Gun Control, FOR or AGAINST? Thoughts?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:04:22 -0500

This is purely for my curiosity. I know since this is a military site, most people on here are against strict gun control, but I am interested in hearing the thoughts of other service members on this subject.<div><br></div><div>So if you would please,</div><div>State if you are FOR or AGAINST gun control,</div><div>why you think we should or should not have stricter gun law,</div><div>and any other thoughts concerning the topic.</div><div><br></div><div>(this is not to start an argument or anything as it surely has the ability to. I just want to see an honest debate and/or collaboration of ideas on the matter)</div>

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Dec 17 at 2013 4:22 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:22:04 -0500

I think this is a good topic to talk about, I'm just not sure if it's good for this forum. I think it will be counterproductive and nothing really will come out of it to benefit anyone.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 4:59 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:59:06 -0500

Against

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Dec 17 at 2013 5:17 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:17:47 -0500

For.
Everyone should receive mandatory firearms training between 15 and 16 and receives a license to carry upon graduation from High School, that registers them with the Selective Service and the National Guard of their state. Also, additional training with a period of OJT volunteer work allows a person to be deputized in a state of emergency and placed under the command of Local Sheriffs.
Every household is mandated to own a 7.62 NATO Rifle

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 5:20 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:20:25 -0500

<p>I personally do not own a "Gun" however I've always wanted to have my own M4. As far as gun control? Wow, hell yeah we need gun control. Lets just look at this for example: <img width="358" height="202" title="Gun-related homicide" class=" " alt="homocides g8 countries 640x360 wmain US Gun Homicide Rate Higher Than Other Developed Countries" src="http://abcnews.go.com/images/International/homocides_g8_countries_640x360_wmain.jpg"></p><p> </p><p> </p>

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 9:22 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 21:22:39 -0500

It's not so much gun control we need but gun education. I am not talking about how we use them as much as how they are stored. Gun control lobbyists insist that the more guns out there the more they will end up in the wrong hands. If you have them just lying around your house or in a glass case and not in a gun safe then what happens when someone breaks in. Instant criminal with a gun now.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Dec 17 at 2013 9:28 PM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 21:28:44 -0500

The country needs to find a middle ground between "gun control" and "gun liberty".

To me, this looks like a system where, yes, people have the right to own and possess firearms - provided that in order to take them out in public, they can show that they have received the proper training and qualifications on the type of weapon they are wielding.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 18 at 2013 6:53 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 06:53:34 -0500

For... 

Response by SSG Ronald Limbaugh made Dec 18 at 2013 11:03 AM

SSG Ronald Limbaugh — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:03:51 -0500

Absolutely against any further gun "control". The government needs to find a way to enforce the laws that are already on the books, rather than legislating our rights away. I do believe that the 2nd Amendment is meant to provide the right to bear arms to all citizens, rather than to militia members only. We do need a middle ground, but it needs to allow the law-abiding citizens the opportunity to choose for themselves as to whether or not they own a gun. I think everyone should be required to attend firearms training and education, whether they wish to own a gun or not.

Just my thoughts...

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Dec 18 at 2013 12:05 PM

SPC Christopher Morehouse — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:05:06 -0500

Against. Why? I'm glad you asked.

Mostly, because the very institution of pretty much every gun legislation ever written has been a run around on our constitution, and erosion of our liberties. How? Well because the constitution says, very very very clearly (unless you want to debate the definition of "Shall Not", which I guess we might need to since at some point we had to debate the definition of "is") that congress CAN NOT regulate the right of citizens to arm themselves. Yet they did, and do, anyway. Why? Because enough people think that they should to get away with it, BUT, and here is the key important and overwhelming reason I do not support gun control, not enough people do to have a chance of CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION. So what do we do? We ignore it, a little at a time. I hate this more than anything. There is a system in place to make changes to the powers of the government and the freedoms of the people, but this process is often ignored because it was made intentionally difficult.

So frankly, I don't care who thinks automatic weapons should be outlawed (I don't), or that magazines should be limited to 30, 10, or 7 (Stupid NY) rounds (again seems silly to me). But to make these laws, STEP 1 should have been giving Congress (or the States for that matter) the power to institute such regulations. But they don't, legally, have that power. That fact has just been conveniently ignored for the past lifetime.

Also, I liked my SAW and I want another one.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2013 12:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:21:30 -0500

Against: The people who go around shooting people are not law abiding citizens in the first place so what good would creating more laws for them to break to do stem gun violence? None at all, that's what. What I see as the problem with crime in general is the court system. It needs an overhaul badly. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for due process and appeals and what have you. I am not for spending years and millions at it though. I think that if convicted and you appeal, and the appellate court upholds the conviction, you're done. Off to jail or death row you go. As for death row, years waiting to have your sentence carried out? No way. If you get there, you're gone within 30 days. Harsh I know, but hey, you should have thought about that before you committed the crime. Which brings me to prisons. For pete's sake folks, make the prisons actually LOOK, FEEL and ACT like a prison and not some 5 star country club. Prisoners are there for PUNISHMENT not a vacation. If you have no real consequences to deter a specific action, that action is going to continue, period. If you want it to stop you have to set conditions to make it stop and catering to criminals isn't the way. I also feel that once a criminal does his/her time, they should be left alone until they give a reason not to. Once your time is done, you've paid your debt and should be allowed to start your life anew without the fear of discrimination because you were jailed. Just my own thoughts, but the bottom line is criminals, those who habitually break laws, are the TYPICAL perpetrator of gun violence, more laws won't solve the problem. Stiffer penalties, that are actually carried out, will.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Dec 18 at 2013 12:44 PM

SPC Christopher Morehouse — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:44:01 -0500

I have all the gun control I need right between my thumb and middle finger.

Response by SPC David Wyckoff made Dec 18 at 2013 12:49 PM

SPC David Wyckoff — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:49:23 -0500

Against.

Since others have adequately addressed the Constitution and its wording I will skip right by that and go to personal experiences.
While I admit my childhood, to include my primary and secondary education, is a little atypical; I don't think it is so much so that it can't be relatable to others.
I was born in the PSRK (People's Socialist Republic of Kalifornia) but only because my mother didn't trust the doctors in Fairbanks, Alaska in 19brmmph. So I was raised in Alaska. I mean rural Alaska, not Girdwood or some place around Anchorage posing as Alaska in the postcards.
From the time I could understand I was trained to use and care for firearms. They weren't a big deal. They had no mystery, no sex appeal. Guns were tools in my family. We hunted and trapped with them. Pop taught me the reason we were allowed to have firearms and why it was necessary to maintain them in our household. Guns were actually not uncommon in schools. No, no one carried them on their hip everyday...well that I know of. But in the 4th grade I recieved my Hunter's Safety training as a part of our P.E. cirriculum. Peterson Elementary School, Kodiak Alaska. Taught by Jack King, hunting and fishing guide for Kodiak Browns. I did many things in that class to include dime and washer drills. Remember those?
On my sixteenth birthday my parents gave me a Ruger .44 mag carbine. Still have it. I took it to school and showed all my friends. No one even blinked. In fact the principal wanted to borrow it for black bear season.
I went on to teach my three kids the exact same way I was taught and I am also teaching my two grandkids as well. I had not ND's by my kids. They never played with them. So it can be accomplished.
I pontificated about all that stuff to say this.

Education is the key. Yes, gun safety education...but also education about the Constitution, about personal responsibility and about right and wrong.
No we don't need more gun control. We need more parent control, more control on enforcing the criminal laws concerning guns and ultimately, we need more self control.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Dec 18 at 2013 3:27 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:27:01 -0500

<p>Grrr, ok fine you win, I'll bite.  So here's my take on gun control.  If people were running around randomly punching people in the face (sound familiar) would we say we need fist control?  Some of these people have died too.</p><p>We have to learn to accept that in our society there are bad people and they are going to do bad things.  The hardest thing to accept is unless you have them in prison you cant control anything that they do.</p><p>We just have to learn and prepare to defend ourselves when these things happen.  Weep for those who we lost, learn from what happened, and try to prevent it again.  A new peice of paper (law) will not change anyone from doing bad.  They are already breaking the law to begin with.  </p><p>Its like saying Im going to lower the speed limit because people keep speeding.  People will still speed.  You just have to deal with it.</p>

Response by CMC Robert Young made Dec 18 at 2013 5:16 PM

CMC Robert Young — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:16:27 -0500

<p>Gun control is a bad idea in every sense of the word. The 2nd Amendment is intended to protect us from government abuses. We fought a war to liberate ourselves from an oppressive regime with the weapons we had at hand. A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject. A cursory review of history proves that every time. Control the media, and eliminate any method by which the citizen might defend themselves, and you then control the world.</p><p><br></p><p>Gun control is an idea advanced by people who do not recognize or acknowledge personal responsibility. It places the focus on a physical object as opposed to the individual person using the object. There are quite literally thousands of laws passed by local, county, state and federal governments regulating firearms. If we enforced those, the need for more laws becomes moot. Historically (a review of DOJ records over the last couple of generations will show) more lawfully owned guns prevent or halt unlawful acts than do active police intervention. Eliminate those legal guns, and then criminals will be the only people with guns leaving the "law abiding" at their mercy.</p><p><br></p><p>Additionally, statistically people die in car crashes at least as often as gunshot wounds yet there is no lobby to outlaw cars (think DUI/DWI, states without helmet requirements for motorcycles, people who don't wear seatbelts, texting & driving, etc.), or limited the number of cars a citizen can own. Likewise, some recent studies indicate that medical mistakes kill an unacceptably significant number of people but despite the debacle that is Obama Care, nobody wants doctors/healthcare outlawed. There are any number of other examples available to anybody willing to look beyond the emotion attached to the idea of gun control.</p><p><br></p><p>Controlling guns is not the problem. Controlling criminals or those with mental health issues is.</p>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2013 5:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:17:44 -0500

wow , im getting slammed here lol

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Dec 18 at 2013 5:20 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:20:00 -0500

Laws dont prevent things, they punish things.

Response by SSG Noah Grove made Dec 18 at 2013 6:20 PM

SSG Noah Grove — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:20:06 -0500

so the six Nations that prohibit private ownership have less gun crime? I However, don't think ownership should be illegal, (I own three rifles, two handguns and a shotgun), but I also don't think they should be as deregulated as they are. We seriously have an issue in this country with the wrong people getting their hands on guns. I don't know what the solution should be, but we need some sort of standards and requirements.

Response by SSG Laureano Pabon made Dec 18 at 2013 7:59 PM

SSG Laureano Pabon — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:59:23 -0500

I'm not against gun control until things like this happen.

These weapons fall in the wrong hands and its the innocent little ones that pay the price.

This is one topic of many, even here in NYC we had a child killed on a dry run by some moron(s). I can not image what these parents must have thought, much worse me a father myself.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/children-guns-home-investigation-newtown

No, NRA, armed patrols won't help: Most child gun deaths happen at home.

The NRA says arming adults will make kids safer. Our investigation shows why that's dead wrong.

Response by SFC James Baber made Dec 18 at 2013 8:23 PM

SFC James Baber — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:23:39 -0500

Without going into the long drawn out political or personal agenda, I will just say I am against, it is one of my constitutional rights to bear arms, and until the constitution changes that right, which it never will, I will have the right to own a gun and defend myself and my family if the need should arise. Point blank, cut and dried. No president shall ever have the right or power to take that from me.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2013 11:59 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 23:59:10 -0500

If lives are so important for gun control, I ask you to join me in banning alcohol.  According to the CDC there are about 32,000 deaths caused by firearms (includes crime, suicide, accidents, etc...) but over 80,000 deaths caused by alcohol each year.  There are over 10,000 deaths from alcohol impaired automobile accidents alone.<div><br></div><div>The economic cost of excessive alcohol use is almost a quarter of a trillion dollars annually.<div><br></div><div>Sources:<br></div></div><div><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm</a><br></div><div><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html">http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html</a><br></div><div><br></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.cdc.gov/TemplatePackage/images/cdcHeaderLogo.gif"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html">CDC - Impaired Driving Facts - Motor Vehicle Safety - Injury Center</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes.1  The annual cost of alcohol-relate...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.cdc.gov/TemplatePackage/images/cdcHeaderLogo.gif"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm">CDC - Fact Sheets-Alcohol Use And Health - Alcohol</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">There are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.1 This makes excessive alcohol use the 3r d leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the ...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2013 12:33 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:33:39 -0500

To keep things clear, I oppose all gun control laws.

Actions that violate the rights of others should be illegal, not items.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2013 7:53 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:53:36 -0500

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Any questions?

Response by SSG Laureano Pabon made Dec 23 at 2013 9:08 PM

SSG Laureano Pabon — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:08:09 -0500

PFC R.

I thought I put this here for you and others to see. lol

http://wtfleak.com/this-is-what-happens-when-you-give-a-gun-to-a-monkey/

This Is What Happens When You Give A Gun To A Monkey

Click here to watch this video and write a comment

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made Dec 23 at 2013 11:52 PM

PO2 Pete Haga — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:52:23 -0500

I BELIVE STRONGLY IN THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS I WAS RASIED IN A FAMILY OF HUNTERS AND HAD MY FIRST 410 DOUBLE BARREL OVER UNDER RABBIT AND SQURIAL GUN WHEN I WAS 12. I GAVE IT TO MY SON WHEN HE TURNED 12 AND TAUGHT HIM HOW TO USE IT AS A MEANS TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE AND FOR PERSONEL SAFETY. IT IS ALL IN THE EDUCATION THE PEOPLE USING GUNS TO ROB OR KILL OR IN GANGS HAVE NO TRAINING AND GET THEM ON THE STREET NOT AT HOME OR THEY STILL THEM FROM THEIR PARENTS. (A FRIEND OF MINE SENT ME A POST ON FACEBOOK THAT I LIKED IT WAS A STORY ABOUT A PERSON WHO SET HIS 9 MM PISTOL IN THE WINDOW SILL AND LEFT IT LOADED FOR 2 DAYS WENT BACK AND CHECKED ON IT AND IT HAD NOT KILLED ANYONE.) I USED ALL CAPS ON THIS BECAUSE I FEEL SO STRONGLY ON THIS ISSUE!

Response by CDR Richard Tucker made Dec 24 at 2013 10:11 PM

CDR Richard Tucker — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 22:11:43 -0500

In all honesty, this is not about GUN control as much as it is about CONTROL. We in the military are educated and trained with guns as a tool in our profession. America was founded on the pretext that we could take care of ourselves. Americans have always used arms to protect themselves.  We do not ask for others to protect us, we protect ourselves. The notion that we need protection is foreign. The new breed is the ones that say we need a cop on every corner. We know that police officers are an expense we cannot absorb. Massive cutbacks are causing fewer and fewer policeman. We are on our own. We are responsible for our own safety and the safety of our loved ones. We must make our streets safe. If we give in to the control freaks that say you do not have the right to protect yourself, call the police, we have lost. We must be able to protect ourselves. We must keep control!.

Response by SFC James Baber made Jan 11 at 2014 10:36 PM

SFC James Baber — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:36:47 -0500

I think this is a good thread for those we are trying to get to join can see the substance of some things we discuss between us as current and former military, soft spoken as well as informational and mentoring types of postings.

We also have fun at times while remaining professional.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2014 10:39 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:39:22 -0500

I always ask people this one question:  Do you think gang bangers or other criminals care about laws or can't find guns?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 19 at 2014 4:40 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:40:53 -0500

I have the right to go to any church of my choosing, any time that I want (unless restricted by duty, but when I get out I can go whenever I want). I have the right to say whatever I want, regardless of the emotional pain that may cause to any individual (Westoro Baptist Church, as an example) I have the right to be secure in my identity, unless suspected of a crime. I have the right to not allow a military member to be quartered in my residence. I have should have the right to own WHATEVER weapon I so choose.

If I want a tank, a PATRIOT missile system, or an actual M16A-whatever-, I should be allowed to own it supposing I can pay for it. I shouldn't have to get a FFL or a Class 3 or a CC Permit or anything like that, because those things shouldn't exist.

I might settle for whatever I can "bear" in my "arms" though. M16, m240B, Stinger, AT-4, M203, Javeline, etc.

I know that many people will disagree with me, but the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to defend our rights. Not just against an intruder, a mugger, a rapist, etc., but also against the Government (or those of us in uniform) should it become Tyranical. In which case, you want me to fight the best trained, best equipped military on the planet with a semi-automatic "assault rifle"? In this scenerio, where the government would be CLEARLY tyranical, I would say Fuck the uniform and join the resistance. The resistance would likely lose, unless the vast majority of the military joined the resistance. (then we *might* have a chance) However, I would rather die fighting for freedom than live without it.

I don't personally see the Government as Tyranical, yet. I would argue that we are seriously considering toeing that line though.

For those who don't understand why a "sportsman" needs an AR15 or equivilent I have to ask, "Why do you need a Representative in Congress or in the Senate?" That is a right that was provided to you in the Constitution (except DC somehow, still not sure how that stands up). If you think that the Government has the right to do whatever they want with guns to make us "safer", then you probably believe that the Government has sufficient checks and ballances to ensure that we don't have tyranny. Who cares where the Congressman are from, they are American's and have your best interests at heart. I would also classify these people, as idiots.

Guess what? I can call people who believe the above an idiot, because I have a first amendment right, that I am willing to defend. To the death if necessary.

Just my $2.00 (I guess I may have surpassed the cents...)

Response by SPC Sven Pacot made Feb 19 at 2014 4:58 PM

SPC Sven Pacot — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:58:55 -0500

We founded this country for freedom. Our second amended right is gun ownership. This is so we can form well-regulated militias in the event our government turned on its own citizens so we can defend itself. It doesn't say the right to bear firearms with a magazine with 7 rounds or less capacity and no "assault" rifles. It states the right to bear ARMS. We need to be able to own firearms regardless of type or style. In the unlikely event our country collapses we need hunting rifles and shotguns to hunt for food. We need automatic weapons to combat against enemies foreign and domestic who may try to disrupt the way our Forefather's established for us. Granted these are unlikely scenarios but we must be able to be prepared. Why would they not want us to be able to defend ourselves? Furthermore, as a Servicemember, regardless of branch, we swore an oath first off to protect the Constitution. If we stand by and allow the Constitution to continuously be picked apart and discarded little by little are we upholding our oath? This is a time we need to remember that important oath we took at MEPS, every reenlistment ceremony, and stand up for it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 19 at 2014 5:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:41:22 -0500

The problem with gun control, whether pro or con, is it doesn't address the core issue, which is freedom. Gun control in the end is neither about guns nor is it about lessening crimes. It is about controlling the people in order to gain power.

The rights delineated in the Constitution are natural God-given rights inherent to humans. Many will disagree on the God aspect but that is their choice, and I have no issue with it. I'm sure though that many of those same people will still agree the rights are natural rights. The Constitution itself is NOT, nor will ever be, the grantor of rights. It is the document that describes the duties AND limits of government. It protects OUR rights from being infringed upon by the government.

These same rights are based under the mantle of freedom, specifically to be able to make one's own choices. We all have free will and can literally do whatever we want. But can we? Yes. The problem lies in whether we are responsible and accountable in our choices. For example, a person has the right to say what he wishes, including yelling "FIRE" (pardon the cliche) in a crowded theater. But is that responsible behavior? No, it is not, and therefore where the crux of the problem lies. Going to the firearms aspect, a person has the right to own, possess, and operate a firearm but to also do so in a responsible manner. If a person were to act irresponsibly then it is incumbent on society to hold the person accountable, even to the point of jail or execution. Limiting the freedoms and rights of the law-abiding for the misdeeds of those who do not care is disingenuous and dishonest.

I personally support anyone's right to do as they please but I expect them to act responsibly regardless of the activity or tool (yes, a firearm is nothing but a tool). If they should choose to purchase a firearm then they should acknowledge the responsibility inherent with the tool as well as seek out training in how to properly operate it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 19 at 2014 6:42 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:42:53 -0500

The right of the people to own and carry weapons is an individual civil Right. We already have far too many laws restricting such stupid things as how many accessories made outside the US can be attached to a firearm.

We should shut down the ATF and punish crimes with victims.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2014 9:33 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:33:56 -0500

I think, as your question addresses, there are different levels and intentions of gun control.

No doubt "gun control" has become a political pawn as a hot-button issue that requires only emotional response, instead of statistical/reasonable fact.

Some things that have been completely lost from logical thought with the entire argument is that guns exist, they will exist even if you make them illegal, and people will carry them no matter what a sign says. Guns aren't Santa Clause. We can't just not believe in them and hope that they will be gone. They won't disappear by passing laws or putting up "no-gun" signs. Further, the people who commit gun crimes already don't care about laws.

IF there were to be a realistic/logical gun-control bill, that expected support from the people, it would have to address and offer solution to the fact that the VAST majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons, in gang and drug related settings. The current and recent gun control measures merely attempt to harm or punish the legal gun owner who ISN'T causing the problems. Further, the wrong weapons are targeted (i.e. the semi-auto rifle, which accounts for one of the smallest amounts of harm/death of ANY weapon, to include knives and bats).

The purpose of the 2nd amendment wasn't just to allow people the means of hunting and home protection, which is what people have seem to have lost in translation. The 2nd amendment, as many/all other amendments were, was written to ensure that people had the means to fight back against a tyrannical government system.

The current media atmosphere has allowed people to become lazy in their fact finding and understanding of policy. Government wants people NOT to think, and instead just react to the bills being passed, based on emotional response and not facts.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 20 at 2014 11:02 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:02:04 -0500

It might not seem like it, but I'm very pro gun. But I also believe that if someone is going to carry, they should be trained and educated. To me, that just seems reasonable, and I don't believe it's an infringement on rights.

Guns are just tools, neither good nor evil. It's all about the application of those tools. That's why I feel education and training is just the responsible thing to do if you're going to allow someone to carry a tool that can potentially kill someone if mishandled.
-
I know that in the military, which is generally largely conservative, my advocacy for gun education and training makes me seem like a "liberal communist hippie" or something similar, but I just feel it would be irresponsible to adopt an arbitrary " willy nilly, guns for everyone" policy..

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Feb 20 at 2014 1:03 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:03:23 -0500

<P>So, in my own PERSONAL opinion:</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Gun Control: YES.  Use 2 hands and hit what you are aiming at, don't John Wayne it...</P>
<P>Gun laws: LOTS of them on the books already, few are enforced.  We need no new laws, but enforcement of what is there.  Also, I feel that an Armed Society is a Polite Society.  Federal statistics kept by the FBI show that as gun ownership increases, violent crime has decreased since the 1970's or 80's...(don't remember the exact date range, but do remember that it continues to drop...with climbing rates in areas with extreme restrictions such as DC, Chicago, NY etc).</P>

Response by SPC Thorsten Fosgate made Feb 21 at 2014 7:04 AM

SPC Thorsten Fosgate — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:04:35 -0500

Against, cause criminals don't follow laws.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2014 11:17 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 23:17:11 -0500

Folks the hard thing to remember here is that the Framers and the Founding Fathers of this country were some of the smartest individuals of our time, if not in history. They may not have been Einstein, or Van Braughn, or insert Genius s name here, but they damn sure made one hell of a guiding document for us as the future comes forth.

What does that mean for us? They left NO ambiguity in that document, NONE. Sure we may have to appoint some people to interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from time to time, but for the most part, it was idiot proof. If I was learning about in 2nd Grade in the 2 worst state in the Union for Education, then I am positive that everyone ahead of us was learning it in kindergarten.

There is no argument to be had here-its the liberal pussification of this country because people don t want to believe the principle that there are bad people out there willing to do whatever by however means necessary to maim and kill their fellow people. There will always be people that do NOT want to play by the rules, and they will die trying.

With that being said, the 2d Amendment was placed in the Constitution just in case the 1st was trampled on, and if you havent been watching the news lately, it sure as hell has. There is a reason the order of the Amendments came in the way and fashion that they did, and if you can find the purpose for what each Amendment was made for, then you are well on your way to being a Constitutional scholar.

I will end my rant with a quote, and this is why gun control will never work.

From the movie Batman Begins,

Sir Michael Caine, aka Alfred

"Sir, some men just want to watch the world burn."

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2014 11:30 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 23:30:18 -0500

I am against gun control. Gun control is stated as an attempt to prevent gun deaths. The main argument for gun control legislation is the presence of gun deaths. Unfortunately(for the gun control weenies), there is no evidence that gun control will reduce gun deaths and definitely won't eliminate gun deaths. So if this is the case then what's the point? The point, very simply, is control. Socialist/communist/progressives abhor the ability of the individual to act on their own and defend themselves from State control. This is the real objective behind the gun control, individual control. Just say no to individual control!

Response by SrA Zachary Bolling made Feb 25 at 2014 9:14 AM

SrA Zachary Bolling — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:14:19 -0500

I think just saying FOR or AGAINST is too black and white. I don't agree with taking guns away or making it impossible for someone to protect themselves. I also don't agree that ANYONE can go and buy ANY gun on the shelves.

This is a thought that just crossed my mind and maybe it sounds silly but tell me what you think. Instead of making certain guns illegal why doesn't the Government implement a license class system. Which means that gun licenses would be like drivers license.

Driver's licenses are issued and gained by completing different levels of knowledge and experience. Just like I can't go and start driving a Big Rig because I think they look cool and I have money to blow. The average person would have to go through specialized training to earn a license that permits them to buy a higher class of weapon.

Within this license class there would be a background check involved and proof of how these weapons are stored. I don't think there should be a limit on how many licenses should be issued. But this could be a way to ensure that only the responsible people are in possession of the more advanced weapon systems.

I know that a lot of people might be against having a data base with information like addresses and what guns they have but I think there could be a way to secure that information.

Also, I believe that there should be an evaluation on medical health to get one of these licenses. As time goes on it seems like these mass shootings are the cause of irresponsibility and mental health problems rather than somebody JUST with the intent to massacre.

I'm sure there would be flaws in this type of system but I would rather compromise with the government than go to war with it.

my 2 cents

Response by SrA Michael Waldo made Feb 25 at 2014 5:49 PM

SrA Michael Waldo — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:49:38 -0500

FOR- Two scenarios from two separate perspectives. Which sounds like a more logical way of ensuring the safety of yourself and those around you?

Scenario 1. The gnawing fear that a lunatic with intent to do harm is hiding among the masses, waiting to enact violence and you will be at a SEVERE disadvantage because you didn't bring your fire arm to school/work/movies/etc?
Why should this fear even exist? Crazy people will kill regardless of the method implemented. If they tried to enact a much more stringent policy for firearms, and in this perfect world that actually functioned as described-criminals actually obeyed the law (which is a blatant oxymoron btw), the murder/crime rate would remain constant because the conduit in which one enacts violence has NOTHING to do with the reasoning for it. Adam Lanza never woke up and thought "Hmmm...I have access to firearms. I should go shoot up a school."

Scenario 2. The gnawing fear in the back of a lunatics mind with intent to do harm at the realization that EVERYONE around them is carrying a firearm as well and that their delusions of being glorified in infamy might be immediately shut down by a marksman with a quicker draw, and a much greater will to live and ensure the safety of those around them?
I've carried my pistol in a tool bag that I toss around with reckless abandon but believe it or not, the pistol has not once decided to flip it's own safety off, break free of it's holster, and go on a rampage.....yet.....I think it has a hidden agenda though..... Guess only time will tell though. I keep an AK-47 to protect myself should the pistol one day snap.

Response by LTJG Robert M. made Feb 27 at 2014 9:17 AM

LTJG Robert M. — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:17:11 -0500

Against - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2014 4:12 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:12:36 -0500

I think everyone has covered my arguments against gun control. I did want to include one minor argument that I haven't seen covered. One argument that gun control advocates use is that the second amendment was set up for a militia and consider the National Guard as that militia. I would like to squash that argument as well. Article 32 of the U.S. code also includes an "unorganized" militia which consists of ALL able bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 that are not serving in the regular army, army reserves, or the national guard. Since all of the stronger arguments were already taken, and I love the topic, I figured I would throw this in as well.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2014 4:21 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:21:21 -0500

I'm FOR stricter background checks and harsher punishments for gun law violators, but I'm AGAINST outlawing assault rifles and making citizens register their weapons. I think harsh punishments for law violators would have a greater impact on those that have firearms illegally, while not really affecting those of us who own them legally.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Feb 28 at 2014 10:45 AM

SSG Ed Mikus — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:45:43 -0500

AGAINST controlling the arms, but i believe we need stricter licensing of firearm owners and it to be the same across the nation.

Response by SSG Gordon Hill made Mar 10 at 2014 8:46 PM

SSG Gordon Hill — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:46:12 -0400

Iam for gun, but I do not want to see law abiding citizens loose there rights as gun owners, but we do need to control guns being used in crimes.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 16 at 2014 7:39 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 16 Mar 2014 19:39:22 -0400

I am FOR STRICT GUN CONTROL, let me provide an example:

A mother of 9 year-old twins shot a man in the head and neck while he was attempting to rob her home. That (to me) is gun control!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k7EfiSsQW2Y

Response by SFC Lamont Womack made Mar 16 at 2014 8:01 PM

SFC Lamont Womack — Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:01:33 -0400

I disagree with the question. Why do I have to be for or against gun control? There have been proposals about gun control I agree with and some proposals I don't agree with. I think these "all or nothing" questions hurt the country make progress on any issue. Every single issue has to be left or right, up or down, black or white. Now if you asked about a specific gun control proposal I could give you a specific answer. I don't agree with the yes or no options.

Response by SSG Oliver Mathews made Mar 21 at 2014 4:17 AM

SSG Oliver Mathews — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:17:02 -0400

My thoughts are simple...

(I have noticed that many people have said things better than i can, so i am just borrowing what they said and how they said it. Hence the picture i have posted)

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 27 at 2014 12:15 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 27 May 2014 12:15:54 -0400

SPC,

I think members of the military are very aware of how important it is for you to be in control of your weapon, especially any crew serve weapon, I.E. 'gun'. This is why you are trained from the start of Basic to always have control of your weapon.
If you are talking about placing limits on your 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, then no, I cannot support that.
I think one of the problems we have in this Nation is that those with weapons do not control them and forget that with rights comes responsibility.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2014 9:01 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 May 2014 21:01:02 -0400

I think we need to better education the American people about proper gun control and that starts in our school system and households. When it comes to our government we need to tighten up on our current laws to the max before we look at changing the laws.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 30 at 2014 2:20 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Fri, 30 May 2014 14:20:15 -0400

Gun control means using two hands. ;) Seriously though, I am against gun control as people today would believe it to be needed. The gun itself isn't the problem, it is the person who is using the gun that is the problem. You cannot control the gun without controlling the person and good luck with that one. You may not agree with my beliefs but that is your choice.

Response by PO1 James Friedman made Jun 12 at 2014 1:51 PM

PO1 James Friedman — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:51:46 -0400

Very much against gun control.

My definition of gun control is that I control the one I carry and that all rounds are on target.

Response by SSG Chris Cherry made Jun 12 at 2014 2:17 PM

SSG Chris Cherry — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:17:30 -0400

This is probably going to put a lot of people off with the way I'm going to say it but I don't know of any better way.

I am of the opinion (which I view to be the only acceptable opinion) that The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable. You do not add to. You do not take away. It is not open for interpretation. It very clearly states what we are entitled to in black ink.

The right to keep and bear arms.

There is no asterisk; no footnote. It is clear and concise.

If you try to take that away I will be hell bent on upholding my oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2014 5:29 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:29:12 -0400

Do you know the difference?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2014 5:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:56:03 -0400

Does "gun control" work? Take the test and find out. Can you answer honestly?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2014 3:31 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 15:31:26 -0400

AGAINST! Those who have criminal past should not be allowed, fine. Those who love peace and justice, carry on. I'd hate to end up on 6 o'clock news listed as casualty of mass shooting and not waiting if and/or when someone opens fire in my presence.

Response by MAJ Derrick J. made Jun 21 at 2014 3:49 PM

MAJ Derrick J. — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 15:49:48 -0400

Responsible citizens don't need "gun control laws." We self regulate and don't need some one looking our shoulder - it's the skewed broken individual who needs to be restrained and controlled by heavy handed laws that will punish major infractions very harshly and consistently. Guns are our last defense against oppression & totalitarian rule.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2014 9:07 PM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:07:39 -0400

I believe in simple gun regulations like age requirements, background checks, etc. I also believe in issuing concealed carry permits to those who meet the age and have no criminal record but shouldn't have to demonstrate a need like in some states (i.e. New York, Maryland). One reason for that is because of how biased the issuer (usually the county sheriff) can be when giving them out; he won't give one to that widowed grandmother, but he WILL give one to that wealthy political donor who lives in a gated community and probably donated to his campaign for office that gives him the authority to grand them.

One of the more prominent arguments gun-grabbers make is comparing crime statistics of America to foreign countries. They may point out England and Australia with strict gun laws though not as strict as Mexico, with their much lower gun crime rates. What they don't point out is that gun crime has ALWAYS been low there, even long before they passed such strict laws; they only erupted after public outcry from massacres such as Port Arthur, Dunblane, etc. Furthermore, they don't point out countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Russia which have much higher homicide rates than America despite having even far stricter gun laws. The gun grabbers act as if guns are the only way to commit murder; look at massacres like Oklahoma City and 9/11; the death tolls there were much higher than places like Virginia Tech or Fort Hood, yet not a single shot was fired there.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2014 2:59 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 02:59:00 -0400

I am and always will be firmly against any form of gun control other than steady position and proper trigger squeeze. I have always favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution: that it says EXACTLY what it means, and if you want it to say something different, then pass another amendment. The 2nd Amendment clearly states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't see how people misinterpret such transparent language. A militia is defined as all able bodied military aged people. That's it. The National Guard and Reserves are NOT a militia. A militia is not a formal military organization. It is nothing more or less than the people, who, when necessary, come together to defend home and country. It also states the the rights, yes rights plural, to KEEP and BEAR (again I have no idea how people construe this to mean only keep or only bear at home and/or with special restrictions) arms shall not be infringed. Now to infringe on something means to restrict or take away from it. In other words: any law that limits access to firearms is infringement. There are only two reasons I can agree to infringing on a persons INALIENABLE right to self defense and defense of life, liberty, and property: when they are either a danger to themself, or a danger to others. And that ONLY after having gone through due process. After all, the Constitution also protects us from having rights and possessions stripped away without a well defined legal standard process.

Response by SGT David Seddon made Oct 18 at 2014 12:50 AM

SGT David Seddon — Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:50:12 -0400

So far against stricter gun laws. We already have back ground checks.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2014 12:58 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:58:20 -0400

No to gun control. My definition of gun control--> proper trigger squeeze!

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2014 9:11 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 21:11:35 -0400

Against. The 2nd amendment uses the words "shall not be infringed"

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2014 4:47 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:47:19 -0500

I am against gun control. It is our right to own and defend our life and property with a firearm. I do support background checks though. Since the big news lately is the Sandy Hook parents suing Bushmaster, I feel that a background check that sees if you have any people in your household with mental issues and that can prove and verify that you have taken measure to secure your weapons from their use BEFORE allowing for the purchase of a firearm. I realize this will only help so much as there are always ways around this type of check, but I think it would be a good step to have. No one loses their right to own or purchase a firearm but to help prevent (not eliminate because that is impossible) another Sandy Hook.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2014 5:58 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:58:15 -0500

Laws and locks keep honest people honest. By and large, the people who will be most affected by gun control are already law abiding citizens. I do not see how you can justify reducing violent crimes involving firearms by enacting legislation to control firearms. Legislation like this does not address the issue, it's merely lip service in a feeble attempt to put a Band-Aid on a symptom. This ranks right up there with restricting the size of the soda sold by fast food restaurants because people are becoming too obese. As I see it, the purpose of a law ought to be to protect citizens' freedom, not restrict it.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2014 8:44 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:44:42 -0500

I'm all for gun control... Keep it pointed down range and drop the target!!!

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Dec 17 at 2014 12:36 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:36:24 -0500

All for gun control! If you can't hit what you're aiming at, you're just making noise and wasting ammunition..... ;o)

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 17 at 2014 12:39 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:39:16 -0500

Very much for gun control.... hitting your intended target is very important and that takes control ....................... Ohhhh, THAT kind of gun control... err, no thank you.

Response by SSG John McClendon made Dec 17 at 2014 6:44 PM

SSG John McClendon — Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:44:40 -0500

I am completely against gun control. I base this not on emotion, but on the facts of the issue. If you want to see a deep explanation of why, and have a few minutes to spare, go look up "Gun Facts 6.1" by Guy Smith. It's a compilation of the various myths associated with and often used by gun control advocates, and the data that refutes their talking points, one by one.

Response by Sgt Adam Jennings made Dec 17 at 2014 7:54 PM

Sgt Adam Jennings — Wed, 17 Dec 2014 19:54:50 -0500

This is my very simple and legitimate take on the matter. Every city/state that has strict gun control laws have the highest crime rates. Look at DC, Chicago, New York State and city, L.A. And Califorbia, etc. Now look at Pheonix, AZ and Kennesaw, GA compared to those places and how low their crime rate is compared to them. But you won't hear about that on the liberal news.

Response by SPC Donald Moore made Dec 19 at 2014 11:46 AM

SPC Donald Moore — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:46:35 -0500

The Second Amendment, to me, is quite clear. There should be absolutely zero federal regulation of arms. We already have too many laws with regard to that and it takes away the focus from punishing the criminals by looking at the tool.
It is the equivalent of outlawing cars because people drive drunk.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2014 3:38 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:38:37 -0500

As most everyone commenting thus far is strongly opposed to gun control in our nation, why, as a military, are we tolerant of the garrison policies forbidding everyone but MPs from carrying weapons on post? Why can I not, if I have a valid conceal carry permit in the state the base is located in, carry a concealed weapon in post? Why are we trusted to carry and employ weapons in ambiguous and difficult environments overseas but viewed as dangerous incompetents needing MP protection stateside? Seems like a hypocritical position from my perspective.

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Dec 19 at 2014 7:06 PM

MAJ Ron Peery — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:06:55 -0500

If by "gun control" you mean being able to hit your target, then I am for it.

Response by SSG John Erny made Jul 2 at 2015 5:25 PM

SSG John Erny — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 17:25:27 -0400

I am against it unless one is a felon or has medical issues that are severe, like being insane!

Response by SSG John Arp made Jul 2 at 2015 8:05 PM

SSG John Arp — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:05:39 -0400

Both,
I am for background checks, I don't want some lunatic or convicted felon in possession of a firearm. I am also for training, if one wants to carry concealed or open (if in an open carry state) then I think a classroom training combined with a range qualification just is good common sense. I enjoy the knowledge that CHL holders in TX have had a block of instruction and an education on firearms, CHL laws and common sense. I have heard from my friends that are Police Officers in TX that they feel a sense of relief when dealing with a citizen after learning they are a CHL holder, because they are a safer group of people to deal with. I gained a lot from my CHL class, and look forward to each class at time of renewal to keep up on new laws and to have a block of professional training. In the mean time I train at least once a month with my carry pistol, to keep a good familiarity with it. With the possessive of a gun comes much responsibility. We as gun owners owe it to ourselves and others to maintain that level or responsibility, in a simple military term, lead by example.

I also believe we need to be extremely tough on gun related crimes, the gun didn't commit the crime the person did, for me gun control is as aforementioned, but criminal control is what we need most to prevent horrific gun crimes from continuing.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 2 at 2015 8:11 PM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:11:45 -0400

Gun control to me means not pointing my weapon at anything I do not intend to shoot and keeping my finger off the trigger until ready to pull it.

Response by PV2 Edward Elkins made Jul 2 at 2015 10:57 PM

PV2 Edward Elkins — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 22:57:07 -0400

There is a lot to be said about it, We all need the right to bear arms for freedom sake, however we have been infiltrated by every one of our enemies in our private sector as well as internal affairs, so our enemies could be our neighbors , employers, or subverted members of our families, communist have been a clever enemy and hit us in every direction, gun toting communist's doesn't make me feel very safe, its all a communist plot in my opinion, and the aristocrat allies dont make it any easier , so many people in our country seem to be supporters of aristocrat or monarch nations, we need a militia or army branch at county level to defend us at home in our own local residence, a branch anyone can volunteer to serve and defend our freedom, something legit not like the underground militia's they form to retaliate against gun control. Something to kick communists asses.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 2:43 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 14:43:41 -0400

Bottom Line: I'm OK with certain forms of gun qualification, but in general, much looser gun control. The more effective means to dealing with gun crime is tougher enforcement of the CRIMINAL, not the citizen and not the gun manufacturer.

I'm OK with current prohibited persons.(felons, restraining orders, mentally ill, etc.) I'm NOT OK with each state using creative license to interpret the Constitution.

There should be a more uniform law governing all states. (No magazine capacity limits, magazine safeties, various "cooling off" times, no ban on NV/IR) Wait periods should only be as long as it takes to either verify background, or if there is a card that verifies qualifications that is renewed annually or every couple years, that would preclude the need for a waiting period.

There SHOULD be better enforcement of laws that are already on the books for sentencing of criminals convicted of crimes involving illegal use of firearms. (special enhancements etc.) I'm all for harsher punishments as long as they are actually enforced.

It is OK to have special qualifications (certification/training/licensing) for concealed/NFA weapons. Concealed carry should be an inalienable right, unless forfeited by criminal activity etc. Open carry...meh....I'm for it, but I'm against ignorant, foolish people being a public nuisance just to make a point about their Constitutional rights. It's my right to fart in crowded elevators and to wear offensive T-shirts to church, but really, is that something I really want to push?

Just my 3 cents.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jul 14 at 2015 10:39 AM

SPC David Hannaman — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:39:15 -0400

I am for gun control in the same sense that we license people to own and operate motor vehicles. I grew up with guns, I learned their safe operation and use before I learned how to drive a car (I also learned how to drive a tractor before learning how to drive a car).

Currently a day at the range is a little scary for me, there's one just a few miles from my house, and I'm more afraid of getting shot there than I was in Desert Storm... Why? Because there's a ton of people that know nothing of firearms except what they see in the movies, and there's bullet holes in the firing position dividers to underscore that point.

No, you can't stop people with malicious intent from obtaining guns, and even if you could, Cain killed Abel with a rock, but gun control discussion sure spurs gun sales.

Response by SPC David S. made Jul 16 at 2015 2:27 PM

SPC David S. — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:27:31 -0400

Gun control does very little in combating crime. As in the chart a hand gun ban went into affect in 1982 in Chicago. In 1992 homicides by shooting peaked only to be topped by 1974 numbers. The current downtrend is due to a heavier police presence.

Additionally guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. So based purely on cost/benefit of saving lives guns are still on the plus side.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 6:50 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:50:24 -0400

I'm 99.9% against gun control laws. The only part of them that I remotely agree with is having measures in place to limit the access that the mentally ill, violent offenders, and illegals have to fire arms.

Notice I said limit. There is no real way to 100% prevent anyone from getting anything. Drugs are illegal but people still get them. All gun control does is remove the means for innocent, law abiding people to defend themselves.

Where do all of these mass shootings take place? In places where the victims are unarmed because they're in a "gun-free" zone... oh, gun-free except for that one guy that has evil in his heart and wants to inflict as much harm as he possibly can for whatever sick reason he's doing it.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Sep 6 at 2015 2:04 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 14:04:55 -0400

I believe gun control is paramount... proper aim and breathing will give you a one shot one kill ratio ever time...https://www.facebook.com/JerrysOutdoorSports/videos/ [login to see] 61691/?fref=nf

Jerrys Outdoor Sports | Facebook

Criminals fear armed citizens!

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Sep 7 at 2015 11:27 PM

Cpl Matthew Wall — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 23:27:27 -0400

It isn't more laws we need, but the current ones enforced. Mandatory gun training should also be the standard for getting a concealed carry. I know open carry is allowed without a permit so it would be difficult to enforce that. Unless you made that permit based also, which would be a crap storm all in itself. Education is needed not more laws.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Sep 10 at 2015 3:50 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:50:54 -0400

My knee jerk reaction to gun control is "HELL NO", but if I take a breath and think for a moment, I'm actually very much for it.

I don't think felons, people with alcohol or drug arrests (it indicates an addiction that is out of control to the point of irresponsibility), felons, mentally ill, sex offenders, etc would make "responsible gun owners". I would also like to see legislation that makes offering a free firearm class mandatory with the purchase of a weapon (I've seen too many unsafe and incompetent people at the range lately).

Now that said, I would like to see more gun freedom to people who have demonstrated themselves to be responsible gun owners. I don't think someone should have to get a Class III federal firearms license to own a M2 browning for instance. If someone can pass CHL requirements I think they should be able to carry anywhere, any state, and I think the debate over magazine size and the color of a gun is insulting... wars have been affected by a trained man with a single shot .30-06.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 1:31 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 13:31:13 -0400

my gun control is gun training. train the public and educate them how to use and store it. done

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 2 at 2015 2:39 PM

1LT Aaron Barr — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:39:36 -0400

If the government simply banning something is the solution to the social problems for which that something is blamed, why does this nation have a drug problem? Gun control will never work as advertised because it fails in principle which leads to a failure in practice. In principle, gun control is the same as any prohibitionary measure in that it’s based on an inferred relationship, an alleged if-then that doesn’t hold true. IF the government restricts or eliminates the legal traffic in something, so the ‘logic’ goes, THEN the criminality associated with that something will be decreased or eliminated. However, the real world says differently which disproves this ‘principle.’

Anybody who’s been around other human beings for more than 5 minutes knows that just banning something won’t eliminate people wanting it, i.e. demand. And anybody who paid attention for the first 5 minutes of Economics 101 knows that where demand exists, suppliers will emerge whether what is demanded is illegal or not. Moreover, last time I checked, the dictionary definition of a criminal is a person who disobeys the law so to expect them to hold gun control laws in any less contempt than all the other laws they break is folly of the first order.

Nor do criminals like getting shot any more than anybody else. That's why it’s relatively rare to hear about crimes committed against heavily protected targets, they're usually guarded by men with guns who can shoot the criminals. Guess what, the same deterrent effect applies to an armed citizenry as well. In a shall-issue state, a criminal has no way of knowing if the little old lady he wants to rob is packing a .38 and will put a bullet into him if he attempts to rob her.

But in places with strict gun control, that deterrent doesn't exist. It’s for this reason that cities like Chicago, Detroit and D.C. have both the strictest gun control laws and the highest rates of crime, not just gun crime in particular but violent crime in general. It’s not IN SPITE of their gun control but BECAUSE OF IT.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Oct 3 at 2015 12:02 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:02:48 -0400

FOR: controlling weapons you own: employing them effectively and safely, discharging them in public only in just self defense and retaining them and taking reasonable precautions to prevent their theft or access by those one does not authorize.
AGAINST: any infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms (this is a key provision of a document I swore to support and defend).

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Oct 3 at 2015 12:18 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:18:01 -0400

I am for gun control but not in the sense where we strip people of their right to keep their guns.
I think that our gun control laws are very good and as with anything it can be tweaked to make it better.
But we all know that gun control is aimed at getting guns away from the average, law abiding citizen because criminals are not, for the most part, legally procuring guns and ammunition.
Background checks, the waiting or cooling off period, and registering your guns are good ideas, I don't have a problem with that at all.
What we need to do is to tighten up and hammer those who break the law using guns illegally, because in my opinion that's gun control, not taking away law abiding citizens right to own guns.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Oct 3 at 2015 1:13 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 13:13:49 -0400

I am for gun control... I believe any of you that are against it are off your rocker and the police should be called on you now! I cannot abide by someone who cannot control your weapon while firing it... if you cant get a tight shot group you have no control. I cannot abide by a person who keeps a filthy weapon, filthy weapons cause misfires and misfires fills body bags, if you keep a filthy weapon you have poor gun control. If you do not train your weapon not to loose its temper and just randomly go off by its self when it wants ( we lose more milk men this way), you have poor gun control. Yes People...I am all for gun control and think its paramount... The real question I guess should be do we believe in people control.The very quick answer should be yes but there is no way to accomplish this.

Response by SPC George Long made Oct 3 at 2015 3:34 PM

SPC George Long — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 15:34:56 -0400

My Background; US Army MP, Federal and local LEO , probation officer...total time about18yrs. Gunsmith 20 years+. The question and answer are not so easy. 22,000+ gun laws exist in America....will 1 more help. It would help if the Feds would freely share info. Guns in schools? I disarmed a person walking into m y sons middle school some years ago. The person with the gun, a hand gun, a student, got his hand slapped and I was sued. The thing saving me here was I was the only Civilian Court Certified Firearms expert in the State at the time.

No easy answers. My best advise from a sign in my shop......Fight Crime " SHOOT BACK" ....Violent criminals see you as White Bread. Easy to chew up. If you are denied the means to defend yourself your family will be their victims. Background checks run in a constitutional approved manner are no big deal. But Wash DC, Chicago, NY have illegally band guns for years as have many big cities. They all became shooting galleries.
If the Feds would share intel the shooting here may not have happened...................

The Federal Security Services (FSB) is reporting today that an American black-Islamist terror suspect, who yesterday committed an act of mass murder in the State of Oregon (United States), had been included on a list of 87,000 “known/suspected” Islamic terrorists that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) refused last month to accept from the Federation due to its not being “politically viable in the present atmosphere”.
According to this report, the black-Islamist terrorist who committed this act of terror, Chris Harper Mercer, had previously been identified by electronic intelligence specialists within the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) as being an Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) adherent after he had attempted to gain passage to Syria via Turkey during the first week of September, 2015.
By the Obama regime refusing to accept this terror list from the Federation, this report continues, Mercer was able to accomplish his terror act when yesterday he killed 9 people and wounded 7 others at the Umpqua Community College prior to his being shot and killed by local US police forces.
Most critical to note about this FSB report is that where it ends, the mysterious, and hugely read, Russian publication Reedus (Ridus.ru) continues—and to fully understand this information one must note that Russian intelligence agencies (SVR/FSB) frequently use Reedus to put information into the public sphere that otherwise would have serious international consequences should the government be found to be behind it—thus giving Reedus its current status known as “a Kremlin resource” and an “agency of Orthodox journalism”. [Русский]
And the information relating to the black-Islamist terrorist Mercer “leaked” into Reedus by the SVR/FSB is, to say the least, shocking and disturbing–including that immediately after the Oregon mass shooting, his Internet personal profile was changed from his true identity as an ISIS/ISIL terror supporter to one of his being a “white conservative Republican”. [Русский]
Also important to be noted was Mercer’s association with the ISIS/ISIL terrorist Mahmoud Ali Ehsani, who is banned in Russia [Русский], and was one of only two of Mercer’s MySpace “friends” and who praises the Islamic State, calls for the killing of Jews and glorifies in pictures on his MySpace page his rapture of these terrorists.
With the true knowledge of Mercer being known as the black-Islamic terrorist he truly was, information which the Obama regime refused to accept from Russia, his mass terror act in identifying and killing Christians becomes immediately understandable.
As to why the Obama regime and their propaganda media lapdogs are disguising the truth from the American people about this horrific act of Islamic terror against them, especially to the families of the dead and wounded, it is not known—but shouldn’t really surprise anyone as that government has been nothing but a mountain of lies for years.

Why am I not surprised.

Response by SFC Wade W. made Oct 5 at 2015 12:41 PM

SFC Wade W. — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:41:17 -0400

Absolutely nothing needs to be added to the laws and measures that are already in place.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Oct 5 at 2015 12:43 PM

SCPO David Lockwood — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:43:13 -0400

There has to be some kind of gun control but the type of gun control the government is ridiculous! If they were to get their way only criminals, cops and military would be allowed to have them.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Oct 5 at 2015 12:45 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:45:38 -0400

If we cannot deport 10 million illegal aliens what chance is there that the government could confiscate (that is what it would take) 100 million guns.

We have had alcohol prohibition, it didn't work. We've had a war on drugs, it hasn't worked. What we need is a change in attitudes about violent crime, the insane/mentally instable and our approach with them.

Gun control would only punish the law abiding, not the criminal.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 12:50 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:50:02 -0400

Another topic the I will keep to myself.

I almost think that is a toxic topic. There seems to be no middle ground.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 12:55 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:55:10 -0400

The right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Any questions?

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Oct 5 at 2015 5:55 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:55:21 -0400

I am against "gun control" unless you are referring to getting the sights correct on a target! Obama makes me sick. He never mentioned the victims of the Roseland, Oregon shootings, he only wanted to politicize the event. He even tried to head off criticism by saying "Yes, I am going to politicize this". Can't wait until he is gone and I don't care how that happens.
Rick

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 21 at 2015 10:27 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:27:17 -0400

We have the right to own firearms as guaranteed by the constitution so therefore I will own as many guns as I want...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 12:10 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:10:50 -0400

Enforce the laws we have...Waalaa...gun control.:-)

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 22 at 2015 2:05 AM

COL Ted Mc — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 02:05:35 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member - Cadet Captain; I strongly favor strict gun control measures to ensure that those people who simply aren't safe around firearms shouldn't have them. I'm also in favor of strict gun control measures to ensure that those people who do have firearms can use them safely and accurately. I'm also in favor of strict gun control measures to ensure that those people who use firearms in the commission of crimes receive additional punishment (in fact, I'd favor making it a criminal offence to accept a "plea bargain" which eliminates the punishment arising from using firearms to commit crimes).

Beyond that, I have absolutely no objection to EVERYONE being allowed to own and carry firearms PROVIDED that they do so openly.

It hasn't happened yet, but I'm still anticipating the mass death toll from "Blue on Blue" shootings at a mall or in a movie theater when all the people who are defending themselves open up and start shooting at the other people who are defending themselves because they don't know how to identify a target.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 22 at 2015 10:09 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:09:27 -0400

Do you remember your first day on the firing range? I do. It was one of those experiences that pissed me off until I thought about it. We were told to lay our weapons (M-14s) on the ground with the leaning on a wooden stake and pointing down range, and the butts between our feet as we stood at attention, when the range officer said "Go". We didn't respond well enough to satisfy him on the first dozen or so attempts and had to repeat the motions. What the hell was going on I wondered as I got tired of the exercise. The simple fact is that "what was going on" is that the range officer was taking control. He needed to insure that we were going to follow his instructions in minute detail so that we wouldn't hurt ourselves or anyone else as we learned to accurately fire our infantry weapons. Yes, it was all about gun control.

How is that different from current attempts at gun control. No we should not infringe on any law-abiding civilians right to keep and bear arms. But don't we as a society who will live within range of these idiots have the right to insist that they have some competence so they won't harm themselves or the rest of us?

I remember a major walking into my hooch in Vietnam one day with an obviously loaded M-16 and grenades hanging from his web belt suspenders. What a fool. Base camp regulations required that all weapons be cleared once you entered the wire perimeter and grenades left with the armorer. That's why I was able to evict him from my hooch with less than usual respect. Again, that's gun control.

I understand the reluctance to allow the government to exercise reasonable forms of gun control. I don't trust the government either. They have repeatedly demonstrated a propensity for going well beyond reasonableness once they get their foot in the door. You and I know that those who call for gun control really have their sights set on gun confiscation. Still, we have to find a way to have reasonable controls on guns. Maybe we should begin with reasonable controls on government. Term limits would be a good start, wouldn't they?

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Oct 28 at 2015 3:57 PM

PV2 Scott Goodpasture — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:57:43 -0400

With all the trouble here and abroad the government should be passing out the ammunition

Response by SSG John Mitchell made Nov 9 at 2015 12:02 PM

SSG John Mitchell — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 12:02:41 -0500

It's been stated elsewhere but it can never be stated enough. Gun Control means hitting your target. What the Liberal Left are talking about is Control period. It has nothing to do with the Safety of the Public. We already have so many laws on the books that can't be upheld as it is, what makes anyone think they would be able to take away a Right that isn't theirs to take in the first place? If all laws were followed, there wouldn't be a Criminal in sight or any Prisons filled to bursting. Yet here we are. My guns are under Control. Mine.

Response by SrA Mark Hickman made Dec 10 at 2015 1:38 PM

SrA Mark Hickman — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:38:29 -0500

Against!!!
Let me be clear I am not a gun Nut I own a couple hunting rifles.

People who commit these terrible acts of violence don't care if they buy a gun in a store or on the street. There for tighting gun control only hurts the law abiding citizens. To that same point our Government has proven they cannot keep even US made weapons out of our enemies hands on foreign soil. Why should we trust the government to keep these weapons out of the bad guys hands here in the Good Old USA.
Not to mention if you take away the guns they will use a car or home made bomb or something. Lets not forget these people that do these terrible things are awful People in some cases or Sick in other cases, but they are a very small percentage of our population and have always been there but as our population grows so will the number of people who will commit these acts.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2015 1:52 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:52:54 -0500

Gun control is not the problem. The problem is mental health, politicians and the media.

Response by SSG Raymond Whitener made Dec 10 at 2015 2:31 PM

SSG Raymond Whitener — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:31:24 -0500

I am for STRICT GUN EDUCATION. We have way to many gun owners in this country that bought the shiny one, but have no idea of how to operate the mechanism responsibly

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Dec 10 at 2015 2:44 PM

SSG Audwin Scott — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:44:39 -0500

I think because most here are military the answer is going to be bias and 99.9% are going to say they are against it. Now speaking for myself I believe the right to bear arms is a great right, however the guns don't kill people, the ignorance of some people that own the guns do. So I say all that to say this, I guess I am in between. I am for gun control if it's going to help us keep a safer environment and I am against it if it's going to stop good law abiding citizens from getting guns.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 6:11 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 06:11:23 -0500

i believe we should be able to defend ourselves, but then some of us don't follow that rule and go out and shoot the innocent. so maybe we should leave protecting to the police forces and leave the guns in the display case. Oh and those "No guns allowed signs" OMG they need to be destroyed, its an invitation for the bad guys. Dont these people know this ?????

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Jan 4 at 2016 6:22 AM

PVT Robert Gresham — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 06:22:07 -0500

I think that this pretty well sums it up .......

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 4 at 2016 6:40 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 06:40:23 -0500

"If" someone can show me a valid method of "Gun Control" which uses Due Process, doesn't assume the Citizen is guilty of crimes prior to committing them, and follows the Spirit of the Bill of Rights (Protection of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY), I would love to hear it.

However, most forms run counter to that in one way or another. The prohibition of Felons works within that system. I have few objections to it. The Prohibition for those who have been properly adjudicated "Mentally Unfit" and HAVE had the opportunity to defend themselves is within that system. I have concerns with, but it is reasonable. The use of "lists" where no one knows how you get on them, that you are on them until you try to do something, and you can't get off them EVER. I have a real problem with that.

Unfortunately, we have a HUGE spectrum between "Gun Control" and "Gun Rights." In general terms, the "Gun Control" side has views Ownership far more as a Privilege that needs to be "Controlled" which is completely counter to the concept of a "Protected Right" which is enshrined in our Social Contract, the Constitution. The "Gun Rights" side tends to have an equally vocal side because of the "death by 1000 cuts" concept and LOTS of historical precedent. When you add in actual statistical, and mathematical data regarding crime, there is A LOT of misinformation which is perverting the image.

My stance is and has always been, we are a Nation that fought for Freedom from Government actions. Why are we trying to get more?

Response by TSgt David L. made Jan 4 at 2016 6:53 AM

TSgt David L. — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 06:53:08 -0500

Smarter, not more. Nation wide we have redundant laws on the books already. Enforcement and sentencing would go a long way to fixing the problem. The "REAL" issue is that dirtbags are going to be dirtbags. Fix the drug issue we have spent BILLIONS of dollars on, THEN come and talk to me about how you want guns regulated. Out here.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jan 4 at 2016 8:16 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 08:16:31 -0500

Gun control is NOT about guns...it's about CONTROL!

Response by COL Ross Green made Jan 4 at 2016 2:57 PM

COL Ross Green — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:57:36 -0500

I am for common sense gun control; the only factor with a consistent correlation to gun violence is the availability of guns - e.g. guns easily available in US = high incidence of gun violence; guns availability restricted in Germany = low incidence of gun violence. We need to get past the NRA insistence that all gun control is bad! Extending background checks to all gun sales, restricting people that are too dangerous to allow to fly from buying guns and people with mental illness from buying guns are all common sense measure that COULD help limit the wrong people from getting easy access to guns. Additionally, I think guns should be registered - I have to register my car, and now my drone, why not my gun? Let us take some basic, common sense efforts to TRY prevent gun violence.

Response by SrA Marlin Taylor made Jan 4 at 2016 8:15 PM

SrA Marlin Taylor — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:15:07 -0500

I live in the state of Oklahoma. There are very few gun laws on the books here. The laws that are here are for the concealed carry rights. Now these are very strict. But I can tell the change in the city I live in from the change in laws. My neighborhood was a war zone before the laws were more or less thrown away. Gang violence, armed robberies, home invasions and drugs had the whole area in a tight death grip. Now in the last 2 years I have only heard a gun fired twice. Both times it was family violence. The crime rate in my city of Ardmore has fallen through the floor. My neighborhood is quiet now.

For or against? I guess I am now for it. The proof is all around me where I live.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jan 4 at 2016 8:22 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:22:03 -0500

LOL, AGAINST. First, guns are already "controlled". But, laws on the books are poorly and selectively enforced. Bottom line: I don't want any futher restrictions on my gun ownership or carriage or use.

Response by SFC William Farrell made Jan 4 at 2016 10:15 PM

SFC William Farrell — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:15:08 -0500

Against gun control CPT Private RallyPoint Member as per many other very valid arguments here. I do think we need to educate people so that they do not resort to violence to achieve what they want and we also need to strengthen the mental health system so that those that should not have guns are properly reported.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 5 at 2016 12:42 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:42:51 -0500

Proper Gun Control = Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze (slow like a snail). Let the shot surprise you.

Response by SGT Timothy Rocheleau made Jan 5 at 2016 1:22 PM

SGT Timothy Rocheleau — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 13:22:39 -0500

CPT Private RallyPoint Member in your post you ask others to post their thoughts, beliefs or positions on gun control yet you didn't post yours. Why did you leave that important statement out?

Any gun control legislation or executive action will serve only one result. Making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain and own firearms while doing absolutely nothing to prevent the bad people of the country from obtaining firearms. We all know that criminals do not care what law you put into place, if they want to break that law they will. Increased gun control will not reduce gun crime. One need look no farther than Chicago, New York or California, three of the places with the strictest gun laws with the highest gun crimes.

Response by SFC Ernest Thurston made Jan 8 at 2016 1:32 PM

SFC Ernest Thurston — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:32:00 -0500

I'm opposed to gun control. You can't legislate bad people to be good. Cain killed Abel and he didn't have a gun. Politicians that advocate gun control have one final purpose in mind. Disarm the population so that the government can control them. It's not about safety. Why don't we control knives, bows and arrows, or rocks and slingshots? They don't pose a threat to an armed government force. Gun do. Even Obama in his gun control speech said that gun killed almost as many people as cars. Let's ban cars! Make everyone walk. We could be healthier and pollute less, right?
The only defense from a armed bad guy is a better armed good guy and the good guy doesn't have to carry a badge.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jan 15 at 2016 1:47 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:47:41 -0500

I live in Kentucky where open carry is legal and encouraged by the County Sheriffs. I also have a Concealed Carry permit so I am covered either way. And, I don't believe Our Constitution will EVER be amended to do away with "The Right to Bear Arms". I think the old bumper sticker "When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will Have Guns" says it best. Less than a year left of Obama so we won't have to listen to him much longer. He travels in the USA with 50 armed Secret Service, 100 when he travels abroad. Think he would want them "UN-armed?"

Response by SFC Maury Gonzalez made Jan 26 at 2016 1:18 PM

SFC Maury Gonzalez — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:18:02 -0500

Don't be an incompetent ass and change the Constitution just to be popular on twitter and Facebook

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jan 26 at 2016 1:30 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:30:54 -0500

Define what you mean by "gun control".

Response by SFC Ernest Thurston made Apr 21 at 2016 3:43 PM

SFC Ernest Thurston — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:43:57 -0400

I am not opposed to some form of registration and maybe even required training but denying someone their rights because they MAY be a problem is wrong. It seems like they keep coming up with reasons not to allow a person to by a gun. First it was just registration. Then it was background checks. Then it was denying purchases by felons. Then it was denying purchases by people charged with domestic violence. Now it's people that someone arbitrarily deems to be mentally ill. There is talk about denying gun rights to vets because they may have some form of hidden PTSD. Oh yes don't forget the gun show loophole that doesn't exist and try not to allow a father to pass his old gun down to his son without clearing it with the government first. It's a slippery slope just like anything else liberals put forward. We could wind up like Germany where if you own a gun it must be kept in a government controlled arms room and only fired on a range. But you can keep your muzzle loading shot gun. Now there's you right to bear arms, HOOAH

Response by SFC Ernest Thurston made Apr 21 at 2016 4:18 PM

SFC Ernest Thurston — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:18:29 -0400

I just have a problem with the blanket way that gun control is applied. Background checks yes but if my wife and I go in for marital counseling with a psychologist do I wind up be denied a weapon because I was under the "care" of a mental health professional? if I bounce a check for $101 and get convicted of check fraud, making me a felon, does this make me a dangerous criminal. If my wife and I get in a heated argument and a neighbor calls the cops does this mean I have a domestic disturbance report on my record and can't get a gun? What if I have a non-violent felony charge from 20 years ago and have a squeaky clean record other than that, does that make me too dangerous to have a gun?

Response by PFC James (LURCH) Janota made Apr 20 at 2018 9:25 AM

PFC James (LURCH) Janota — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:25:18 -0400

Gun control is a scapegoat for not dealing with a deeper issue. We don't focus on what's pulling the trigger. We have a myriad of psychoses everywhere in the world. All violence is environmentally charged. When someone is bullied in school and is not allowed to defend him/herself but forced to be in that environment, chances are, if they have access to a firearm, they will use it. If they don't have access to firearms, they will improvise to obtain the desired effect. It may not be bullies, it may just be the fact that these shooters feel like they've run out of options. They tell people that are in charge or in the enforcement chain, nothing gets done, and they take matters into their own hands. So the focus shouldn't necessarily be gun control, it should be life options and opportunity management. Cause if you don't get the opportunity to thrive you're going to be taking the opportunity to survive. Sometimes that means negotiating the course the best way you know how. Sometimes people would rather kill the problem rather that negotiate with it.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Jul 10 at 2018 4:06 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:06:13 -0400

When people talk about changing a part or parts of the Constitution I present them with the following and even though I wrote it a couple of years ago but I have found no reason to retract it.

About the Constitution having reflected on the Battle of Concord 240 years later - April 19 2015

This question came up to me recently: Should the (I’m paraphrasing) Constitution, Bill of Rights and the other Amendments be rewritten?

I consider our Constitution to be a living, breathing document, but all our ‘documents of governance’ are intimately interrelated and as such changes should be carefully considered by ALL citizens.

This is how I addressed the Bill of Rights query.

Like any 'system' if one part is removed remainder will be less effective. On the first ten Amendments (the initial Bill of Rights) alone here is how I, a common citizen, see their interaction.

If the 1st Amendment were removed then all those that currently against the 2nd Amendment as it stands would be unable to protest ANY issue without censorship.

The linchpin of the Bill of Rights is the 2nd Amendment - remove it and the US Constitution with the remaining Amendments, becomes unsupportable. To remove the 2nd Amendment or to change the intent is to remove the ability of citizens to enforce the law against tyranny.

Without the 3rd Amendment the government could barrack soldier at any time in your home and use you food, cars and indeed - your family without your consent, in de'facto holding your family as ransom.

The 4th, if it were removed would mean that if anyone disliked you (or your politics) you could be rousted at any time w/o recourse to warrant or intervention of court or legal defense. The accusation would be the charge and sentence in one statement.

Under the 5th I cannot incriminate myself under any circumstances up to and including torture.

With the 6th I have a right to a speedy PUBLIC trial, that includes no secret charges with my accuser (be they public official or private individual) in the public eye where I along with witnesses of both sides will face the consequences of any failure to be less than truthful in their testimony.

In cases where the 7th, where civil law applies, I have a right to trial by my peers – by such we DO NOT mean rich people by rich people, merchants by merchants, poor people by poor people – but by equal citizens under the law. All citizens must be tried alike, not because you can afford better counsel.

My 8th (and yours) keeps me from having to ‘make a loan’ for a simple civil offense or to allow others or the government to sell me into bondage to pay off any fine levied.

The 9th Amendment prevents me form disenfranchising citizens. Even when in the 1920s, when the Oklahoma ‘reclassified’ those with only 1/32nd Indian blood as being ‘Indians’, they could not remove their right to vote in any election. It prevents the denial of equal rights to all citizens.

Lastly the 10th Amendment limits the power of government to those delegated by the Constitution. This prevents a dictatorship by the President, Congress, by a ‘tribunal’, any unelected/elected or non-republic/republic form of government.

In addition, I state as an adjunct to, Thomas Jefferson's "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.", so must the wisdom of each generation be redeemed by critical consideration by the next.

If the founders had not meant the Constitution to change with each generation they would not have embedded the mechanism for change within its core, BUT this was to improve upon the Constitution, not to take away my Rights.

Ralph E Kelley, Citizen

Response by 1SG John Highfill made Feb 10 at 2020 6:43 AM

1SG John Highfill — Mon, 10 Feb 2020 06:43:35 -0500

Hitting your target .... so practice practice practice

Response by SSG Gordon Hill made Feb 10 at 2020 7:14 AM

SSG Gordon Hill — Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:14:25 -0500

I am for gun control and still support the 2nd amendment I believe only properly trained personnel should have access to military grade weapons. Background checks and a waiting period are a must.