Posted on Jan 18, 2016
Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws
13.5K
550
247
21
21
0
RP Members do you agree with this? Should or would Veterans even consider leading this effort?
“I’ll be damned if the government takes away my Second Amendment right to protect my family.”
My friend, a fellow veteran, shared this opinion with me, one that I had heard many times during my five years in the Marine Corps. I truly sympathize with him. I understand why many people are skeptical about President Obama’s Jan. 1 announcement that he will bypass Congress in enacting stricter gun laws. Many military veterans, myself included, feel a need to protect those around them. As crazy as it seems, I think all of us secretly wish we could have been there and done something during the attack in San Bernardino, California, on Dec. 2.
But I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control. After all, the military’s standards for weapons safety are exceptionally high. Marine recruits train for weeks before ever firing a weapon, and must pass a fairly extensive background check before reporting to boot camp. I remember drilling constantly with my empty rifle in those first weeks of training. We learned everything about our weapons: how to assemble and disassemble them, the name of every part, how to clear, load and fire. We spent hours contorting our bodies into the most uncomfortable of shooting positions, aiming at practice targets. It is not until the seventh week of training that Marine recruits fire live rounds. (More in the article)
“I’ll be damned if the government takes away my Second Amendment right to protect my family.”
My friend, a fellow veteran, shared this opinion with me, one that I had heard many times during my five years in the Marine Corps. I truly sympathize with him. I understand why many people are skeptical about President Obama’s Jan. 1 announcement that he will bypass Congress in enacting stricter gun laws. Many military veterans, myself included, feel a need to protect those around them. As crazy as it seems, I think all of us secretly wish we could have been there and done something during the attack in San Bernardino, California, on Dec. 2.
But I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control. After all, the military’s standards for weapons safety are exceptionally high. Marine recruits train for weeks before ever firing a weapon, and must pass a fairly extensive background check before reporting to boot camp. I remember drilling constantly with my empty rifle in those first weeks of training. We learned everything about our weapons: how to assemble and disassemble them, the name of every part, how to clear, load and fire. We spent hours contorting our bodies into the most uncomfortable of shooting positions, aiming at practice targets. It is not until the seventh week of training that Marine recruits fire live rounds. (More in the article)
Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws
Posted from marinecorpstimes.com
Gun Control
Law
2nd Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 71
46
45
1
In general I try to respect the opinions of those who present reasoned arguments regarding Civil Rights (including the Civil Protection of Bearing Arms), and the Concept of Limiting those Protections "for the Greater Good" however the issue I run into is when one side fails to adequately educate themselves completely on the issue, or implies that the situation is more than it is.
This article uses phrasing that is either ignorant or disingenuous to do just that. The term "Assault Rifle" was used incorrectly, and although VERY common, it creates a real problem with dialog. Additionally, anytime someone says the words "common sense" it ends discussion, because with 320 million Americans, there is no such thing as common sense.
Finally, although the author of the article does bring up the fact that we are trained extensively before we are allowed to fire live rounds, he neglects to mention two important facts. First is that we are SWORN to the Constitution, and protecting it upon entering service. Second is that we are handed a weapon which we BEAR for the entirety of boot camp at the beginning of first phase.
The second amendment doesn't just protect hunting, or shooting, but also protects simple possession of arms.
This article uses phrasing that is either ignorant or disingenuous to do just that. The term "Assault Rifle" was used incorrectly, and although VERY common, it creates a real problem with dialog. Additionally, anytime someone says the words "common sense" it ends discussion, because with 320 million Americans, there is no such thing as common sense.
Finally, although the author of the article does bring up the fact that we are trained extensively before we are allowed to fire live rounds, he neglects to mention two important facts. First is that we are SWORN to the Constitution, and protecting it upon entering service. Second is that we are handed a weapon which we BEAR for the entirety of boot camp at the beginning of first phase.
The second amendment doesn't just protect hunting, or shooting, but also protects simple possession of arms.
(46)
(1)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
SP5 Christine Conley - "We will have lunatics with their little militias/gangs muddying the waters, because their ideas of what the issues are, will be different than others...
We have them now, they are called politicians.
We have them now, they are called politicians.
(1)
(0)
Maj Rob Drury
SP5 Christine Conley - The NRA is by far the biggest proponent of background checks. They just want them done properly; using an instantly available criminal database (extremely easy to create and maintain) that doesn't impede law-abiding citizens from purchase and doesn't keep a record of gun ownership. This way, gun purchases are "regulated," and ownership rights are not "infringed" per the 2A. BTW, without special licenses that are extremely difficult to obtain, true assault weapons are illegal to own and ALWAYS have been. Every "assault rifle" bill in existence bases its definition on what a gun looks like; not how it operates. I guess it falls in line with all liberal philosopy: pure appearance, false premise, and no substance.
BTW, my downvote was due to your appalling and inappropriate play of the race card against a segment of our society that has proven itself far more responsible and patriotic than most Americans.
BTW, my downvote was due to your appalling and inappropriate play of the race card against a segment of our society that has proven itself far more responsible and patriotic than most Americans.
(0)
(0)
Maj Rob Drury
"...once we got a black president, ...the bigots came out."
You bet they did; just as their leader in the White House wanted them to. The racial tensions today are, by and large, those strategically choreographed by BO and company. Class warfare is his weapon of choice, as he uses it and others to wage war on the greatness of this nation. You've got it backward.
You bet they did; just as their leader in the White House wanted them to. The racial tensions today are, by and large, those strategically choreographed by BO and company. Class warfare is his weapon of choice, as he uses it and others to wage war on the greatness of this nation. You've got it backward.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Alexander Climacoclark
Not quite so simple: "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." It states the right to bear arms, but that is not all there is to it.
(0)
(0)
Big difference is that owning a firearm is a right, whereas serving in the military is not. Seems totally unrelated. Marines in boot camp can't talk back to their drill instructor either. Does that mean we need to regulate the 1st Amendment any differently as well? I just don't see the connection.
(35)
(0)
SFC Justin Scott
MAJ Bryan Zeski - I wasn't going to guess if the number was right or wrong sir, I just don't like statistics that don't have a source listed. So, using your number from the CDC (rounded is fine, easier math, so I'll round mine too). According to the US Census, there were an estimated 319,000,000 Americans as of 2014 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html). According to a recent gallup poll, roughly 41% of Americans own a firearm (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx). This means that approximately 130,790,000 Americans own firearms. This equates to an accidental injury rate of .01%. So, with only 1/100th of a percent of firearms owners causing an accidental injury, where is this mythical pandemic?
I mean, heck, using the CDC once again (and the same numbers from above only substituting the gallup poll for dog ownership instead of guns which shows that it's at 47% of Americans) irresponsibility from dog owners results in a .22% chance of accidental injury meaning that dog owner irresponsibility is 22 times more likely to result in accidental injury than irresponsibility of firearms owners. Why isn't there a push to require dog owners be legally required to receive training?
I mean, heck, using the CDC once again (and the same numbers from above only substituting the gallup poll for dog ownership instead of guns which shows that it's at 47% of Americans) irresponsibility from dog owners results in a .22% chance of accidental injury meaning that dog owner irresponsibility is 22 times more likely to result in accidental injury than irresponsibility of firearms owners. Why isn't there a push to require dog owners be legally required to receive training?
(1)
(0)
COL Ross Green
CPT Carlos Santillan - Shows instead that you have not real understanding of history - the constitution barely made it through the first two presidencies. And assuming that any document should not be revised periodically is just plain ignorant!
(0)
(0)
COL Ross Green
Your comment "only be labeled a "Liberal Moron". is ignorant! And FYI we controlled the media despite the constitution - sedition act! Thinking that a document that was created by flawed men in the 1700s will never need to be revised is wrong headed. It does not mean we have to completely throw away all the principals that are in the Constitution, it means we should periodically revisit and revise as necessary. The founders did not get it right - if they had we would not have some many amendments - but with 50 states (something that the founders did not envision) the process for amendment is overly difficult - it is good that it is difficult just now so much.
(0)
(0)
SFC Justin Scott
COL Ross Green - While I don't agree with CPT Carlos Santillan's statements that the Constitution should never be mended, as a historian I can tell you with confidence that you have made some very flawed statements as well. The idea that there are Amendments is in no way indicative that "the founders did not get it right". If you read the writings of the authors of our Constitution, you will quickly find that they explained exactly why they gave future generations the ability to amend the Constitution. It is because they acknowledged that they could not account for everything that would be encountered in the future - be it technological advances or social issues that transpire / change. The founders didn't care that the US might eventually have "50 states [thus making] the process for amendment overly difficult". They didn't care if we somehow ended up with 1000 states. The process for amendment was made purposely difficult to ensure that the majority could not easily do something which would diminish the rights of the minority. There is a reason why the Founders gave the United States a Republic rather than a Democracy!
(2)
(0)
33
33
0
I am one of the "yield-no-ground" people that the author speaks of. Here's why, in as briefly as I can:
In each situation in the 20th century, when a government has imposed restrictions on firearms ownership without the express consent of the governed, that government has inexorably progressed from "common sense" to "protection of the greater good" to "registration" to "confiscation" to "oppression" of one or more groups of the governed.
I will yield NO GROUND because I know - and HISTORY TEACHES the aware - that the enemies of freedom begin with "oh, come on... you're over-reacting" and end with "get in the rail car".
Go ahead and call me a whack-job, an anarchist, a paranoid, delusional... go for it. I, for one, will not give an inch, because IF I'M RIGHT, that inch ends with Tyranny.
In each situation in the 20th century, when a government has imposed restrictions on firearms ownership without the express consent of the governed, that government has inexorably progressed from "common sense" to "protection of the greater good" to "registration" to "confiscation" to "oppression" of one or more groups of the governed.
I will yield NO GROUND because I know - and HISTORY TEACHES the aware - that the enemies of freedom begin with "oh, come on... you're over-reacting" and end with "get in the rail car".
Go ahead and call me a whack-job, an anarchist, a paranoid, delusional... go for it. I, for one, will not give an inch, because IF I'M RIGHT, that inch ends with Tyranny.
(33)
(0)
SPC Tanya Cummings Boozer
SP5 Christine Conley - I was replying to your original comment, which is...."If you give the Anti-Gun Liberals an inch on Gun Control before you know it they will get the odious 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" passed again" Did you forget that Reagan imposed this ban? How did it get assigned to Liberals?
Don't have the time, nor will I take anymore time, addressing this.
Have a nice day. :)
Don't have the time, nor will I take anymore time, addressing this.
Have a nice day. :)
(0)
(0)
SPC Tanya Cummings Boozer
SP5 Christine Conley - And I never insulted you; I'm sorry you took it that way.
(0)
(0)
SPC Christopher Jackson
steven, you're right. we have to apply the SAME give up no ground attitude that we did in the military.
(3)
(0)
Maj Rob Drury
Capt Lance Gallardo - "She [SP5 Conley] has no point. She often has no point; it's part of her charm." - Tom Cruise; "A Few Good Men"
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google