doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Zumbo's comments

Quote from rabbit:
"I never hear much support for universal military service to assure that the "well-regulated" bit gets some attention. What's your take on that, JM? NRA hunter safety course enuf in your opinion?"

rabbit, before I respond, I want to be sure that I understand what you are asking. Are you asking my opinion on conscript or compulsary military service?

I think most of us have a pretty clear idea of where we are, Joe--and are glad of the fact we can own weapons that a lot of other nations prohibit.

Couple comments from past posts: Marklart, somebody suckered you into that "gun show loophole" stuff. There ain't no gun show loophole. FFL dealer sells at a gun show, he does a background check. If I (without an FFL) set up at a gun show and sell a gun, no background check, because 1) Not being a dealer, I can't do one; and 2) If we were both in my house instead of at a gun show, I could also legally sell you a gun without doing a background check. Close the "gun show loophole" and what you've done, in fact, is close the private sale loophole. Same rules apply at a gun show as apply to a dealer at his shop, or to a non-dealer selling a gun to someone at his house.

Afghanistan . . . Interestingly enough, the "we" that beat the Taliban (which did not exist until several years AFTER the Russians were driven out) and AQ consisted largely of other Afghans--who had also been fighting the Russians. Some would say that our particular allies (the Northern Alliance) were, in fact, more effective in the war against the Russians than were those Pashtun groups that received most of the American aid (which, because it was funneled through the Pakistani Intelligence Service, mostly ended up in the hands of their co-ethnic Pashtuns in the south). So this time around, we armed one bunch of Afghans (and supported them with air power) to get rid of the radical Islamists who had taken power, and their AQ allies, whom they were sheltering.

As for losing at the ballot box, the best way to do that is to drive wedges between various groups of gun owners. Hunters don't stand up for the cowboy action shooters who don't stand up for the clay target shooters who don't stand up for the long range rifle guys who don't stand up for the handgun guys. Together, although a minority, we are a large and very vocal minority. Better that than a bunch of clans fighting amongst themselves. Jack, one would think that someone of Celtic heritage would understand that you're the strongest when the clans are united. And our gun rights rest not just on some everyday federal law, but on the US Constitution--which is (on purpose) a relatively difficult document to amend. I'm not at all concerned about losing our gun rights at the ballot box. But looking at the examples of places like England and Australia, I get very worried when I see the gun grabbers doing their thing by taking away one type of gun, then another, then another. Eventually, gun owners are reduced to such a small minority that they can't withstand political assault. Let's not do the antis' work for them.

JM, "universal" implies precisely the adjectives you have substituted: conscript or compulsory. I'm not sure how the citizen soldiers would be "taught alike"--in the words of the Virginian--if this were not the case. Perhaps drill in the comfort of your own home via of the internet? Spring your trap.

jack

I have no trap to spring so relax. I wanted to be sure of what you were asking since I've never heard the term "universal" applied to military service. It's not hard to misunderstand what others are intending when dealing with written messages.

Now to your question, I have no objection to conscript military service following graduation from high school or possibly deferred until after finishing an undergraduate college degree.

Also curious why Bouvier stored his purloined Armalite with a can of 7.62mm. Did he expect the big ammo would teach the little gun a lesson?

jack

He was hoping to trade it in on an M-14 ?

I found it very inconvenient and harmful to my future educational and career plans to be conscripted "after high school" or "when undergraduate work is completed". Now that I am retired, more politically aware, and in reasonably good health, I could stand a break from garden work and the tedium of the reloader. Let's say 1967 didn't work but 2007 would be fine with me. I enjoyed it then and I would enjoy it now. In 1967, I didn't understand sustained lead. I was a "pass through" shooter. I would be a better soldier today.

Interesting post, Larry - but why did you direct some of it at me? Celtic heritage and clans have nothing to do with gun control. Besides, if standing together is the goal, we Irish are damn poor role models.

Personally, I am quite concerned about losing our gun rights at the ballot box - especially with the recent power change in Washington and the people who are behind it.

I found it inconvenient to go to college for what I could accomplish professionally without it, but that didn't change much either.

If conscript service had been the law of the land when I finished high school or college, the results would have been the same, just two or three years later.

In the end we only have two avenues of defense regardless of the threat. One our "arms". Two, our vote.

If you ever have need, you'll be damn glad you have either...