On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit on
it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than what
he's been told or heard.Â* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.Â* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.

On 2/25/2018 2:08 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit
on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee
Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than
what he's been told or heard.Â* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.Â* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.


I've lost what the original proposition was but I don't disagree with you.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 14:41:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 2:08 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit
on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee
Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than
what he's been told or heard.* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.


I've lost what the original proposition was but I don't disagree with you.


I had proposed a higher age requirement, at least 21, unless the individual had an honorary
discharge DD 214.

On 2/25/2018 3:25 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 14:41:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 2:08 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit
on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee
Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than
what he's been told or heard.Â* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.Â* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.


I've lost what the original proposition was but I don't disagree with you.


I had proposed a higher age requirement, at least 21, unless the individual had an honorary
discharge DD 214.



I wonder how many service members are discharged before turning 21
anyway, but I understand your point. Military service matures most.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:34:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 3:25 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 14:41:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 2:08 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit
on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee
Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than
what he's been told or heard.* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.


I've lost what the original proposition was but I don't disagree with you.


I had proposed a higher age requirement, at least 21, unless the individual had an honorary
discharge DD 214.



I wonder how many service members are discharged before turning 21
anyway, but I understand your point. Military service matures most.


Very few, I'd reckon.

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:34:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 3:25 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 14:41:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 2:08 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit
on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee
Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than
what he's been told or heard.Â* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.Â* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.


I've lost what the original proposition was but I don't disagree with you.


I had proposed a higher age requirement, at least 21, unless the
individual had an honorary
discharge DD 214.



I wonder how many service members are discharged before turning 21
anyway, but I understand your point. Military service matures most.


Very few, I'd reckon.


Kiddy cruise. Join the navy reserves while in high school. When you
graduated, went to basic and 2 years duty. Then discharged. At least
when I was in high school.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 23:02:13 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:


I wonder how many service members are discharged before turning 21
anyway, but I understand your point. Military service matures most.


Very few, I'd reckon.


Kiddy cruise. Join the navy reserves while in high school. When you
graduated, went to basic and 2 years duty. Then discharged. At least
when I was in high school.

That was pretty much everyone who was drafted when that was a thing
and the 4 years after your 2 "in" was inactive reserve.
Unfortunately they "extended" a lot of those guys in the late 60s,
exploiting that inactive reserve clause. The guys in the grass were
usually 2 and out if they didn't re up but there were a lot of support
USAF and maybe even navy guys with critical skills who had to do the
whole 6 year nut.
I was in a 1 year reserve program that got extended by a month (13
months active duty), putting me pretty much in the same VA category as
a 2 year guy. I never used any of it.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 23:02:13 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:34:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 3:25 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 14:41:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 2:08 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit
on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee
Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than
what he's been told or heard.* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.


I've lost what the original proposition was but I don't disagree with you.


I had proposed a higher age requirement, at least 21, unless the
individual had an honorary
discharge DD 214.



I wonder how many service members are discharged before turning 21
anyway, but I understand your point. Military service matures most.


Very few, I'd reckon.


Kiddy cruise. Join the navy reserves while in high school. When you
graduated, went to basic and 2 years duty. Then discharged. At least
when I was in high school.

I don't think the Army ever had anything like that. The least time for a voluntary enlistment was
three years. For a draftee, the time was two years. But draftees weren't drafted at 18 either. I was
21 when I got my notice.

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:34:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 3:25 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 14:41:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/25/2018 2:08 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/25/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2018 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:05:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:43:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:03:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit
on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee
Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy
McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Obviously, an honorable discharge wouldn't catch all the deviants.
But how many of them used the
weapons under discussion to shoot kids in the schools under
discussion?

Well Whitman used a rifle to shoot students but it was a bolt action,
as was Oswald's., McVeigh didn't use a gun at all and racked up a much
higher death count. I am not really sure what point they are making in
an AR 15 rant. It really sounds more like my argument that banning ARs
is pretty meaningless.

Ask Harry. It was his rant against an honorable discharge.

I tend to ignore his anti military rants. I understand that if he had
served, that would be all we heard about.



It's obvious Harry knows very little about the military other than
what he's been told or heard.Â* He has already proven how easily he is
influenced by others.Â* He parrots daily the latest DNC talking points.



My point was that a honorable discharge shouldn't by itself be the
qualifier for obtaining a firearm. The discharge in the cases I cited
was not an indicator of decent behavior going forward. An age qualifier
of 21 plus a good quality background check are more significant.


I've lost what the original proposition was but I don't disagree with you.


I had proposed a higher age requirement, at least 21, unless the
individual had an honorary
discharge DD 214.



I wonder how many service members are discharged before turning 21
anyway, but I understand your point. Military service matures most.


Very few, I'd reckon.


We lost one in basic. Medical discharge. He told them about a bad
shoulder and they still enlisted him. Doing a push-up shoulder
separation.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 15:34:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I had proposed a higher age requirement, at least 21, unless the individual had an honorary
discharge DD 214.



I wonder how many service members are discharged before turning 21
anyway, but I understand your point. Military service matures most.

Anyone who signs up at 18 for a 2 year hitch (and 4 inactive). You get
your DD214 after the 2 years. I got mine after a year (+5 active
reserve) and I was only 19.