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
2
2
0
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."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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..
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
But I also believe that there are those who want to control but cannot even enforce current laws or CDC protocols. Just saying.
(0)
(0)
SPC Donald Moore
SFC Michael Hasbun - As much as I _HATE_ anything and everything that even sounds like gun control, I can see the logic in requiring training. It is no worse than requiring a drivers license before being allowed to drive a car. You can't go down to the car dealer and buy a car without showing them a drivers license (and proof of insurance) because they just won't sell it to you. People don't have a problem with that because it doesn't keep them from getting a car. It just makes them have to learn about safe handling of the car first.
On the other hand, and this is important, being able to drive a car is not a constitutionally protected RIGHT. The constitution didn't grant you the right to keep and bear arms. It is there to protect your preexisting right "shall not be infringed".
If you give the government an inch, they will take ten miles and we have already given them too much.
On the other hand, and this is important, being able to drive a car is not a constitutionally protected RIGHT. The constitution didn't grant you the right to keep and bear arms. It is there to protect your preexisting right "shall not be infringed".
If you give the government an inch, they will take ten miles and we have already given them too much.
(0)
(0)
SFC Ernest Thurston
Training seems like a good idea until you think of how it would be enforced. Does the government get to deny you the right to carry a weapon if you can't put 35 out of 40 hits on a target. What if they specify that you have to know how to maintain it etc, etc etc. Any time you give the government the right to regulate a Constitutional right you loose yours. A good example is the way Washington, DC implemented it's gun registration laws.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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!
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SFC Ernest Thurston
I agree with your sentiments on guns. I also believe that most people that own guns know how to properly use them. Just like you and your son, the gun and the training was passed on from generation to generation. I also believe that the majority of people that don't know about guns but decide they need one will go into a gun shop and along with the purchase will sign up for training VOLUNTARILY not because the government mandated it. It's the bad guys that get a gun and don't have any training until they hold up the grocery store and find out the gun doesn't have a magazine. :0
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir, I appreciate the constructive response. This answer is precisely why I made this thread, so we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic instead of nonconstructive criticisms or shouting of ignorant uniformed opinions (which many have done and I choose to ignore.)
You made very valid points and I completely agree with you.
You made very valid points and I completely agree with you.
(0)
(0)
COL Ross Green
Your owning a gun outside of a "well regulated militia" is not a constitutional right either; however, beside that, having a right to own something does not mean you should not have to register it.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT (Join to see)
Gun control is not the problem. The problem is mental health, politicians and the media.
Gun control is not the problem. The problem is mental health, politicians and the media.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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?
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?
(1)
(0)
SSG John Mitchell
While what you are saying is true, you know as well as I that once we give in even a mm, they will want the entire mile. That's just the way they are. We already have so many Laws on the Books for purchasing a Gun it's not even pathetic. What we NEED is for the Laws we already have to be enforced, including the ones for Criminals caught a second (or more) time. The current EO that Dumbo is pushing is nothing more than a smoke screen and ammo for whoever the Democrats, Killary, nominate to run for Pres. They can take it and say, "See, the GOP isn't interested in your safety". They've already twisted so many other things that the GOP has blocked. They've got better PR people. Always have. What we NEED is better Government Control. They have no fear of We The People anymore. They do whatever they want with no repercussions. Same as the Bankers that drove us straight into the ground. They walked away with BILLIONS while WE lost everything in most cases. I don't know about you but, when I was in, if we didn't do our Job or screwed it up, we paid the price. Mostly with PT but sometimes with money and time if we screwed up bad enough. Our Elected Officials don't have any fear that they will be held responsible for their actions. Or lack there of in most cases.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
We have the right to own firearms as guaranteed by the constitution so therefore I will own as many guns as I want...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google