26
26
0
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>
Gun Control
Weapons
Politics
Law
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 131
2
2
0
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 ?????
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
CPT (Join to see) - 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.
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.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir you hit what I was thinking as well right on the nose. I completely agree with all your points
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Absolutely nothing needs to be added to the laws and measures that are already in place.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SPC Donald Moore
I can answer that, there was an executive order that made all federal installations into "Gun Free Zones".
When I was active duty, living in quarters on post, I was required to keep my personal weapons in the company arms room and sign them out if I wanted to use them and promptly return them to the arms room when done. The MWR ran a range on base that we could use for a very minimal fee with no time limit. Once I moved off post, I could take my firearms out of the arms room and still bring them on post to use the range. As I understand it, this policy is very different now.
The government facility that I work on now is run by NASA and they used to have a gun club that had a range and gun shop on site. Once that executive order went through, the range was closed to the public and the shop was closed. Almost overnight, something that had been around since the site was built was just gone, for no reason. There had never been a safety violation on the facility that would "justify" this, it was an executive decision, one that should be rescinded.
Even before that the individual soldier (enlisted especially) was never trusted with weapons because most officers saw them as uneducated and incompetent and therefore unworthy. This dates back a very long way. In WWI for example, there were instances where even though ammunition was available, it was not distributed to the troops because the leaders were afraid of a revolt as most troops didn't want to charge the enemy machine-guns only to be mowed down like wheat.
Then, as recently as when I was in Kuwait, when the president visited to give us a pep-talk, just confiscating the ammo wasn't enough, they also confiscated the bolts from all of the weapons so that nobody could get a shot at him. Really, we can't be trusted to not kill our own commander? OK
The government doesn't trust the people and that is the real driving force behind gun control. They want to eliminate all civilian access to firearms so that the government can behave how they want, with no regard to possible redress by the governed.
When I was active duty, living in quarters on post, I was required to keep my personal weapons in the company arms room and sign them out if I wanted to use them and promptly return them to the arms room when done. The MWR ran a range on base that we could use for a very minimal fee with no time limit. Once I moved off post, I could take my firearms out of the arms room and still bring them on post to use the range. As I understand it, this policy is very different now.
The government facility that I work on now is run by NASA and they used to have a gun club that had a range and gun shop on site. Once that executive order went through, the range was closed to the public and the shop was closed. Almost overnight, something that had been around since the site was built was just gone, for no reason. There had never been a safety violation on the facility that would "justify" this, it was an executive decision, one that should be rescinded.
Even before that the individual soldier (enlisted especially) was never trusted with weapons because most officers saw them as uneducated and incompetent and therefore unworthy. This dates back a very long way. In WWI for example, there were instances where even though ammunition was available, it was not distributed to the troops because the leaders were afraid of a revolt as most troops didn't want to charge the enemy machine-guns only to be mowed down like wheat.
Then, as recently as when I was in Kuwait, when the president visited to give us a pep-talk, just confiscating the ammo wasn't enough, they also confiscated the bolts from all of the weapons so that nobody could get a shot at him. Really, we can't be trusted to not kill our own commander? OK
The government doesn't trust the people and that is the real driving force behind gun control. They want to eliminate all civilian access to firearms so that the government can behave how they want, with no regard to possible redress by the governed.
(0)
(0)
SFC Ernest Thurston
I think what ever the local state law is should also apply on a military installation. All of the other state laws apply on post through the Assimilated Crimes Act so why not gun registration?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
All for gun control! If you can't hit what you're aiming at, you're just making noise and wasting ammunition..... ;o)
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm all for gun control... Keep it pointed down range and drop the target!!!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google