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>
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 131
<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>
(33)
(1)
SFC (Join to see)
Mr Metcalf, good point. We are professionals, and we should be treated as such. I carry my pistol with me while off post, and have to stop, unload, and store it according to guidelines set forth by our CG when entering the gate. To me this seems to be unnecessary because if we're allowed to be representatives of the United States in a foreign country armed with not only a rifle, but in some cases, a cannon, why can we not be trusted to carry a pistol in a professional environment? I'm not saying I should be allowed to carry full-auto weapons, SBR, or AP ammo, just a pistol will do the trick.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Gun control legislation is mere paper laws that criminals will not obey. SSG Gordon Hill.
(8)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SSG Gordon Hill - within your statement ... there is already a paradox. Create more law to stop law breaker :). There will not be enough law to do that. :)
The whole idea of meaningful gun control is to treat everyone as possible criminals, that is why gun control is endorsed in populated area, because the distrust factor between people is bigger and assumption of a stranger is a criminal is automatically higher.
By understand the above, and then looks into all the law been passed on gun control or trying to pass, you will see the pattern of that. To treat everyone as of they are criminal. :)
The whole idea of meaningful gun control is to treat everyone as possible criminals, that is why gun control is endorsed in populated area, because the distrust factor between people is bigger and assumption of a stranger is a criminal is automatically higher.
By understand the above, and then looks into all the law been passed on gun control or trying to pass, you will see the pattern of that. To treat everyone as of they are criminal. :)
(2)
(0)
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
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
(28)
(0)
PO3 Paul Lowrey
CSM Uhlig, I agree with you but I think better good gun control would be if she shot him one more time for good measure.
(1)
(0)
<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>
(17)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
SSG Burns, some people ARE running around randomly punching people in the face. Google "Knockout Game" and be careful which links you click on... go to some of the news-oriented sites.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Westin Sandberg
CW2 Walker, can't say for sure, but I think Staff Sergeant Burns was being sarcastic...
(0)
(0)
SSG Maurice P.
the cum drunk twins (al sharpton and jessie jackson) dont give a care cuz white people are getting hurt and killed in the KNOCKOUT GAME
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG Robert Burns great point, BTW as it turns out, more people are murdered each year by fist than by rifles:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8#disablemobile
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8#disablemobile
(0)
(0)
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!.
(16)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
CDR Tucker - Welcome to RallyPoint and I too believe it is about control. And I agree with we must conserve our values against people who strongly dislike us. Just see all this stuff about missile silos and so on and we see a pattern.
(2)
(0)
To keep things clear, I oppose all gun control laws.
Actions that violate the rights of others should be illegal, not items.
(16)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT Dean, with all due respect, that is an emotional and straw man argument. It's like saying since some people excessively speed in their cars then we must make having cars much more restrictive. Or since so many people drown in pools then we have to have background checks to buy a pool. The list can go on. The point is restrictions are just that... restrictions. They are designed for ONE thing only: to control whomever the restriction is geared towards. Why would you put a PFC, who just received UCMJ, on 30 days restriction? To LIMIT what they can do by CONTROLlING their ability to move. The PFC still has the ability to go out but now they MIGHT understand there are negative consequences for their behavior. This is the point many of us try to make. Instead of restricting a RIGHT, let's punish those who are cavalier with that right. It goes with anything else. We punish those who commit inappropriate inactions/crimes. We don't punish the inanimate object/tool.
(4)
(1)
LTC (Join to see)
SGT Dean....criminals don't worry about buying guns legally...so, therefore, legal restrictions on guns do not affect the criminals....they, by definition, do not abide by the laws....additioanlly, to use your analogy why would you limit the restriction on someone who has a history of drive by shootings to a gun...why not take their driver's license away too??<div><br></div>
(3)
(1)
(3)
(0)
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.
(14)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SPC Donald Moore, I live in a state where you do not have to store ammo separately from the weapon. In my state the say if a gun is not under your personal control. Which is defined as either being carried on your person or within reach without moving. The weapon should be stored in a locked container. The problem with this law is it is too vague some consider a glass front gun cabinet with a lock, a locked container and by law it is even though anyone can just smash the glass to get it. As far as personal access you could spend money on some sort of bio enabled device for quick access. But then people complain that they now have to spend money unnecessarily to own a gun. I own a gun. I store it properly. I carry it properly. What more can be asked of me?
(0)
(0)
PO3 Paul Lowrey
I think you’re right but I’m totally against gun control although gun education might help good gun owners from getting into trouble but I don’t see how gun education would stop a bad guy from breaking into you home.
(0)
(0)
SGT Doug Blanchard
I remember even from a very young age, we had a firearm in the house. Even when we lived in quarters on board the base when my Das was still active duty. The pistol was one that was issued to him by the US Army and they knew is was kept at home.
He taught both my mom and myself to respect and how to use it if the need ever occured. He took us to the firing range on board base and taught us both to shoot.
Granted this was in the early 1960s and a different time and mentality in this country. I took it upon myself to instruct my wife, all of our children, and several of our grandchildren how to shoot. Both long guns, aka rifle and shotgun, and handguns. Both pistol and revolver. They all know a firearm is not a toy, at any time.
I am glad I live in a state that does not require that you store your firearm and ammo separately or have it locked up. I also DO NOT feel sorry for some jerk off that breaks into our house, as if our dogs don't get you, either I or my wife will. As our state has both Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrin laws on the books to protect its citizens.
He taught both my mom and myself to respect and how to use it if the need ever occured. He took us to the firing range on board base and taught us both to shoot.
Granted this was in the early 1960s and a different time and mentality in this country. I took it upon myself to instruct my wife, all of our children, and several of our grandchildren how to shoot. Both long guns, aka rifle and shotgun, and handguns. Both pistol and revolver. They all know a firearm is not a toy, at any time.
I am glad I live in a state that does not require that you store your firearm and ammo separately or have it locked up. I also DO NOT feel sorry for some jerk off that breaks into our house, as if our dogs don't get you, either I or my wife will. As our state has both Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrin laws on the books to protect its citizens.
(0)
(0)
SGT Doug Blanchard
Gun education may not stop someone from breaking into your home. But an armed home owner that is trained to use his or her weapon surely will.
They may come in in a vertical or semi vertical position, but they will be exiting in a horizontal position.
They may come in in a vertical or semi vertical position, but they will be exiting in a horizontal position.
(0)
(0)
"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?
(11)
(0)
SPC Donald Moore
MAJ Bryan Zeski - What you fail to understand is this. The ability of the government to have a weapon of any sort is provided by the PEOPLE. If, We the People, can't have a weapon of any kind, the government should not have it either.
So, if we can't own it, what ever it is, fully armed Abrams tank or tactical nuke, the government shouldn't have it either.
Our right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of overthrowing the government when the need arises. We are supposed to be equally armed.
AND if you read the original constitution, the government is, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
This indicates that a standing army is not supposed to exist AT ALL because the people should not have to fear the government using the army against them.
AND the very next line of the constitution simply states, "To provide and maintain a Navy;"
That tells us the Navy can exist all the time to protect our borders and shipping interests. If they had intended the army to exist all the time, they would have said it the same way they said the bit about a navy. The air force never should have existed and still shouldn't. At best, all the air power in the air force should either be in the army or navy.
So, if we can't own it, what ever it is, fully armed Abrams tank or tactical nuke, the government shouldn't have it either.
Our right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of overthrowing the government when the need arises. We are supposed to be equally armed.
AND if you read the original constitution, the government is, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
This indicates that a standing army is not supposed to exist AT ALL because the people should not have to fear the government using the army against them.
AND the very next line of the constitution simply states, "To provide and maintain a Navy;"
That tells us the Navy can exist all the time to protect our borders and shipping interests. If they had intended the army to exist all the time, they would have said it the same way they said the bit about a navy. The air force never should have existed and still shouldn't. At best, all the air power in the air force should either be in the army or navy.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSG Robert Burns I agree but also include preventive measures and remedial service to make them productive and not a further drain on society. Maybe naïve but I wish to pray for better.
(0)
(0)
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.
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.
(9)
(0)
Read This Next

Gun Control
Weapons
Politics
Law
