[Llarry]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

"Militia" was all able bodied (citizen) males between certain ages. The "militia" was in lieu of a standing army, which our founders detested.

Yes, and for most of the country's history we have had a standing army and the other services. If the 2A is designed to allow the citizenry to resist a tyrannical government, it is woefully out of date. That government now has armored vehicles, strike aircraft, missiles, etc., against which a citizenry with semi-auto AR-15s is basically helpless. Imagine an AC-130 gunship or A-10 Warthog orbiting over your house... 5.56mm? Pfft! Even .50 cal? Ineffective!

Our defense against a tyrannical government is the voting booth, the courts and, perhaps the last straw, the county sheriffs of the U.S.A. The weapons equation is waaay skewed to the government side. And, speaking as retired military, there's one more defense to government tyranny, though I'm unsure of how effective it would be: If the government tries to use force on its own citizens, would the military obey orders? After all, the military are citizens, too.

I circle back to the idea that in the modern context militia = military reserve components (National Guard & Reserves). Of course they should have arms, including sophisticated arms like armored vehicles, AC-130s and A-10s. For ordinary citizens, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Yes, and for most of the country's history we have had a standing army and the other services. If the 2A is designed to allow the citizenry to resist a tyrannical government, it is woefully out of date. That government now has armored vehicles, strike aircraft, missiles, etc., against which a citizenry with semi-auto AR-15s is basically helpless. Imagine an AC-130 gunship or A-10 Warthog orbiting over your house... 5.56mm? Pfft! Even .50 cal? Ineffective!

Our defense against a tyrannical government is the voting booth, the courts and, perhaps the last straw, the county sheriffs of the U.S.A. The weapons equation is waaay skewed to the government side. And, speaking as retired military, there's one more defense to government tyranny, though I'm unsure of how effective it would be: If the government tries to use force on its own citizens, would the military obey orders? After all, the military are citizens, too.

I circle back to the idea that in the modern context militia = military reserve components (National Guard & Reserves). Of course they should have arms, including sophisticated arms like armored vehicles, AC-130s and A-10s. For ordinary citizens, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.

What happens when, as is the case today, the courts are corrupt? The gummint may have better munitions, which they aren't constitutionally allowed (like that would stop them) to use on the citizenry. The military oath is to the Constitution, not the administration. The oath is to defend the Constitution against all powers, foreign & DOMESTIC. It doesn't have an expiration date either. I take my oath quite seriously.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

What happens when, as is the case today, the courts are corrupt? The gummint may have better munitions, which they aren't constitutionally allowed (like that would stop them) to use on the citizenry. The military oath is to the Constitution, not the administration. The oath is to defend the Constitution against all powers, foreign & DOMESTIC. It doesn't have an expiration date either. I take my oath quite seriously.

Concerning the oath, my belief is that your oath (you were enlisted, right?) expired upon your discharge. You certainly may yourself consider it still binding. My situation is a bit different as a retired commissioned officer; I am still an "officer of the United States" and still subject to recall to active duty by the President (yeah, right -- at 76 years of age?) and I think still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, though I would have to commit an offense on-base and directly related to the military to be actually prosecuted.

I agree that we take our oath very seriously. But my problem is that you and I interpret the 2A quite differently.

The obvious answer is to hold a constitutional convention and do a new constitution, clarifying a number of areas, among which would be the firearm issue. (An idea that I've heard is being floated in some conservative circles.) The reality is that our constitution has become a sacred document and I see no way that could really happen in real life, particularly with the massive gulf between conservative and liberal citizens. So we are left with judges whose wisdom we trust but who in reality are as imperfect as the rest of us.

Concerning corrupt courts/judges, that's what the checks and balances are about, isn't it? If one of the three branches of government turns rogue, the other two can rein it in.

It's a knotty problem, but I feel that something has to be done to reduce the uniquely American slaughter.

[///d]

Originally Posted by Llarry

It's a knotty problem, but I feel that something has to be done to reduce the uniquely American slaughter.

We need to start with addressing mental health and stop poisoning our citizens with drama and hate filled media. We need a medical system that works and isn't full of money hungry pharmaceutical companies and push over doctors.

It's not only gun violence that is high in the US, suicide has skyrocketed. Kids these days will literally lose their mind and shut down if they lose wifi. Young adults have zero coping mechanisms and little social skills because of digital connections. For example look at the thread about tipping and the entitlement in some of those stories.

You can take the gun away, but that doesn't solve the real problem at hand, it just creates more of the problem and more divide amongst our nation. I don't believe we humans are meant to be so connected at such a young age. Too much information, too much negativity and persuasion for undeveloped minds. Most adults can't process the amount of information force fed to us every day, let alone young adults and children. And with the drama of the media so much of that information is lose/lose "choose a side".

Now that I've said my bit, I will say no more.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I agree that we take our oath very seriously. But my problem is that you and I interpret the 2A quite differently.

First and foremost, you have the gratitude of a thankful citizen.

This very line is how that armed citizenry would be able to, at the very least, resist a rogue government. Not full on "WOLVERINES" but look at the social change enacted in just the last years thru "mostly peaceful" demonstrations. Now try to imagine the <insert either party here> using the military against armed citizens

And even you, trained and qualified, yet you say I can have my hunting rifle but not an AR-style gun? They shoot the same round! One looks "scary" or "war-like" and the other has a smooth wooden stock. Both a re semi-auto, both used INAPROPRIATELY would kill 10s or 100s of people.

So what is the common denominator in these mass shootings? A messed-up human who didn't get the attention society needed to give him. The gun didn't shoot anybody.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Yes, and for most of the country's history we have had a standing army and the other services. If the 2A is designed to allow the citizenry to resist a tyrannical government, it is woefully out of date. That government now has armored vehicles, strike aircraft, missiles, etc., against which a citizenry with semi-auto AR-15s is basically helpless. Imagine an AC-130 gunship or A-10 Warthog orbiting over your house... 5.56mm? Pfft! Even .50 cal? Ineffective!

Our defense against a tyrannical government is the voting booth, the courts and, perhaps the last straw, the county sheriffs of the U.S.A. The weapons equation is waaay skewed to the government side. And, speaking as retired military, there's one more defense to government tyranny, though I'm unsure of how effective it would be: If the government tries to use force on its own citizens, would the military obey orders? After all, the military are citizens, too.

I circle back to the idea that in the modern context militia = military reserve components (National Guard & Reserves). Of course they should have arms, including sophisticated arms like armored vehicles, AC-130s and A-10s. For ordinary citizens, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.

OK, for the sake of argument let's assume civilian ownership of rifles like AK47s and AR15s would be inadequate against a modern military. Not agreeing with this assumption (see Vietnam) but let us just work within that framework.

If the 2nd A is out of date and no longer workable and people have decided they want to ban the type of weapons the 2nd A intended the people to own, do the right thing. Amend the constitution. The mechanism is in place to change it. There is a legitimate path. If the majority of Americans and their elected representatives actually agree and go down this road I'll accept it. The constitution is the law of the land and if it no longer defines a limit to the government on controlling citizen ownership of military capable rifles so be it.

But the current laws being passed by the DEM politicians are both meaningless in terms of making us safer AND in many cases violate our rights. And I don't know about you but the idea they can violate one rght means what's next? Freedom of speech? Such as controlling public social media squashing questions regarding Covid? This is a bad road we tread.

[Nuckle]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

I got a Rem .22 for Christmas when I was 12.
I got a Mossberg 500 combo 12 when I turned 18.

What are the chances those serial numbers were kept somewhere the gov could access and then know I have weapons, were 2A removed?

RElated, when we cleaned out the closet this weekend in anticipation of demolition, I found an un-opened 100 box of shells. Shelf life?

That paperwork could still be stored at the gun store they were purchased from but that would be the only place.

If the shells show no sign of corrosion then they should be fine.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by Nuckle

That paperwork could still be stored at the gun store they were purchased from but that would be the only place.

If the shells show no sign of corrosion then they should be fine.

Yeah but how many gun stores will have an unfortunate fire losing all their records if government suddenly starts asking for everyone on file? My guess is a lot.

[Nuckle]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

Yeah but how many gun stores will have an unfortunate fire losing all their records if government suddenly starts asking for everyone on file? My guess is a lot.

My hope is that all will. I am not sure how long they are required to hold them.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Nuckle

That paperwork could still be stored at the gun store they were purchased from but that would be the only place.

Not sure if Big-5 exists any more in Ventura mall

[chowser51]

FFLs shall retain each ATF Form 4473 for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by chowser51

FFLs shall retain each ATF Form 4473 for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition.

Problem I have is owning NFA. They know I have those and if the govt does get horsey they will search the entire house. I have no doubts I'll be an early searchee.

[chowser51]

I already know I'm hosed. I just got my FFL01 last year. I'm also up to 26 tax stamps.

[Shiza]

Originally Posted by chowser51

I already know I'm hosed. I just got my FFL01 last year. I'm also up to 26 tax stamps.

Might as well do your SOT 2 next, then you can have a ton of fun.

[Torgus]

Anyone use one of these: https://magpul.com/bad-lever-battery...obal_color=118

Thoughts?

[Shiza]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Anyone use one of these: https://magpul.com/bad-lever-battery...obal_color=118

Thoughts?

I use them on all my builds and have no complaints

[Innovade]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Anyone use one of these: https://magpul.com/bad-lever-battery...obal_color=118

Thoughts?

It rattles a lot. I prefer ambi lowers instead. All of my lowers are ADM.

[Shiza]

Originally Posted by Innovade

It rattles a lot. I prefer ambi lowers instead. All of my lowers are ADM.

Interesting, mine don't rattle at all. But I agree a full ambi lower is always a better option. If you're starting from scratch the LWRCI ambi lower is my favorite.

[EezyBeezy]

Magpul BADs are a go for me, no issues here.

[Hardeight27]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

Yeah but how many gun stores will have an unfortunate fire losing all their records if government suddenly starts asking for everyone on file? My guess is a lot.

07 FFL here.
We have to keep 4473's for 20 years on sales and transfers.

The thing is, it doesn't matter.

After it leaves our hands, you are free to do what you want with it.
You could give it to your nephew, sell it to a co-worker or use if for a boat anchor. As long as your initial intent wasn't for a straw purchase, FFL doesn't care what happens to it after it leaves the store.

Speaking from experience having been contacted for traces before, they ask who and when about the transaction and they are off to the next stop.

As a civilian, as long as it isn't an NFA item, you can say I lost that gun yesterday and they can't really do much from that point on.

[Suds]

So how does the online gun transfer we have here in Texas, I assume that is a government site? So the government probably tracks purchases? I believe it was the Miranda form, or Brady act.

[Donatello.]

I now have a new backup EDC...XD-M Elite. Selling my Canik TP9 Elite SC. Only because I shoot the XD better. I still think I should have kepy my last XD9SC and this reinforces that.

Also selling my 1301 Tactical.

Recently picked up a Taurus G2C at a LGS (Impulse buy b/c I love my TX22). It shot well and then I put it up for sale because I really have no use for it, but pulled the ads shortly after because it's so little money that I'm better off keeping it & finding a use for it instead.