Should or could there be nationally a strict civilian gun control law passed?

PFC Donnie Harold Harris — Fri, 31 May 2019 20:43:14 -0400

With the high assault rate by police to the citizen and there right to lie and entrap any person be changed as well?

Response by SSG Phil Miller made May 31 at 2019 8:45 PM

SSG Phil Miller — Fri, 31 May 2019 20:45:41 -0400

There is one. It's called the Second Ammendment.

Response by SSG Phil Miller made May 31 at 2019 8:48 PM

SSG Phil Miller — Fri, 31 May 2019 20:48:04 -0400

What high assault rate? Are you watching MSM or reading FBI crime statistics. There are very different reports from these two.

Response by Maj John Bell made May 31 at 2019 9:08 PM

Maj John Bell — Fri, 31 May 2019 21:08:21 -0400

There are two tests for entrapment commonly used in the U.S.
The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime.
The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 31 at 2019 9:14 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 31 May 2019 21:14:42 -0400

Let's put aside your assertions that the police are assaulting citizens or lying and entrapping them. We know from actual records that those things aren't true, but assume they were. How would a strict gun control law prevent any of that? How would a strict gun control law prevent crime? The fact (real fact) is that crime is highest in areas with the strictest gun control laws, and homicides are virtually non-existent in jurisdictions with the least infringements on gun rights. For example, 54% of American counties report no homicides and nearly 50% of all homicides occur in the major metropolitan areas with very strict gun control laws. Indeed, if you ignore gun crimes in the ten largest population centers, the US has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2019 10:32 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 May 2019 22:32:16 -0400

A typical anti-police statement that uses absolutely no facts to back it up and then throws in an unrelated gun grab idea.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2019 11:28 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 May 2019 23:28:48 -0400

Provide statistics to back up your claim. Police officers are not assaulting citizens or lying to entrap anyone.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2019 12:59 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 00:59:25 -0400

"High assault rate by police" - Please provide the source for this statement. Whatever you "think" it is, I can already tell you its false but am willing to hear why exactly you think this to be so.

"Right to lie and entrap" - Where did you get this information? Its also completely false.

Not sure if you are here just to stir up controversy, or you actually believe this. Either way, I don't think you are going to get what you want from this site. If you do believe it, you really should do more research (may be even talk to actual police and those who aggregate actual police operational statistics), instead of just spouting nonsense and lies you heard from someone or perhaps a particular news source that doesn't properly vet sources.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jun 1 at 2019 8:50 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 08:50:36 -0400

ANY law that restricts the possession and use of a firearm is a violation of the 2nd Amendment in my opinion. Gun control legislation is not about guns, it's about control. The 2nd Amendment is the actual cornerstone of our Bill of Rights. Look at how shabbily the government treats its people. Now think how bad it would be if the government was able to remove, rewrite or otherwise render ineffective your 2nd Amendment right. The rest of your rights would fall like dominoes. The pinheads we elect to office do not act, they react and usually it is a knee jerk reaction to a terrible situation. Politicians need to quit trying to place more restrictions upon the law abiding and place greater emphasis on enforcement of the existing laws (which we all know will never be repealed) and mandate they be enforced. Too often firearm violations are charged onlt to be dropped later as part of a plea agreement. That serves no one any good.

Response by SGT James Murphy made Jun 1 at 2019 5:01 PM

SGT James Murphy — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 17:01:32 -0400

Spoken like a True Commie.... What Army did you serve in?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2019 11:00 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Jun 2019 23:00:12 -0400

I’m smirking reading this post while sitting in my patrol car. I guess I have to assault someone today to fit this statement...

Response by SSG Charlie Davis made Jun 4 at 2019 10:44 PM

SSG Charlie Davis — Tue, 04 Jun 2019 22:44:33 -0400

TITLE: “Should or could there be nationally a strict civilian gun control law passed?”

TEXT: “With the high assault rate by police to the citizen and there (sic) right to lie and entrap any person be changed as well?”

__________________________________________________________________________________

Donnie, I gotta say you have a way of making a statement and asking a question all in one! I’m not denigrating you, but it just sounds like this post was blurted out in a moment of frustration or anger. As a retired law enforcement officer with the Honolulu Police Department and several years as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal here in District 22, Hawaii, I have something to contribute to this discussion.

1. The advent of personal phones and miniature video cameras, has blasted the exposure of everything we do in public and sometimes in private, out into the public view for their consumption and opinion. The news media outlets are largely responsible for this, but social media has overtaken the talking heads by a mile! The posted video clips create a stir in the community and this sometimes leads to challenges to law enforcement officials for the mere purpose of making a video to further public input and create hate and discontent in communities.

2. Some individuals have a deep resentment towards law enforcement officers either learned from an early incident which they witnessed or was a part of at one time in their life. Others developed a resentment or distrust through family up-brining or imparted by parental figures in the home or on the street – a learned process. Repetition, repetition, repetition. Repeat and repeat the same message over and over again at it starts to become or sound like the truth or fact – “I did not have sex with that woman. . .”

3. Some individuals just have a severe disdain for authority figures or just of anyone in a uniform. They don’t know why, they can’t explain it and won’t even try.

4. Some young people, grow up in the gaming world where hours and days are spent on almost life-sized and life-like scenarios are brought before them on a screen where the object is to survive by killing your way through the different levels of the game. If during the game you fail or get killed, you are point penalized and you start over. The same bad guys come back again and you push through to the next level after learning how to get around your previous failure. This can and does translate out into the real world.

5. Some people need alcohol or mind altering drugs to deal with their perceived pressures and stresses of everyday life giving them a false courage to do, say, challenge anyone in their way, or just get through at any cost. Driven by the overwhelming need to keep under the influence of their chosen drug, they will do anything to obtain it, by playing on the sympathy of their family members, stealing from family and friends, stealing from strangers and steadily increasing their level of need to obtain their artificial and albeit temporary courage until they meet resistance and resort to the threat or use of force to get what they want – when they want it.

6. The scary part is that some people come from all five examples. This is what the law enforcement officer may face at any moment of everyday of their career.

I know these are “Pie-in-the-Sky” statements, brief, not complete and without stated facts, figures or authoritative sources. They are mine for this response and I own them. I call these, “The Davis Principles of Mirror Vision, Role Reversal and Related Empirical Data.”

Now, I wrote all that to write this:

1. The two most important days in a police officer’s career is, the day they joined and the day they learn why.

2. You can’t pick a turd up by the clean end. . .

3. No one ever leaves the police department the same way they went in . . .

I will grant you there are some officers who have become jaded in their outlook of the people they’ve sworn to protect and serve. They need and deserve a time-out to get squared away and locked down. Officers do not get up every day and say to themselves, “I wonder how many people I’m gonna kill, beat the hell out of, or lie and cheat to get confessions for crimes not committed.”

Nine times out of ten, when you see a police officer or officers fighting outright with a civilian, he’s trying to stay alive and go home at the end of his shift. Not one time in my career did I ever get instructed to stand there and get beat on by a citizen – just take it and walk away – not one time!

When I learned that my oldest son had applied for and was accepted to the Hawaii County Police Department, I immediately sat down and began writing the lessons I learned over the years as a police officer in Hawaii. By the time I finished, the document was almost a book. He graduated top of his class and class president on May 31, 2019. He is now a member of a under-funded, under-appreciated, under-staffed, single-man-car, paroling alone in isolated or desolate locations inhabited by a lot of people hiding from something real or perceived, anti-everything and especially violent individuals.

The last two officer involved fatal shootings in his department were a week apart and both shot-dead suspects were women armed with a rifle and a pistol respectively and they both went down firing. One was at a stalled vehicle and the other was walking down a road in a remote area in the dark. In both instances, the officers stopped to find out if they needed any help.
So there it is. . .

So, I invite anyone to go to your local police station or state police barracks and request a civilian ride-along with several different officers over a three or four day period (or longer) in your community. Not just mid-night shift, do the evening and day shift on a Wednesday evening or two or three days after pay-day when the money is all gone. See how the different officers react to the same situations or conditions. See how the community reacts to the presence of a police officer both on patrol and when arriving at a scene.

Be a witness to a live event, then watch how its reported on the news or in social media and remarked on by people commenting on a subject they know nothing about, have no clue but have comments and wild-ass statements about how the officer should have handled it.

Watch and learn as the officer uses every trick in his or her book to calm, cajole, distract or extract information from unruly folks not interested in telling their story, but only interested in attacking the officer or even you if you are standing there watching.

Watch and learn that holiday week-ends are not the most dangerous times on the road with huge fatality rates, Watch and learn that nobody and I mean nobody, makes a 9-1-1 call for an officer just to be able to tell them what a good day they’ve had and that everything is just fine.

Now for the gun control thing:

You posed the question: “Should or could there be nationally a strict civilian gun control law passed?”

I don’t know what prompted this question, but I’m gonna take a SWAG on this. You or I probably don’t want to be anywhere close to the U.S. or even the same hemisphere if this was ever seriously attempted. If that ever happened in our lifetime, then we can all just log it out because only the gov. . . Aahhh, I’m leavin’ it at that!

Just FYI: I can’t find reference to it, but several years ago, a marine officer was doing his master’s thesis and poses a written question to young marines at a recruit depot and H&S staff if they would follow orders and participate in a national gun confiscation program. If I recall, the majority said, “Yes!” I’m not sure how the question was posed, but a marine officer asking lower ranking personnel to voluntarily participate in a thesis survey seems highly skewed to me – just my opinion – don’t want to “dis” any marine officers doing master’s thesis’ out there. . .

Now I ask generally, how comfortable you feel pulling open that door to the local diner, MacDonald’s, Starbucks or retail store that posts a big sign saying, “Gun Free Zone – No guns Allowed.” Tell you what I do -go to a diner or store without the sign hoping that there are a bunch of folks in there carrying guns!

Please understand that this is only my opinion (opinions and anuses – everybody’s got one) sometimes, it’s not the question, but how the question is asked, framed or presented.

Please note that I never really answered your question(s) just made a bunch of statements close to the subject but never drilling down - that makes me a candidate for political office. . . Dang!

The only answer I personally have to your question(s) is: “Why?”

Response by Sgt Earle Wingate made Jun 9 at 2019 6:31 PM

Sgt Earle Wingate — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 18:31:14 -0400

With respect, this is a dumb question. First, the question assumes a 'high assault rate'. I don't know where you're from, but in 32 years of involvement in the criminal justice system in NH (prosecutor, admin law judge, defense attorney), it isn't true. It isn't true in VT and Maine either. As to 'lying', LE can legitimately use deception in investigation. If you're questioned, simply keep away from breaking the law.

As to the original question, there should NOT be any more laws restricting guns. We are a free nation in no small part because of our gun freedom. Whether there will be more restrictions will be up to the political process, which we will see unfold as we go along....

Response by SrA Brett Stratton made Jun 9 at 2019 8:40 PM

SrA Brett Stratton — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 20:40:40 -0400

There COULD, but there should NOT be. In my opinion, we need a government approved militia to work alongside the police. The cops can only do so much and are restricted in ways civilians aren't. However if a militia were able to help, it would potentially avoid so many misunderstandings and keep from false blaming on EITHER side. Maybe I'm being naive, but I think the answer is a group of defenders who DON'T have a badge alongside those who DO.

Response by SGT Mary G. made Jun 10 at 2019 12:11 AM

SGT Mary G. — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 00:11:12 -0400

I could support a national regulatory law, then if the states think they need to make it stricter they can have at it.

Response by PO1 James White made Jun 15 at 2019 2:04 AM

PO1 James White — Sat, 15 Jun 2019 02:04:22 -0400

Unless you lose your right to bear arms in a court (either due to criminal conviction or mental health reasons) there should be no restrictions on owning or carrying firearms of any type.

Response by SPC Mark Leonard made Jun 18 at 2019 11:50 PM

SPC Mark Leonard — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 23:50:52 -0400

No.

The Population is getting real sick of this debate. I suggest you check the most recent rates of non compliance and use it to gauge just how stupid of an idea it would be.

3 million Magazine shipped into California the brief few days they had lawful relief.

Response by SPC Rostyslaw Caryk made Jun 21 at 2019 2:49 PM

SPC Rostyslaw Caryk — Fri, 21 Jun 2019 14:49:28 -0400

Well, I do not believe your assumption that actual records prove the assumptions are wrong. Did you see the Washington Post story that showed hundreds or police officers in mutiple juridictions have been posting racist and extremist posts on social media? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/04/racist-posts-police-officers-social-media-accounts-trigger-wave-investigations/?utm_term=.7308c7cfccad). Or even the daily stories of violent police actions against minorities? And, again, you try to point out major metropolitan areas have the highest gun-related crimes. Have you gone though customs when you travel from Ohio or PA to NY? Or driving from Texas to Cleveland? Don't start with selected statistics when the USA has the highest gun-related deaths/accidents of any other "civilized" country in the world? Please stop this.

racist-posts-police-officers-social-media-accounts-trigger-wave-investigations

Response by CW4 Craig Urban made Jun 21 at 2019 5:37 PM

CW4 Craig Urban — Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:37:36 -0400

Your grammer is bad. You do not have all the facts.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2019 9:58 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Jun 2019 09:58:30 -0400

You are trolling...

Response by SMSgt Donald Wilson made Jun 24 at 2019 8:53 PM

SMSgt Donald Wilson — Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:53:08 -0400

I have been studying this issue lately, including the news media's reporting of crimes involving firearms. In just my local area, it shakes out that 70 to 80 percent of so called "gun crimes" are committed by people who are already prohibited from buying, owning, or even possessing a firearm. So, where did the guns come from? "What?, you mean they don't buy their guns at a retail establishment like you and me??" They're stolen, traded for drugs, bought from someone else who stole them, etc., etc. Gun control laws don't mean anything to these people. It's only the people who play by the rules, like us, who are affected by more laws. Politicians are always looking for a way to be seen to be "Doing something!" Well here's an idea, how about going after violent criminals instead of passing more laws that only affect the honest citizen's right to self defense?

Response by SPC Anna Larson made Jun 28 at 2019 9:54 PM

SPC Anna Larson — Fri, 28 Jun 2019 21:54:29 -0400

The only way to pass a strict civilian gun control law is to RIP up the constitution and destroy the entire country. So the answer is NO!!!!!!

Response by MGySgt Rick Tyrrell made Jun 28 at 2019 10:22 PM

MGySgt Rick Tyrrell — Fri, 28 Jun 2019 22:22:22 -0400

So the bad guys can and will get there weapons? No!

Response by CPT Robert Huddleston made Jun 29 at 2019 5:12 PM

CPT Robert Huddleston — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 17:12:19 -0400

First and foremost, this assumption that the Police are assaulting innocent civilians and are lying about it is exactly the type rhetoric that is unbecoming of this website. It’s as bad as the press making false accusations of war crimes against innocents in an overseas combat zone. As retired 20 year veteran and a 27 year veteran of law enforcement I am appalled by these statements. Furthermore to put this statement in the context of gun control not only places police officers in great danger, but also undermines the 2nd Amendment. The person who wrote this is either one a liberal idiot trying get you to attack civilian law enforcement, thereby making a serious situation worse or they are working to change our nation, our military into something we as Americans don’t want. Remember whether as a law enforcement officer, or a member of the armed services we all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Hopefully everyone reading this understands the Constitution, due process, and inalienable Rights.

Response by Sgt John Meister made Jun 30 at 2019 5:37 AM

Sgt John Meister — Sun, 30 Jun 2019 05:37:15 -0400

With freedom comes personal responsibility. It is illegal to kill someone with a gun or a hammer for that matter. Banning civilians from arming themselves has historically ended up in a lot of civilians being killed by their government. The founding fathers knew that there will come along, in our future history, an unjust leader. The second amendment prevents that leader from bringing arms against the people. You can’t eliminate all crime. There will always be bad people. What you can do is foster an environment of respect for life and freedom where less people wish to do harm to others. That is the seed of the high crime that we see in areas of dense population.

Response by Cpl Tyler Therrien made Jun 30 at 2019 12:36 PM

Cpl Tyler Therrien — Sun, 30 Jun 2019 12:36:23 -0400

not only NO but HELL NO

Response by SSG Craig Newton made Jun 30 at 2019 1:56 PM

SSG Craig Newton — Sun, 30 Jun 2019 13:56:51 -0400

Some food for thought. We are the most armed OECD country and also the most deadly.

Response by PO1 Edward Pate made Jul 1 at 2019 9:11 AM

PO1 Edward Pate — Mon, 01 Jul 2019 09:11:12 -0400

I seem to recall 39 years ago taking an oath to defend the Constitution. I still believe I am bound by that and that document states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'll fight anyone who tries to take my weapons or those of my family, friends and neighbors away.

Response by PO1 Mike Wallace made Jul 7 at 2019 11:02 AM

PO1 Mike Wallace — Sun, 07 Jul 2019 11:02:11 -0400

There are instances where law enforcement does things they probably shouldn't but most such assertions are made from the safety and anonimity of a laptop and easy chair. Most who make such claims have never been confronted by those who would harm them. An officer who goes into some areas of our inner cities must be on their guard because some people no longer fear the results of harming a police officer.
While I don't agree with the latitude given police when it comes to what they can say during interviews/interrogation thinking gun laws are associated with that are just plain silly.
Stricter gun laws? I hope if you are ever anywhere when a bad guy starts shooting people someone like me and my friends are there to act using our concealed carry weapons.

Response by SGT Donald Croswhite made Jul 7 at 2019 11:51 AM

SGT Donald Croswhite — Sun, 07 Jul 2019 11:51:45 -0400

This is apoorly written question with a stupid premise. These questions are nothing but fire starters. Do not argue with stupid questions. And don't drag 2nd ID into this.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2019 1:55 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Jul 2019 13:55:47 -0400

As of March 2nd 2019 no officer has been charged in the shooting death of the unarmed black teen in Sacramento. Who only had a cell phone as he was trying to get into his grandmothers home.
May 21, 2019 New Jersey officer charged with manslaughter
April 30th. Minnesota officer charger with murder
May 16th Orlando officer charged with murder
May 1st Texas officer charged with the murder of a unarmed back man whos house she walked into.
May 23. Masonique Saunders framed and charged with the murder of her boyfriend even though he was shot by the police after robbing an undercover officer.

So dont tell me that rate of assaults and murder and manslaughter are not on the rise. So far we are at 457 people killed by the police doesnt say how but i would have to say its a far cry better than last year with the rate a 992. Fact is people are gonna get guns and it is human nature that when someone feels they have a right to do something and they are told no they will do it anyways. In Chicago highest rate of murders and police involved shootings in the nation. Why the city does not permit gun within its limits unless you have a CCW. Put you still can not by a gun in the city you have to leave the whole chicago area to by a weapon. Your word choice may be a little off but your point behind it rains true. Tell me unless zombies start walking around who in this nation needs a AR15? Its a gun made for war.....you cant hunt with it and trying to use it as home defense leaves to much to chance because if you fire to many round and someone gets killed who is not breaking in your home your now going to jail. So again one comment said its the second Amendment let's see you use that same argument to all those that was slain in Orlando or the ones at the Country Music Festival that got killed or all of the school shootings were all those children got killed. Your putting the lives of people above someone wanting to brag to their friends about having an AR-15 I'm all for gun rights and everyone who is legally able to own a handgun or own a rifle to do so but not at the expense of everyone else's lives.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2019 1:57 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Jul 2019 13:57:16 -0400

Just as a secondary stock come in in some states within the nation just because you're a military member does not means you get special treatment here in the state of Washington it does not matter whether or not your military or police officer if you do not have a concealed weapons permit you must go through the background check just like any civilian would as well as the same waiting period.

Response by CPL Frank Glahn made Jul 16 at 2019 6:04 PM

CPL Frank Glahn — Tue, 16 Jul 2019 18:04:01 -0400

Absolutely not. The Second Amendment is in place for a reason. The Amendments to our Constitution were all put in place for a reason. That reason is to protect the citizens from the Government.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Jul 28 at 2019 10:26 AM

LTC John Wilson — Sun, 28 Jul 2019 10:26:02 -0400

What part of "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED..." do you not understand?

Response by LTC John Wilson made Jul 28 at 2019 10:30 AM

LTC John Wilson — Sun, 28 Jul 2019 10:30:27 -0400

If the Police are (allegedly) abusing their powers, then why would we accept civilian gun control? The Second Amendment was intended to protect the People from tyranny.

Response by CSM William Everroad made Jul 30 at 2019 3:55 PM

CSM William Everroad — Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:55:53 -0400

Not to drag this post back into people's feeds, but after reading some responses I feel the need to add another angle. I will break your post down a bit:
You ask, "Should or could there be a national strict civilian gun control law passed?" I am assuming you are basing this on your follow up assertion that police are assaulting civilians at a high rate. I would argue the two are not connected. I do not believe that a national civilian gun control policy would pass under that precept, nor solve the problem. A better question would be "should there be a national standard for policing and citizen engagement?"
I suspect, judging from your follow-on posts to CPT Robert Huddleston and SSG Charlie Davis , that you are coming from a place of resentment towards law enforcement and trying to garner support or praise from the RP community for the notion that law enforcement in general is a tyrannical force that is trying to slowly chip away at the Constitution. I dislike this type of rhetoric because it uses anecdotal evidence to make broad assertions that slip into the realm of conspiracy theory.
SSG Charlie Davis broke it down for you pretty well, there are people in all industries who are terrible at their job, and there are managers of those people who suck at holding them accountable. The problem with law enforcement is that the public holds them to a much higher standard, so incidents that are outside of this expectation tend to reach much higher levels of condemnation and publicity. But I would argue that rather than fighting against the LEOs you hate, find a way to effect the change you want to see, policing that fits your standards and offer that as a suggestion for feedback.
On a side note, if you are going to retell your experiences, at least make them consistent. I am not suggesting that the value of your guns that were "appropriated" by LE changing from $10,000 to $25,000 invalidates your claims of authority abuse, but it certainly undermines your recounting of the event's credibility.

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made Aug 2 at 2019 7:44 PM

SPC Franklin McKown — Fri, 02 Aug 2019 19:44:04 -0400

Nope, all are required as well as 30 rds for defensive ops...DUH

Response by SPC Rostyslaw Caryk made Aug 6 at 2019 6:08 PM

SPC Rostyslaw Caryk — Tue, 06 Aug 2019 18:08:28 -0400

I wonder if any other those that posted for no more gun laws have changed their minds in the least, given the continued violence we see almost every week. Like this past weekend.
The number of mass shootings per country so far in 2019.

Response by SSG Gregg Mourizen made Aug 13 at 2019 5:51 PM

SSG Gregg Mourizen — Tue, 13 Aug 2019 17:51:26 -0400

Yes, every person should be required to take gun safety classes. However, the right to carry concealed, should be optional.

Response by Sgt Bob Adcock made Aug 13 at 2019 9:30 PM

Sgt Bob Adcock — Tue, 13 Aug 2019 21:30:02 -0400

Sounds like you just don't like the police. Why? If you're not a criminal they're there to protect you. I've only been involved in traffic stops, but the police were all professional and polite. These people are willing to put themselves between you and a criminal. We should all appreciate the difficult job our law enforcement officers do. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Aug 17 at 2019 9:37 PM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:37:10 -0400

The simple answer is no, the government shouldn't be regulating our rights, they didn't give them to us and they are not empowered to do so.

Response by PO1 John Williams made Aug 22 at 2019 4:19 PM

PO1 John Williams — Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:19:22 -0400

The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer can lie to a civilian and not be held liable. But a non-cop, can and will be charged of making an incorrect statement to them. A non-cop doesn't have to warmed not to lie to a cop.

Response by 1SG James Kelly made Aug 22 at 2019 5:05 PM

1SG James Kelly — Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:05:53 -0400

Saw a movie once where only the military and cops had guns:
"Schindler's List"

Response by PFC Donnie Harold Harris made Aug 26 at 2019 1:07 PM

PFC Donnie Harold Harris — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:07:13 -0400

We have rules and regulations about almost everything. I can not build my garage in the middle of the alley even if I have the where with all to do so. Gun Sensibility Act should not be based on anything other than location. Like all woman have their rights; so do gun owners. However, Location is governed by a group of local people. They decide what can or can not be done. As do every state country town or place what they want. Like Whyatt Earp said; no guns in the city limit meant exactly that. Let us think not of guns but locations for guns.

Response by PFC Donnie Harold Harris made Aug 26 at 2019 1:14 PM

PFC Donnie Harold Harris — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:14:49 -0400

I was talking to my handgun years ago and asked it why do you like to kill? The gun never replied. It is not the gun but the person that kills. Mental health is best controlled by location, not rights.

Response by Cpl Cary Cartter made Sep 13 at 2019 7:23 PM

Cpl Cary Cartter — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:23:00 -0400

No.

End of discussion.

See: Second Amendment

Response by COL Thomas McGrath made Sep 23 at 2019 9:49 PM

COL Thomas McGrath — Mon, 23 Sep 2019 21:49:08 -0400

No.

Response by SSG Dale London made Sep 26 at 2019 4:38 PM

SSG Dale London — Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:38:11 -0400

What high assault rate are you talking about, aand what part of "Shall not be infringed" are you having a hard time with?
So-called "red flag" laws that seem to be all the rage these days are in fact the thin end of the wedge between a free populace and it's means to remain free. If you allow a fellow citizen to be deprived of his rights without the exercise of due process you are abrogating your oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Should there be nationally a strict civilian gun control law passed? Absolutely not.
Could there be nationally a strict civilian gun control law passed? Unfortunately, with the level of dishonest and outright fraudulent politicking and reporting going on, yes it could.
When the constitution was adopted in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked whether we had a republic or a monarchy. He replied, "A republic, if we can keep it."
That prescient remark is being tested today.

Response by PO1 Robert Johnson made Sep 26 at 2019 9:30 PM

PO1 Robert Johnson — Thu, 26 Sep 2019 21:30:41 -0400

Toughest gun laws and highest violent crime rate. If that isn't enough, look to European countries who have strict gun laws, or even our northern neighbors, Canada and our allies to the very southern hemisphere, Australia. All the countries have strict gun control laws and high violent crime rates. Take Great Britain for example, They have had gun control laws on the books for a long time but when they started to seriously enforce them, then criminals switched to knives, and now they are trying to enforce knife control laws. A politician will react to public opinion without thought. They want to take away guns from law abiding citizens instead of focusing on the criminals who illegally possess them. Why? because it is easier. We already have sufficient laws in place to curtail gun violence if only the politicians would let law enforcement to do their jobs. We all know that that will never happen until Progressives stop interfering with LEOs doing their jobs, be it on Federal, State or Local levels. It will probably not happen in my lifetime since I'm already 74 years old, but I believe that what has to happen is for Law enforcement on all levels to stage coordinated raids on high crime areas to confiscate all illegally owned guns, any style, any caliber and vigorously prosecute offenders.

Response by SPC Sean Kennedy made Sep 27 at 2019 8:23 AM

SPC Sean Kennedy — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 08:23:08 -0400

Private, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

Response by Sgt Peter Schlesiona made Sep 27 at 2019 9:19 AM

Sgt Peter Schlesiona — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:19:04 -0400

What high assault rate of police on citizens? From where are you getting your (bogus) information? There are more assaults on citizens in any one-hour Antifa rally than there are assaults by police on citizens in any year. Why would you even consider asking this question on such an asinine premise?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 27 at 2019 2:37 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:37:06 -0400

Chicago leads the way in gun control and Democrats discuss it all the time! Yeah right! LOL

https://heyjackass.com/

Response by LTC N Willard Schwartz made Sep 27 at 2019 4:32 PM

LTC N Willard Schwartz — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:32:54 -0400

Absolultel not

Response by PO1 Tom Follis made Sep 27 at 2019 5:50 PM

PO1 Tom Follis — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:50:24 -0400

It has nothing to do with gun control. It’s controlling gun violence.

Response by MSgt James Lindsey made Sep 27 at 2019 7:56 PM

MSgt James Lindsey — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 19:56:10 -0400

Your not informed. I was q Deputy and we did not entrap anyone. We didn't have to, they did it to themselves be committing a crime or traffic offense.

Response by 1SG Frank Boynton made Sep 28 at 2019 1:53 PM

1SG Frank Boynton — Sat, 28 Sep 2019 13:53:09 -0400

The basis of your question is unsound but the question is a valid one. The short answer is yes there could be. As long as extreme left leaning liberals are in control and growing all of our rights are in jeopardy. By our very nature conservatives tend to sit by and do nothing as long as it doesn’t directly affect them. And when something does, it’s too late. I sure hope there are enough veterans out there that join with me and honor the oath we took to defend the constitution from all enemies. I will go to war to retain my God given rights. I hope I have a lot of company. I am a NRA Benefactor Life Member and damn proud of it.

Response by SPC Thomas Wymer made Sep 28 at 2019 8:19 PM

SPC Thomas Wymer — Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:19:27 -0400

Being a former cop, yes the police are allowed to lie to suspects to get a confession, they are not allowed to fabricate/falsify evidence, nor are they allowed to entrap people. High assault rate against citizens is a myth. My question to you is, what does that have to do with stricter gun control laws?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2019 11:39 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 11:39:01 -0400

Gun control penalizes law abiding citizens. Criminals will not abide. It is a fallacy believing that gun control will work. I have been to countries where the government did not allow the populace to own weapons. The outcome was that many families could not protect themselves against criminals.

The Second amendment protects the rights of private citizens to own firearms. Our constitution protects the rights of the individual. These are rights that the framers of the constitution saw as natural rights.

When you look at the highest areas of crime, it is generally in gun restricting states or areas that generally support anti-gun politicians. Gun control does not work.

Response by SSG Jesse Denton made Sep 29 at 2019 5:28 PM

SSG Jesse Denton — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:28:21 -0400

As has been said countless times, the inanimate object is not the problem, it is the possessor of the object. The Swiss government requires most of their citizens who are eligible for military service to maintain military firearms in their homes. First, severely punish felons who use firearms to commit crimes. Second, hold the parents of youth who commit crimes accountable; track down the absentee fathers who after donating sperm did nothing to raise responsible citizen and penalize them. Then, reform welfare laws encouraging single motherhood and penalizing low income families to have a adult male present in the household. I never thought sociology would be of interest when I took that required course back in JUCO but what we have is a social issue. The authors of the Constitution would not only want you to be able to have an AR-15, they would want you to be able to have a M-4 or a SAW, because the government has them. Our founding fathers laid it all on the line to overthrow an oppressive government and expect us to have the same need. The democratic republic of the USA has lasted longer than anyone would have expected. I think the War Between the States gave us a reboot, but we are on the verge of losing our freedoms.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Sep 29 at 2019 6:28 PM

LCpl Cody Collins — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:28:08 -0400

First we have a Second Amendment!
Second, we should pass a more stringent gun law as far as eligibility to purchase a rifle and or a hand gun. " Any citizen not directly in training or already an Police officer or reserve officer, Parole officer, security guard that requires a legal firearm and Social worker. The age to legally purchase a firearm shall be raised to the age of 32 years old. There is a ton of reasons why 32 yrs Including the maturity factor. I'm definitely pro 2nd Amendment, but I see a generation of people that lack Spiritual Maturity and Empathy. Instead of calling the police when they see a crime committed they pull out their cell phones and video recorded while the victim is continued to be victimize and a perpetrator smiles for the camera. What good Would is a gun, if a person has that kind of mentality to watch the crime Instead of doing something to stop it?

Response by SPC Ron Salsbury made Sep 29 at 2019 10:10 PM

SPC Ron Salsbury — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 22:10:33 -0400

Statistics like anything else regardless your intent, can be manipulated to prove anyone's point no matter what side of the fence you are on. Gun control only works for one purpose only and history has shown what that is for; control of the masses by a dictator; take away guns from the citizen, and you are now a subject having your rights trampled period. The only true statistic people need to really consider is this one, and this will vary from town to town; that is the police officer to citizen ratio. If you really want an idea of what you are truly up against, look this number up in your home town, and I guarantee you, the police are there to mark the chalk outline and take some notes for the investigation. The true solution to crime is arm the citizen with concealed carry so you are not a target at the beginning, let the criminal play victim roulette and try guessing who packing and who is not. Finally one last thought, if you are fortunate to live in the country as I am, and a bad person comes in the house uninvited, greet him with a smile and a shot. However to be fair to them, you should almost post a warning sign stating the following: Warning, before entering ask yourself two questions. One, who knows you are here? Two, who would ever know you were here, because we shoot first, don't call 911 and bury your body in the corn field with the track hoe real deep, "Have a Nice Day!!

Response by MSgt Peter Withers made Sep 29 at 2019 10:24 PM

MSgt Peter Withers — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 22:24:43 -0400

No.

Response by SSG Dave Johnston made Sep 29 at 2019 10:31 PM

SSG Dave Johnston — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 22:31:31 -0400

NO! Read and understand what you swore to uphold and defend; then you need to understand the historical reasons behind every Article and Amendment. Especially the first 15 amendments.

Response by SGT Keith Smith made Sep 30 at 2019 10:43 AM

SGT Keith Smith — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:43:53 -0400

Okay. What I think needs to happen. Police should only be allowed to use weapons in performance of their duties if it has a mechanical safety. We require soldiers to have them and we should require police forces to do the same. Weapon tight at all times. Right now every officer is on weapons free status. Though I think being able to lie to a suspect is acceptable I do not think lying to a judge or DA should be. They should not be allowed to distort evidence or exaggerate a situation. As of right now there is no counter balance. There is no consequences for doing anything like this and there really should be.

Response by SPC Vicky King made Sep 30 at 2019 1:51 PM

SPC Vicky King — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:51:50 -0400

Unequivocally, no.
Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: "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 law not warranted by the Constitution, is a bare-faced usurpation." James Iredell

James Iredell was one of the first Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was appointed by President George Washington and served from 1790 until his death in 1799. His son, James Iredell Jr., was a Governor of North Carolina.

'Shall not be infringed', is an absolute statement. An absolute order, leaving no avenue for alteration of that right, by government.

Response by Lt Col Paul Maxwell made Sep 30 at 2019 4:47 PM

Lt Col Paul Maxwell — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:47:55 -0400

Citation for your statistics... because those numbers don’t seem factual

Response by Lt Col Paul Maxwell made Sep 30 at 2019 4:53 PM

Lt Col Paul Maxwell — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:53:37 -0400

Your post has several typos or grammar errors ther PFC HARRIS...making it hard to be sure what you are asserting... or asking.
Are you complaining about high rate police assaults on citizens ( cite your STATS or info source for THAT.,) and using THAT alleged issue to argue Against better background checks, Red flag laws, waiting periods, licensing, and other components of “gun control” discussion? That boat don’t float.

Response by LTC N Willard Schwartz made Sep 30 at 2019 9:58 PM

LTC N Willard Schwartz — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 21:58:58 -0400

Do not allow innocent appearing cover groups to take away our gun rights

Response by Sgt Edward Allen made Oct 1 at 2019 7:57 AM

Sgt Edward Allen — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:57:37 -0400

The simplest answer. No! The second amendment is for ALL Americans. Not just those in uniform. The purpose was not for hunting or home defense, but to defend against the government (state and federal). The government cannot, nor should it ever, be trusted. It is a creature all it`its a own. In fact, any legislator who tries to inact gun control is in violation on the constitution and the bill of rights and should be impeached, thrown out of office and then tarred and feathered. This also applies to any of you who believe we should have "gun control". You took an oath to defend the constitution. That oath is still in place. And the oath did not say to only defend the parts you agree with.

Response by SP5 Jim Shively made Oct 2 at 2019 6:36 AM

SP5 Jim Shively — Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:36:23 -0400

The question is invalid because of the grammar. Can you restate it?

Response by Cpl Bobbylee Dominguez made Oct 2 at 2019 10:24 AM

Cpl Bobbylee Dominguez — Wed, 02 Oct 2019 10:24:48 -0400

Plain truth any bill with the words gun control in it. Will never pass. No one can apply and enforce gun control. Mayhem will happen many innocent people would be hurt. I for one would locked and loaded awaiting anyone try to envoke gun control over me.

Response by A1C Norman Stuart made Oct 3 at 2019 12:20 PM

A1C Norman Stuart — Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:20:53 -0400

This is not true. There is no planned assault on any citizen. If you are a bad guy you may get assaulted for resisting arrest. Entrapment? When and where? There is protection against entrapment. I hate to see these kinds of things spread because of rumors are lack of knowledge.

Response by SGT Charles Bartell made Oct 4 at 2019 7:58 PM

SGT Charles Bartell — Fri, 04 Oct 2019 19:58:25 -0400

You are partly right. There are some LAW ENFORCEMENT ass holes out there that do as you say.
However I would say that the Law enforcement ass holes run about the same as the none law enforcement ass holes that use there jobs and positions to screw over people too.
It is just more visible out there these days to see the bad cops.
How meany of you go to the V.A. for your health care?
Do you ever notice how meany of them are just looking for people to mess with. At most V.A.'s that I have been to it would seem that about half of them are just dick's that have never been in any kind of real law enforcement.
On top of that most of them have not seen the any combat time. Being deployed to a safe F.O.B is not being combat.
The V.A. all go to the same Academy. In Arkansas It is not run by any real law enforcement agency.
Kind of funny.

evey one has to go Even if they have been real police before or M.P.'s.
My point is they are people just like us. some are real shit bag's, but most are not.
As to the point of strict gun control. Well my dad thought me that when I was about ten, Then my DRILL SARGENT'S reinforced that at Ft. Benning.
Then there is that thing that the LEFT and some stupid people on the right thing is out dated and needs to be changed.
The Nazi's did that, Stalin did that, and Mao Zedong did it to. Then there is the KIM family of North Korea.
That kind of gun control never works is a free country.

Response by SSG J F Texas made Oct 6 at 2019 12:46 AM

SSG J F Texas — Sun, 06 Oct 2019 00:46:55 -0400

Those are two different questions. To the should question the answer is no. Shall not be infringed cannot be more clear that you have a natural right to protect yourself and our Republic. As for could it happed I can see a future where the population becomes so brainwashed that civilians would be forbidden to own a gun.

Response by SGT John Creager made Oct 7 at 2019 7:27 AM

SGT John Creager — Mon, 07 Oct 2019 07:27:05 -0400

LEO should never lie to entrap people.

Response by SSG(P) Danielle Birtha made Oct 7 at 2019 2:22 PM

SSG(P) Danielle Birtha — Mon, 07 Oct 2019 14:22:18 -0400

Where was your weapon kept, when not needed for training or War? In the Arms Room. As well as any personal weapon. And you could not check it out without a need. WHY? Because most people cannot control themselves in many stressful situations, and will resort to violence.
Personally, I believe every U.S. Citizen with military training should have an M-16 available to them, stored in a public arms room, with all the other weapons of War.
I also believe there should be weapons available for every nonmilitary citizen who will stand and fight if this Nation sees War within our Borders, which may come soon, with the unchecked Invasion led by our traitor Congress. (Yes... DACA, Sanctuary from the Law for Invaders? - TREASON... Legal immigrants migrate legally, not by force, in numbers defined as military divisions, AIDED BY OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS WITHIN THE U.S., gifted OUR jobs, Homes, and even the right to Vote against We The People!!! >( ... UNCHALLENGED Pubic Servant High Treason... as are the Trade Deals --> China is our ENEMY, and NOW holds our products hostage... BY WTO - an organization of the World's Dictators, which the U.S. should NEVER be a part of, & U.S. LAW ).
"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."
That right may be regulated to protect the Public, but they may NEVER deny U.S. Our Right to have those weapons to protect this Nation from all enemies, foreign, and DOMESTIC.
As for crime... Those who use weapons to commit crime use unregistered weapons, have criminal or mental health issues, and a record in most cases... those who own registered weapons (over 900k in the U.S.... ARE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO USE THEM FOR PROTECTION FROM CRIMINALS.
--> The ONLY way they can take our guns is: IF WE LET THEM!

How do we fix the problems? STOP VOTING FOR THE INCUMBENT TRAITORS, AND THE SILENT TRAITORS, --> THE INCUMBENT... THEY ARE WORKING FOR OUR ENEMIES.
READ THE CONSTITUTION... SEE IT COMMAND THEM TO REPEL INVADERS... NOT INVITE THEM IN,
SEE IT COMMAND THEM TO WORK ONLY FOR WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA....
--> WHILE THEY GIVE ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS OF WE THE U.S. VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... TO ALL OUR PAST AND PRESENT ENEMIES... BY LAW >(
DO NOT ALLOW OUR SERVANTS TO DISARM U.S. >(

Response by SPC Louie Campagna made Oct 13 at 2019 11:46 AM

SPC Louie Campagna — Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:46:46 -0400

All you need to do is look around the world at the countries where there is strict gun control and you can see the results far fewer homicides and suicides with guns. Japan stands out in this regard as do the countries in Western Europe.

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, the First Amendment has limitations. There maybe Freedom of Speech and the Press - You can be sued for liable and slander. There are limitations on advertising Truth in Lending, etc. The First Amendment gives the right to the people to peaceably assemble, this does not mean you can peaceably assemble on an expressway and block traffic.
The Second Amendment can be limited as is the First Amendment. When the Second Amendment was adopted, the primary firearms were single shot muskets and single shot pistols. The machine guns, sub-machine guns and various assault rifles (automatic & semi-automatic) were developed and manufactured for military use - which means to Kill other people.

Response by SPC Travis Grizzard made Oct 14 at 2019 4:52 AM

SPC Travis Grizzard — Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:52:57 -0400

Let me get this straight, you are using misdeeds of government agents as an argument for giving those same government agents a monopoly of power?

Response by Jerry Rivas made Oct 14 at 2019 6:41 AM

Jerry Rivas — Mon, 14 Oct 2019 06:41:07 -0400

GUN CONTROL.....The ability to bring accurate fire to bear on your targets.

Response by SGT Doug Blanchard made Oct 17 at 2019 2:56 PM

SGT Doug Blanchard — Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:56:14 -0400

What is it so hard to understand what the 2nd Amendment states, "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON". Even SCOTUS has ruled that it means private citizens can own firearms, LEGALLY. As far as I am concerned, any law, federal, state or local that prohibits firearm ownership is illegal and unconstitutional.
Like the old saw goes, "take away firearms and only criminals will own them".

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2019 8:33 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:33:20 -0400

4 words: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Response by SPC Richard Zacke made Nov 17 at 2019 8:39 PM

SPC Richard Zacke — Sun, 17 Nov 2019 20:39:20 -0500

Wow you people wage war against each other. I went in the army in 78 and there was no talk of "Skin Color" because we considered ALL soldiers the same we watched each others backs! And as far as the police go I had two uncles killed while on the job. There is alot of people who think the police are bad, but who do they call when they need help? If this is the way the new military is I'm glad I'm out!

Response by SMSgt Kent Brown made Dec 9 at 2019 12:11 AM

SMSgt Kent Brown — Mon, 09 Dec 2019 00:11:24 -0500

My guns are already controlled. I don't need some idiot in DC telling what I can shoot and how I should live because I have guns.
What those liberal bastards need to control is criminals. I'm already a law abiding citizen those cheating lying thieving SOBs commit more crimes in a day that I do in a lifetime. Maybe we need some laws call Politician Control Laws. We already know where the crooks are just lock them all up and cut off their huge pensions.
P.S. This is one of the most polarizing subjects that a person could talk about, why would you want to start an argument?

Response by SA Michael Hanson made Dec 9 at 2019 11:31 AM

SA Michael Hanson — Mon, 09 Dec 2019 11:31:44 -0500

How many people do you personally know that have ben entrapped or assaulted by police?

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Dec 9 at 2019 12:42 PM

LCpl Cody Collins — Mon, 09 Dec 2019 12:42:11 -0500

Absolutely not! The second that happens. Only criminals and the government elites will have them, People like you and I will be helpless.

Response by Monty Leverett made Dec 9 at 2019 3:34 PM

Monty Leverett — Mon, 09 Dec 2019 15:34:46 -0500

Aside from multiple reports showing that there is no epidemic of police entrapping or assaulting people, the Second Amendment was put in place for a reason, that being that we'd just free ourselves from a tyrant who used any means necessary to control his subjects, and we would never allow that again.

Response by SFC John Fourquet made Dec 10 at 2019 5:01 PM

SFC John Fourquet — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:01:46 -0500

First, I don’t see how you are linking gun control to police abusing they authority, or police brutality. You need to clarify you question, so that we understand what you are really asking.

Response by SFC Cleveland McCord made Dec 11 at 2019 6:25 PM

SFC Cleveland McCord — Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:25:55 -0500

what about all of the people of color who was shoot by the police and they were unarmed.

Response by CPL James Deaton made Dec 12 at 2019 10:40 AM

CPL James Deaton — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:40:03 -0500

I think all assault weapons should be banned or any automatic gun. People do need and have the right to own guns and rifles. For target practice and hunting and if need for the defense of their home and family.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 12 at 2019 11:12 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:12:34 -0500

We already have national gun control law but unfortunately like most laws the criminals won’t obey

And by criminals of course I mean city county and state political leadership

the national federal level gun control law is the second amendment of the Constitution

Response by SFC Mark Klaers made Dec 12 at 2019 1:25 PM

SFC Mark Klaers — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:25:13 -0500

No and I hope not. I would hate to have to protect my civil rights against fellow Americans "just following orders".

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2019 12:06 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:06:00 -0500

There should be no laws limiting a citizen of the United states right to bear arms unless they are not in the right state of mind but legal gun owners can still teach these people about fire arms and fire arms safety I'm 110% for 2nd amendment rights we the people

Response by SPC Erika Land made Dec 13 at 2019 10:57 AM

SPC Erika Land — Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:57:15 -0500

This question should not be lodged in a position of blue vs. black vs. white vs. the second amendment ..., but discussed from a position of safety for all, and the lack of training required to own any type of or stockpile any type of high powered weapon, and we need to fix the owners being so caught up in fighting for their rights that they neglect the mental states of those adjacent to the weapons they own. It’s much easier to fight the man than to look behind your own front door and battle the demons (in a metaphorical sense) living with you.

Response by TSgt Jeffrey Rose made Dec 13 at 2019 2:15 PM

TSgt Jeffrey Rose — Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:15:39 -0500

Donny stop watching the brainwashing PC MSM. Read the facts at CDC.gov and other legitimate sources. you will see everything on MSM is BS attempting to strip Citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Response by LCpl Nicholas Ackerson made Dec 14 at 2019 12:09 AM

LCpl Nicholas Ackerson — Sat, 14 Dec 2019 00:09:39 -0500

I think you know that if this was a real poll or survey there would be a thumbs down or dislike option.

I find it shocking that 86 people lack the knowledge, intelligence, and for-thought to push "thumbs up".

Do you realize that most of the mass shootings that have happened, were done in "Gun Free Zones" where most of the people who care about things like LAWS and REGULATIONS will not be armed?

Do you think that criminals will suddenly start obeying laws regarding how they obtain weapons and ammunition... Or ANY other laws for that matter?

Do you consider the various laws and codes that exist when you decide that you are going to get something done?
I ask this because that is the difference between you and the criminals who see their task and after see only obstacles and (maybe and for very few) repercussions after reward.
Most have a self centered view on life.

There is no legislation, regulation, or police capable of changing the way a person thinks.

Response by A1C Riley Sanders made Dec 14 at 2019 7:41 AM

A1C Riley Sanders — Sat, 14 Dec 2019 07:41:55 -0500

A National strict gun law is not the answer, the writers of the Constitution got it right with the second amendment, no doubt vetting of Police Officers could use a closer look at the new prospective Officer,
The tragedy that happened in Florida examples of strict Gun law when a Police Officer did not have a weapon. The problems with weapon controls are huge and giving the average citizen the right to purchase any kind of weapon they want does need restrictions, I know that steps on the toes of some Gun nuts out there however there are rules to every thing in this life that calls for order .

Response by SN Jay Perry made Dec 14 at 2019 11:52 AM

SN Jay Perry — Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:52:07 -0500

In 2003 Britain passed its fourth gun control law in 200 years! In 2000 the United States passed its 300 gun control law check the murder rate in England, check the number of mass shootings in England, check both of those statistics in the United States! We need to enforce the laws we have and figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals not keep those who wish to defend themselves and enjoy firearms from being able to do so.

Response by David Clare made Dec 14 at 2019 3:54 PM

David Clare — Sat, 14 Dec 2019 15:54:02 -0500

I find it amusing when people talk about the hight rate of abuse by law enforcement in this country. What that tells me is that they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Even studies published by the liberal scholars attempting to prove that it does exist prove just the opposite. But I'm sure you'd never be concern with pure data driven facts. That won't fit the narrative you embrace. As for your original question, no there should not be a strict gun control law passed across the board. The areas with the strictest gun control laws also are home to the highest crime rates. And places where citizens can carry without restriction enjoy some of the lowest crime rates. Another statistical fact. But as with anything there is good and bad that can arise out of citizens being able to carry when and where they want. Personal self control is an issue, something too few people seem to have these days. The second concern is law enforcements ability to determine who is the good guy vs. who is the bad guy. The public should be trained to low weapons when the cops arrive. Never turn the weapon in the direction of the responding officers. Those simple things help keep citizens who happen to be helping from being viewed as a threat. No uniforms on the streets and your life depends on the decisions you make in a split second. But control as a whole is not a good idea, and it never has been. Gun laws don't keep criminals from having guns and they don't stop gun violence. Or at least thats what my 32 years working the streets have taught me.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2019 8:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Dec 2019 20:53:54 -0500

no there should not be any more gun control laws just enforce the laws we already have

Response by Cpl Eric Young made Dec 15 at 2019 12:20 AM

Cpl Eric Young — Sun, 15 Dec 2019 00:20:59 -0500

No there should not be. Why?

Because statistically gun violence is a non-issue.

Because gun control laws prove over and over again that they don’t work as intended....

Because gun control laws do not stop criminals Who ignore laws, making them irrelevant to the people who will actually use guns to harm people and commit crimes.

Because the 2A clearly states..... “Shall Not Be Infringed”....

Because 180 million gun owners aren’t the ones committing gun crimes.

Response by SP5 Nayda Velez De Guijarro made Dec 15 at 2019 9:56 AM

SP5 Nayda Velez De Guijarro — Sun, 15 Dec 2019 09:56:10 -0500

The 2A was never intended for civilians to fight crime. It is intended for civilians to fight the government and removed them if they need to. So no...there are already enough laws on the books.

Response by PO2 Rowland Ketchersid made Dec 15 at 2019 10:41 AM

PO2 Rowland Ketchersid — Sun, 15 Dec 2019 10:41:50 -0500

Repeal the NFA.
Gun control is about control.....not guns. The second you spout statistics you are no longer relevant in the fight.
#1 stop voting democrat
#2 fix the republic

Response by CW4 William Kessinger made Dec 15 at 2019 2:31 PM

CW4 William Kessinger — Sun, 15 Dec 2019 14:31:00 -0500

What is wrong with you. Do you also wear tinfoil on your head to stop those signals?

Response by MSG Allan Davis made Dec 15 at 2019 11:17 PM

MSG Allan Davis — Sun, 15 Dec 2019 23:17:07 -0500

As far as the primary question on gun control I’m personally disgusted by your question. You have forgotten your oath. The 2A protects ALL of the Bill of Rights. You should feel nothing but shame for even bringing it up.

Response by SGT Jeff Bush made Dec 15 at 2019 11:20 PM

SGT Jeff Bush — Sun, 15 Dec 2019 23:20:50 -0500

Absolutely not. See The Second Amendment and SCOTUS reaffirmation in DC v Heller case. “Keep and bear.....Shall not be infringed” Period ///Nothing follows///

Response by SPC Melanie Vancegonzalez made Dec 16 at 2019 12:32 AM

SPC Melanie Vancegonzalez — Mon, 16 Dec 2019 00:32:45 -0500

First of all owning a gun in America is a Constitutional right, period. Second, unless every gun was removed from the planet, gun control laws are useless. Look at drug laws. They do not keep drugs out of the country. People will find a way to own a gun. Third, taking guns from citizens will not stop the theoretical, "high assault rate by police," because the police would still have guns.

Response by SFC John Fourquet made Dec 17 at 2019 1:27 AM

SFC John Fourquet — Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:27:49 -0500

Any law passed by the federal government regarding a citizen’s right to bear arms needs to protect that right and treat the right to bear arms as a civil right to be protected from state laws that limit a citizen’s right to bear arms.

Response by SSG John Lehmer made Dec 17 at 2019 11:33 AM

SSG John Lehmer — Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:33:00 -0500

Read the Second Ammendment. Read it over and over until memorized. If you don't understand it. Ask for the understanding of the Second Amendment.

Response by PO1 Frank Washek made Dec 17 at 2019 1:22 PM

PO1 Frank Washek — Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:22:12 -0500

The basis of your question is flawed by your assumptions as facts. I have found the Total number of police shootings in the U.S. in 2018. I can find the number of deaths by race. I can find the number of dogs the police have shot. I cannot find the total number of unwarranted shootings by police officers nor the total number of cases involving police misconduct. If you can point me to a source of those numbers, I would be happy to look at them. Otherwise, you are simply asking an emotionally charged question without facts.
Do I think any law can be passed when one party has true control of all three branches? Yes I do. Do I believe laws stop crime? No I don’t. Laws simply ascribe a means of punishing behavior deemed inappropriate by those who passed them. Gun control will not stop murders and murder by any means has been illegal since the first Cain killed Able. Control isn’t about the weapon. Control is solely in the hands of the user.

Response by MAJ Daniel Hammond made Dec 17 at 2019 4:11 PM

MAJ Daniel Hammond — Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:11:06 -0500

Short answer is, "No."

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2019 6:24 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2019 18:24:16 -0500

Please bear in mind, the first documented murder was done with a rock, when Cain killed Able. You can not banned evil from the Hearts of man. Most murders are committed with weapons other then guns, too include hands and feet. Removing firearms from the population only make them vulnerable to attack from criminals, tyrannical governments, and foreign invaders. Why would a rational person want that?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2019 6:23 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 06:23:03 -0500

This is an idiotic question. First, the Founding Fathers included this in the Bill of Rights specifically because they believed that the right to defend one's self from those who would hurt you was a RIGHT given to us by God, just as the rights to assemble peaceably, speak as we like, worship as we like, feel secure in our homes, and be able to do this by citizens defending themselves and the nation from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC (and that includes the government). A well-armed populace ensures political honesty, though you might doubt that from the past three-and-a-half years. As for the "high assault rate by police," I must ask where do you find that statistically? As for lying and entrapping, generally courts have generally found for the defendant in those cases. AND, I know personally of officers and prosecutors who are in jail due to their effots to entrap people.

So, yeah, overall this is an idiotic question.

Response by Jerry Rivas made Dec 19 at 2019 6:56 AM

Jerry Rivas — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 06:56:35 -0500

Grammar is hard.

Response by CPT Joe Hancock made Dec 19 at 2019 8:30 AM

CPT Joe Hancock — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:30:50 -0500

No. The 2nd Amendment is our constitutional right to own and carry firearms. It was put in place so we the people could protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, such as we have now in Virginia and other states.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2019 10:16 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:16:15 -0500

Short answer: hell no. From the inception of our country, self defense has been considered a basic human right. The founding fathers, fresh out of a revolution, considered the armed population a final check and balance for bad government. Historically, a government disarming of its nation preceded some mass injustice against her citizens. You would be foolish to think that the same thing won't happen here.

Response by SSG Hubert Stapler made Dec 19 at 2019 1:07 PM

SSG Hubert Stapler — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:07:38 -0500

The current laws on the books are fine. If they are enforced would help stop a lot of illegal sales. We do not need any new laws to restrict gun ownership. Because the law biting citizens follow the law now. Gun control starts with our parents teaching responsibility to their children. To stop gun violence in your neighborhood the citizens that live in the neighborhood inform law enforcement about illegal activity in their neighborhood and be willing to stand behind there actions. If you allow drug dealers and gangs to move into your neighborhood and not help law enforcement then they will always be there. But if the neighborhood report them and stands behind their actions. The drug dealers and the gangs will move to an area that is more friendly to them are they will be in prison. But parents have to teach respect for others to their kids and they must discipline their children In a way that makes them understand that there is consequences for their actions.

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Dec 20 at 2019 12:56 PM

CAPT Hiram Patterson — Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:56:20 -0500

Absolutely not! We do not need any more government interference in our daily lives. I've been following the news from Virginia whose governor wants everyone to register their guns and made a comment that its need to so they can determine what guns needs be confiscated. And he also said that he would mobilize their National Guard to confiscate guns if people didn't turn them in. Talk about totally radical and probably unconstitutional. If a state thinks this is appropriate then what is to stop a future US government that thinks this is a good ideal! Not very likely but there are politicians who think that way.

Response by SP5 Edwin Golinski Lesperance made Dec 20 at 2019 9:44 PM

SP5 Edwin Golinski Lesperance — Fri, 20 Dec 2019 21:44:08 -0500

No. Criminals have guns, always, and when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Response by SSG Gabriel Lord, MHRD made Dec 21 at 2019 12:18 PM

SSG Gabriel Lord, MHRD — Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:18:13 -0500

Criminals. Don't. Follow. Gun. Control. Laws.

Response by Sgt Leonard Lamb made Dec 21 at 2019 1:01 PM

Sgt Leonard Lamb — Sat, 21 Dec 2019 13:01:45 -0500

The only way to stop crime is for all humans be afforded the basic needs. Greed is the cause.

Response by SFC David S made Dec 21 at 2019 2:53 PM

SFC David S — Sat, 21 Dec 2019 14:53:13 -0500

I had to wait ten working days for a rifle, I don't have any derogatory information, an honorable discharge, trained thousands to shoot and qualify...I bet the criminals didn't have a waiting period, background check or a sales receipt paying state taxes...

Response by MSG Robert Greco made Dec 22 at 2019 6:37 PM

MSG Robert Greco — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 18:37:59 -0500

The 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to a militia and a right to keep and bear arms.

During the Revolution War, on average, the militia was better armed than either standing Army, for the civilian militia had rifles while both American and British Armies had smooth bore muskets.

The Fore Father's knew firearms would improve in time, they were watching it with their own eyes.

They wanted the civilian population to be equally armed to the standing Military as a "last line of defense" from a Dictatorship Government.

Making Laws to backdoor constitutional rights is exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment, if liberals want to change the constitution or it's Amendment's, then it must be done via Congress.

Each State, upon joining the Union, was required to adopt the US Constitution. Never read anywhere, where a State can repeal any parts of the Constitution or it's Amendment's.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2019 8:15 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 20:15:32 -0500

I prefer another option, leveraging liberal logic on health insurance. Under Obama, liberals believed that healthcare (health insurance) was a right. As such, our government mandated that every citizen obtain health insurance or pay a 'tax.' Although most believe that healthcare, food, housing, clothing, jobs, 'living wage,' things identified in the 'Second Bill of Rights,' are not rights, they believe our individual right to personal defense is a right. In fact, it is written as such in the Second Amendment.

So, we should revise the Obamacare legislation, that mandated health insurance, by mandating personal defense, through gun ownership, conceal carry training and annual training and certification. As such, every child would be instructed in the safe handling, maintenance and storage of firearms prior to graduation in a sufficient level to conceal carry. Failure to obtain this training, purchase a firearm and conceal carry would result in a 'tax.' Due to the 'Supremacy clause' all state laws requiring approval to conceal carry would be null and void. The legislation would reinstall the 2A as the law of the land, authorizing open carry as well as conceal carry, transportation across state lines, and required education.

The immediate outcome from this legislation would be to level the playing field. Everyone ignorant of guns would be educated or taxed. Everyone, so afraid of guns that they wet themselves upon seeing someone open carry, would be trained to a level of comfort or be taxed. Everyone unwilling to accept that the police exist to enforce the law, not to 'protect and serve,' will take responsibility for their own personal defense or pay a tax. A well armed citizenry, a well educated people and an engaged voter are necessary for a republic to exist.

Heads exploding in 3...2...1...

Response by TSgt Teresa Knoup Matthews made Dec 29 at 2019 8:56 AM

TSgt Teresa Knoup Matthews — Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:56:42 -0500

Open carry and concealed carry are legal in Missouri for anyone 19 years or older who can legally possess a firearm, with or without a concealed carry permit (CCP), while"Missouri is among the top five U.S. states ranked by firearm mortality (21.5 deaths per 100,000 Missourians) according to the most recent CDC statistics. St. Louis — a city of just over 300,000 people — has seen 138 homicides in 2019, according to newly-released police data. Of the victims, 121 were listed as African American, and over 90% of the deaths came from incidents involving guns."
Extracted from a Time Magazine article dated Sep 6, 2019

Response by TSgt Teresa Knoup Matthews made Dec 29 at 2019 9:03 AM

TSgt Teresa Knoup Matthews — Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:03:34 -0500

I have no issues with ownership. Everyone has the right to protect their property. I do have an issue with these concealed carry laws. The training given to the regular citizens being given CCPs is nowhere near what it needs to be. They have no clue what it's like to be in a close fire situation. Either increase the training and give them what the police go through with the simulations or stop this nonsense. We don't need everyone carrying.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2019 9:08 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:08:08 -0500

No.

Response by SSG Hubert Stapler made Dec 29 at 2019 12:17 PM

SSG Hubert Stapler — Sun, 29 Dec 2019 12:17:03 -0500

Response by SGT Wayne Smith made Jan 7 at 2020 9:17 PM

SGT Wayne Smith — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 21:17:24 -0500

No.

Response by LTJG Sandra Smith made Jan 8 at 2020 3:53 PM

LTJG Sandra Smith — Wed, 08 Jan 2020 15:53:29 -0500

"Strict gun control" only disarms law abiding citizens; criminals ignore that law like the rest. Think hard: WHERE do virtually ALL mass shootings occur? Keep in mind criminals are not that stupid and not all are suicidal... Got it yet? It's those lovely "target rich" zones, so well marked out for them. What happened to the dude who mistakenly thought he was in another such in TX recently, only to find it wasn't. He got off 2 shots; the 3rd shot fired in 6 seconds took him down, and the half dozen or so people with guns drawn did not panic or misfire. More guns in public, not fewer, cut down gun violence.

Response by MAJ Donald Kaufman made Jan 16 at 2020 7:14 PM

MAJ Donald Kaufman — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:14:40 -0500

So if the police are evil, please explain how disarming the populace helps the populace? Your logic is flawed.

Response by 1SG Richard Price made Jan 17 at 2020 12:57 PM

1SG Richard Price — Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:57:07 -0500

2nd Amendment is the national gun control law!

Response by PFC Frederick Morrow made Jan 18 at 2020 10:57 AM

PFC Frederick Morrow — Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:57:40 -0500

The rights of the people to keep and bear arms "Shall NOT be infringed" need I say more? The Constitution doesn't say you can keep and bear arms until some oath violation politician says you can't. If you don't like it, try amending the Constitution and stop with the non-sense. Its pretty clear language that I think everyone understands unless your a tyrant and want to impose your will over and beyond the Constitution and We the people. It is our duty to overthrow unlawful government period.

Response by Maj Robert Larkowski made Jan 26 at 2020 10:28 AM

Maj Robert Larkowski — Sun, 26 Jan 2020 10:28:02 -0500

Instead of strict gun control laws that take firearms from the average law abiding citizen , how about strict laws keeping fire arms from those who wish to do harm to themselves or others.

Response by MSG Harvey Kane made Jan 26 at 2020 11:43 AM

MSG Harvey Kane — Sun, 26 Jan 2020 11:43:43 -0500

the question is always framed in no guns vs having guns. What is needed is not letting guns into the hands of people who are irresponsible. Some 13,000 people who are not involved in any form of crime kill or get killed by guns. Lets have effective background checks, lets make sure that folks who buy guns carry insurance just like we have drivers carry insurance, lets ban semi automatic rifles that are designed to do the most damage to people (like the Brady law), when buying a gun, it should be mandatory that a gun safe be purchased at the same time. when buying a gun a gun training course should be mandatory. In short, own a gun who gives a damn! Most just get rusty in some drawer.
Lastly, lets end poverty in the inner city by creating inner city enterprise zones, reinstituting vocational arts in the schools. In short, crime goes down when people are employed. On a more radical stance lets legalize drugs and get crime out of this social scourge!

Response by SGT Ron Harper made Jan 29 at 2020 4:40 PM

SGT Ron Harper — Wed, 29 Jan 2020 16:40:02 -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. Meaning that as a individual citizen of the United States, that we have right to own, keep, carry, and possess any weapon, without permission, permit, tax, or harassment from any government department or agency, that a modern day infantryman would carry on today's battlefield.

Response by PO1 Mac MacIntyre made Feb 3 at 2020 5:36 PM

PO1 Mac MacIntyre — Mon, 03 Feb 2020 17:36:42 -0500

Did you not take an oath to support and defend the Constitution? Do you Understand the Constitution? Do you understand the natural rights of man? The entire premise of your question is based upon several false assumptions and lack of facts.

Response by PO3 Steven Muirhead made Feb 9 at 2020 7:14 PM

PO3 Steven Muirhead — Sun, 09 Feb 2020 19:14:41 -0500

Very few police officers would participate in taking firearms from honest citizens. Most are Strong advocates for the second amendment.

Response by SN Otis James Wickfall Jr made Feb 10 at 2020 12:25 PM

SN Otis James Wickfall Jr — Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:25:48 -0500

Law bidding citizens should not be subjected to strict gun control! Criminals, convicted felons and the mentally disturbed are the problem...they should be subjected to extreme gun control.

Response by SPC Glenn Ferguson made Feb 14 at 2020 11:47 AM

SPC Glenn Ferguson — Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:47:57 -0500

I am opposed to any laws, rules or restrictions infringing on any of our Constitutional Rights. As I feel once you have given in on one of these that then allows for the precedence to then do so on all of them.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2020 5:36 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 05:36:36 -0500

Not a direct response to the topic, but everyone that I want to forcefully defend the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, I open up the local paper and reality stares me in the face. The same trashy people are arrested for drugs, domestic violence, theft, and other nefarious activity. Those people need to be restricted from gun ownership. Same with people with documented mental issues (case-by-case). Sure, they can get guns illegally, but at least restrict their access to legal firearms.

Response by Amn Reggie Keene made Feb 28 at 2020 1:39 PM

Amn Reggie Keene — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:39:59 -0500

Response by SPC Ron Salsbury made Feb 29 at 2020 8:00 AM

SPC Ron Salsbury — Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:00:36 -0500

Troop, you are the Militia; a look back in history shows this as fact. When our fore fathers began, they brought there own guns and ammunition, because the Continental Congress could not supply munitions to all who had enlisted, they relied on the individual to bring all that they needed to fight the British. "To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens!" (Adolph Hitler, 1942).

Response by SSG Rick Moncher made Feb 29 at 2020 4:42 PM

SSG Rick Moncher — Sat, 29 Feb 2020 16:42:10 -0500

Lol

Response by MSgt Currie C. made Mar 2 at 2020 12:58 AM

MSgt Currie C. — Mon, 02 Mar 2020 00:58:50 -0500

NO!

Response by SP5 Ed McCoy made Mar 6 at 2020 4:21 PM

SP5 Ed McCoy — Fri, 06 Mar 2020 16:21:21 -0500

Wow, must live in the cities.

Response by SFC Ken Heise made Mar 13 at 2020 10:25 AM

SFC Ken Heise — Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:25:53 -0400

You’re joking right? Please go back and read the Oath you swore to uphold.

Response by SFC Raymond Gerth made Mar 14 at 2020 10:50 PM

SFC Raymond Gerth — Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:50:03 -0400

Most retired flag officers say that civilians have no business owning a military style weapon.

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2020 11:15 PM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2020 23:15:33 -0400

PFC Harris, it's called the second amendment. Any attempt to create a infringement against it is a violation of the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
,,"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Having taken a oath to defend the Constitution, I'd suggest you get to Know what you are sworn to defend. After all, what Is it referring to by, "THIS WE'LL DEFEND!?" better figure it out, Soldier.

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Mar 21 at 2020 10:33 AM

SFC Robert Walton — Sat, 21 Mar 2020 10:33:39 -0400

The good ole gun debate again. I still stand on cars kill more people than guns but we are not banning them, we are not regulating them, we are not demonizing them, and how about the stats on bludgeoning people to death? Only Guns are evil. Only guns Kill people. Only Guns can take a life. Take a look at the Opioid's the kill more people by far than guns. For some reason we have a Group of people in the United States that only care about the instrument used not how many people are killed or how easy the access is. "OMG he used a gun to kill people" But 5000 people died because someone sold the Opioid's that killed them. One Drug dealer kills more people than any mass shooting and no one cares. One person Kill a bunch of folks with a gun and the "GUN IS EVIL", Me thinks were barking up the wrong tree.

Response by SSG Ron Bogard made Apr 4 at 2020 4:46 PM

SSG Ron Bogard — Sat, 04 Apr 2020 16:46:02 -0400

Gun control is being able to hit your target, regardless of the distance!!

Response by SPC Vaughn Orndorff made Apr 13 at 2020 2:42 PM

SPC Vaughn Orndorff — Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:42:36 -0400

Absolutely not. The country's lawmakers should work on getting help for the people with mental health problems and caring for them properly to stop the shootings in gun free zones.

Response by Cpl Roger Schillinger made Apr 14 at 2020 9:01 AM

Cpl Roger Schillinger — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:01:15 -0400

Must be an aspiring politician going for the crackhead vote.
There should be a nation wide right to carry law that wipes out all the concealed carry laws.

Response by CPO John Moore made Apr 14 at 2020 9:52 AM

CPO John Moore — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:52:21 -0400

No. end of discussion.

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made Apr 14 at 2020 6:39 PM

SPC Franklin McKown — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:39:34 -0400

As we are only witnessing exaggerated media,it can be confusing.
Absolutely not, in any way shape or form, any more so than it already exists.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Apr 25 at 2020 4:35 AM

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter — Sat, 25 Apr 2020 04:35:37 -0400

The assaults I've seen involving the Police were assaults on them ! There are already enough gun laws, most people comply, its up to the judges to do their jobs for a change and punish the one that didn't. I spent over 40 years in Law Enforcement and have been assaulted but never had a complaint of excessive force. Most the people We deal with are repeat offenders who just can't obey the laws of the society We live in. The Police don't just pick up people Who are doing nothing and try to entrap then and lie about it. High assault rate on people by the Police, that is plain NOT true. Has it ever happened, Yes, not often and those people ceased to be Police Officers because they were terminated. .Once in awhile, not often someone slips through the cracks and becomes a Police Officer when they should not have but they never last. I've never had a complaint of excessive force on Me in My entire 40 years and I've made a lot of arrests for just cause on actual Criminal acts committed by the subject.

Response by SFC Richard Williamson made Apr 25 at 2020 8:47 AM

SFC Richard Williamson — Sat, 25 Apr 2020 08:47:33 -0400

NO!

Response by PO1 Mike Wallace made Apr 25 at 2020 11:08 AM

PO1 Mike Wallace — Sat, 25 Apr 2020 11:08:07 -0400

I had the occasion a few years ago when there was an ongoing debate about this, during the last administration, to discuss this with the county sheriff and chief of police of a large city in Georgia. They both said they would never ever ask or tell their officers to go out and collect guns because it would get very nasty with lots of bloodshed. In fact they said they would stand with the gun owners and their 2nd amendment rights.
If you believe the police have a right to entrap people you need to get your money back from whatever legal source that told you that. Your statement is dripping with bias and fails the bull squeeze test.

Response by SP5 Jim Shively made Apr 26 at 2020 6:54 PM

SP5 Jim Shively — Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:54:43 -0400

No law should be passed that infringes on my 2nd Amendment Rights.

Response by CW4 Gregory Damms made Apr 26 at 2020 7:56 PM

CW4 Gregory Damms — Sun, 26 Apr 2020 19:56:54 -0400

I am guessing you have never read the Constitution.

Response by SFC Raymond Gerth made Apr 26 at 2020 11:02 PM

SFC Raymond Gerth — Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:02:34 -0400

Yes there should. The majority of retired flag officers say civilians have no business owning a military style weapon

Response by MSG Harvey Kane made Apr 26 at 2020 11:06 PM

MSG Harvey Kane — Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:06:05 -0400

Yes they should. In fact they are on the books it is a matter of enforcement.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Apr 27 at 2020 9:48 AM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Mon, 27 Apr 2020 09:48:03 -0400

If people think police are a problem, restricting everyday citizens from weapons will not improve that, only cops and criminals will be armed.

Response by MAJ Damajah Arnold made Apr 27 at 2020 11:01 AM

MAJ Damajah Arnold — Mon, 27 Apr 2020 11:01:38 -0400

I think there is something seriously wrong with people who believe that we don’t have a firearms problem in this country, and the only way to solve our firearms problem, is with more firearms. Sitting in your darkened basement behind a .50 caliber machine gun praying for a burglar to break in or looters to ravage the neighborhood is symbolic of a society with deep interpersonal, self-esteem, and security issues.

Response by Sgt Leonard Lamb made Apr 27 at 2020 5:55 PM

Sgt Leonard Lamb — Mon, 27 Apr 2020 17:55:26 -0400

Should mentally ill or deranged people be able to shoot up children in schools, church goers and people out for a movie?

Response by Col John Madison made Apr 28 at 2020 3:14 AM

Col John Madison — Tue, 28 Apr 2020 03:14:22 -0400

The nature of your question is clearly more of a statement. Your information, just as with anybody's, can be skewed dramatically by the kinds of materials you read, the volatility of the literature, and your own personal experiences. The criminal character in this day and age is often not villified but glorified by both Hollyweird and in other media. Some push this same opinion as yours from a Libertarian perspective, some from an Anarchist perspective, but most have some personal axe to grind. If you have had some run-ins with the law, perhaps you are upset with the course it took. If you feel jaded by the entire experience perhaps you should consider living in a more permissive environment. Oh yes, I forgot, there isn't another such place on this planet.

Response by SPC Andrew Murray made Apr 28 at 2020 1:01 PM

SPC Andrew Murray — Tue, 28 Apr 2020 13:01:32 -0400

Seems like asserting that police are abusing citizens is a strong argument against a strong civilian gun control law.

Response by SGT Herbert Bollum made Apr 28 at 2020 4:08 PM

SGT Herbert Bollum — Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:08:58 -0400

Not on your life.

Response by MSgt Allen Chandler made Apr 28 at 2020 5:55 PM

MSgt Allen Chandler — Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:55:57 -0400

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
"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."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope.

I am not a legal expert but, I wonder whether the phrase “the right of the people” means a group of people or each individual person.
Let’s assume that it means an individual person. A person that has committed such a crime that we feel he or she should go to jail for a long period time, is still the person. A person who we feel is so mentally unbalanced that they need to be locked up in a restrictive setting such is a mental hospital, it’s still a person.
I hope the majority of you agree that the person in those two examples should not / does not have a right to own a gun (or any other things that we called arms).
Now let's assume that the phrase “the right of the people” refers to a group of people. What kind a group? Let’s take some examples; a family, a neighborhood, the city, State. The group of people in each of those categories, create some problems. The first is the simplest one; every one of those groups may or may not have children. Now I’m using the word children here to mean someone who is five or six years old or younger. I’m not going to claim that there are no cases were a six-year-old can possess a gun. I am going to claim there are no cases where a six-year-old can possess a gun without the approval supervision of an adult.
I’m hoping most of us agree that we should not allow six-year-olds to walk in the gun stores and by guns without parental supervision.
Now if you agree with me at this point, I can say “there are limitations on the second amendment right to bear arms” the only question is what limitations should a free society put on this amendment?
My point is if you think the Second amendment is absolute and there is no limitation that the government can place on it, then I have nothing to say to you. If you think that there are some reasonable limitations, then I will enjoy having a discussion with you. I do not think private citizens should be allowed to own atomic bombs. And I think we should put great restrictions on weapons such as machine guns and semi-automatic rifles. I can understand that there would be reasonable people that don’t agree with me and would want to show me some justification for allowing the general population oh and such weapons.
If you think the second amendment is absolute, then I feel sorry for you and see no point in carrying on a conversation.

Response by MAJ Damajah Arnold made Apr 28 at 2020 8:17 PM

MAJ Damajah Arnold — Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:17:31 -0400

People who shouldn’t have guns aren’t making them...they are acquiring them from people who have a “right” to have them. For example, nearly every workplace shooting in the past 50 years was committed by a person with no previous criminal record. Despite all the NRA/Fux News propaganda you hear, the average citizen in this country is more likely to be shot by a family member, or someone they know, than a criminal. We all have a right to self defense...I get that. Wouldn’t we all be a little safer if guns were harder to get, like for burglars, teen-age boys having a bad day at school, and disgruntled employees? If the 2nd Amendment was so important to our Constitution, it would have been first instead of second.

Response by SGT Rick Himel made Apr 29 at 2020 9:09 AM

SGT Rick Himel — Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:09:23 -0400

I’m not sure what source of news you get your information from, but I see a lot more cops being killed by citizens lately than the other way around.

As for your questions - leftists fear the 2A because its very existence serves as a check on their power. Gun control has nothing to do with violence and everything to do with politics. Democrats know the quickest way to dominate the public is to disarm them. If you want to see real tyranny in the recent history of the world - look at countries like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and countless other examples over the last 100 years where the population was first disarmed and the the totalitarian government was free to rule with an iron fist.

When someone tries to take away even a portion of your freedoms, you should always stop and ask why these people seek to exert power over you.

+

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Apr 29 at 2020 8:09 PM

SFC Randy Hellenbrand — Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:09:06 -0400

Are you even in the military?? Your whole supporting argument makes me think your a alt right nutzee or somebody stuck in the early 1960s.

However, if you want my honest opinion, the whole 2nd amendment is obsolete. It was written in a time when the non-violent Quaker religion was very wide spread. Most Cities, townships, and colonies had anti gun laws. In other words gun ownership was highly regulated if not out right illegal. So, how as a governor do you have a armed state militia to defend your state encase you have a nutcase become POTUS? That is why the 2nd is written as it is. It is solely written for states to be able to have a armed militia because back then, YOU HAD TO BUY YOUR WEAPON YOURSELF. Uncle Sugar didn't give it to you.

So sum up, America needs to fix this issue. The ruling that Supreme Court Justice Scalia stuck us with is highly suspect since HE DIED AT A SECRET GUN SOCIETY MEETING WHERE THEY WEAR ROBES AND CARRY CEREMONIAL DAGGERS.

Response by PO2 David Allender made May 9 at 2020 7:00 AM

PO2 David Allender — Sat, 09 May 2020 07:00:15 -0400

As long as you can buy a weapon(s) on the streets of any city, any gun control law would be worthless. Nor could it ever be controlled. The pity is, I have not read or seen where anybody ever mentions this while talking about gun control.

Response by 1SG Uwe Mueller made May 12 at 2020 1:34 PM

1SG Uwe Mueller — Tue, 12 May 2020 13:34:33 -0400

Having grown up in Europe and NYC after emigrating to the US I never understood the need for "every lunatic" (my words) to own a weapon. That mindset changed once I saw the how geographically diverse the US is and why in many rural areas the police or even neighbors that can assist are more than just a phone call away. Further, I also started to understand why the founding fathers made the 2nd Amendment a right that that was intended to assure that the USA remain a democracy. As evidenced by existing gun laws and crime statistics the strictness of gun laws does not result in lower crime but actually correlates to more crime. I have extensively traveled both in the military and as a civilian but have never felt unsafe with the exception of NYC and Miami.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2020 3:36 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 May 2020 15:36:10 -0400

Um..I was a cop for 21 years.
Never assaulted anyone or entrapped anybody.
The biggest misconception that society has to get over is the fact that any enforcement action by police is automatically some sort of any miscarriage of Justice.
When a person can live feed themselves in the police chase and then actually live feed themselves shooting at cops, and is then killed, the concept that there would be protests and crimes of "he didn't do anything wrong" is mind boggling! What you consider to be you abuse and entrapment is little more than individuals breaking the law and then acting out violently against the police who come to address thier behavior.
You're buying into a concept that any type of enforcement action by police is inherently wrong. Its dangerous and factually inaccurate.
Next time someone holds up a 6th grade picture of a 26yo man who was shot and killed by police Simply ask yourself why they have to go back and find a 6th grade nature of him. Was that the very last time he didn't actually look like a straight up thug?
Regardless.. it seems your intent is to illustrate that civilians should have guns to stand up to cops who they deem to be working outside of thier authority simply based on that single persons opinion. An opinion which has been drastically skewed.
I will be the first to say we need to stand up against tyranny and oppression and that we should never be disbarred the use of arms to keep such a government in check.
But you're advocating for an entirely different purpose. One that's an extremely dangerous and polarized in ideology.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2020 7:56 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 May 2020 07:56:03 -0400

Better idea. Let's just ban guns in ever city with at least a 10 year run of Democratic mayors and see how that affects the stats.

Response by 1stSgt Jeff Blovat made May 14 at 2020 9:12 AM

1stSgt Jeff Blovat — Thu, 14 May 2020 09:12:04 -0400

With a question like that, I have to ask, where in the world did that come from? The color of the sky in my world is blue. What’s yours?

Response by SGT Matt Yager made May 14 at 2020 2:04 PM

SGT Matt Yager — Thu, 14 May 2020 14:04:58 -0400

Where in the Constitution does anyone have the right to limit the purchase and use of Arms (as "Arms" was originally defined)?

Before you spout the "militia" clause - Look at DC vs. Heller. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia..."

Before you spout out Guns cause Violence - in Switzerland, the government issues guns and ammo. They have among the highest per-capita ownership of fire arms in the world and the shooting deaths in the world

Lastly, before you begin to tell everyone that we are safer without firearms, HITLER took the guns of the Jews, right before he murdered them. In a book recording his conversations with other at his office in Berlin and elsewhere (Hitlers table talk: 1941-1944) he stated:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms."

Don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Response by PO1 Don Rowan made May 14 at 2020 3:36 PM

PO1 Don Rowan — Thu, 14 May 2020 15:36:25 -0400

No.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made May 14 at 2020 7:30 PM

CSM Thomas McGarry — Thu, 14 May 2020 19:30:51 -0400

If we were going to implement a strict gun control law on the national level it would probably take a Constitutional amendment to change the 2nd Amendment. Regarding your statement regarding the Police, there are already laws on the books regarding lying under oath as well as entrapment. Can you post the statistics that will back what your asserting or is this just a case of sour grapes? If you know of specific incidents you owe it to the department concerned to report it too the Chief or if you don't feel comfortable doing that, contact your State Police.

Response by SFC William Vannortwick made May 15 at 2020 12:18 PM

SFC William Vannortwick — Fri, 15 May 2020 12:18:47 -0400

i have a CCW with a 1911R1 45acp, we used weapons to defend America, we have the 2nd amendment which i will defend with my life. i followed my father of 2 wars ww2 and Korea, me Vietnam 72-73 if this sounds mean well i'm mean. a salute to bothers/sisters and out brotherhood
william vannortwick

Response by PO1 Don Mac Intyre made May 16 at 2020 8:15 AM

PO1 Don Mac Intyre — Sat, 16 May 2020 08:15:20 -0400

First off, if you swore an oath, you really need to read the document you swore to support and defend. Secondly the entire premise of your comment about the high assault rate by the police to the citizen is false, as is "there(sp) right to lie and entrap".

Response by MAJ Tex Hall made May 16 at 2020 2:08 PM

MAJ Tex Hall — Sat, 16 May 2020 14:08:00 -0400

WOW, those are disparate ideas. First is the RIGHT that we are guaranteed by our constitution. The founding document that RESTRICTS the governement.
Secondly, a false narrative that attacks the VAST Majority of LEO is horse shit to use to push your feelings forward.

Response by Cpl George Willard made May 16 at 2020 2:39 PM

Cpl George Willard — Sat, 16 May 2020 14:39:22 -0400

What part of the Second Amendment Have you forgotten? "Shall NOT be Infringed upon"

Response by SPC Randy Torgerson made May 16 at 2020 4:40 PM

SPC Randy Torgerson — Sat, 16 May 2020 16:40:09 -0400

A strict NO to the first part of the question. Don't infringe.....! The police however, not really anything to change here short of a few minor things. The complete immunity does need to change.

Response by 1LT Peter Duston made May 16 at 2020 5:23 PM

1LT Peter Duston — Sat, 16 May 2020 17:23:30 -0400

I was a senior weapons instructor for years and just don't believe that military style assault weapons belong in the hands of civilians.

Response by SSG Jason Penn made May 17 at 2020 1:05 AM

SSG Jason Penn — Sun, 17 May 2020 01:05:57 -0400

NO!!!! The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the writings of the founding fathers explaining their intent and exactly just what they meant are explicitly clear! Any permits, bans, "gun control", licensing, restrictions, background checks, limitations, regulations, waiting periods, etc. that hinder a law abiding citizen to obtain any firearm to include but not limited to shotguns, pistols, muskets, rifles (all types including military assault rifles), machine guns, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and flame throwers are strictly unconstitutional. In short, according to the founding fathers, anything that the Infantryman carries, the average citizen is authorized to own and carry!

Response by SPC Bill Ratajczak made May 17 at 2020 7:04 PM

SPC Bill Ratajczak — Sun, 17 May 2020 19:04:20 -0400

Do you know how ignorant you sound? Civilian gun ownership is a cornerstone of our freedom. The police are the only barrier between you an the criminal element, try living in Russia, Columbia, or Africa.

Response by Sgt John H. made May 17 at 2020 9:02 PM

Sgt John H. — Sun, 17 May 2020 21:02:57 -0400

I will always stand by and support the Constitution including the Second Amendment!

Response by 1SG James Kelly made May 18 at 2020 1:42 AM

1SG James Kelly — Mon, 18 May 2020 01:42:45 -0400

Saw a movie once where only the military and police had weapons:

"SCHINDLER'S LIST"

If you don't understand; shut up and get out of my Army.

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made May 18 at 2020 5:35 AM

SFC Kenneth Hunnell — Mon, 18 May 2020 05:35:20 -0400

Good luck with that one.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2020 8:30 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 May 2020 08:30:13 -0400

1) There has already been 3 high profile abuse of Police authority in the US this year resulting in unlawful slayings of civilians i.e. Duncan Lemp, Breona Taylor, and that poor UPS driver.
2) the NFA as a whole is unconstitutional. If I want an RPG 7 in my garage then I should have that choice. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is that if our government uses our own military force against us, Joe Bob the bartender would be able to attempt... and I do mean attempt to send a WWII era Panzerfaust up the tailpipe of an M1 Abrams.
3) There 100% will be a ban on weapons in the future because our citizens are a bunch of sheep who blindly follow their political parties to the slaughter of misbranded Communism and Civil slavery.

Response by SFC Joh Williams made May 18 at 2020 10:36 AM

SFC Joh Williams — Mon, 18 May 2020 10:36:19 -0400

The people should be able to purchase and own what they can afford. If you can afford to own a M1 Abrams tank, go for it. You need a ranch, as they are not street legal.
Less rules, better enforcement of current law

Response by SP5 Geoffrey Vannerson made May 19 at 2020 5:48 PM

SP5 Geoffrey Vannerson — Tue, 19 May 2020 17:48:36 -0400

The only way a gun can kill someone is if there is a person to pull the trigger. The best way to obtain gun control is to control "gun powder."

Response by SFC David mCgILLIS made May 20 at 2020 9:25 AM

SFC David mCgILLIS — Wed, 20 May 2020 09:25:44 -0400

Wow... have you ever played ping pong against someone who has never played?
After just one serve, you gotta walk away.

Response by COL Denise Loring made May 20 at 2020 11:30 AM

COL Denise Loring — Wed, 20 May 2020 11:30:30 -0400

No, there are already plenty of gun control laws on the books. If they were enforced, much of the issues would be resolved. As a civilian (veteran) competitive shooter, increased gun-control laws do not target criminals, they target law-abiding citizens. We have a Constitution that is clear in our right to bear arms. Taking away this right is tyranny. Enforce the laws we have, punish criminals who break the law. This county does not have an issue with firearms, it has an issue with mental health, the quicker we recognize and solve that issue, the better society will be.

Response by PFC Donnie Harold Harris made May 20 at 2020 4:45 PM

PFC Donnie Harold Harris — Wed, 20 May 2020 16:45:22 -0400

As I have stated in the past. I am 100% with the NRA. I am not a member nor ever will be. I have lived life long enough to see how we the people are outgunned. If the police have Tedlar we have Tedlar. If they have a Tank we have a tank. If they have an air force we have and air force of our own. If they have a factory we have that factory as our own... Killing is hate. I love you all.

Response by SSgt Andy Adams made May 20 at 2020 8:57 PM

SSgt Andy Adams — Wed, 20 May 2020 20:57:14 -0400

No there should not be. Period. The Second Amendment guarantees a law abiding citizen the right to gun ownership. The US Supreme Court has upheld that right in Heller vs District of Columbia and in a case in Illinois that I cannot remember by name. Gun control is another way of saying people control. How was Hitler able to exterminate 6 million Jews? First by gun registration, which is the fist step to confiscation. Then he confiscated all guns in private hands leaving people without means of self defense. Same with Pol Pot in Cambodia, Stalin in Russia and on with all the genocidal dictators in the 20th century. Politicians are always talking about "assault weapons" which are already outlawed by the Firearms Act of 1934 which outlawed all automatic weapons. The so called "assault weapons" are simply civilian versions of some modern military weapons but are semi-automatic. By political definition, any firearm capable of firing more that one shot prior to reloading is considered and "assault weapon". Back in the 1970's the aim was to eliminate handguns. When that failed, they found something else. The end goal of all gun control is to eliminate all firearms from civilian hands.
Studies show that millions of crimes against individuals are thwarted annually by armed citizens exercising their right to self defense.

Response by SSG Alexander Drinkwater made May 21 at 2020 10:04 AM

SSG Alexander Drinkwater — Thu, 21 May 2020 10:04:38 -0400

I don't know if this is permitted but here is a link to article I wrote a few years back ln the 2nd Amendment. https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Second-Amendment-to-the-Constitution-of-the-United-States-of-America (If links are not permitted let me know and I will delete it.)

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Do you believe in the right to keep and bear arms?

Response by CPL Steve Freeman made May 21 at 2020 11:57 AM

CPL Steve Freeman — Thu, 21 May 2020 11:57:18 -0400

This is the United States of by God America. There's no way a stricr national gun control law could be enforced in a country with more "assault weapons" than the entire Chicomm army. Moreover, this country is far too industrialized to successfully ban any kind of firearm, as complex as AR weapons are, the technology to 3d print everything is already established, as is the proliferation of 3d printers, materials and specs required to make these weapons. Furthermore, there are 12 trillion rounds of ammunition in the hands of the citizenry, and millions of people have the tools, materials and expertise to make ammo. The endeavor to ban guns in this country is tantamount to going unicorn hunting. It doesn't even qualify as a pipe dream. Anyone who thinks it can be done should be forcibly committed to a psychiatric ward and electroshock therapied to death, revived snd reshocked to death again.

Response by AN Charles Durham made May 22 at 2020 4:38 PM

AN Charles Durham — Fri, 22 May 2020 16:38:50 -0400

No way

Response by PFC Eric Stosius made May 22 at 2020 11:09 PM

PFC Eric Stosius — Fri, 22 May 2020 23:09:43 -0400

Remember your oath to the constitution. Not the politician. I've been out a long time but I can still shoot straight.

Response by PO3 Adam Stoflet made May 23 at 2020 6:23 AM

PO3 Adam Stoflet — Sat, 23 May 2020 06:23:44 -0400

To answer you first quest no their shouldn’t be and I highly doubt it would go over very well with out a blood bath. After all look what happens when the Biritsh tried it so long ago.

To answer you last part about “high assault rate” by police. Using force is an unsavory part of the job, sure their is one every now and then that is itching for one, but cops are humans too they can get amped up and also be manipulated in to them where they go too far. Example “I know where you live and I’m gonna rape your wife and daughter while I make you watch”. My point is we expect cops to be 100% flawless all day everyday and most of us forget that they are human too, thus they are just as fallible as the rest of us.

Lies and entrapment, I don’t know what state you are from but from my understanding Entrapment is against in the In the US. I have two examples for entrapment, #1 You and your friends go out for a boat ride to go water ski of fishing then the owner of the boat shuts it off in the middle of the water and says we aren’t going back unless you buy these drugs, so you do, then you get back to shore and boom he aressts you because he was a cop. That’s entrapment. #2 You’re of legal drinking age you go to a bar and buy alcohol, after a night of drinking you call a taxi to go home, then on your way out a cops see you leave the bar and arrests you for Public Intoxication before you can get in your taxi. That’s entrapment.

As for lying it goes both ways they can lie for under cover stuff to help remove the drug den. Sure lying in general is bad but they can do sone great work with it, like also downgrading your speeding ticket so it’s not a felony where they can arrest you for it. It works both ways.

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made May 24 at 2020 4:11 PM

MAJ Hugh Blanchard — Sun, 24 May 2020 16:11:03 -0400

Let's start with two things I assume to be true: 1. Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Gun control laws don't affect criminals, because ciminals don't care about the law. 2. Criminals will always be able to find firearms and ammunition on the black market.
So, given those two things, why would we want to pass strict gun control laws that make it harder or even impossible for law-abiding citizens to buy guns and defend themselves? This only makes law-abiding citizens unarmed and defenseless against armed criminals. Law-abiding citizens aren't responsible for mass shootings and gun violence. Over 50% of gun deaths are suicides. Taking away my firearms won't prevent a disturbed person from committing suicide.
If you want to prevent mass shootings and criminal gun violernce, then do this: 1. Lock up criminals who use guns in maximum security prisons for at least 10 years with no parole or time off for any reason. Hard time. 2. Keep all firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people. Violent mentally ill people should also be confined in prison hospitals until they are judged sane or until they die. Our first goal should be to protect law-abiding citizens, not release criminals back into society.
Finally, your allegations against all police are simply not true. Most people who encounter the police are treated with respect. Those who want to scream at, obstruct, run from or fight the police are inviting the trouble they may receive. Don't fight the police, it's a bad idea.

Response by Sgt Ari Maayan made May 25 at 2020 12:02 AM

Sgt Ari Maayan — Mon, 25 May 2020 00:02:24 -0400

After I served in the USMC, I emigrated to Israel. I served in the IDF. The level of crime involving use of a firearm in Israel is one of the lowest of any country. And yet nearly everyone has a firearm. In my home I had an AK-47, .22 target rifle, 12 gauge shotgun and Beretta .22 and a Beretta 9mm. They were all registered and no one had any problem with that. Registration of firearms doesn't need to mean that the government is going to confiscate your firearms. That is paranoia.

Response by PO2 Nick Burke made May 25 at 2020 6:00 PM

PO2 Nick Burke — Mon, 25 May 2020 18:00:50 -0400

No. Why should I be forced to curtail my Constitutional Rights? I have assaulted no one.

Response by MAJ Gregory Moon made May 26 at 2020 3:19 PM

MAJ Gregory Moon — Tue, 26 May 2020 15:19:02 -0400

What the hell. Make and argument and support it don't assert something with no support You're not a journalist are you?

Response by MAJ Mark Steskal made May 29 at 2020 3:51 PM

MAJ Mark Steskal — Fri, 29 May 2020 15:51:36 -0400

There are indeed, some dirty Law Enforcement Officers. Most however are not.
As to 'gun control,' it is important to consider why the Second Amendmant was introduced. Was it, as some current politicians say, simply about providing an agrarian, rural society a means of providing food and defense against attacks by savages? Perhaps one should consider the registering of firearms in Germany during the Hitler administration, followed by confiscation (for the safety of the populace), followed quickly by a dictatorship.
Gun violence is a social problem in which society is to blame for individual attitudes toward violence and the value of human life. Former Lee County, FL Sheriff once suggested that it may be, in part, the desensitization produced by allowing intellectually unsophisticated children unlimited access to violent media. Sounds reasonable to a Mental Health professional.

Response by Cpl Grant Howze made Jun 1 at 2020 10:40 AM

Cpl Grant Howze — Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:40:52 -0400

Instead of pushing for gun control (restrictions on the 2nd amendment) the real issue is so called "journalists" abusing the first amendment. Maybe charging them with inciting violence for pushing a false narrative would be more effective.

Response by SPC Chris Ison made Jun 1 at 2020 1:18 PM

SPC Chris Ison — Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:18:26 -0400

yes, in my opinion, there should be a strict gun control law. here is why:

The second amendment says A " a well regulated militia " that is the very FIRST clause, it goes on to say "being necessary for a free STATE", state NOT country, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who regulates the militia? Simple CONGRESS article 1 section 8, the enumerated powers of congress, states:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

IN 1903 there was the "militia act" that specifically started to formally organize the militia, it was amended several times. Part of this was the NAMING of the MILITIA to NATIONAL GUARD.

When most of the NG units had been federalized in WWII the states got angry because they no longer had "self defense forces" so the feds passed a law granting the states to keep and maintain a state militia or defense force. 23 states have these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Guard.

A bunch of fat, ignorant, toothless, gun psychos wearing camouflage and using call of duty to train tactics IS NOT A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

Many people will argue that it should be the sates to regulate guns and gun control; But the problem with that is "interstate commerce" where a person can purchase an illegal firearm in say Nevada or Arizona and then bring it into California, so the regulation needs to be federal to prevent that form happening.

The idea that only criminals would have guns, because they don't obey the law is a false argument, if regulating something did not matter then why are so many right groups trying to regulate bathrooms, abortion, and marriage?

Why even have laws to begin with, they OBVIOUSLY do not deter crime, or the US would NOT have the largest criminal population in the world.

Finally, since there are enough guns in the use for every household to have at least one, we are the number one purchaser of firearms, if we were to pass strict gun control laws, the gun companies would go out of business (some of them field bankruptcy after the republicans won the election in 2017), except for those few who have government contracts. Eventually the remaining guns would all be confiscated, and the criminals would not be able to get guns, because there would be none being manufactured, for civilian markets.

California_State_Guard.

Response by SFC Richard Williamson made Jun 7 at 2020 9:41 AM

SFC Richard Williamson — Sun, 07 Jun 2020 09:41:14 -0400

I can only say this: First, I missed this when it was posted. Second, "Deadly Force" is legal in Montana, if you or your family are being threatened. Second, if someone enters my property and tries to confiscate my guns, or harm me or my family in any way, somebody is going to have a problem. Strict gun laws, requiring registration, when a gun is purchased, I have no problem with that. But, requiring me to register guns that I've had for many years, is not going to happen. Guns laws won't and haven't made anyone any safer, whether in the big cities or out in the country. Nor will gun laws get rid of over-zealous cops. The different types of guns available is not the cause of deaths or disturbances, or laws to control them are not the problem. It's the people, and this will never change. I'm stepping down off the "soap box" now.

Response by PO2 John Driskill made Jun 13 at 2020 9:42 AM

PO2 John Driskill — Sat, 13 Jun 2020 09:42:34 -0400

Please cite the number of high assaults by police officers against civilians? What does the current anti law enforcement BS being put out by the bottom dwelling media scumsuckers have to do with gun control? Do you really believe that law enforcement officers wake up every day and wonder who they are going to entrap and lie to?

Response by PO3 Gregory Lehman made Jun 16 at 2020 1:44 PM

PO3 Gregory Lehman — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:44:08 -0400

Absolutely not! Look at the violence and deaths in Chicago and other places such as schools that have gun contol laws in effect. Time and time again where a good guy with a gun has intervened to assist Law Enforcement and citizens to take down a bad guy and stop mass casualties. Their are already many laws on the books. This is all about control and trying to take away our Freedoms.

Response by Sgt Tom Davis made Jun 16 at 2020 4:37 PM

Sgt Tom Davis — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:37:52 -0400

Should there be strict gun laws for civilians? There already are. I submit to a background check, pay a fee to use a constitutional right. I have been fingerprinted to allow me to carry for personal defense and pay an additional fee to be able to use that right. Should there be strict gun laws? For felons of a violent nature, yes. For mentally deficient people, yes. For the average citizen, no, there shouldn't be. Prior to the depression, anyone could mail order a Thompson submachine gun with no age requirement, no background check, nothing. Yet there were no mass shootings at schools and churches, the only real shooting I can recall from that time period is the Saint Valentines Day Massacre and that was mobsters killing mobsters, not teenagers driving down suburban streets shooting innocent people sitting on the porch. Chicago, Baltimore, DC, LA, places with the most strict gun control have the highest crime. Gun control means unarmed victims to a criminal. He isn't concerned with obeying the law, when he shows up with a stolen or otherwise illegally obtained firearm, he can do whatever he wants because he knows that most of the victims aren't able to protect themselves against him.

Response by SGT Joseph Dutton made Jun 16 at 2020 11:05 PM

SGT Joseph Dutton — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 23:05:36 -0400

I think CPT Durish said it well. But I will add to it. Laws are only to make innocent, law abiding citizens into law breakers. See, no matter what laws is passed, there is people out there that has no regards to the laws.

Response by SPC Ray Rigsby made Jun 17 at 2020 2:27 AM

SPC Ray Rigsby — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 02:27:57 -0400

With people like Roberts and Gorsuch as SCOTUS justices, you better believe it could happen! They are both spineless cowards that fold for socialist communist dems at every turn.

Response by PO2 Louis Fattrusso made Jun 17 at 2020 5:17 PM

PO2 Louis Fattrusso — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 17:17:45 -0400

No. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right to arm ourselves was for protection, not for hunting.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2020 11:01 PM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 23:01:51 -0400

Should and could are two vastly different questions in today’s political climate.

Response by Cpl Bobbylee Dominguez made Jun 17 at 2020 11:51 PM

Cpl Bobbylee Dominguez — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 23:51:53 -0400

Look anytime the word gun is mentioned, there will be people opposed. So your answer is no there will never be a billed past. Be real left up to Democrats and liberals next battle you shipped out to, our military will have to win in a pissing contest, because our military will have no weapons period.

Response by SSgt Richard Carl Reimann made Jun 18 at 2020 10:45 AM

SSgt Richard Carl Reimann — Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:45:44 -0400

No leave the 2nd amendment alone. Stop trying to come in thru the back door to take the American citizens guns away. Only American citizens may or should own guns. Never foreign nationals should be allowed to own guns on American soil
thank you Mrs Veronica M Reimann

Response by SCPO Jeff Conz made Jun 18 at 2020 2:34 PM

SCPO Jeff Conz — Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:34:04 -0400

Hell no!

Response by SP5 Howard Moore made Jun 19 at 2020 8:48 AM

SP5 Howard Moore — Fri, 19 Jun 2020 08:48:11 -0400

I hope not It would probably make me a felon. I realize I'm a boomer after all I'm old enough to that my issue sidearm was a 1911 but when it comes to firearms I'm more worried about me not having access to one than the the possibility of other fellow having one.. My feelings are do to my personal experiences. I have been carrying a firearm for over 40 years and have two reported defensive gun uses

Response by MSgt Don Dobbs made Jun 19 at 2020 11:19 AM

MSgt Don Dobbs — Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:19:12 -0400

For a lesson on gun control go to Mexico they have very strict laws. Who has the guns? The Police, and the criminals. Who has the most firepower? The criminals. Go to any U.S. city or state with strict gun laws. Who has the guns? The police and the criminals. Who has the most firepower? The criminals. Why is this so? They are criminals because they don't obey the law......

Response by Sgt Frank Latham made Jun 19 at 2020 4:50 PM

Sgt Frank Latham — Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:50:12 -0400

There is no high assault rate by police against citizens. Police mostly do their jobs by apprehending criminals along with other duties, traffic, etc. a few bad apples do not define the entire force. The officers acting unlawfully should be prosecuted and fired as required by laws of the state and federal constitution. We are protected by the bill of rights and our constitution if we only use it versus allowing politicians abuse of it!

Response by SGT Doug Blanchard made Jun 19 at 2020 6:34 PM

SGT Doug Blanchard — Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:34:56 -0400

Read the Bill of Rights. Especially the 2nd Amendment. As far as I am concerned any and all laws contrary to the 2nd Amendment are illegal and in constitutional. As it states, "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon...." Several times SCOTUS has qualified that that statement means private citizens have the "right" to own firearms. Not just the military or police.

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Jun 20 at 2020 2:43 PM

MSgt J D McKee — Sat, 20 Jun 2020 14:43:47 -0400

To give my opinion on this, first I gotta say--that shit on video where one cop just flat choked a MF to death right on the street in front of video and didn't give a shit while his little buddy "has his back" against public protest in the background is the most egregious misuse of any kind of power I have seen.

Why is it that both

(1) people who compete with each other to be the most victimly victimized ( Native/black trans of the 43rd gender while appearing to be completely of European ancestry and dealing with PTSD resulting from childhood molestation and/or misogyny, while also inflicted with Chrone's and severe Gluten avoidance syndrome)

and

(2) People who ARE ACTUALLY more likely to be a victim (women and minorities of whatever kind)

Are against the ability to defend themselves in the best way possible.

Why? Why aren't they all demanding weapons and buying them?

Dont, please, tell me violence and weaponry never settle anything, not here. When one requires a Ouija board to discuss the matter with the opposing side, one has won that argument.

The second amendment is the only federal gun law that should exist. The ATF and all their regulations having the force of law, shouldn't.

Response by Cpl Geoff Smith made Jun 20 at 2020 6:58 PM

Cpl Geoff Smith — Sat, 20 Jun 2020 18:58:14 -0400

Hell NO!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2020 10:27 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Jun 2020 10:27:08 -0400

What kind of red coat communist question is that?

Response by CPL Michael Moore made Jun 21 at 2020 2:26 PM

CPL Michael Moore — Sun, 21 Jun 2020 14:26:48 -0400

No !!!!

Response by SP5 Dennis Loberger made Jun 21 at 2020 8:49 PM

SP5 Dennis Loberger — Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:49:01 -0400

While there are incidents of excessive force and cases of entrapment they are the exception not the rule. Those charges are not rampant as the numbers show. I think you may have seen too many TV police shows and movies. Your assertion is not supported by the facts.

Response by MSgt James "Buck" Buchanan made Jun 22 at 2020 2:03 PM

MSgt James "Buck" Buchanan — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:03:19 -0400

Since you asked two questions I'll give two answers. 1. Could there be strict gun control put into place?...yes, there could be. Would it work? Not likely as it would not deter crime or violence as there would be less deterrence from those most affected. 2. Should there be strict gun control put into place?...NO! First of all, we have that guaranteed right of possession given by the Constitution; second, the homicide rates in the large cities where the strictest regulations are in place are proof that strict regulations do not work; third, there are regular news items of instances where armed homeowners deter and detain home and business breakers through the use of a firearm. Strict regulation creates mistrust and fear resulting in a weak society; not sure how old you are but perhaps you need to study is what life and conditions were like in the Soviet Union, particularly during the time frame from 1930 thru 1985 (shortly before the late President Reagan issued his strong challenge to Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. Strict gun control could easily put this country in the same situation.

Response by LT Marsha Holden made Jun 22 at 2020 3:38 PM

LT Marsha Holden — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:38:04 -0400

Control police

Response by A1C Lisa Casserly made Jun 22 at 2020 7:32 PM

A1C Lisa Casserly — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 19:32:04 -0400

Absolutely not. There are already plenty of laws that are not being properly enforced. For example, felons are not supposed to be able to get a gun. Yet they do. All the time. Guns are only supposed to be sold thru a registered dealer in many locations. Yet there are loopholes to that, and there are all too many guns out there that are stolen and sold under the table. And then, lets not even go into the fact that there are laws against murder, rape, theft, etc... none of which stops anyone determined to break the law.

Response by SSG Terry Clay made Jun 22 at 2020 10:38 PM

SSG Terry Clay — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 22:38:27 -0400

Not according to the Constitution of the United States of American. Or any common sensibility I know of, keeping in perspective the whole of world HISTORY and not just the parts or version we prefer because it serves our chosen emotional state.

Response by SPC Sean Stephens made Jun 23 at 2020 11:19 AM

SPC Sean Stephens — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:19:03 -0400

A gun control law of any kind would have little immediate impact unless it included total disarmament of the civilian population and we know how that would go. Police departments need to be armed at least as much as the civilian population, so their level of armament is probably not as extreme as it seems on the surface. There are other comments in this thread that imply the overall problem of police brutality isn't as bad as it seems, and a look at the actual data seems to bear that out in the totality of police contacts versus those that end badly. The problem is that the instances of police brutality tend to garner national attention and the ones we've seen are particularly heinous and often involve unarmed civilians, so in that sense alone, gun control measures would have had no discernible impact. As long as gun control efforts continue to focus on hot button topics, like the distinction between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle, rather than actual disarmament, we won't see any real or meaningful change in our gun laws, but nuisance rules that make people wait an extra day, pay extra, or do more paperwork, but none of that will affect police brutality, real or imagined.

Response by CWO3 Warren Gaudreau made Jun 23 at 2020 12:49 PM

CWO3 Warren Gaudreau — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:49:38 -0400

Without a means of defense, when second count and the police are only 20 minutes away....you are screwed!

Response by MSgt Keith Stover made Jun 25 at 2020 7:27 AM

MSgt Keith Stover — Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:27:33 -0400

This question is insulting to be being a retired after 28 years in civilian Law Enforcement, and 22 years in the Air Force as an Security Policeman.

Response by CSM Donald McGlasson made Jun 25 at 2020 8:36 AM

CSM Donald McGlasson — Thu, 25 Jun 2020 08:36:18 -0400

This again sounds like some political party or activist group talking point to sway others towards their own bias. Yes, their are bad police officers but most do a honest critical service to their community. Guns in the hands of criminals is the problem and restricting the ownership by lawful owners will be the victims.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2020 8:49 AM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Jun 2020 08:49:37 -0400

Hell no! Gun control is the reason crime is so high. Soldiers should be able to carry on base.

Response by PFC Bobby Smith made Jun 25 at 2020 6:00 PM

PFC Bobby Smith — Thu, 25 Jun 2020 18:00:05 -0400

no there is no basics for that. If you know history first they destroy history and remove all reminders, then they destroy the police then they take away guns from the people. hum is this happing now

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2020 1:00 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2020 01:00:21 -0400

We have all the guidance we need laid out in the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed. Also, those who want to limit what type of guns you can have remember the minutemen and local militia (citizens) were usually better equipped than the regular army. The army issued muskets the minutemen and militia brought their on rifled muskets which was a much better weapon.
As for the Police, 99.9% are honorable brave public servants. Just trying to do a very, very hard job. Most past military. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. If a officer breaks the faith then prosecute them to the full extent of the Law period.

Response by Maj Charles Porter made Jun 29 at 2020 12:46 PM

Maj Charles Porter — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:46:34 -0400

You have strong opinions. I'm sure you came by them honestly and through much study. I however have a different opinion on some of your points. As a police officer with twenty-five years of service, I have seen well meaning programs subverted to money making operations. (Asset forfeiture, photo traffic programs). Laws are misused, expanded from their original intent for political reasons, (Terrorist Threats, Red Flag laws). Not by officers but by elected officials.

I drew me gun at least once every day and never had to shoot anyone. I rarely knew the race or sex of the driver on a traffic stop prior to walking to the window. Lest you think I was in "Mayberry" and not exposed to violence. I was a Deputy Los Angeles County Sheriff. I served the communities of Firestone, Lynwood and Compton. Over the years I experienced, the Watts riots, East LA riots, the Sunset strip riots, I served in in the Washington D.C. riots and the Rodney King riots. I never saw force used racially or without reason. I know that this is just my experience. Take it for what it's worth.

Response by SSgt Scott Ezra made Jul 5 at 2020 6:57 PM

SSgt Scott Ezra — Sun, 05 Jul 2020 18:57:02 -0400

Law enforcement in the United States has a very low assault rate, so your question is flawed.
Unless you are talking about the number of assaults against police, which is way to high. I'm not really sure what you would do about that. Community leaders would have to be honest with their people and citizens would have to be instructed on how to safely interact with law enforcement.
Since this is a free country and a lot of leaders need their constituents riled up against the police so they don't notice all if their failed policies and corruption it's not likely to happen.
One thing they could do is make the punishment for assaults against law enforcement much harsher.
The fact is that we in the U.S. have some of the most professional officers in world history. It seems to be the only profession where you can totally verbally assault someone with hatred, lies, and vile with no repercussions. If you were to go in and talk to the mayor, city/county clerks, or virtually any other person that way you would be removed, fined, or imprisoned.
I don't think you have a very good understanding of the constitution. The first amendment covers free speech, assembly, religion, etc. You also have the right to lie to the police generally, the FBI and some other federal law enforcement is the only exception.
The second amendment gives the rights to own and bear firearms. There are already plenty of restrictions in place.
There are also some other great amendments and rights outlined in the constitution. You should familiarize yourself with it to get a better understanding of how things work here.
I'm not sure how national strict gun control got mixed up in your mind with police tactics, but it makes you sound as if you have anti-American ideologies.
The right to entrap is something you totally made up in your head or somebody else did and you ran with it without thinking. Entrapment is specifically illegal as outlined by laws. Critical thinking is a very important skill to learn if you can and you would be better served throughout your life once you acquire it.

Response by Maj John Bell made Jul 5 at 2020 9:16 PM

Maj John Bell — Sun, 05 Jul 2020 21:16:22 -0400

What is the assault rate that you consider high?

Response by PO1 John Williams made Jul 17 at 2020 6:26 PM

PO1 John Williams — Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:26:23 -0400

I believe that a defendant should have an affirmative defense if a Law Enforcement officer lies to him/her, especially if they use it to entrap the defendant in a "process" crime. I also believe that a police officer if physically attacked, should be able to use whatever force is necessary, based on the circumstances to defend him/herself against the attacker. This includes lethal force. I also believe that if an officer is ambushed, the penalty SHOULD BE THE DEATH PENALTY, judge has NO authority to offer anything less.

Response by CPO Christian Simonsen made Jul 18 at 2020 8:16 AM

CPO Christian Simonsen — Sat, 18 Jul 2020 08:16:27 -0400

Hell no! As a matter of fact, there should be National Reciprocity for concealed carry and open Constitutional carry in every jurisdiction where the Constitution is law of the land. Enough of this patchwork of gun laws. The AG should prosecute every left-wing politician for federal civil rights violations that infringe on the Second Amendment.

Response by Sgt Peter McDonald made Jul 20 at 2020 1:24 PM

Sgt Peter McDonald — Mon, 20 Jul 2020 13:24:02 -0400

This sounds like a news feed from CNN in which facts are omitted, and truth is hidden away from facts.
Gun laws are a fabrication of liberal pundits, which are designed to disarm the American people, so they can implement a Marxist government designed to wrest control from the average American and give it to the government.
Gun laws historically have failed, to prove this, look at Chicago. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet they lead the country in gun related homicides and assaults. And when compared to another city such as Houston that has less restrictive gun laws, there is a drastic difference between the two. Proving that responsible law abiding citizens can be trusted with guns.

Response by CMSgt Donald ONeill made Jul 29 at 2020 1:17 PM

CMSgt Donald ONeill — Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:17:38 -0400

Proof now that the police can not protect people when they are calling 911. The second amendment gives people the rights to protect ones self and family .

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Jul 31 at 2020 12:40 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Fri, 31 Jul 2020 12:40:30 -0400

Byron Skinner. I see nobody here addressed the question. Does a citizen have the right to protect themselves for law enforcement (the police) the answer is no. Some misconceptions here regarding fire arms. The first is the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment. While all males were considered to be rounded up for the militia pr a pose they DID NOT provide their own weapons. The Government provided the weapons and ammunition and those weapons wet kept in a community arsenal. Reason in 1784 when all this was being talked about in Philadelphia there was no standard bore for a rifle. Rifled barrels were of a 36 caliber or larger, and the non rifled barrel could be as large as a 63gage. Think about what the government had to provide the weapon and the ball and powder. In regards to the police, well the founding fathers never even concerned themselves with the. You see the reason was there was no police in 1784. The firs organized local law enforcement didn’t come till 1839 in either the city of Boston or in the town of Cincinnati. Both lay claim to the first police force. So in short if something didn’t exist, it was debated and quite logically was never a consideration at the Constitutional Convention.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Aug 2 at 2020 2:20 PM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Sun, 02 Aug 2020 14:20:38 -0400

I feel we're definitely head toward an extreme on gun control. As for assault and lying by police, that'll be the day. I think we cannot do without policemen but they tend to make their own rights without repercussion in our society.

Response by SSG Paul Headlee made Aug 2 at 2020 2:27 PM

SSG Paul Headlee — Sun, 02 Aug 2020 14:27:35 -0400

There already is. It's called the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2020 9:39 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Aug 2020 09:39:07 -0400

The only high assault rate are the ones reported by the media
The numbers are skewed because the data will say that the number of cops there are, divided by the number of shootings the was subtracted by the ones that were found justified, makes it a super low number

Response by A1C Lloyd Box made Aug 17 at 2020 2:34 PM

A1C Lloyd Box — Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:34:57 -0400

Let's see here. Talk of gun control and police brutality can mean only one thing. It is another reason for people to undermine the 2nd Amendment. Every person who has died for freedom took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Oh wait, we have all taken that oath, if we have put on the uniform. And you know something, I have never renounced my oath, neither have 99.9 % percent of all those who took the oath like I have. What did one man say? "From these cold dead hands."

Response by Capt Frederick Holderman made Aug 31 at 2020 1:46 PM

Capt Frederick Holderman — Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:46:13 -0400

Strict civilian gun laws have been passed and implemented. We are already one step from forbidding gun purchases. And two steps from gun confiscation.

Response by SPC Brian Pritchard/Hall made Sep 1 at 2020 2:59 PM

SPC Brian Pritchard/Hall — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 14:59:09 -0400

Response by SPC Donn Sinclair made Sep 5 at 2020 7:57 AM

SPC Donn Sinclair — Sat, 05 Sep 2020 07:57:48 -0400

Seriously? Do a little research. There are already volumes of gun control laws at the federal, state and local level. Depending where you live, these laws regarding private firearm ownership are even more onerous. Posts like this fall into one of two categories. 1) You don't want to know the truth on the subject. Or, 2) You're trolling, trying to stir the pot.

Response by PO2 Nick Burke made Sep 6 at 2020 8:45 PM

PO2 Nick Burke — Sun, 06 Sep 2020 20:45:53 -0400

What high rate of assault by police?

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Sep 13 at 2020 11:35 PM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:35:18 -0400

Well let's see, in 2019, there were 39 shootings of unarmed civilians by police, while 48 cops were shot by civilians. So far this year, 34 cops have been shot, a a couple of hundred assaulted. While I was not able to find the numbers for unarmed civilians this year I suspect it will be about the same. BTW if you fact check me, be aware that some groups count those with toy/airsoft/ etc. guns as being unarmed. I challenge you to try and discern a toy gun with the orange tip removed from the real deal in an alley at 25' in less than a second. If you have never taken a shoot/don't shoot course, you should try it. It will be one of the most intense experiences you have had in a while.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2020 11:11 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:11:20 -0400

Hide your personal views much?

Response by Sgt James S. made Sep 15 at 2020 11:56 PM

Sgt James S. — Tue, 15 Sep 2020 23:56:27 -0400

Well, the answer to the title question is a resounding "No," courtesy of the 2nd Amendment's prohibition on infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

As to your other concerns, you'll have to be more specific about your complaint and what you're proposing. Police should be held accountable for wrongdoing, and corrupt/bad police ought to be removed from the departments in an expedient manner--I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with that.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Sep 16 at 2020 1:10 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:10:45 -0400

Yea, there should be , but it would be so "disprotionally affecting" i.e racist as to disallow it ever happening. It would crack down hard on felons and people with prior criminal records. Much as is argued about voting rights already.

Response by SFC David Boyd made Sep 16 at 2020 3:05 PM

SFC David Boyd — Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:05:56 -0400

No, take away guns from citizens, then only outlaws and criminals will have weapons and will terrorize the citizens.

Response by SPC Robert Bobo made Sep 16 at 2020 4:04 PM

SPC Robert Bobo — Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:04:26 -0400

Total BS, stop listening to the false narratives being pushed by leftist extremism, the day the US takes our guns is the day we are no longer Americans. Anyone who had purchased a firearm over the pass few years already knows the screening processes in place

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Sep 16 at 2020 7:56 PM

MAJ Ron Peery — Wed, 16 Sep 2020 19:56:03 -0400

Yes, we should have the same gun control laws that our forefathers enacted in the first Militia Act. Every citizen who has no record of felony convictions should be required to own at least one firearm, and should be required to train with it at least every quarter. THAT'S gun control.

Response by Capt Edward Egan made Sep 17 at 2020 4:00 PM

Capt Edward Egan — Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:00:34 -0400

An originalist reading of the 2nd Amendment, apart from the very clear "shall not be infringed" can bring understanding. Note that our oaths require compliance with the Constitution. I copied the following text long ago so do not claim authorship:

"The people" are the militia. As for "well regulated", it did not mean "controlled".

"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Therefore, the Founders intended that THE PEOPLE have the fully functioning ability to ensure the security of the freedom of THE PEOPLE against any oppressive government. The immutable individual right to keep and bear arms puts the teeth in that right.

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Sep 19 at 2020 9:37 PM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Sat, 19 Sep 2020 21:37:00 -0400

The data from the FBI, Department of Justice, and non-profit sources DO NOT support the notion of a "high assault rate" by police, nor of "lying" or "entrapment." If you're going to make such allegations, you'd better be able to support them. But they are false, so you can not.

Response by SPC Edwin Lee made Sep 21 at 2020 3:26 AM

SPC Edwin Lee — Mon, 21 Sep 2020 03:26:11 -0400

No gun control is legal. Anyone who even endorses it is conspiriring to violate civil rights in a manner which results in death 18 US Code 241 and may be punished by death.

Response by LCpl Jerry Havens made Sep 23 at 2020 11:59 AM

LCpl Jerry Havens — Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:59:13 -0400

Gun control means you can put every round in the black at 509 yards.

I suggest you get a copy of the constitution, the document you took an oath to protect and defend. Then read and do further research on the Second Amendment, whose purpose is to ensure that We The People are able to arms ourselves to overthrow the government should it ever become tyrannical.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2020 12:35 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Oct 2020 12:35:04 -0400

Your logic is typical liberal doublespeak. Is it still illegal to shoot someone not in self-defense? Yes. Isn’t that all the gun control laws you need? For the law abiding? Yep. But you’re asking what laws will convince criminals to not break the law...well, none. Criminals are criminals because they break the law. Maybe you should vote for judges and prosecutors who ENFORCE the laws instead of blaming cops.

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made Oct 18 at 2020 1:32 PM

SPC Franklin McKown — Sun, 18 Oct 2020 13:32:43 -0400

AS USUAL hell no.
WHAT is with this "surrender to kill the Republic" garbage anyway?
GET over ANY feeling about guns and your guilt when it comes to others EACH IS RESPONSABLE FOR HIS OWN.
There IS no elevated police rate ,just OVERCOVERAGE of each incident by media individuals attempting to change the country to Socialism using activism as its traditional useful idiots (Lke the 60s when they ran with 'baby killers and created the war with a fake incident) ,MOST is just CIA Project Mocking bird to scare simpler minds with media, the repetition seems to work on some and aggravate others.
Cops kill more whites than blacks...probably because WE know guns better than others. Thugs get slugs, white as well ,NOT changing anytime soon, Violent criminals deserve oblivion anyway.

Response by SP5 Roy Sonye made Oct 20 at 2020 1:27 AM

SP5 Roy Sonye — Tue, 20 Oct 2020 01:27:10 -0400

Remember that guns don’t shoot by them selfs what about people control
People make gun control sound like a cure for everything
Remember gun control is just passing another law

Response by Cpl Alex Moore made Oct 22 at 2020 1:04 PM

Cpl Alex Moore — Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:04:29 -0400

The simplest answer, "shall not be infringed". The answer is no.

Response by PO2 Cyrus Barberia made Oct 25 at 2020 2:16 PM

PO2 Cyrus Barberia — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 14:16:52 -0400

The right of police to lie to people should be condemned cuz all it does is entrap people and increase their conviction rate by getting answers that they want to hear by lying. Is the police job to get it the truth by telling the truth not by lying on.

Response by SPC Randy Torgerson made Oct 26 at 2020 9:53 PM

SPC Randy Torgerson — Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:53:42 -0400

Shame on you for asking this question. If you have a problem with someone who has a firearm, man up and shoot back...... The country is getting more insane by the minute and there are still people who want to restrict the 2A. I'm guessing they are the same ones who are restricting the 1A and the same ones who are letting criminals out of prison before they should be released.

Let me answer your questions, NO..!

Response by Robert Leviton made Oct 27 at 2020 8:31 AM

Robert Leviton — Tue, 27 Oct 2020 08:31:39 -0400

The simple answer would be no. The right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights. Specifically the 2nd and !0th Amendments. You took an oath to the Constitution, you might want to actually read and learn it.

Response by SPC John Tacetta made Nov 1 at 2020 5:34 PM

SPC John Tacetta — Sun, 01 Nov 2020 17:34:39 -0500

If you think you may be in any sort of trouble you have the right to remain silent: use it.. The only words out of your mouth should be: "lawyer". Too often people let the police "entrap" them. As always, be polite and courteous and keep your hands in view. if they want to put the cuffs on let them: don't resist. That's really the best way to avoid a beat down or worse.

As to guns, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear and recent Supreme Court rulings have supported the individual right to bear arms. Full Stop.

Response by SSgt Ted Laplante made Nov 5 at 2020 1:34 AM

SSgt Ted Laplante — Thu, 05 Nov 2020 01:34:54 -0500

I’ve been saying this for 50 years . That if you take the guns from the people the only ones left with guns is the military and police. If a corrupt gov. Gets in then the people can’t fight back. It’s happened too many times in history.

Response by 1SG Ernest Stull made Nov 5 at 2020 6:56 PM

1SG Ernest Stull — Thu, 05 Nov 2020 18:56:53 -0500

No the gun laws already in existence if they were enforced. Criminals don't obey laws. The second amendment is our the honest law abiding citizen is our only defense against anarchy.

Response by LTC Ray Morris made Nov 7 at 2020 9:19 PM

LTC Ray Morris — Sat, 07 Nov 2020 21:19:39 -0500

Bearing in mind they'd have to change the Constitution and that won't happen, so, probably not. There may be some "end-runs" attempting to do it with such things as "Executive Orders", and that action will be quickly struck down by SCOTUS - but you want to push an even hotter button than Abortion? Gun control would be it!

Response by MAJ Charles Cross made Nov 12 at 2020 3:48 PM

MAJ Charles Cross — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 15:48:40 -0500

I've been a Deputy Sheriff for 27 years & we do not have an assault rate period! Thee have been a few cases where officers committed crimes and they should be punished as anyone else is. The high "assault rate" you refer to is media hype.

Response by SCPO Ken Badoian made Nov 15 at 2020 1:55 PM

SCPO Ken Badoian — Sun, 15 Nov 2020 13:55:33 -0500

NO but you should have the right to carry anywhere in the US. Reciprocal laws should be honored. If I travel from my present home,, Wilmington NC (CC OK) up to MA - I will break the law in MA, NY,CN,NJ and a couple of other liberal states in the Northeast. Also the West coast is a minefield. Besides being military I have my CCP issued from NC and have taken the training.

Response by SSG George Duncan made Nov 20 at 2020 8:31 PM

SSG George Duncan — Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:31:26 -0500

only if we want another home spun war

Response by PO1 David Shepardson made Dec 19 at 2020 1:17 PM

PO1 David Shepardson — Sat, 19 Dec 2020 13:17:13 -0500

NO!

Response by CPO Larry Stidd made Dec 25 at 2020 12:44 PM

CPO Larry Stidd — Fri, 25 Dec 2020 12:44:27 -0500

There already is.....we, the average citizen, isn’t allowed automatic weapons, explosives (without permit), nor silencers......the CONSTITUTION guarantees the citizens the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.....now....if we want to “enforce” existing laws, I’m ok with that.....but we are restricted from carrying protective devices (weapons) into the worst places already.....Chicago,Ny, LA,The entire state of California (unless you kiss someone’s ass on Main Street to get a BB gun) .....highest crime area.....strictest gun control

Response by LCpl Michael Cappello made Dec 27 at 2020 5:41 PM

LCpl Michael Cappello — Sun, 27 Dec 2020 17:41:23 -0500

There is a civilian "Gun Control" law. It is called the Second Amendment. It "Shall not be infringed upon". As a matter of fact, you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of these United States of America. Let me guess. You thought it was protecting and defending the ship.
Not to mention that taking the means of revolting and defending, against an unjust government or police state, away would result in a totalitarian state.The words DICTATORSHIP and Socialism come to mind. I highly suggest you improve your education or at least take a few refresher courses in civics.

Response by LCpl Michael Cappello made Dec 27 at 2020 7:14 PM

LCpl Michael Cappello — Sun, 27 Dec 2020 19:14:52 -0500

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that YOU Donnie are exactly the kind of people we need to protect and defend out constitution from.

Response by PO2 David Reich made Dec 28 at 2020 12:50 PM

PO2 David Reich — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 12:50:10 -0500

Repeal them all, the only legitimate gun control is having one in your control.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2020 9:22 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2020 09:22:58 -0500

Even after a year, I'm still wondering what the 2 ID patch pic has to do with the question.

Response by MSG Frederick Otero made Jan 10 at 2021 10:14 AM

MSG Frederick Otero — Sun, 10 Jan 2021 10:14:45 -0500

Not sure it would help but know that there are plenty of stupid people carrying guns that should never be allowed to carry a sharp stick.

Response by A1C Donald Hanes made Jan 10 at 2021 11:05 AM

A1C Donald Hanes — Sun, 10 Jan 2021 11:05:02 -0500

No! The right to arms is the right of every citizen. “ The Second Amendment, one of the ten amendments to the Constitution comprising the Bill of Rights, states: “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 LTC Ken Connolly made Jan 10 at 2021 9:14 PM

LTC Ken Connolly — Sun, 10 Jan 2021 21:14:22 -0500

Depends I what are the restrictions. What police have the right to lie?

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2021 10:36 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:36:48 -0500

I have absolutely no problem with background checks. Something with real teeth would be fine. I've personally observed as a guy, probably with a record, had his girlfriend do the background check and purchase of a gun at a gun show.

Response by MSgt Allen Chandler made Jan 11 at 2021 11:08 AM

MSgt Allen Chandler — Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:08:52 -0500

The questionAssumes to problems. 1) A problem with guns in the United States. 2) A problem with police in the United States. FirstLet's address the second question. In my humble opinion 90 to 99% Of the police in United States are doing a marvelous job, And we should all be thanking them. In any group there's always some bad apples And we need a procedure to get rid of the bad apples. I'm not convinced that there is such a procedure in all police departments. Gun control will not / Cannot Address this problem. No is there a problem with guns in the United States. In my opinion there is. The problem falls and three categories. A) Sick people. Suicides And crazy crimes. B) Criminals, It's far too easy for a criminal to get a gun in the night states. One of the reasons (No I said one not the only) Is that It's easy to cross State lines To obtain a gun What the rules are not as strict. C) Good Law abiding citizens Do dumb things Like leave Guns around where children or other people can get their hands on them. Better enforcement Of current gun laws, And possibly Tweaking / Improving Those laws Could go along way to address in all three of these problems. The last part of the question is The word "Strict" There is not an agreement in the United States as to what that means. I have some friends Who say the second amendment Is absolute And in less you take the citizenship away from a person Here she should be allowed to have a gun even when they're in prison. Yes these people are rational in most waysBut in this one subject I think they're crazy. So the laws that I think we should have To help solve the problem in the United States Would be "Practical" Not "Strict" But I am sure that not everybody would agree with me.

Response by CPT Jeffrey Goldfarb made Jan 13 at 2021 2:34 AM

CPT Jeffrey Goldfarb — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 02:34:34 -0500

Of course the populace MUST be disarmed; that's the only way the current regime's political agenda can be implemented without resistance from the uneducated rubes living outside of the DC/NY corridor.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2021 10:19 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:19:08 -0500

Could there be? Absolutely.

Should there be? That depends on the will of the American people.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2021 10:28 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:28:55 -0500

No. Gun control is unconstitutional, amd that includes the infringements California and other socialist states put in place. The Bill of Rights is the untouchable part of the law these politicians love to try to change.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2021 10:42 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:42:56 -0500

A) the structure of English has not changed much. Especially legal and formal language.

B) from diagramming sentences, we know that:
- the most important clauses to identify are the subject and predicate
- then we look at supporting information, including clauses
- we look at the supporting information within the framework of the subject/predicate. This is because the supporting information is not the focus. It adds to the subject/predicate. In fact, the supporting phrases can be removed.

C) Example: Even though it was brand new, less than 6 months old, the red house was re-painted blue.

Subject: house
Predicate: was painted

Subordinate info for subject:
Which one? the red

Subordinate info for predicate:
What color was it painted? blue

The sentence could be simplified to: The house was repainted. (The rest of the info is supporting information.)

D) apply to 2A:
"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."

Subject: the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Predicate: shall not be infringed

Subordinate for subject:
A well regulated militia
- Being necessary to the security of a free State

E) the subject
noun: right
What/who's right? The people's
To do what? To keep and bear arms

And it's all in one phrase. Together. Separated from both the support phrases and predicate by commas. Which was done on purpose. The placement of the commas is not an accident.

It is to be interpreted as one phrase.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

F) predicate: active verb

infringed
past participle,
past tense of in•fringe (Verb)
- Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
- Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

G) predicate: auxiliary verb

Shall
Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:
1. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.
2. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison.
3. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it.
4. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.

Being that the statement is in a legal document, the definition to be used is #2.

H) There is no supporting predicate phrase.

I) predicate

Shall not be infringed = Don't break it and don't undermine it. Not ever.

J) so the subject and predicate together are:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

K) regulate[ reg-yuh-leyt ]
verb (used with object) reg•u•lat•ed, reg•u•lat•ing.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.

It's pretty clear that it wasn't definition 1 or 2 ... that would have conflicted with the "shall not be infringed" predicate. Which leaves definition 3.

well regulated means "in good working order"

L) militia[ mi-lish-uh ]
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Let's review the phrases involved:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."

The purpose of the militia is ensuring that the free state stays free. Definitions 1 and 3 are not applicable. They are state-based definitions. Hence, they could be used to enforce totalitarianism. Having eliminated those, definitions 2 and 4 remain. Which one? Let's look to the wording again. It uses the term well-regulated, which we know means "in good working order." In both cases, it is a "body of citizen soldiers" ... which tells us there could be an organization - could be one person, and could be an organization. Neither option is eliminated. One definition lists a purpose, the other doesn't. As a result, 4 is a subset of 2. Which means that, in this context:

Militia: a body of citizen soldiers (1 or more) as distinguished from professional soldiers (this includes citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government)

M) Arms. Notice it is capitalized.

arm (ärm) n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
4. arms
a. Heraldry Bearings.
b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.
v. armed, arm•ing, arms
v.intr.
1. To supply or equip oneself with weaponry.
2. To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict.
v.tr.
1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war.
2. To equip with what is needed for effective action: tax advisers who were armed with the latest forms.
3. To provide with something that strengthens or protects: a space reentry vehicle that was armed with a ceramic shield.
4. To prepare (a weapon) for use or operation, as by releasing a safety device.
Idiom:
up in arms
Extremely upset; indignant.
[From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French, pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons; see ar- in Indo-European roots. V., Middle English armen, from Old French armer, from Latin armre, from arma.]
armed (ärmd) adj.
armer n.

Look at that first definition: "A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms."

Well, that's pretty clear. Notice how it does not say "musket"? If any further discussion is needed, check out the Federalist Papers. The founding fathers intended the populace to have access to any weapon the government could access.

N) all of this is in the SAME sentence, so it was all one thought.

O) so put that all together:
- people have the right to keep and bear arms
- that right shall not be broken or limited
- one reason for this is because it is really important to have a militia (1 or more citizen soldiers, not professional soldiers)
- the militia needs to function really well
- in fact, it's necessary
- the security of the free state is dependent upon it.

P) the founding fathers managed to put all of that meaning in 27 words. Pretty snazzy.

(if you are an English teacher: yes, there are more levels to diagraming this ... I tried to simplify. Going to lower levels would likely be seen as pedantic and is unnecessary for the intended purpose.)

Response by PO3 Theodore Wallace made Jan 18 at 2021 2:35 PM

PO3 Theodore Wallace — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:35:05 -0500

No, which part of the Second Ammendment does everyone have a problem comprehending?
The founding fathers were smarter than these "scholars" of today. Without the Second Ammendment, you have NO First Ammendment. Wake up people!

Response by MSgt Currie C. made Jan 18 at 2021 9:25 PM

MSgt Currie C. — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:25:39 -0500

No! Also, i was a Deputy Sheriff for 20 years after serving in the Corps. And I never saw anyone shot, who wasn't asking for it.

Response by Dennis Aubuchon made Jan 18 at 2021 10:11 PM

Dennis Aubuchon — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 22:11:48 -0500

Thanks for raising this question. It is one we all need to be aware of an hopefully Thee is enough support by our elected senators and representatives to stop this kind of action. Criminals do not care about gun control legislation and it is the private citizens who will be hur if anything like this takes place. I pray it will not.

Response by CMSgt Donald ONeill made Jan 19 at 2021 8:35 AM

CMSgt Donald ONeill — Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:35:38 -0500

I think this doesn't belong on this site . Trying to change the constitution is what the question is all about .

Response by SFC Rick LaFace made Jan 19 at 2021 4:03 PM

SFC Rick LaFace — Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:03:28 -0500

Gun laws are strict already you might want to look at funds set for sentencing as opposed to how many walk.
Creating new laws because current laws aren't being enforced fixes nothing...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2021 4:10 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:10:07 -0500

As for your question about a National gun control law, what does that have to do with allegations of law enforcement brutality? A National ban on all guns is a Democrat priority, Democrats are not fond of police and want to get rid of them.

Your suggestion that there is a high assault rate by police against citizens is false.

1) There are over 12 million arrests every year for criminal offenses. This includes over 1.2 million arrests for murder, robbery, rape, and agg assault. The actual amount of crimes committed where there is no arrest is 3 to 4 times higher.
2) There are approx 700,000 law enforcement officers employed in the USA. Of that, there are over 50,000 reports of officers being assaulted every year to include deaths and disabled. Each year, over 100 officers die on duty, approx half that number is from gunshot
3) There are approx 1100 people shot and killed by the police each year which includes people who have committed serious crimes such as murder and those actively fighting a police officer.

The sheer number of crimes committed and investigated by officers (approx 36 million), the number of arrests made (over 12 million), the officers who are injured or killed (over 50,000 or 1 in every 14 officers) indicates law enforcement officers are the ones enduring a high assault rate.

Response by 1stSgt John Harrison made Jan 20 at 2021 8:51 PM

1stSgt John Harrison — Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:51:46 -0500

No, that is the first step to total commie take over (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein), and the purge of Christians, Deplorables, or whom ever the government don’t like.

Response by PO3 Gaylord Daleen made Jan 22 at 2021 10:40 AM

PO3 Gaylord Daleen — Fri, 22 Jan 2021 10:40:21 -0500

You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Response by SGT Leif Lynch made Feb 12 at 2021 5:02 PM

SGT Leif Lynch — Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:02:15 -0500

Id love to see where your data on high assault rates on civilians comes from. CPT Jack Durish already covered how the areas with strict gun laws are the areas with higher homicide rates. I'm in Memphis myself and the amount of crime here is ridiculous. Shootings on our interstate loop all the time.

Back to your question on a nationally strict gun control law. The government can do anything they want law wise but the local LEOs are going to need to enforce it which most sheriffs have already said they wouldnt.

Personally I wouldn't obey a stricter gun law and that would probably set more people over the edge than we have already seen. Not to mention this probably cause another civil war.

Response by AN Ron Wright made Feb 23 at 2021 2:28 AM

AN Ron Wright — Tue, 23 Feb 2021 02:28:33 -0500

2A is there for a reason our founding fathers were smart and knowledgeable
guns save lives over 2 million times a year statistics available
why do they want to take away our guns because without 2A all others will disappear
the only reason to remove our 2A is they have something nefarious in mind
obama gave guns to mexican cartels to cause deaths to Americans (fast and furious) agent TERRY
all mass murders have been committed from liberal democrats
cops do not kill Blacks more than anyone else FBI statistics prove this
obama destroyed race relations and set us back 50 years with his Trevon martin remarks
strictest gun control states are ALL the highest murder rates in the nation
there is a massive ammount of attacks on police at a much higher rate than police abuse
if these laws does not prove the failure of gun control you dont want the truth
removing guns from legal gun owners WILL NEVER STOP CRIMINALS FROM HAVING THEM
if you need proof just look at how well it has worked making drugs illegal
there is never a legal right to entrap or lie I am not defending any action of such by anyone
but if you are you saying cops do this with frequency, then i would ask for proof
where guns are -- crimnals are less likely to use them statistics also prove this

Response by SSG Russell Busicchia made Mar 13 at 2021 1:17 PM

SSG Russell Busicchia — Sat, 13 Mar 2021 13:17:27 -0500

This is an extremely odd question. There is only one legal way to restrict civilian gun control, repeal the second amendment. Democrats will say otherwise; however, the second amendment says "shall not be infringed". So how do you legally restrict gun ownership without violating the 2dn amendment? Besides, it's already been proven that gun control doesn't work, look at the murder rates of Chicago and NYC.

Response by Cpl Bobbylee Dominguez made Mar 13 at 2021 3:57 PM

Cpl Bobbylee Dominguez — Sat, 13 Mar 2021 15:57:42 -0500

anything with the words gun control, is wrong from the get go.

Response by PO3 Robert Cassidy made Mar 14 at 2021 3:38 AM

PO3 Robert Cassidy — Sun, 14 Mar 2021 03:38:51 -0400

We as Veterans should challenge the police officers we encounter with the question of if they are honoring and upholding the oath they took when becoming a PO. As for a strict gun control law, the government should promote owning, training and carrying a gun to all citizens. That doesn't mean all should or will, but it would be comforting knowing that if I find myself or family in the middle of something bad going down that there are a good number of people around us that can and will come to our rescue much sooner than the police.

Response by PFC Donnie Harold Harris made Mar 14 at 2021 11:50 AM

PFC Donnie Harold Harris — Sun, 14 Mar 2021 11:50:04 -0400

I think they should be expanded. Would you agree to that?

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2021 1:55 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:55:52 -0400

Fitting that I’m seeing this today, on Albert Einstein’s birthday, since he was the one who defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results each time.

We tried strict gun control laws for 10 years in the past, including banning entire classes of firearms and “high capacity magazines,” and it did nothing to reduce shootings or violent crime. Insanity would be infringing the liberty of a hundred plus million law abiding citizens while hoping for a different result this time... scratch that, it’s stupidity, not insanity.

Response by SGT Gary Tob made Mar 23 at 2021 2:44 PM

SGT Gary Tob — Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:44:55 -0400

I think the answer is in the Second Amendment and why there is a 2nd Amendment

Response by CW4 Gregory Damms made Mar 23 at 2021 5:38 PM

CW4 Gregory Damms — Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:38:24 -0400

Which part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand. All of us swore to DEFEND the Constitution, not politicians or there crazy ideas.

Response by SPC Ron Salsbury made Mar 28 at 2021 9:55 AM

SPC Ron Salsbury — Sun, 28 Mar 2021 09:55:16 -0400

Warning, long winded, but my personal interpretation!

Strict Gun Control in my house is this: Use both hands when firing! Many will mention things about statistics and how "Blue Man is Bad!!" Most is BS to those having a brain; so lets discuss statistic's first: information can be manipulated to reach the desire outcome one wishes to achieve using statistic's by word playing. Second, Blue Man has been vilified by the press and politicians alike to sound the alarm of political panic; just wait, it will happen to Green/Camo Man too before the end, I just feel it. One must first ask themselves the following questions; what is my cities population size, what are the numbers of officers on active duty in my city, and what does this ratio mean to me. In Omaha Nebraska near where I live, there are 475,000 estimated residents, they have on staff around 902 officers to cover almost 120 square miles; when one does the math, your average patrolling officer ratio's are pretty high. What does this mean to you? Simple; they are there investigate and figure out who killed you! When the Founding Fathers framed the the Bill of Rights, this wording is mentioned at least three times in this form, "the right of the people," or in a similar fashion more or less stating the rights of the individual. The Seconds amendment states thus:

Amendment II
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.

What did the framers mean by: a well regulated militia?

It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty. References: Google search and Merriam-Webster.

What did the framers mean by: being necessary to the security of a free state,

"Presumably, the term 'free State' is a reference to the states as entities of governmental authority. Moreover, the reference to the 'security' of a free State must have something to do with the need to defend the state as an entity of government. Volokh, E. Necessary to the Security of a Free State, Notre Dame Law Review. Vol. 83:1 (11/01/07).

What did the framers mean by: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The term shall not be infringed means: If something infringes on/upon someone's rights or freedom, it takes away some of their rights or limits their freedom: These restrictions infringe upon basic human rights. In other words, for those who know MC Hammers famous phrase: "You Can't Touch This!!!"
References: Google search and Merriam-Webster.

Personally, with out the Second Amendment, the rest of the Constitution means nothing if "We the People," cannot stop Tranny in its tracks!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2021 1:09 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Mar 2021 01:09:00 -0400

In the way demoncrats mean that NO. And anyone that tries to is committing High Treason and there is one constitutional punishment for that.
Now if u mean to REQUIRE everyone by a certain age to own a gun and know how to use it. YES!!!. And make it so anyone that does not want to own a gun/weapon then THEY have to fill out paperwork to not own a gun. U should not be having to fill out paperwork to buy or own a gun that is something used to infringe on peoples Constitutional rights and thats treason.

Response by PO1 Tom Follis made Apr 3 at 2021 10:38 AM

PO1 Tom Follis — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 10:38:58 -0400

It was NEVER about gun control. It’s about people control. Two things the government has never been able to control. However, the government ( once again) is attempting to control our guns. If they control our guns, they control our people. This absolutely cannot be allowed to happen. When guns become outlawed, I will become an outlaw. This is why we have the 2nd A. As a military member, you don’t have that right. Don’t tell a civilian though. It happened once before with the civil war and the British. It can/will happen again.

Response by PO2 Steven Cain made Apr 4 at 2021 3:03 AM

PO2 Steven Cain — Sun, 04 Apr 2021 03:03:57 -0400

As a Veteran and current Federal Officers I’m insulted by your claim that law enforcement officers aren’t lying, abusing and entrapping the civilian population.

Response by SFC Bill Otinger made Apr 4 at 2021 9:20 AM

SFC Bill Otinger — Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:20:23 -0400

NO, A french policeman Killed 4 of his fellow policemen with a Plastic Knife he made in 2019 in Paris, I think it was in Connecticut a Student with two knives Cut and Stabbed 28 of His fellow Students, you can make Bombs, use Poison see Movie a TRUE Story=THE SERPENT, He Robbed and killed many Tourist, Guns do not Kill, its CRIMINALS

Response by SFC Bill Otinger made Apr 4 at 2021 9:22 AM

SFC Bill Otinger — Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:22:54 -0400

20 years ago Dallas Georgia made it Mandatory to own a Gun and the Crime Rate went Down, its Still lower than the National Average

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Apr 4 at 2021 1:43 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Sun, 04 Apr 2021 13:43:33 -0400

It needs to be Federal because guns tend to travel, it doesn’t have to be all that strict. An assault weapons ban would be a good start

Response by Lt Col Steve Bonning made Apr 4 at 2021 2:12 PM

Lt Col Steve Bonning — Sun, 04 Apr 2021 14:12:27 -0400

If you believe in the Constitution which you swore an oath to protect and defend, the answer is no, regardless of the rationale. We cannot choose which parts of the Constitution we will protect. It's the entire document

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Apr 4 at 2021 4:25 PM

SSG Bill McCoy — Sun, 04 Apr 2021 16:25:51 -0400

Factually, police cannot entrap anyone; but yes, they can lie to a suspect ("We have you on video," or, "We have your fingerprints," or, "A witness saw you," according to the courts.
As for a "high assault rate by police to the citizen," [sic] that's regurgitation of biased news media and other talking heads. The fact is, when a suspect LISTENS (and OBEYS) the orders of a police officer, there have been very FEW shootings due to officer error, malfeasance or whatever. The overwhelming shootings have occurred because suspects IGNORE police - some actually in a challenging manner - and when they make a furtive movement, police have every right to protect themselves. There are numerous books that have critiqued officers who were killed in the line of duty and almost without fail, it was due to the officer(s) hesitation in reacting to such furtive movements and/or outright disobedience to commands.
Until you've been in an officer's shoes, you really can't fathom the dangers they face. Nevertheless, if suspects, innocent or otherwise, would OBEY an officer, they have a far, far better chance to survive.
As for "civilian gun control," NO. Not even worth discussing beyond, "no," and citing the Bill of RIGHTS which are the CITIZENS' RIGHTS from government overreach.

Response by SSgt Salvador Martinez made Apr 4 at 2021 10:26 PM

SSgt Salvador Martinez — Sun, 04 Apr 2021 22:26:10 -0400

Every state has its own strict gun law. Just have to look it up and read it. As far as police goes, start with the unions. Before I enlisted, i had a few run ins with the police. I never acted like a fool towards them. Even when I was pulled over in D.C. and M.D.

Response by SGT Albert Bowman made Apr 11 at 2021 1:16 PM

SGT Albert Bowman — Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:16:17 -0400

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

Response by Michael Mick made Apr 25 at 2021 10:00 PM

Michael Mick — Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:00:20 -0400

Short answer: no.
Constitutionally correct longer answer: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Response by Michael Mick made Apr 25 at 2021 10:04 PM

Michael Mick — Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:04:06 -0400

Short answer: no.
Constitutionally correct longer answer: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Response by SSG Jack Scott made Apr 28 at 2021 3:32 PM

SSG Jack Scott — Wed, 28 Apr 2021 15:32:25 -0400

If that you Joe Biden thank for the gas prices too!

Response by CPT Mike Theimer made May 14 at 2021 11:00 AM

CPT Mike Theimer — Fri, 14 May 2021 11:00:46 -0400

The 2nd Amendment was written for three purposes:
1. Protect a God given write to protect ourselves and families from bad people who don't obey any laws.
2. To prevent the government from taking away that right. Its a 'right' not a government granted privilege that can be taken away or limited.
3. Give law abiding citizens the tools needed to protect us from a tyrannical government. An armed citizenry keeps the government from becoming dictators. This is why liberal/socialists want to disarm law abiding citizens. They want power over us.
In 1775 the British tried to disarm Americans and we all know how that turned out.
I took an oath and it has NO expiration date. You should go back and read your oath that you took when you joined the military.

Response by SPC Michelle Greenwood made May 17 at 2021 9:49 AM

SPC Michelle Greenwood — Mon, 17 May 2021 09:49:15 -0400

Well let's look at crime rates. CHICAGO has the strictest gun laws and the highest rate of crime
And stricter gun laws only take guns out of law abiding citizens. Criminals will still have guns.

Response by SPC Michelle Greenwood made May 17 at 2021 9:51 AM

SPC Michelle Greenwood — Mon, 17 May 2021 09:51:14 -0400

Stop listening to the lie media. The media hasn't been honest since Howard Cosell.

Response by CPO Kurt Baschab made May 31 at 2021 9:25 PM

CPO Kurt Baschab — Mon, 31 May 2021 21:25:46 -0400

whom Ever is asking this Question must need a Piss test, because they are most defiantly doing some type of illegal Drug or Drugs .
Seriously Tell Me What City, State, or Country Gun Control Laws Have Every Worked in Favor of the Citizens ?
For example just in the Last Century In Almost every Country that Has Imposed Gun Control Law's upon it Citizens, with very few Exceptions, they have all Lead to Mass Murder and Genocide of a Certain Group Of that Country Citizens . in others it has Lead to Missive High Crime , Home Invasions, Armed Robbery's, Sexual Assaults', Rape and Murders .
Just Look at Every single Democratic Controlled City and State , they have the Strictest Gun Controlled laws , with the highest gun crimes and murders .
every single person who has study World History , let Alone American History, Knows ONLY A FREE MAN IS ALLOWED TO BE ARMED, AND TO CARRY WEAPONS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM Those who WISH to HARM THEM.
Only A Freeman Is Allowed to own weapons and to Carry Weapons for self-defenses of self, Family, Neighbors, of Others, and of Country. a Slave Is disarmed and is Only Protected By The State. By his or her Master. Notice how America public Schools no Longer Teach American History, No Longer Teach World History, No Longer Teach are Children There Individual Constitutional Rights And Freedoms , there Bill Of Rights, nor there Declaration of Independence. nor does the American Schools teach are children to ask the five (W) The Who, What, When, Where and why each of these documents and rights were written.
Even America Founding Fathers Knew Gun Control LAWS Do NOT WORK, They ONLY EMPOWER THE GOVERMENT AND ENSLAVING THE CITIZENS.

Response by PO1 David Shepardson made Jun 13 at 2021 3:32 PM

PO1 David Shepardson — Sun, 13 Jun 2021 15:32:47 -0400

No.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2021 6:43 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jun 2021 18:43:01 -0400

You really should do a better job of fact checking before making such statements as "high assault rate by police to the citizen".

Response by CPL Jeffrey Solomon made Jun 13 at 2021 9:38 PM

CPL Jeffrey Solomon — Sun, 13 Jun 2021 21:38:18 -0400

Un-American to even ask. Must be a new breed of soldier. Turn off CNN.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2021 9:04 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:04:56 -0400

2/3 of all reported gun deaths each year are suicides. Look it up at the CDC site or FBI site.

What new gun laws would work. We already have over 400 gun laws on the books.

The problem is that judges and DAs dont pursue these charges against current criminals.

When 9-11 happened, we didnt blame planes, we blamed the terrorists.

When Tim McVeigh blew up the federal building in OK we blamed him and not the fuel fertilizer bomb he made.

When terrorists drive vehicles through crowds and kill people we dont blame the truck, we blame the guy.

When a guy stabs people to death they blame the guy.

When a drunk driver kills an innocent family we blame the guy and not the car.

However when a gun is involved we blame an inanimate object, the gun.

Roughly 30-35k peoples lives are ended each year by guns, however 2/3 of those deaths are suicides.

Did you know that over 600k people are killed each year by preventable medical mess ups by doctors.

Did you know that over 600k babies are killed each year through abortion.

The liberals like to say "if it only saves one child life", but yet they are all for abortion. Go figure right.

The 2nd amendment states, shall not be infringed. What do people not understand?

Anti-gunners say well the fore fathers couldnt see how weapons would progress, well I ask you, does your 1st amendment rights end with parchment paper and quill pens since the fire fathers couldnt ever see the internet or TV or phones...

Response by MSG Dale Fairbanks made Jun 14 at 2021 9:42 AM

MSG Dale Fairbanks — Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:42:16 -0400

Registration for assault weapons should be no different than registering automatic weapons such as machine guns. A registration process could possibly have alerted the law about the idiot that shot up Las Vegas. You could own your assault rifle and no one would take it away, unless your family members felt that you a risk to yourself or others. Registration won't prevent the criminal from getting weapons, just as fingerprinting truck drivers won't prevent terrorist from driving a truck load of gasoline in a building. If would make it easier to lock up a criminal caught with an illegal assault weapon, and might keep them out of the hands of kooks.

Any registration of assault weapons has no correlation between the law lying and entrapping US citizens. As this is not a normal practice of most police, it has no relevance to weapon registration.

Response by CW3 Joseph Lawrence made Jun 14 at 2021 1:27 PM

CW3 Joseph Lawrence — Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:27:51 -0400

Being from the hills of Western Pennsylvania, where almost everyone has guns of some sort, I have to take a different stance on the subject. First of all if your looking for who is at fault for the gun violence in America, then you have to turn to two or three different groups of people. Parents who raise their children with the idea in mind that they are entitled to everything they want free of charge with no ramifications on how and where they get these things. Media who at every turn glorifies violence, not only in their reporting, but in the shows that they constantly ram down the throats of our youth showing that violence and murder are alright. Teachers both high school and college who are indoctrinating our youth instead of educating them. The police officers we have today are no different than the ones that were on the job years ago. Are you going to find rotten apples in the basket, yes. But it is up to the police force itself to root these apples out. Our government has spent far too much money helping other nations while our own goes down the path of least resistance. We as a nation need to start taking our government, local and national to task and enforce laws already on the books, not make new ones because some group of individuals are offended by these laws. We need to start holding parents accountable for their children. We need to root out the indoctrinators from our institutions of education We need to stop the media from glorifying violence on a daily basis.. Years ago their was a song out called Dirty Laundry. How true that song is in todays environment. There is, of course, no cure all for the problems we have in todays society, but to make everyone afraid of these problems, and then tell them who is the blame is no solution at all.

Response by SGT Lance LeBerte made Jun 14 at 2021 7:29 PM

SGT Lance LeBerte — Mon, 14 Jun 2021 19:29:58 -0400

the sentence below the picture of the patch, makes no sense at all, no grammar, no spelling, but, there should not be an infringement of the 2nd amendment, but there could be, and it will start a war, unlike any this country has ever seen

Response by SP5 David Bozek made Jun 17 at 2021 12:53 PM

SP5 David Bozek — Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:53:59 -0400

New Laws IMHO, will not cut it. We have existing laws on the books that need to be renewed and enforced. The constant drumming of FEAR by whomever (NRA, Gun Mfr's, White National terrorists, Racists, etc.) feed gun sales, and those who are not qualified, will buy assault weaponry, just to feed their feeling of "security". They distrust anyone who is of a progressive mind-set, and anyone who is not of the same race, or region of the country. This tribalism must be addressed, not in the "adult" arena (people's minds are "Set in Concrete!) but in grammar school. Many people of different persuasions have made significant contributions to our cultures and species; many of which we routinely overlook.
Yet those not of the caucasian race ignore, demean, belittle and persecute -- to what end? We cannot progress, as military units, or as cultural groups, by subtracting the potential benefit that these folks can offer -- if given the chance, AND the respect that they are due. Some of the best folks that I knew in Viet Nam were Gunners, machine maintenance, FDC officers, command personnel and COMMO drivers.
They were all non-white.
As a Medic, it doesn't matter whether you are a man, woman, or indifferent - enemy or comrade -- I am sworn to assist and possibly heal you. To keep you alive for the Dust-off or the Cracker-box. Because even after 52 years, I am realizing one thing; I took an oath to serve. I left the military, but not my commitment.
SERVICE NEVER STOPS.
Don't bother denying it -- you will be lying to yourself....

Response by CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana made Jun 18 at 2021 1:08 AM

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana — Fri, 18 Jun 2021 01:08:14 -0400

Gun Control laws will prevent unauthorized purchases of weapons for criminal intent and execution. However, gun control will not affect homegrown terrorists from building their own weapons for criminal use or deter children with criminal intent from committing crimes at school. Along with gun control legislation, Congress will need to enact law to discourage illegal firearm vendors and strap the sale of arms and ammunition by licensed vendors, and manufacturers to government licensed adults only. Law Enforcement establishment should be armed with the right to crack down on illegal arms vending and unauthorized sales to unauthorized persons. Apart from this aforesaid legislation, Congress should strap law enforcement agencies, responsible for the public protection, to refrain from using excessive force against public of diverse backgrounds, until such personalities have been deemed fugitives by an appropriate judicial authority. Otherwise, law enforcement officials must gather evidence of illegal activities or involvement, present the evidence before the magistrate or the Court, obtain an arrest warrant and then, arrest the concerned persons using normal force. Every person in the U.S. is innocent until proven guilty under the provisions of law and this is the law.

In the Uniformed Services, when commanders suggest officers or soldiers under their charge are mental health cases due to poor performance or other personal issues then, it is the responsibility of the medical leadership to assess the concerned soldiers and officers, on an Outpatient consultation basis prior to referral for any Inpatient Treatment. During this same time of medical assessment, an unbiased IG should conduct investigation to determine if there was a drastic change of performance of the affected troops to warrant mental health referrals or evaluations by the Command. This will eliminate unlawful use of Mental Health services by commanders to damage troops under their charge. After all troops too deserve to be treated fairly in the face of the law.

Just think, what if a subordinate was referred by his or her Commander to undergo an MHE under Emergency circumstances because the performance of the subordinate drastically dropped within days according to the Commander, after reaching a high where the subordinate was hailed by all commanders in his COC (chain of command) up to the first GO. This is the Commander's submission. The subordinate's submission is that nothing has changed, except that the new sheriff (the CXO) in town doesn't like him and constantly makes him go for the urinalysis test, without good reason. There are others submissions relevant made by the subordinate. The subordinate is singled out and so, eventually he files his Complaint with his service IG, who, instead of investigating the case, kept parceling the Complaint to other subordinate IG offices, until the case file reached the Conmand IG of the Command in which both the Complainant and his Commander served at the time the IG complaint was filed. The Command IG does nothing with the case, until Congress probes the case twice. Then, in response to congressional inquiry into the EMHE ordered against the Complainant, eight months after the Complaint was filed with the service IG, the Command IG wrote, three months post the Congressional Inquiry, that the Commander erred and "he pleaded ignorance of the law ". Doesn't this subordinate deserve fair justice; why should this subordinate suffer for the ignorance of his leaders and; was the EMHE warranted or was it a reprisal?

Laws must be enforced keeping in mind the intent of those who prescribed the legislation. The MHE/EMHE must not be used or allowed to be used by leaders in the Armed Forces as a tool to reprise against their subordinates who complain against their COCs. If commanders indulged in retaliation and reprisals against their juniors as punishment then, wouldn't the force be weakened?

I leave you with these thoughts and we are all heroes
PFC Donnie Harold Harris and COL Mikel J. Burroughs's posse.

Response by PFC Donnie Harold Harris made Jun 21 at 2021 9:45 AM

PFC Donnie Harold Harris — Mon, 21 Jun 2021 09:45:56 -0400

The veiw points of my fellow service men are to read and understand. Without lepracy there are no leppers.

Response by TSgt Tommy Amparano made Jun 22 at 2021 2:53 PM

TSgt Tommy Amparano — Tue, 22 Jun 2021 14:53:35 -0400

What do you mean by strict? What would be restricted. The thing about these types of arguments is that they sound good to a lot of people until you start getting into specifics. Hell even red flag laws sound good on a first reading until you discover that they can be applied to anyone and that an accusation alone is enough to take someone's ability to protect themselves away. How about banning certain features of rifle? Those sound like a good idea until you realize that they are pretty useless when most "gun crime" happens with the use of a handgun. Ban certain capacity magazines and people can carry 3 or 4 magazines.

Response by LTC David Howard made Jun 23 at 2021 3:37 PM

LTC David Howard — Wed, 23 Jun 2021 15:37:08 -0400

The 2nd Amendment, affirmed by SCOTUS as an individual right, is as important a right as the freedom or speech, the press or of the right to assemble peaceably. Gun control began in America as a means of denying the right to own firearms by freed slaves, and has been continued ever since as a means of keeping the citizenry vulnerable and subject to the power of the government. Gun related crime is primarily a factor in cities controlled by the Democrats. These same Democrats call for more restrictions on the law abiding as a smoke screen to cover their total failure in eradicating criminal gangs, the source of much of the violent crime committed with firearms.

Response by PO1 Todd B. made Jun 24 at 2021 6:40 PM

PO1 Todd B. — Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:40:37 -0400

SHould there be, NO, not just no but HELL no. Could there be? The leftists can pass whatever "rules and regulations" they want with the corrupt FBI and DOJ. I won't abide by any of them at all if they infringe on the 2nd Amendment. There is no discussion.

I served, injured service connected multiple times and I took an oath to the Constitution. Unless the congress and senate and then President signs a full on new law repealing the 2A in some fashion and it is ratified by ALL 50 states as required, I will not abide by any edict, rule, regulation or EO that infringes on those rights I served to support and defend.

And before some troll says something about reasonable laws, rules and regulations. I never said anything reasonable laws like felons, mental instable people, etc. There is a huge difference between laws that protect society vs rules and regulations made that impact EVERYONE all at once and clearly infringed on the rights we have. BIG difference.

Someone breaks the 'law', you punish them NOT EVERYONE ELSE.

Response by Randy Semroska made Jun 25 at 2021 10:33 AM

Randy Semroska — Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:33:46 -0400

Every municipal with strict gun laws and control result always the opposite. Criminals do not follow rules of law.

Response by SSG Harry Outcalt made Jun 25 at 2021 1:02 PM

SSG Harry Outcalt — Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:02:03 -0400

They just need to held to a higher standard than the population

Response by Pvt Mike Bradshaw made Jun 27 at 2021 7:19 AM

Pvt Mike Bradshaw — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 07:19:34 -0400

Currently the status quo in relation to gun control should stand, but vetting those who own them or buy them must be addressed. The same applies to both serving and new applicants in law enforcement, in other words ensure the right people are in the correct job.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2021 2:58 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:58:20 -0400

There isn't a high assault rate by police and there is no right to entrap any person. What else you got?

Response by LTC David Brown made Jun 29 at 2021 10:12 AM

LTC David Brown — Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:12:42 -0400

I am fully against federal national gun laws. Looking at a lot of the posts I noticed one fact isn’t mentioned, the first thing bargained away by prosecutors is gun law violations. If we aren’t enforcing current gun laws what make more. The only people who get screwed are honest people who respect laws.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2021 1:14 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:14:27 -0400

Maybe we should enact drug laws to make drug use illegal. This will stop people from using drugs because it’s breaking the law…oh wait

Response by PO1 Mike Wallace made Jul 2 at 2021 12:32 PM

PO1 Mike Wallace — Fri, 02 Jul 2021 12:32:26 -0400

I'm still waiting to see a list of volunteers who are willing to go knock on the doors of law abiding citizens and demand their guns. I've had 2 Sheriff's of large areas who are known for enforcing the law tell me personally the will never send anyone out to do such a thing!

Response by SGT Jerry Hoy made Jul 3 at 2021 10:24 PM

SGT Jerry Hoy — Sat, 03 Jul 2021 22:24:19 -0400

Response by SPC Laura Mitchell made Jul 15 at 2021 12:27 PM

SPC Laura Mitchell — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:27:57 -0400

Not likely to happen for a variety of reasons. Mostly because not all states will agree to the same standards. Each state also has varying abilities to enforce current laws. And things like this will face court challenges and undergo constitutional scrutiny.

Response by SSG Roland Shelton made Jul 23 at 2021 2:51 PM

SSG Roland Shelton — Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:51:31 -0400

Well first of all there's not a high assault rate by police. If anything I assault rate is by civilians. That fallacy needs to stop.
You can pass all the gun control laws you want to but only law abiding citizens are going to obey them. Criminals are criminals for reasons and obeying the law is not one of them
Most importantly, we can never forget the second amendment. It was placed there for a reason and should be guarded.

Response by A1C Isa Kocher made Jul 27 at 2021 1:45 PM

A1C Isa Kocher — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:45:27 -0400

no ifs, no ands, no buts, no maybes, the scalia supreme court ruling states categorically that the second amendment requires congress to regulate weapons. that's the first half of the sentence, the second saying that serving in a regulated militia should not be restictred or denied to people in general.

The whole context is the necessity to regulate.

It's grammer and words are highly technical 18th century legalese and modern 21st century english no longer has such grammar and the words have substantially changed since guns and all military weapons altogether as we know them now did not even exist in the 19th century ... bear arms did not mean carrying around canons and siege towers and ships at sea.

quote "Artillery weapons in medieval Europe included the mounted crossbow (ballista) and single-arm torsion catapult (mangonel), both similar to ancient Roman machines. As armies battled further afield such as in the Byzantine Empire and against the Arab caliphates, in particular, so new ideas spread from China and India across Eurasia and into western Europe. The trebuchet arrived from the late 12th century CE, which was similar to the mangonel but used a counterweight as a means to propel missiles further and with greater accuracy. Used by both attackers and defenders during siege warfare, batteries of artillery caused devastation to people and fortifications. Cannons were used from the 13th century CE, and although they were highly dangerous to use and largely ineffective because of their lack of accuracy, by the 15th century CE, technology had improved dramatically. Gunpowder-projected missiles of all sizes became the norm, finally ending the knight's and bowmen's long domination of the medieval battlefield. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1231/artillery-in-medieval-europe/

even the Colt 45 in the 19th century could only shoot off a few rounds before the heat of firing it ended its functionability

Artillery in Medieval Europe

Artillery weapons in medieval Europe included the mounted crossbow (ballista) and single-arm torsion catapult (mangonel), both similar to ancient Roman machines. As armies battled further afield such...

Response by A1C Isa Kocher made Jul 27 at 2021 4:22 PM

A1C Isa Kocher — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:22:01 -0400

one in ten police departments do not report any statistics to the FBI - it is 100% voluntary. nobody knows how accurate any police agency report is. it is 100% voluntary. some departments are funded to keep statistics. many aren't. some reports go to the states where they are compiled. it is 100% voluntary. some states edit their statistics. it is 100% voluntary. no state gives any reports on police misconduct. it is 100% voluntary. in many places any information at all on police abuse, police conduct, police misconduct is against the law. the usa denies usa funds to study any fire arms use abuse or behavior ... so no we do not know, cannot know the facts officially. there are no official facts in the usa. quote "
It’s important to note that the FBI’s statistics do not capture the details on all gun murders in the U.S. each year. The FBI’s data is based on information submitted by state and local police departments, and not all agencies participate or provide complete information each year. In 2017, nine-in-ten law enforcement agencies submitted data to the FBI." there is no real data. it's all guessing, obfuscation, fog, and a lot of gaslighting

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

A look at the data on murders, suicides and other gun deaths in the U.S. and how they have changed over time.

Response by CPL Douglas Chrysler made Jul 27 at 2021 4:36 PM

CPL Douglas Chrysler — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:36:28 -0400

Saw a map on liberal news of areas with so many shooting incidents. Where I live, big on 2nd Amendment rights area, the map was clean.

Response by PO2 David Hawthorne made Jul 28 at 2021 12:17 AM

PO2 David Hawthorne — Wed, 28 Jul 2021 00:17:01 -0400

There isn’t a high assault or entrapment rate from law enforcement. Additionally Gun control has an average death rate of 4700 per day for the last 100 years. Typically governments killing their own citizens once disarmed.

Response by SSG Gregg Mourizen made Jul 28 at 2021 6:41 PM

SSG Gregg Mourizen — Wed, 28 Jul 2021 18:41:59 -0400

Let me be blunt and to the point.
"Aren't there enough gun control laws already?"
Let just try to get the ones already on the books enforced properly. Let's get rid of all the existing, conflicting and redundant laws already on the books.
You want to offer Gun Safety training and Self-Defense Laws and limitations trainings? Great. Offer them up, for free.
How much more do you really want to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.

I really love California, with a "Stand Your Ground" law, but it is illegal to carry a loaded weapon in public, even with a permit. It is also illegal in California to hold your weapon in a threatening manner. So what are you supposed to do. Send you warning by loading the weapon? 9 times out of ten, that would already be too late. Is drawing your weapon considered a threatening action? Showing it in your belt can be. You can't point your weapon (legally) to back an attacker down. So basically your only opportunity to warn an attacker off, is when you draw and load. After that you can only point and shoot, or you are in violation.
You cannot own and asp. Flicking out out is a great warning, but the tool is illegal. Brandishing it in a threatening way is illegal. Same with a club, bat, knife or any other weapon you can think of.
Basically, your only option it to go the full force option. Knock them down with what you have, and back off, until they get back up and try again.
Or of course, you can run away (if that is an option) or accept the assault, you wanted to carry a weapon to prevent.
Great options right?
You can pretty much figure one of Three outcomes:
1. The attacker chickens out and leaves you alone (yeah, right)
2. Someone is going to the hospital (you or your attacker).
3. You're going to jail.

You might counter with... "You can call the police..."
Yeah right. 2 hour response time, unless shots are fired, or someone is injured. Even then who knows?

Response by SSgt Paul Millard made Jul 29 at 2021 8:47 AM

SSgt Paul Millard — Thu, 29 Jul 2021 08:47:43 -0400

I'll assume your phrasing of the question is due to a bad encounter you have had or too many hours listening to social media rants by uninformed and bias personalities. That being said, as a free country ( for now), having an armed citizenry is extremely important. I would advocate for a national Gun law that included that every High school student will be required to take 1 semester of gun safety and training ( similar to drivers education). They will then be issued a permit to purchase in any state in the country. I would still continue some of the better aspects of current gun laws, i.e. felons, mentally ill cannot purchase. Unfortunately, current gun laws by their nature only apply to law abiding citizens and thereby restrict their ability to live safely and free.
From your phrasing I will also assume you have never been to a country that will go house to house and take a child from homes and shoot and leave them in a ditch as a warning to stay in line(Iraq), or where ethnic cleansing occurred( Bosnia) , or the Rwandan genocide where militants slaughtered 1000's and women were taken as sex slaves by the government backed Interahamwe. Or lastly, you were taken classes on gender studies instead of history and so missed the study of the attempted annihilations of all Jews( 6 million or so).
To summarize, if you want an unprotected citizenry, powerless against a tyrannical government, powerless to protect their homes from criminals or ravaging gangs, then by all means let's make it simple and outlaw all weapons from the law abiding citizens. Before you decide that this is the best approach, read some history, take a visit to areas of Chicago, St. Louis and LA and see how safe you feel from the predatory criminals without having any protection.

BTW, you seem to think that Law enforcement is predominantly a negative entity, but keep in mind that they are responding to crime where people are at their very worst. By even thinking of defunding, you are removing the only safety net that serves poor areas ( primary location of most crime).
Read more that social media to arrive at your opinions, I know that the Kardashians are mental giants, but their opinions are just that.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2021 6:10 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Aug 2021 06:10:31 -0400

You need to educate yourself a youngster, you just sound stupid

Response by 1LT Howard Foss made Aug 16 at 2021 5:56 PM

1LT Howard Foss — Mon, 16 Aug 2021 17:56:48 -0400

a box cutter is responsible for over 3000 deaths. it's not the box cutter, it's the person.
this phraseology is an affront to my intelligence.
there's a multiple of situations such as, low education, low morals, gangs, territorial disputes (dogs pissing in the wrong neighborhood) etc. etc.
did you ever exceed the speed limit?, it's the law. turn yourself in.
cpt jack is 100% correct, you wont see me in downtown L. A. any time soon.
be safe out there, stay clear of the loonies.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Sep 20 at 2021 10:56 AM

LTC John Wilson — Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:56:28 -0400

Over 262 Million UNARMED Citizens were MURDERED by their Own Government in the last century.

The vast majority of those UNARMED Citizens -- 196 Million -- were murdered by "Progressive" Secular regimes -- including modern, Scientifically Advanced Nation-States.

And now we see the "Modern Western Democracy" of Australia -- post Gun Ban -- placing their entire Citizenry under de facto House Arrest and erecting Concentration Camps over a virus with a 99.8% Case Survival Rate. What chance do the People of Australia have to put an end to such draconian tyranny -- enforced by the arms of the Police and the Military -- now that they are without private firearms? What may stop politicians from taking their tyranny even further in the name of "public safety?"

History proves that the Default Position of Human Society ALWAYS gravitates toward Tyranny -- a human lust for power to control others -- because Human Nature DOES NOT "evolve" away from Evil, Self-centeredness, or our weak state of self-control.

The Framers understood this fact and sought to Protect the Natural Right of Self Defense from Tyranny by RECOGNIZING that Right in the Second Amendment. Even if this nation were to repeal the Second Amendment tomorrow, any "Civilian Gun Control Measure" would amount to a Municipal (i.e. Manmade) Law that violates the Laws of Nature and Nature's God upon which the United States is founded; such laws are patently Immoral. Our entire system of Government is premised on this point: Municipal Laws MUST comport with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God (i.e. Natural Law), OR such laws shall be null, void, and without moral force. Our Founders were quite clear on this point:

“All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity.” Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists.

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.” James Wilson, Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation.

“When human laws contradict or discountenance the means which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws and so become null and void.” Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted.

“Now all acts of legislation apparently contrary to natural rights and justice … must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict His laws we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudication of our courts.” George Mason, as argued in Robin v. Hardaway, Virginia General Court, 1772

You cannot "support and defend" the Bylaws of this Republic -- the Constitution -- without supporting and defending the Foundational Charter of the Republic upon which those Bylaws are based -- namely, the Declaration (see Constitution, Article VII, Clause 2). And the Declaration establishes the Purpose of Government CLEARLY based on the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" and "Self-Evident Truths:"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND TO PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY.

Response by Deanna Gross made Oct 29 at 2021 2:48 PM

Deanna Gross — Fri, 29 Oct 2021 14:48:47 -0400

I see that further down from this article cencurship rated it’s ugly head on the question on Biden!!! Now the questions are gone. Who runs this blog?

Response by SSG Cary Myers made Nov 1 at 2021 10:45 AM

SSG Cary Myers — Mon, 01 Nov 2021 10:45:44 -0400

The only gun control law required in this country was written into the Constitution, the Second Amendment covers everything concerning guns. As for other laws concerning guns I only have to say "Shall not be infringed". There are already too many gun laws that need to be challenged and put against the 2nd Amendment, adding another would be pointless.

Response by John Perkins made May 28 at 2022 10:49 AM

John Perkins — Sat, 28 May 2022 10:49:41 -0400

I believe that gun control is the responsibility that the gun owner takes on. Perhaps the rules for obtaining a permit should be made stricter. This is a rather controversial topic that needs to be dealt with. I saw an excellent article about gun control https://artscolumbia.org/free-essays/gun-control/ on a resource with essay samples. I think that it is impossible to ban guns and also impossible to avoid their misuse, but it is necessary to reduce the number of such cases.

Best Gun Control Essay Examples on Artscolumbia

A Huge Database of Free Gun Control Essays on Artscolumbia . You can find essays on many topics. These samples will make essay writing much easier.

Response by SCPO Lloyd Sikes made Mar 13 at 2023 12:30 AM

SCPO Lloyd Sikes — Mon, 13 Mar 2023 00:30:10 -0400

We already have one, called the Constitution
SPCO Sikes

Response by CSM Vern Pratt made Apr 12 at 2023 8:51 AM

CSM Vern Pratt — Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:51:59 -0400

What? Are law enforcement officers perfect? No, they are human. I do not know you PFC Harris but I can identify the bias in your comment. Maybe you are law enforcement and are speaking from experience, if so support your comment and help those of us reading those comments understand. In the event you do not know my background I spent decades in the law enforcement profession both military and civilian.