On 2/26/2018 8:39 AM, John H wrote:
On Monday, 26 February 2018 08:31:31 UTC-5, John H wrote:
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.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.

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.

I stand corrected: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...grow-the-army/

Something new, at least since I got out.



All branches of the military are having difficulty in recruitment of
new, qualified candidates. The main problem is that over 70 percent of
today's youth are *not* qualified or do not meet the minimum standards
for military service. Sad.

https://news.usni.org/2017/10/12/panel-pentagon-facing-future-recruiting-challenge-due-lack-candidates