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
8
8
0
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>
(8)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
and car accidents are even a higher percentage...but really its not about the lives...its the government and control.<br><br><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none;">"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none;">the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none;">program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none;">knowing how it happened." -Norman Thomas</span><br>
(4)
(0)
MSG(P) (Join to see)
I think that an alcohol ban worked once in the past.... right??? Phohibition was "wildly" successful. Any attempt to fully ban firearm possession and ownership in this country would likely be just as unsuccessful. However, the bleeding of rights, restrictions placed on law-abiding firearm owners, and the socialistic control being exerted upon the American people is wildly concerning. While an outright ban may not be in the future, the difficulty in obtaining and then keeping a firearm will certainly continue to become a problem in the future. However, I take comfort in knowing that should this country ever reach a revolutionary tipping point, I shall be able to stand up and fight for the lives of those who have attempted to "control" my firearm ownership when they ask for my help. The only thing that I will ask from them at that point is acknowledgement of my, "I told you so."
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Nocchi,
you'll also note in those numbers that the vast majority of the gun deaths in the US are self-inflicted, not inflicted from others so when the gun control progressives use the number of 30,000 gun deaths annually it is intended to make you think that people are shooting each other in large numbers which is false.
(1)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
Good points MAJ (Join to see). And something to remember about that those 10,000 deaths is that only includes those deaths where alcohol was the known factor. It has been proven that for up to about 48 hours after some heavy drinking, there are many more accidents death resulting that were a delayed result of that drinking. So the toll is much higher. I'd say ban alcohol, not guns.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
<p>The country needs to find a middle ground between "gun control" and "gun liberty".</p><p><br></p><p>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.</p>
(8)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
PO1 James McWilliams Hey, if you're comfortable with your neighbors having M79s, machine guns, and tactical nukes in their backyard, I guess you have an argument.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
PO1 James McWilliams - So, to be clear, you're ok with all the average citizen owning military level weapons of all shapes and sizes? I like how you say "it's perfectly legal" **some restrictions apply.
Also, why is it ok to put a tax on rights? You seem to have no issue saying everyone who wants machine guns should just pay the tax. Owning machine guns is a RIGHT. How can we put a price on that? Are we going to tax free speech next? Maybe you need a permit to voice a negative opinion about the government?
And why can't you and I own some HE rounds for our M79s? Shouldn't that be covered by 2A? Or is it really just the weapon itself? And not the ammo? Surely that makes no sense.
"Yes, you can own machine guns... but, sorry, ammunition is illegal."
I know the laws in place. I can also recognize common sense restrictions and responsibilities when it comes to firearms.
Also, why is it ok to put a tax on rights? You seem to have no issue saying everyone who wants machine guns should just pay the tax. Owning machine guns is a RIGHT. How can we put a price on that? Are we going to tax free speech next? Maybe you need a permit to voice a negative opinion about the government?
And why can't you and I own some HE rounds for our M79s? Shouldn't that be covered by 2A? Or is it really just the weapon itself? And not the ammo? Surely that makes no sense.
"Yes, you can own machine guns... but, sorry, ammunition is illegal."
I know the laws in place. I can also recognize common sense restrictions and responsibilities when it comes to firearms.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
PO1 James McWilliams -
Alright, let's ask the simple questions:
Should the Federal Government be allowed to tax your ability to exercise your rights?
How is outlawing ammunition for a weapon not an infringement?
I'm not worried about the weapons themselves, that's never been an issue. I don't want the weapons to go to training to learn how to use themselves effectively. I want the people who want to use the weapons to do so. Is that really too much to ask? That people carrying around deadly weapons have some kind of training in HOW to use them?
"Self-righteous hyperbole"? Ok, by all means, what about my statement was "self-righteous hyperbole"?
Here's some definitions to get you started:
Self-righteous - having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
Hyperbole - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
Alright, let's ask the simple questions:
Should the Federal Government be allowed to tax your ability to exercise your rights?
How is outlawing ammunition for a weapon not an infringement?
I'm not worried about the weapons themselves, that's never been an issue. I don't want the weapons to go to training to learn how to use themselves effectively. I want the people who want to use the weapons to do so. Is that really too much to ask? That people carrying around deadly weapons have some kind of training in HOW to use them?
"Self-righteous hyperbole"? Ok, by all means, what about my statement was "self-righteous hyperbole"?
Here's some definitions to get you started:
Self-righteous - having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
Hyperbole - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
PO1 James McWilliams - The overall topic is are you for or against gun control. It's an opinion question - hence, why I said, "To me" XYZ. It's my opinion based on experience and statistics.
What other rights do we training on before we can exercise them? How about all of the rights that enable us to remove a person from life when we get angry, scared, or stupid? I recommend training on those rights.
I like that you pointed out that something that requires permission isn't a right. That's a great point. Background checks = permission. Tax on purchase = permission. Permits = permission.
Are you advocating that we do away with those things?
Is there some part of my statement you think I didn't mean to be taken literally? Or was your use of "hyperbole" just there for emphasis?
What other rights do we training on before we can exercise them? How about all of the rights that enable us to remove a person from life when we get angry, scared, or stupid? I recommend training on those rights.
I like that you pointed out that something that requires permission isn't a right. That's a great point. Background checks = permission. Tax on purchase = permission. Permits = permission.
Are you advocating that we do away with those things?
Is there some part of my statement you think I didn't mean to be taken literally? Or was your use of "hyperbole" just there for emphasis?
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
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
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
(8)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Responsible individuals shouldn't be punished for the acts of those that choose the wrong way about dealing with their anger and/or situations.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I'm not suggesting that anyone be punished, but I wouldn't suggest that everyone be forced to own a gun either. I understand that CW2 Evans was being snarky, and I respect that, I get his point and respect that too. I get where he's coming from and I agree to an extent, but obviously, there is a point that is "too far."
(2)
(0)
PO3 Paul Lowrey
CW2 Evan’s, I like your thoughts but I’m just not sure about turning loose a 15 year kid with any kind of firearm even though they would be trained how to use them and when to use them but they’re still kids. I’d like to here what some other Veterans think about this.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
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.
(7)
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
SSG Redondo - You know very well gun control is a must. If you don't have control over your gun how will you never hit your target? (wink)
I also think it is prudent to use two hands whenever possible.
I also think it is prudent to use two hands whenever possible.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Brian Frawley
If government really wants to control something related to guns, get them out of the hands of the nuts! There will never be a complete answer to this! As a parent I would go out of my mind if something happened to one of my kids by some idiot welding a firearm! On the other hand the only ones effected by laws regarding any type of control are the ones the government shouldn't and wouldn't be concerned about in the first place! The less the government is involved, the better! Every time they put their hands into the pot it always comes out smelling like crap!
(3)
(0)
7
7
0
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...
(7)
(0)
CMC Robert Young
SSG you hit the nail on the head about enforcing the laws already in place. If we did that, many of our current problems would be solved as opposed to creating another class of criminal by passing another law which does address the criminals we already have.
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.
(5)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
LTJG Robert M. There are those who love to impose their ideals while telling us to keep an open mind. The very same people who would carry a vendetta if they were the victim of a violent crime.
(1)
(0)
SPC Donald Moore
SSgt (Join to see),
Freedom can be messy, that doesn't indicate that it is a bad thing and we should give it up to be slaves to the state. It has already gone too far in that direction.
Freedom can be messy, that doesn't indicate that it is a bad thing and we should give it up to be slaves to the state. It has already gone too far in that direction.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
<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>
<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>
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
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...)
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...)
(5)
(0)
SPC Donald Moore
SSG(P) (Join to see), you are on the right track with everything, except that the constitution and amendments do not grant rights. The rights we have were preexisting and these documents exist to protect and defend those rights.
When the government moves to take our rights away, they violate their mandate and are acting against the people that they are supposed to exist to defend.
This has already been happening for decades in tiny baby steps to get us used to it in increments so that we would not resist.
When the government moves to take our rights away, they violate their mandate and are acting against the people that they are supposed to exist to defend.
This has already been happening for decades in tiny baby steps to get us used to it in increments so that we would not resist.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I always ask people this one question: Do you think gang bangers or other criminals care about laws or can't find guns?
(5)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Well according to the veeeerrrry highly regarded Sen. Diane Feinstein "once the gunman realizes no one else is armed, he will lay down his guns and surrender. that's just human nature". That's the mindset behind the gun control push.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) They want power and control over everyone and disregard totally any rights issues. They must be defeated and they will when the truth starts coming out.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google