Posted on May 24, 2018
VetSpective: What Is A Veteran's Role Within The “Gun Debate"? — Lead Locally
43.4K
469
213
83
83
0
Following the heartbreaking school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas — coming only a few months after the Parkland High School shooting — many are naturally asking what can be done to decrease these tragedies in our country.
I want to ask: What is the role for Veterans within this context?
I don’t believe there is a new or unique role for Veterans within this federal-level debate over guns in the United States. And, in any case, the federal debate is not where any meaningful solutions or insights will be realized or achieved in the near term.
The role for Veterans within the so-called “gun debate” is not at the federal level — it’s at the local level.
When I, as a parent, think about about all we do for our children — teaching them, taking them to their next practice or game, walking them to the bus stop or school, thinking of that very special Christmas present or birthday surprise, the hug, the kiss, and even the times we have to scold or punish them so that they can learn and grow — it becomes crystal clear, not to mention deeply relevant for the “gun debate,” just how much we pour our heart and soul into our kids. For, they are our future. And then to have them taken from us — in an instant — through events like Parkland or Santa Fe…there are no words. None at all.
Veterans seem to generally reflect our country’s divisions on guns — consistent with the current political paradigm — with Republicans, on the one hand, justly overlaying the Constitutional argument and emphasizing the Bill of Rights protections; and Democrats, on the other side, appropriately highlighting safety and security concerns and asking what role guns within these tragic events.
It is within this fraught political context that the National Rifle Association — known for its unflinching support for gun ownership — has turned the Democratic argument on its head. The NRA agrees there is a safety and security problem and argues that the solution is more guns and more people trained to use guns — not fewer.
Democrats have similarly taken the other side’s argument and turned it on its head — acknowledging the universality of the Constitutional protections for gun ownership, yet arguing that such protections must comport with a 21st century context.
In short, the two major sides of the federal debate are dug in and using the other side’s arguments to justify their own objectives — a debate that is also sufficiently esoteric, deeply philosophical, and, therefore, disconnected from the realities on the ground.
At the local level, Veterans have the greatest opportunity for positive impact because we are leaders. And the local level is where interaction with “the people” — both gun owners as well as victims of gun violence — truly unfolds.
Up to now, all sides have framed the gun issue, and any potential solutions, within the context of government. But there is significant untapped space at the local level that Veterans are uniquely positioned to lead: civil society.
I wonder if Veterans could bring our experiences as armorers, and with unit arms rooms, to civil society. Could gun clubs be revived and renewed?
What if Veterans established a network of gun clubs across the United States. Places that are useful, practical, and philosophically consistent with the US Constitution — fixing and maintaining guns for its membership.
Perhaps any new gun regulations that would be applied to individual gun owners is not achievable, but could regulations on gun clubs be embraced?
While individual gun owners — Veterans and non-Veterans — would have to opt-in to these Veteran-run gun clubs, such clubs could ultimately test any future gun regulation and serve as consensus-building mechanisms for any future regulations on guns in the United States.
Surely more ideas. But to achieve any change, Veterans must show leadership on these seemingly intractable issues at the local level.
We, Veterans, must find ways to fundamentally change the nature of, and context surrounding, the great debates of our time — including our debate over guns.
Because then, and only then, can our deeply fractured country begin to move forward — the greatest of contributions to our country that we, Veterans, can ultimately make.
Alex Gallo is the author of VetSpective and a Veteran.
I want to ask: What is the role for Veterans within this context?
I don’t believe there is a new or unique role for Veterans within this federal-level debate over guns in the United States. And, in any case, the federal debate is not where any meaningful solutions or insights will be realized or achieved in the near term.
The role for Veterans within the so-called “gun debate” is not at the federal level — it’s at the local level.
When I, as a parent, think about about all we do for our children — teaching them, taking them to their next practice or game, walking them to the bus stop or school, thinking of that very special Christmas present or birthday surprise, the hug, the kiss, and even the times we have to scold or punish them so that they can learn and grow — it becomes crystal clear, not to mention deeply relevant for the “gun debate,” just how much we pour our heart and soul into our kids. For, they are our future. And then to have them taken from us — in an instant — through events like Parkland or Santa Fe…there are no words. None at all.
Veterans seem to generally reflect our country’s divisions on guns — consistent with the current political paradigm — with Republicans, on the one hand, justly overlaying the Constitutional argument and emphasizing the Bill of Rights protections; and Democrats, on the other side, appropriately highlighting safety and security concerns and asking what role guns within these tragic events.
It is within this fraught political context that the National Rifle Association — known for its unflinching support for gun ownership — has turned the Democratic argument on its head. The NRA agrees there is a safety and security problem and argues that the solution is more guns and more people trained to use guns — not fewer.
Democrats have similarly taken the other side’s argument and turned it on its head — acknowledging the universality of the Constitutional protections for gun ownership, yet arguing that such protections must comport with a 21st century context.
In short, the two major sides of the federal debate are dug in and using the other side’s arguments to justify their own objectives — a debate that is also sufficiently esoteric, deeply philosophical, and, therefore, disconnected from the realities on the ground.
At the local level, Veterans have the greatest opportunity for positive impact because we are leaders. And the local level is where interaction with “the people” — both gun owners as well as victims of gun violence — truly unfolds.
Up to now, all sides have framed the gun issue, and any potential solutions, within the context of government. But there is significant untapped space at the local level that Veterans are uniquely positioned to lead: civil society.
I wonder if Veterans could bring our experiences as armorers, and with unit arms rooms, to civil society. Could gun clubs be revived and renewed?
What if Veterans established a network of gun clubs across the United States. Places that are useful, practical, and philosophically consistent with the US Constitution — fixing and maintaining guns for its membership.
Perhaps any new gun regulations that would be applied to individual gun owners is not achievable, but could regulations on gun clubs be embraced?
While individual gun owners — Veterans and non-Veterans — would have to opt-in to these Veteran-run gun clubs, such clubs could ultimately test any future gun regulation and serve as consensus-building mechanisms for any future regulations on guns in the United States.
Surely more ideas. But to achieve any change, Veterans must show leadership on these seemingly intractable issues at the local level.
We, Veterans, must find ways to fundamentally change the nature of, and context surrounding, the great debates of our time — including our debate over guns.
Because then, and only then, can our deeply fractured country begin to move forward — the greatest of contributions to our country that we, Veterans, can ultimately make.
Alex Gallo is the author of VetSpective and a Veteran.
VetSpective
Gun Control
Parenting
Crime
Command Post
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 95
56
56
0
A fair question and a fair narrative. However, I believe that it overlooks one important element. Is it possible that the gun debate is not political? That it's not a Republican vs Democrat thing. Nor that it's a Left vs Right thing. Although, to be honest, there is plenty of evidence that Leftist governments have historically opposed having its citizenry armed (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Socialist Venezuela) so that they are more tractable. I suspect that the gun debate in this nation at this time is more a matter of fear. Those who are afraid of guns vs those who are not. Those who equate guns with violence vs those who equate guns with more civilized pursuits. It's easy to confuse guns with violence because they are most often featured in crimes as the tools of violent people. In their fear they fail to see the fact that guns are far more often not used to commit violence. They see the act and cower in fear, and the gun becomes their focus. An interesting fact about fear is that it is contagious. A crowd can be turned to panic by just one person. The person who yells fire in a crowded theater sets off a chain reaction. Those nearest to him react and their reaction cause others to react until the who crowd stampedes and people are trampled and crushed. Thus it is with guns, especially for those who are unfamiliar with them. If my observations are correct, then it is possible for veterans to help. We are, after all, familiar with guns. Few veterans fear them. We can calm others around us by absorbing their fear and not reflecting it. We can speak quietly and rationally about guns. In the midst of mayhem, we can respond as we were trained rather than joining the stampede.
(56)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SFC (Join to see) - I suspect that you are among those Americans confusing feel and think. Police do not solve crimes. The collect evidence, apprehend suspected perpetrators, and deliver both to the prosecutors who then seek "justice". The efficiency with which police and prosecutors perform their duties is dependent on cooperation of the communities that they serve, and it is readily apparent that minority communities impede their work more than they help. Yes, illegal aliens (not immigrants - let's not conflate lawful with unlawful behavior) are loathe to seek help, and for very good reason. They would be far better off returning home where they would not have such fears. Inasmuch as their presence creates an environment in which crime flourishes, the solution is to help them remove themselves.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Package Thief vs. Glitter Bomb Trap
This might be my Magnum Opus. Please see my comments below with regards to reports the video was partially faked. Go to https://NordVPN.com/MarkRober and use...
SGT Chris Wagoner - I apologize for my extended delay in responding. I've been TDY and didn't really have time to play on here. Here is a humorous example of "the police are failing miserably at solving crimes so certain groups feel compelled to take their brand of "justice" into their own hands and solve things at their level through whatever means available.": I couldn't help but laugh as the thieves experienced this guy's wrath, but take note at the 40 second mark what motivated him to do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxhDk-hwuo
There are numerous non-humorous examples as well but the report you posted is evident enough. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ The report you provided states: "Most crimes are not reported to police, and most reported crimes are not solved." It then provides a link to this report "Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. go unsolved" https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/01/most-violent-and-property-crimes-in-the-u-s-go-unsolved/ Is that enough evidence that "the police are failing miserably at solving crimes"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxhDk-hwuo
There are numerous non-humorous examples as well but the report you posted is evident enough. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ The report you provided states: "Most crimes are not reported to police, and most reported crimes are not solved." It then provides a link to this report "Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. go unsolved" https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/01/most-violent-and-property-crimes-in-the-u-s-go-unsolved/ Is that enough evidence that "the police are failing miserably at solving crimes"?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - "Police do not solve crimes." Are you playing semantics as the basis for your disagreement with my point? I'll again reference this report ( https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/01/most-violent-and-property-crimes-in-the-u-s-go-unsolved/ ) to counter your semantic argument while still agreeing with your quote: "Police do not solve crimes." We are in agreement.
"The efficiency with which police and prosecutors perform their duties is dependent on cooperation of the communities that they serve, and it is readily apparent that minority communities impede their work more than they help." This is typically because the police fail to realize that they are there to serve the community. The police fail to earn the trust and respect of the people they serve. The police fail to build positive relationships with the people they serve. The police, though their deeds and misdeeds, have come to be viewed as something other than an asset to the community they serve. That fault lies with the police and how they operate against the people they are suppose to serve. Police who see themselves as "law enforcement" whose only goal is to enforce laws (vs peace officers maintaining the peace and seeking justice) are primarily to blame for their failed relationships with the community (members of the community also hold secondary blame in their failed relationship with the police that serve the community)
But I'll also add: https://personalliberty.com/why-it-doesnt-pay-to-cooperate-with-police/
As long as you enjoy playing semantics: The federal law and US agencies seem to disagree with your word selection. Here are the IRS's immigration terms codified in US law. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/immigration-terms-and-definitions-involving-aliens Here is PolitiFact's assessment on your selected term. https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/may/09/steve-mccraw/illegal-alien-legal-term-federal-law/
It is interesting how you commingle "minority communities" and "illegal aliens" in your reply. Some would find a tinge of racism in that. However, I find it strange you think a person fleeing death "would be far better off returning home where they would not" fear being deported back to the place where they are at risk of being killed by gangs like MS-13.
BTW, the now infamous gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) originated in Los Angeles in the 1980s following the failure of the LAPD to protect the newly arrived alien community fleeing El Salvador (remember Reagan's illegal activities?). After being constantly victimized by the dominant Mexican gangs, El Salvadoran immigrants banded together for protection, thus enlarging their membership and force. In our "get tough on crime" and anti-immigrant haste, we exported America's MS-13 to El Salvador and they quickly overwhelmed that country. Now they are an international organization chasing illicit money in true capitalist fashion all over Central and North America.
Maybe we should rethink our strategies and move beyond sound bites.
"The efficiency with which police and prosecutors perform their duties is dependent on cooperation of the communities that they serve, and it is readily apparent that minority communities impede their work more than they help." This is typically because the police fail to realize that they are there to serve the community. The police fail to earn the trust and respect of the people they serve. The police fail to build positive relationships with the people they serve. The police, though their deeds and misdeeds, have come to be viewed as something other than an asset to the community they serve. That fault lies with the police and how they operate against the people they are suppose to serve. Police who see themselves as "law enforcement" whose only goal is to enforce laws (vs peace officers maintaining the peace and seeking justice) are primarily to blame for their failed relationships with the community (members of the community also hold secondary blame in their failed relationship with the police that serve the community)
But I'll also add: https://personalliberty.com/why-it-doesnt-pay-to-cooperate-with-police/
As long as you enjoy playing semantics: The federal law and US agencies seem to disagree with your word selection. Here are the IRS's immigration terms codified in US law. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/immigration-terms-and-definitions-involving-aliens Here is PolitiFact's assessment on your selected term. https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/may/09/steve-mccraw/illegal-alien-legal-term-federal-law/
It is interesting how you commingle "minority communities" and "illegal aliens" in your reply. Some would find a tinge of racism in that. However, I find it strange you think a person fleeing death "would be far better off returning home where they would not" fear being deported back to the place where they are at risk of being killed by gangs like MS-13.
BTW, the now infamous gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) originated in Los Angeles in the 1980s following the failure of the LAPD to protect the newly arrived alien community fleeing El Salvador (remember Reagan's illegal activities?). After being constantly victimized by the dominant Mexican gangs, El Salvadoran immigrants banded together for protection, thus enlarging their membership and force. In our "get tough on crime" and anti-immigrant haste, we exported America's MS-13 to El Salvador and they quickly overwhelmed that country. Now they are an international organization chasing illicit money in true capitalist fashion all over Central and North America.
Maybe we should rethink our strategies and move beyond sound bites.
Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. go unsolved
In 2015, 47% of the violent crimes and 35% of the property crimes tracked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics were reported to police.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - Like all forms of government/authority, socio-political systems are not about tyranny, but taken to extremes they all logically lead to tyranny. But, of course, some like to yell Obama was a tyrant while other scream Trump is a tyrant.
You write: "(Socialism) is a socio-political system in which the means of production are owned by the state as opposed to free market economies in which individuals own them."
To which I reply:
1. The US has never been, and will never be, a "free market economy". The market is not free. There are innumerable laws and regulations that control the market, monopolize licensing/permits, help establish/maintain dominance, and frequently serve to put one group's interests over another. Tax breaks and incentives are enacted to encourage certain behaviors and promote select industries. Zealots and profiteers occasionally enact laws to outlaw or legalize certain products or services. Zealots and profiteers occasionally enact laws to outlaw who may purchase, produce, or sell those products or services for reasons such as age, race, gender, national origin, religion, and more. The so called "free markets" is a fantasy.
2. Building on your words: "(Democratic socialism) is a socio-political system in which the means of production are owned by (WE THE PEOPLE to serve the public good and are not required to generate a profit) as opposed to a (capitalist market) in which (multi-national corporations and billionaires) own them (and are required to increase revenues for shareholders)."
3. "Socialism" does not have a universally accepted meaning that everyone agrees upon when using the term today. Just like the Confederate Battle Flag, "socialism" means different things to different people. Democratic socialism basically means "We the People" own "it", "it" is to serve the public good, and "it" doesn't have to generate a profit. "It" can be an organization, infrastructure, a service, or program. And "it" does not have to be "the means of production". All forms of government can embrace a mixed economy. (Just as communists governments are embracing capitalist businesses.) Current examples of democratic socialism in the United States includes: public roads, public education, public emergency services (police, fire, medical), public libraries, public parks, public transportation, public sanitation and waste management services, public services (medicare, social security, veterans benefits, etc.), government disaster services (relief and recovery efforts following disasters). All are examples of democratic socialism. "We the People" own "it", "it" serves the public good, and "it" doesn't have to generate a profit.
You write: "(Socialism) is a socio-political system in which the means of production are owned by the state as opposed to free market economies in which individuals own them."
To which I reply:
1. The US has never been, and will never be, a "free market economy". The market is not free. There are innumerable laws and regulations that control the market, monopolize licensing/permits, help establish/maintain dominance, and frequently serve to put one group's interests over another. Tax breaks and incentives are enacted to encourage certain behaviors and promote select industries. Zealots and profiteers occasionally enact laws to outlaw or legalize certain products or services. Zealots and profiteers occasionally enact laws to outlaw who may purchase, produce, or sell those products or services for reasons such as age, race, gender, national origin, religion, and more. The so called "free markets" is a fantasy.
2. Building on your words: "(Democratic socialism) is a socio-political system in which the means of production are owned by (WE THE PEOPLE to serve the public good and are not required to generate a profit) as opposed to a (capitalist market) in which (multi-national corporations and billionaires) own them (and are required to increase revenues for shareholders)."
3. "Socialism" does not have a universally accepted meaning that everyone agrees upon when using the term today. Just like the Confederate Battle Flag, "socialism" means different things to different people. Democratic socialism basically means "We the People" own "it", "it" is to serve the public good, and "it" doesn't have to generate a profit. "It" can be an organization, infrastructure, a service, or program. And "it" does not have to be "the means of production". All forms of government can embrace a mixed economy. (Just as communists governments are embracing capitalist businesses.) Current examples of democratic socialism in the United States includes: public roads, public education, public emergency services (police, fire, medical), public libraries, public parks, public transportation, public sanitation and waste management services, public services (medicare, social security, veterans benefits, etc.), government disaster services (relief and recovery efforts following disasters). All are examples of democratic socialism. "We the People" own "it", "it" serves the public good, and "it" doesn't have to generate a profit.
(0)
(0)
47
47
0
First, I don't separate my military service from other aspects of my life, it has after all shaped me into who I am in many ways. But, as a parent, I see some parenting problems with the Santa fe incident. If any parent allows, permits or facilitates their child adoration with Nazi or other extremist culture, it's a parenting fail!
(47)
(0)
46
46
0
I don't believe that gun control is the answer so much as kid control. When I was growing up an occasional fistfight, knowing the a spanking was attached was big news. We had guns in the house, I hunted, and I knew not to touch/play or act up around guns. My parents knew who my friends were, where we played and all the neighbors will call if I did something wrong. I was taught to respect others, my seniors and adults. Today's kids make pipe bombs in the basement and the parents KNOW nothing, don't know what their kids are up to and with who, and frankly do a lousy job of supervision. Kids seem to be taught that their rights are the only thing that counts, and that they can do as they please. It appears many want to be rappers or gang-bangers and bullying is ok, if the person who is bullied isn't in their cliché.
(46)
(0)
SFC Dagmar Riley
Very true on many parts SGM, although we have a bunch of adults besides the kids, that have a few screws loose and any weapon (knife, guns etc) in their possession can turn into a nightmare. Again though, i also agree that gun control isn’t the answer either. The ones that mean to inflict harm onto another human being, will find a way to do so regardless if there are more gun controls or not and if they cannot get a gun, they’ll use a knife, slingshot, build a bomb themselves, use a vehicle to maim or kill or whatever they can get their hands on. Have background checks and such when buying a weapon to try keeping weapons out of the hands of known criminals or mentally unstable people but don’t make it impossible for others to attain weapons that they might need to defend themselves from criminals. There are to many options to kill/main others that there’s no need to keep guns from the majority of citizens. This has nothing to do with party affiliation either it’s just a plain fact is that there are people out of control in every level of society; rich, poor, from every race, religion or gender. You can kill someone with a homemade slingshot if you practice your aim enough, use poison or just take the car and run them down.
(1)
(0)
SSG Ray Elliott
I'm fine with responsible gun ownership, and law abiding adult citizens with no history of mental illness should be able to get and own guns if they want them. I do think that some concessions can be made, and there could be a standard national gun law. It is already illegal for private citizens to own some weapons, and would it really be too much to ask that we on a national level ban things like pump stocks that make semi-automatic weapons fire similarly to automatic ones. it also isn't giving up much to ask for a universal and nationwide system for background checks. We did this a number of years ago with commercial drivers licenses, and it has made our highways safer because commercial drivers couldn't hold drivers licenses from multiple states. I hear very few on the left asking for the abolition of ones right to own a gun, I do hear them asking for common sense national gun laws to avoid people going across state lines to buy a weapon they can't get in their own state.
(0)
(0)
SMSgt Shawn P
SSG Ray Elliott - there is already a national background check for all purchases made by anyone that derives their income mostly or wholly from the sales of firearms; it is called NICS. Drivers licenses are an example of a right ceded to the many states for revenue collection. Said revenue was supposed to fund the registration processes as well as build and maintain our road system. Driving on public roads has become a privilege. The right to bear arms is guaranteed, not granted, by our Constitution! People on the left like Robert O'Roruke, Michael Bloomberg and host of others are indeed asking for the turn in of firearms
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google