Capt Walter Miller 1162775 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The thing that gets me about this is how bound and determined some people are to allow no, none, not one, restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. One guy even said he supported that unrestricted right for “EVERYONE.” He said it twice: EVERYONE!<br /><br />Which includes people (by definition) on death row.<br /><br />People seem to be afraid of any dilution of the RKBA. I guess so that is so you can be ready to overthrow the government at a moment’s notice, or resist its depredations with your soon to be cold dead fingers.<br /><br />Those attitudes are making us less effective in our fight to keep ISIS from sending out more Farooks.<br /><br />Someone the other day touted Operation Eldorado Canyon as the way a strong president acts. I had to google that name. Turns out it was the 1986 op to kill Khaddafi by bombing him. At the time I thought, “They are finally going to some return on the F-111”, the aircraft so bad they never even gave it a name. <br /><br />But I soon recalled that of course that op DIDN’T kill Khaddafi. It did kill a toddler, a little girl. <br /><br />We all went about our business. If that toddler’s death is part of the problem we have no way of knowing or not. But lots of other innocent dead people probably are part of the problem. And the problem, to state the maybe obvious, is that people are willing to kill Americans –any Americans-- for randomly and callously condoning the killing of other people far away and then acting as if it is no big deal.<br /><br />And we are like, “They must be horrible, callous killers to shoot up a Holiday party!” And they are like: “Americans are horrible, callous killers to be using bombs and drones to kill many, many innocent people.”<br /><br />Look for more Farooks, and don’t wonder why they think it is a good idea to whack Americans. <br /><br />Walt Fighting From Weakness? 2015-12-09T10:46:04-05:00 Capt Walter Miller 1162775 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The thing that gets me about this is how bound and determined some people are to allow no, none, not one, restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. One guy even said he supported that unrestricted right for “EVERYONE.” He said it twice: EVERYONE!<br /><br />Which includes people (by definition) on death row.<br /><br />People seem to be afraid of any dilution of the RKBA. I guess so that is so you can be ready to overthrow the government at a moment’s notice, or resist its depredations with your soon to be cold dead fingers.<br /><br />Those attitudes are making us less effective in our fight to keep ISIS from sending out more Farooks.<br /><br />Someone the other day touted Operation Eldorado Canyon as the way a strong president acts. I had to google that name. Turns out it was the 1986 op to kill Khaddafi by bombing him. At the time I thought, “They are finally going to some return on the F-111”, the aircraft so bad they never even gave it a name. <br /><br />But I soon recalled that of course that op DIDN’T kill Khaddafi. It did kill a toddler, a little girl. <br /><br />We all went about our business. If that toddler’s death is part of the problem we have no way of knowing or not. But lots of other innocent dead people probably are part of the problem. And the problem, to state the maybe obvious, is that people are willing to kill Americans –any Americans-- for randomly and callously condoning the killing of other people far away and then acting as if it is no big deal.<br /><br />And we are like, “They must be horrible, callous killers to shoot up a Holiday party!” And they are like: “Americans are horrible, callous killers to be using bombs and drones to kill many, many innocent people.”<br /><br />Look for more Farooks, and don’t wonder why they think it is a good idea to whack Americans. <br /><br />Walt Fighting From Weakness? 2015-12-09T10:46:04-05:00 2015-12-09T10:46:04-05:00 LTC Stephen F. 1162783 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>To be honest I have never heard anybody say that there should be no restriction on the right to keep and bear arms <a class="dark-link bold-link" role="profile-hover" data-qtip-container="body" data-id="478331" data-source-page-controller="question_response_contents" href="/profiles/478331-capt-walter-miller">Capt Walter Miller</a>.<br />I think it is perfectly reasonable that people on the terror watch list should not be permitted to buy or own firearms. Reasonable and efficient background checks can be a good thing.<br />Hopefuly one day there will be an efficient and effective way to keep those who ignore laws in general from owning or using weapons. Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 9 at 2015 10:48 AM 2015-12-09T10:48:28-05:00 2015-12-09T10:48:28-05:00 SPC Private RallyPoint Member 1162850 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>There are nuts on both sides. Pro and anti. Regulation should be in place. Just not so much that the common citizen can't comply. Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2015 11:08 AM 2015-12-09T11:08:23-05:00 2015-12-09T11:08:23-05:00 MSgt Curtis Ellis 1162904 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Interesting. Thanks for sharing. Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Dec 9 at 2015 11:24 AM 2015-12-09T11:24:48-05:00 2015-12-09T11:24:48-05:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 1162974 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>There is unquestionably a right to bear arms in the Constitution, and two centuries of case law have crystallized what the limits of that are:<br />Violent felons can not purchase a firearm.<br />Minors can not purchase a firearm.<br />Certain firearms require additional permits, such as fully automatic weapons.<br /><br />This is all well established, and has been this way more or less unchanged since the Brady Bill regulating fully automatic rifles.<br /><br />The debate today is over moving the goalposts on those regulations, and who they would actually affect. Reasonable people are not demanding that machine guns and anti-tank missiles are a part of the 2d Amendment and that they should be available at Walmart.<br />First, proposed regulations:<br />1. The POTUS wants to see mandatory background checks and waiting periods for all purchases, including gun shows.<br />Commentary - sounds pretty reasonable to me. I can't think of anyone really negatively affected by that, except the select few that are vendors at gun shows. The exemption for person to person sales is a pretty big loophole.<br />2. POTUS wants to ban sales to people on the "no-fly" list.<br />Commentary - Sounds great, right? Except a high percentage of people on the "no-fly" list are not in any way associated with terrorism. They have the misfortune of sharing a name with a guy. Maybe they travelled to the "wrong" country. Problem is, this runs afoul of the 2d, 5th, and 14th Amendments. No person can be denied rights, privleges, or property without "Due Process" of law. The "No-fly" list is arbritrary, and limits an individual's ability to travel by a mode of transportation. In and of itself, it is in a pretty shady place, Constitutionally. The main argument against this is as stated above. <br />Secondary arguments get into why there is a 2d Amendment in the first place. If allowed to come to fruition, this ban would open the door to reclassify and expand this "no-fly" list to encompass far more than people who travel to Somalia or "like" the wrong facebook post. Don't believe it is possible? See the IRS targeting of politically disfavored groups and individuals for audits.<br /><br />Second, who it affects:<br />Making it harder to buy a gun only makes it harder for those who are law-abiding. Criminals are unaffected. Terrorists are unaffected. Just you and me.<br />If I were to read deeper into the motives of those who would further restrict gun sales, it would seem the goal is to get "military looking" weapons out of people's hands, to restrict the sale of ammunition (a very insidious way to limit people's 2d Amendment rights. Great. I have a very expensive club to bludgeon an intruder), and generally reduce the number of guns out there in circulation. Problem is, there are already tens of millions of firearms out there.<br />What has actually happened is all of this talk of restricting weapon purchases and ammunition has caused an absolute boom in sales - the opposite of what I think proponents of these restrictions want.<br /><br />Speaking for myself, current events and the political climate are making me consider purchasing a weapon for self-defense for the first time. And I feel like if I wait, I may not be able to get what I would prefer as my choice of weapon. I'm just a suburban guy that lives in a quiet neighborhood, but the world is rapidly becoming a more dangerous place, and I have a family to protect.<br />I am not a "gun nut". I am not a crazy. I am not afraid that black helicopters will swoop in and take my property. But I am a realist, and I am not alone in my reasoning. Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2015 11:49 AM 2015-12-09T11:49:23-05:00 2015-12-09T11:49:23-05:00 Sgt Nick Marshall 1163892 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><a target="_blank" href="http://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4">http://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4</a> <div class="pta-link-card answers-template-image type-youtube"> <div class="pta-link-card-video"> <iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a9UFyNy-rw4?wmode=transparent" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> </div> <div class="pta-link-card-content"> <p class="pta-link-card-title"> <a target="blank" href="http://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4">Jim Jefferies -- Gun Control (Part 2) from BARE -- Netflix Special</a> </p> <p class="pta-link-card-description">Jim Jefferies&#39; Freedumb Tour is happening now. Get tickets: http://bit.ly/Freedumb Comedian Jim Jefferies breaks down the absurdity of America&#39;s obsession wi...</p> </div> <div class="clearfix"></div> </div> Response by Sgt Nick Marshall made Dec 9 at 2015 7:40 PM 2015-12-09T19:40:10-05:00 2015-12-09T19:40:10-05:00 Sgt Nick Marshall 1163894 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><a target="_blank" href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0</a> <div class="pta-link-card answers-template-image type-youtube"> <div class="pta-link-card-video"> <iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0rR9IaXH1M0?wmode=transparent" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> </div> <div class="pta-link-card-content"> <p class="pta-link-card-title"> <a target="blank" href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0">Jim Jefferies -- Gun Control (Part 1) from BARE -- Netflix Special</a> </p> <p class="pta-link-card-description">Jim Jefferies&#39; Freedumb Tour is happening now. Get tickets: http://bit.ly/Freedumb Comedian Jim Jefferies breaks down the absurdity of America&#39;s obsession wi...</p> </div> <div class="clearfix"></div> </div> Response by Sgt Nick Marshall made Dec 9 at 2015 7:40 PM 2015-12-09T19:40:42-05:00 2015-12-09T19:40:42-05:00 SCPO Joshua I 1164191 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Qadaffi didn't cause any trouble for about three decades after El Dorado Canyon. It probably worked even better for not killing him but leaving him in power and completely out of desire to sponsor terrorism anymore. <br /><br />The right to keep and bear arms is essentially absolute in the clear words of the Constitution. You know, that document you swore to uphold and defend. Response by SCPO Joshua I made Dec 9 at 2015 9:59 PM 2015-12-09T21:59:47-05:00 2015-12-09T21:59:47-05:00 LtCol Robert Quinter 1165592 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I think you are stretching credibility connecting a domestic controversy on the right to bear arms with Farook and others of his ilk. As of today there is no evidence connecting the two. The common thread between Farook and other terrorists is their desire to kill in reaction to a call from what they consider the "real" interpretation of Muslim writings. World-wide, guns, bombs, knives motor vehicles and any other device that can be converted into a weapon has been utilized. Terrorist actions are not reactions, they are efforts to establish a caliphate which they consider the undeniable right of their religion. There are no rules in their quest. Just like the zealots of the past, anything is appropriate in their quest. Women, children, artifacts and anything else held in regard by other cultures is fair game. Their goal is to have their targets surrender what they consider their god-given rights to them. The concept of women and children first is unique to the cultures they wish to overthrow.<br />Regarding Operation Eldorado Canyon, Aardvarks (F-111s) and Intruders (A-6s) successfully attacked assigned targets in Libya in retribution for Gadaffi's direct involvement in various terroristic acts and support of various organizations such as the IRA and the Red Army Faction. Many of the civilian casualties reported were part of Gadaffi's own efforts to discredit the attack. Up to 131 casualties were claimed including the toddler you so dramatically pointed out. Said toddler was also claimed to be Gadaffi's step child. All that aside, Gadaffi and Libya greatly reduced their involvement in world affairs and he was generally unheard of after the raids until he was killed. <br />You seem to take pleasure in pointing out our acts that produced accidental deaths to give the terrorists validity. You can believe what you like, but I will trade any number of the casualties we inflicted for one hair on my granddaughter's head; and she is at risk in today's world. Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Dec 10 at 2015 1:14 PM 2015-12-10T13:14:24-05:00 2015-12-10T13:14:24-05:00 Capt Gregory Prickett 1165734 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>So many issues here to address.<br /><br />First, ISIS didn't send out Farook. He was born here in the U.S., in Illinois, and was a native U.S. citizen. Hell, his brother is entitled to be a member of RallyPoint, as a Navy veteran. ISIS just took credit after the fact, which is what they do.<br /><br />Second, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, the same as the right to free speech, the right to be free from unreasonable search, the right to the free exercise of one's religion. All of these should be evaluated under the strict scrutiny test, which means that unless the government can show a compelling interest and can use no lesser method to achieve their goal, it is unconstitutional to infringe on one of those rights. Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Dec 10 at 2015 2:10 PM 2015-12-10T14:10:41-05:00 2015-12-10T14:10:41-05:00 MSgt Tim Parkhurst 1190643 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I fail to see that you've made any reasonable connection between the gun control debate and the threat of terrorism. I am a life member of the NRA, yet I believe some basic controls are necessary, just as they are for driving a car or practicing medicine. Yet, laws intended to restrict certain categories of people from obtaining firearms will only impact people who are inclined to obey those laws. Terrorists certainly will not care about our laws, and they will undoubtedly violate a great many laws obtaining firearms from any available source to accomplish their goal. You failed to make any coherent argument for any real change. Response by MSgt Tim Parkhurst made Dec 21 at 2015 6:47 PM 2015-12-21T18:47:15-05:00 2015-12-21T18:47:15-05:00 SFC Pete Kain 1195770 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Stirring the pot again. Dang Walt what's your problem? Response by SFC Pete Kain made Dec 24 at 2015 2:03 PM 2015-12-24T14:03:11-05:00 2015-12-24T14:03:11-05:00 2015-12-09T10:46:04-05:00