the Internal Security ACT of 1950. This bill was vetoed by President Truman as a "mockery of the bill of rights" and "a long step towards totalitarianism." The veto was over rid, by you guessed it, a Democrat controlled congress. The Internal Security ACT of 1950 (50 USC 797) is cited in regulations for the Army and Air Force as the Installation Commander's authorty to control Privately Owned Weapons (POWs).

    Do some googling for more information on it.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    There are a great many service members who are very rarely, if ever, required to be armed to perform their duties after basic training. Not saying I agree with the policy, but hey, what are you gunna spend your time getting changed? To me, this issue is a non-issue for the 200 million plus folks who should be worrying about their 2A right who are not in the military.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Another thing to note- The authority for installation commanders to suspend the 2nd Amendment is a BIG stretch. They have this 'authority' to suspend the 2nd Amendment because of the Internal Security ACT of 1950. This bill was vetoed by President Truman as a "mockery of the bill of rights" and "a long step towards totalitarianism." The veto was over rid, by you guessed it, a Democrat controlled congress. The Internal Security ACT of 1950 (50 USC 797) is cited in regulations for the Army and Air Force as the Installation Commander's authorty to control Privately Owned Weapons (POWs).

    Do some googling for more information on it.
    Yes, I recall The Commanding General of the Army in Alaska instituted such policy a number of years back. Under his command you were not even allowed to carry off base concealed , off duty, on your time in civies.

    I don't know if the order is still standing?
    Last edited by jbone; 02-09-2012 at 01:52 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    It makes me sad that so many military members feel that the ARMED Forces can't be trusted and thus should be unarmed while on a base. I mean these are people who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, then turn around and support it's restriction. Especially those that aren't even willing to think about those who have a CCW permit (not that I think a CCW permit should be required to carry, simply that by not allowing those who have shown they can carry off-base to carry on-base they are EXTREMELY close-minded and apparently think we would become idiots by simply driving through the gates). And for me, I don't want to carry while on base because I expect to need it on base (yes crime still happens on base, but it's almost never the type that would require a gun to defend one's self), it's because I want to be armed when I leave the base. The fact that it would allow me to defend myself if another Ft Hood event happened is a bonus, it simply isn't my primary concern.

    Oh and the obligatory "it's my right" bit.

  17. #17
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    So y'all have already forgotten Major Nidal Malik Hassan?

    Y'all really must study the plausibility of unique events to decide if he is the only such one.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    So y'all have already forgotten Major Nidal Malik Hassan?

    Y'all really must study the plausibility of unique events to decide if he is the only such one.
    I'm just curious, but does anyone know when the mass-shooting on a base was before this? I agree in being prepared for these types of events and allowing the armed forces to carry on base should they choose (allowing the carry of non-prior military civilians to carry on-base would be a sticky subject for me given that the base is still a sensitive area with controlled entry), but the reason I ask is because I don't really know of any other shootings like this. And if these cases or really any cases of murder (not including the family murders or murder-suicide that occasionally happen in on-base houses) are excessively rare, then it makes it that much easier for antis to make the case for no weapons for "safety" reasons.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Military installations are replete with "buildings where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties", and therefore meet the USC definition of a "Federal facility". What I have some difficulty with, is determining what there is to be lawfully "hunting" ( re: (d)(3) )in those buildings? Apparently, although not specifically stated as such, a Federal facility must include all the property upon which the buildings sit as well. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The military can limit, restrict, infringe upon your rights while you serve. That 'maintaining good order and discipline' thing. This is not about our right(s) so much as it is about the military, a separate and distinctly unique 'society' within the USA. SCOTUS has recognized and affirmed this 'uniqueness'.

    Of the original 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) the military can legally infringe, in one form or another, and to a certain extent, upon your 1st, 2nd, 4th, some of your 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th enumerated rights. And there is not a darn thing anyone can do about it today and for the foreseeable future. I'll leave it to you former military folks to recall when the military did the infringing, because they did whether you noticed it or not.

    Why we here on OCDO focus on the 2nd of the original 10 and not every other instance of infringement of the others, by the military, is perplexing to say the least.

    But, we all have a right to be inconsistent, anytime we choose.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    You are forgetting about military spouses which I was one for awhile after I got out. You signed up to serve you are stuck with it but if you are a spouse living on base you are restricted as well.

  22. #22
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Ya ever stop and think that military 'leaders' kind of have a clue as to the average enlisted person's temperament and such. I'm not necessarily stating that policies that prohibit carry may not have a small, very small, element of anti-gun in them, but it may be more of mitigating potential problems due to the wide variety of backgrounds that the military has to deal with. Kind of difficult to figure out who is/would be a responsible carrier, so, just make it easy, nobody gets to carry except when their job requires them to carry. No going to the club and knocking back a few frost friendlies while on duty sort of thing.

    Ft. Hood remains the rare, very rare, exception.
    Quite frankly, I would be far more concerned about the average commissioned officer's temperament and such. I trusted my young enlisted men and women a whole lot more than I trusted the majority of the officers (and warrant officers) I knew. One of the officers I knew had the annoying habit of putting on a "cute little girl" act (female officer) when speaking to senior enlisted. This West Point graduate is, the last time I looked, a lieutenant colonel and still doesn't have a clue.

    On top of that, I, and most other senior NCOs (not the "lifer" sergeants), trained our soldiers. One of the things we trained was small arms marksmanship with an additional emphasis on safety.

    I know a senior NCO on duty right now who assures me that the NCOs of the Army, and I would suspect of the other services, still actively train their soldiers in all of the soldier skills that I worked on.

    For what it is worth, I am much more inclined to believe it is the Nervous Nellie civilians who pushed the "No Guns on Base" business than the military leadership.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Quite frankly, I would be far more concerned about the average commissioned officer's temperament and such.
    I completely agree with you, SFC! To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a scientific study done, so there are no statistics to quote. But, my 20+ years of experience in the military makes be believe that, on a per capita basis, the average junior officer is no better emotionally balanced than is a slick sleeve enlisted person. My personal belief is that the enlisted man will mature more rapidly, because the enlisted are charged with the hands-on responsiblity to schedule, assemble, inspect, maintain and repair mission essential equipment. They are also responsible for the hands-on logistics involved in the scheduling, loading, transport and issuance of that equipment - as well as support equipment and supplies. The officer corps is in-place primarily for "management" and "span of control". Who actually makes the military function? The enlisted Senior NCO, and his subordinates.

    But, the real issue, as stated by the OP, is "temperament". I would be every bit as comfortable, if not more so, around armed junior enlisted personnel as I would junior officers. Enlisted don't seem to be as likely to 'throw a fit' when things don't go the way they planned. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The military can limit, restrict, infringe upon your rights while you serve. That 'maintaining good order and discipline' thing. This is not about our right(s) so much as it is about the military, a separate and distinctly unique 'society' within the USA. SCOTUS has recognized and affirmed this 'uniqueness'.

    Of the original 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) the military can legally infringe, in one form or another, and to a certain extent, upon your 1st, 2nd, 4th, some of your 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th enumerated rights. And there is not a darn thing anyone can do about it today and for the foreseeable future. I'll leave it to you former military folks to recall when the military did the infringing, because they did whether you noticed it or not.

    Why we here on OCDO focus on the 2nd of the original 10 and not every other instance of infringement of the others, by the military, is perplexing to say the least.

    But, we all have a right to be inconsistent, anytime we choose.
    That whole "maintaining good order and discipline" thing is the commerce clause of the military. They don't even have to have a reason for how it applies. Hell the whole thing about having to register guns that were offbase with the armory was done via the "good order and discipline" bit. Luckily congress stepped in for that one, but generally you're stuck dealing with it.

    Also the fact that this is a 2A board probably has something to do with the focus on 2A infringements. Especially when the arguements for those infringements don't hold water.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    That whole "maintaining good order and discipline" thing is the commerce clause of the military. They don't even have to have a reason for how it applies. Hell the whole thing about having to register guns that were offbase with the armory was done via the "good order and discipline" bit. Luckily congress stepped in for that one, but generally you're stuck dealing with it.

    Also the fact that this is a 2A board probably has something to do with the focus on 2A infringements. Especially when the arguements for those infringements don't hold water.
    Some of the founders, even warned against giving the federal government control of the militia because if all able bodied males were in the militia then regulating the militia was regulating the populace and could be used to do anything. Very similar to the warnings about the commerce clause.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •