Rant "...die for your country at 18..." STFU

[metalheadjoe 10+ year member]

You show me anywhere in the founding documents where it's implied that there should be a 2 tier system of rights...our rights ARE NOT granted by the government btw...they are inalienable...

You missed the point of this conversation. Read my initial post a few times.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

I have read your initial post...you brought up a 2 tier system for exercising one's rights...you show me where the founders wanted some to be more equal in the expression of any of the rights cleary laid out then everybody else...I agree with hiding behind others service as a reason for feeling entitled to our rights is wrong...just as those that serve have many reasons why they did/do, there are many reasons why people don't/can't...none of those reasons on either side grants more or less depth to their rights...

 

[metalheadjoe 10+ year member]

I have read your initial post...you brought up a 2 tier system for exercising one's rights...you show me where the founders wanted some to be more equal in the expression, of any of the rights cleary laid out, then everybody else...

The primary point I tried to make is that people shouldn't use military service as a comparison to gun rights.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

I absolutely agree with that...the two aren't connected...

 

[Rodek 10+ year member]

I'm a 22 year Active Duty retired veteran. While serving I was trained on many weapons and weapon systems. When being trained how to use weapons I learned the weapons history, design, limitations and abilities. Before being able to utilize the weapon I had to learn how to disassemble and assemble it. Additionally I had to learn how to properly load it, aim it and shoot it while maintaining strict safety. I had to shoot well enough to qualify to use the weapon for its intended purpose. I was presented multiple scenarios in which the weapon could need to be utilized and had to demonstrate my decision making ability in varying situations. Finally I learned how to make sure the weapon was safe when finished firing it then I had to clean, maintain and store the weapon. I was then responsible for the weapon and its use. I was issued a card with my certification on the weapon and I had to requalify on the weapon every year or before deploying in the event the weapon was to be used. My point to all of this? My opinion is that in order for anyone to own a weapon I feel as if the person should firstly pass a back ground check and then they should attend similar training in order to own, operate and ensure its safe operation. You know..... similar to getting your driver's license. To make things even safer...maybe require people who own/operate a weapon to require some sort of liability insurance. If a self defense issue arises you're trained, your weapon should operate and in the event of an "accident" you have insurance. If self defense if warranted you have proof that you're qualified to operate the weapon.

 

[audiobaun 5,000+ posts]

I know they don't have more rights, which is how you phrased your response. I didn't ask who has more rights. My point is that they should. Just like how the hunters who make the kill get to eat first.

I make sure my family eats first even if i make the kill , dress, and cook.

 

[deez283 10+ year member]

I make sure my family eats first even if i make the kill , dress, and cook.

Same here.

 

[audiobaun 5,000+ posts]

I'm a 22 year Active Duty retired veteran. While serving I was trained on many weapons and weapon systems. When being trained how to use weapons I learned the weapons history, design, limitations and abilities. Before being able to utilize the weapon I had to learn how to disassemble and assemble it. Additionally I had to learn how to properly load it, aim it and shoot it while maintaining strict safety. I had to shoot well enough to qualify to use the weapon for its intended purpose. I was presented multiple scenarios in which the weapon could need to be utilized and had to demonstrate my decision making ability in varying situations. Finally I learned how to make sure the weapon was safe when finished firing it then I had to clean, maintain and store the weapon. I was then responsible for the weapon and its use. I was issued a card with my certification on the weapon and I had to requalify on the weapon every year or before deploying in the event the weapon was to be used. My point to all of this? My opinion is that in order for anyone to own a weapon I feel as if the person should firstly pass a back ground check and then they should attend similar training in order to own, operate and ensure its safe operation. You know..... similar to getting your driver's license. To make things even safer...maybe require people who own/operate a weapon to require some sort of liability insurance. If a self defense issue arises you're trained, your weapon should operate and in the event of an "accident" you have insurance. If self defense if warranted you have proof that you're qualified to operate the weapon.

Ive owned my first gun at the age of 6 (22 riflle) theta my grandfather game me on my birthday. I learned how to take it apart, clean it, store it, shoot it, and rspect it. As time I grew, I bought and received others as well. Learned how to hunt for game for food as well. Later in life i earned my Concealed as well to carry, even though the Second Emen. of the Constitution states I have the right to bare arms. For Years many laws tried to take my rights away and I spent time and money to carry of which is no longer needed by law? Just because you have a liscense and or certification to carry and have been trained by the military doesnt justify that you are any more qualified to own an operate any gun that can legally be purchased or should make you any more superior than those that have been and owned guns for years. I am surely not dependent upon the law or a 911 call to be there in seconds to my defense while I am staring at the end of anothers barrel . I too was not accepted at the Age of 19, 23, and 26 into the military as I had an an issue with my knee that was torn up along with a couple bad disc in my back. Yet, I worked my azz off in the Piping Industry slamming in heavy pipe and crawling ladders, digging ditches by hand,stacking heavy valves ect, and was healthy as an OX in doing so for the next 25 years. I still do some today in even worse condition, that younger guys are too fkn lazzy to get off theyre azz and do. If you are Legal to purchase, then you should be able to purchase. why should you need a piece of 2x4 carded paper to justify your right to own? What an individual does in his or her own home and the choices they make are theyre own. How the hell are we to police millions of people who purchase and own even when there is a black market? Gun smuggling?Hell Drugs even?? Car theft, chop shops ect?? EBT and WICK card and SS scamms?? I do agree with a wait time to a background check before a gun purchase. I do think its a right thing to be completed and a restriction on those that have commited a crime in the past with a weapon of any kind to not have the legal oppritunity to purchase after time served.There are a lot of people in this country and others that respect to own and treat theyre weapon as well as to learn and use properly and take care of them, and use to provide food for theyre families. Those that shoot and kill out of no remorse should either never see the outside of prison or be put to death for theyre crimes when sentenced with due process.But just because you were in the military gives you no right to have access to more and beyond the people in general and above all. Ive earned my rights to carry and have as well as paid a very nice sum of taxes over the last 30 + years to the Government as well as City and State taxes, and still do for programs that I have no say so in, disapprove of or have any input within to either accept or reject. To me.. its just a lot of Political BShit to gain control of our freedom that we are entitled to. Even those that were not in the military certainly paid taxes and funds for military operations of which you so greatly got to experience from the tax payers at the expense of time served in hostility and non hostility situations, as well as got paid and still do for medical and the like that even the majority of tax payer cant afford on theyre own and having to pay extra to get those services. Most of these wars and the like have been proven to be the majority of political and more so of pure greed

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

those who protect our freedoms

You're in here advocating to restrict people's freedom, but I'll bite, what precisely did you do for my freedom? Would you say I'm more or less free now than I was before you did whatever you did? Did you actually take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States? Have you read it? Do you understand what it means?

Beyond that every man is supposed to register with selective service at 18 years old which means they are eligible to be drafted, handed a machine gun, and sent off to some meat grinder. Furthermore, all able bodied men between ages 17 and 45 are also by law part of the unorganized militia who can be called up by the legislature of the United States or the legislatures of any of the several states to repel invasion or suppress insurrection if needed. Source USC §246 and most states have their own provisions in law or their constitutions for their legislatures mobilizing their militias.

But either way, the entire premise of our nation is that all men are created equal, which is a concise way of saying that there is no lord, king, or knight who has more rights than the next bloke just due to gynecological happenstance of coming from the right family or having his nose up the arse of someone who did. Or in other words, if the King of England has some right that is a right of all free men, given by God.

I would argue that voting is far more dangerous than any infantry armaments and we should probably start aggressively restricting who is allowed to partake in that.

 

[deez283 10+ year member]

Where would it end?

Race car drivers not having to follow speed limits, since they have extensive training at driving fast?

 

[Rodek 10+ year member]

Ive owned my first gun at the age of 6 (22 riflle) theta my grandfather game me on my birthday. I learned how to take it apart, clean it, store it, shoot it, and rspect it. As time I grew, I bought and received others as well. Learned how to hunt for game for food as well. Later in life i earned my Concealed as well to carry, even though the Second Emen. of the Constitution states I have the right to bare arms. For Years many laws tried to take my rights away and I spent time and money to carry of which is no longer needed by law? Just because you have a liscense and or certification to carry and have been trained by the military doesnt justify that you are any more qualified to own an operate any gun that can legally be purchased or should make you any more superior than those that have been and owned guns for years. I am surely not dependent upon the law or a 911 call to be there in seconds to my defense while I am staring at the end of anothers barrel . I too was not accepted at the Age of 19, 23, and 26 into the military as I had an an issue with my knee that was torn up along with a couple bad disc in my back. Yet, I worked my azz off in the Piping Industry slamming in heavy pipe and crawling ladders, digging ditches by hand,stacking heavy valves ect, and was healthy as an OX in doing so for the next 25 years. I still do some today in even worse condition, that younger guys are too fkn lazzy to get off theyre azz and do. If you are Legal to purchase, then you should be able to purchase. why should you need a piece of 2x4 carded paper to justify your right to own? What an individual does in his or her own home and the choices they make are theyre own. How the hell are we to police millions of people who purchase and own even when there is a black market? Gun smuggling?Hell Drugs even?? Car theft, chop shops ect?? EBT and WICK card and SS scamms?? I do agree with a wait time to a background check before a gun purchase. I do think its a right thing to be completed and a restriction on those that have commited a crime in the past with a weapon of any kind to not have the legal oppritunity to purchase after time served.There are a lot of people in this country and others that respect to own and treat theyre weapon as well as to learn and use properly and take care of them, and use to provide food for theyre families. Those that shoot and kill out of no remorse should either never see the outside of prison or be put to death for theyre crimes when sentenced with due process.But just because you were in the military gives you no right to have access to more and beyond the people in general and above all. Ive earned my rights to carry and have as well as paid a very nice sum of taxes over the last 30 + years to the Government as well as City and State taxes, and still do for programs that I have no say so in, disapprove of or have any input within to either accept or reject. To me.. its just a lot of Political BShit to gain control of our freedom that we are entitled to. Even those that were not in the military certainly paid taxes and funds for military operations of which you so greatly got to experience from the tax payers at the expense of time served in hostility and non hostility situations, as well as got paid and still do for medical and the like that even the majority of tax payer cant afford on theyre own and having to pay extra to get those services. Most of these wars and the like have been proven to be the majority of political and more so of pure greed

I'm not saying an individual with military experience should have more rights and/or privilege when it comes to firearms. I'm not attacking your ideas and feelings toward the subject either. Quite the opposite is true. I actually have an open mind and value the opinions, life experiences and knowledge of others because I need those in order to make the world I'm responsible a better place for everyone I affect.

I agree....people who serve and those who do not/didn't serve should have the right to purchase a firearm. Military members after the draft volunteered to serve and protect the country and constitution just as I did. I don't want my rights infringed upon and I strongly defend protecting the rights of EVERY American. Everyone should be afforded the same rights afforded by our Constitution.

I also want a safer world in which we live so I'm willing to do my part by making some sacrifices and I'm willing to have some laws changed/amended in order to make our world safer. History has shown us that as time goes on, the world changes. Sometimes laws become outdated and need to be changed.

When I joined the service I was 18 and was shocked when I realized that there were so many countries in this world that laugh at Americans and their citizen's feeling of entitlement and their laughable ways of interpreting laws to fit their wants/needs depending on the current cultural situation. Many places have been established countries for THOUSANDS of years longer than 1776 and they know that very way of thinking doesn't work. Just like anything in life, we should learn from history and the experiences of others or we're doomed to repeat their mistakes. America is learning the hard way. The gun violence statistics don't lie.

You were fortunate to get the .22 at young age. Its wonderful to see that you were responsible enough to learn how to use/maintain and properly operate it. You also seem to have a solid work ethic which requires strong morals and values. You're the kind of person that makes the world a better place. My issue is that there are too many gun owners who lack sound ethics, morals, values, and life experiences. There are many more who weren't taught right from wrong and lack a proper parental figure. Our society/culture is who's raising these people based on their local environments. These are the people who, because its legal to do so, own firearms and in turn often times make the world more dangerous. I think we have the community responsibility to do something in order to alter the gun violence trends.

I'm not saying people who are legally allowed to purchase a firearm should be put through the ringer in order to own a firearm but maybe they should have some sort of minimal training in order to be a responsible owner. Maybe a written test that must be passed? You wouldn't need to carry a firearm license but there would be a record of you passing the test just like there's a record of your background check. You know, similar to the written portion of the Driver's license program.

Here's the main problem in my experience and in my extremely humble opinion. There are millions of irresponsible gun owners out there that own guns because its legal to do so. Just because something is legal to do doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

I think if a few more safeguards are put in place I can confidently say that our country will be safer and gun violence and crime will be lower. Associated crimes, weapon smuggling and other activities related to gun activity will be reduced.

Have an open mind when you read this: I have been in numerous countries both civilized and non-civilized. War torn countries, developing countries and even countries more socially advanced than the US. I've done some research and discovered what actually works in those countries across the world. I learned that we humans tend to have tunnel vision and only see what affects us in our own town/back yards. When we have an open mind and listen to the opinions, experiences and ideas of others from a wide range of people, we can more likely than not compromise and come to a resolution that betters everyone.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Interesting conversation.

I think Military/Ex-Military should only have to pass a background check and if no longer active, show reason for discharge. If the discharge was dishonorable then they should follow normal civilian laws below. I do not think they should be restricted on what types of firearms they can own as they have been typically trained to use firearms.

Civilians should have to pass background checks AND be certified to use and operate the firearm they are purchasing by way of a standardized training course specific to that class of firearm. Paid for by the person purchasing the firearm. Certification should last a specific length of time before needing to re-certify.

If the law says a person is an "legal adult" at 18 federally then owning a firearm starts at 18.

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

STOP USING OTHERS' SERVICE AS A REASON WHY *YOU* SHOULD HAVE MORE RIGHTS/PRIVILEGES!

I can't stand when people make the argument that "you can die for your country at 18, but..." Blah blah blah. Yes, you can, after months of initial entry training at a minimum. So you're suggesting you should be allowed to own weapons, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, et cetera after months of military-style training (military style meaning mass punishment, 16-hour days, constantly yelled at and belittled, no cell phones allowed, to name a few)? Do you still want to make that comparison?

I say again: STOP USING OTHERS' SERVICE AS A REASON WHY *YOU* SHOULD HAVE MORE RIGHTS/PRIVILEGES!

I believe veterans should be allowed to possess weapons that non-veterans are restricted from. If you want the same access, you can do your time in the service, or there should be equivalent courses available that you can pay to take. Think of it like a pilot license: a lot of pilots are prior-service and earned their wings in the military. If you don't have the balls to sign up, you can pay your way to earning your pilot license on the civilian side, but the military-trained pilots don't lose their license after they get out. Before you say it, military training is not "free". Ever heard of SERE school? That's one reason why civilians have to pay for their training. Military service and training is not fun.

There are absolutely risks that come with military service, up to and including death. Those who sign up either don't take the risks seriously or decide the benefits outweigh the risks. Nobody is forced to sign up for the service at 18, but those who voluntarily sign up do not do it for political reasons or to be used as a talking point for nerds in cargo pants. Nut up or shut up. Do the time if you want the rewards. Hell, signing up to shoot cool guns is far more admirable than signing up for tuition assistance!

You can't become president until you're 35. Devil's advocate says, "your brain isn't developed enough to make important decisions until you're 35, how can you be trusted to own guns at only 18?". Stupid logic? Yeah, so is the gun argument.

I'm pro-gun. I hold a concealed carry license. I have owned two AR15's. None of my guns have ever committed crimes. I'm a veteran, and I'm also anti-bullshit. If you can't provide substantial arguments, then shut the fuc* up. Analogies in general are eye-rollers. Analogies that politicize others' military service are just disgusting. NOBODY signs up to push an agenda, because four (or six or eight) years is a long time to be miserable to prove a point.

Rant over. Flame on!

you are simply advocating for classism

and remember, there are those of us who would love to serve our military but can not due to health reasons. Don't mean our rights should move up or down on a sliding scale.

 

[deez283 10+ year member]

I keep seeing mention of "trained to use a firearm" and such..

This makes no sense.. Your skill level is not the determining factor in weather you shoot up crowds/schools etc..

The cowards that do Shiit like this are scumbags with something wired wrong in their head..

Also just because a person served does not make them a saint that would never hurt anyone, There has been shootings committed by people who have served as well..

There is no group on earth immune from have evil people within.

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

I dont agree with requiring special training and or qualification either

this is just a backdoor for a gun registry and how many guns i own is not the governments business. Furthermore, this will just turn into a money generator charging civilians for classes, training, qualifications, etc. . . I shouldn't have to pay out the *** and jump through hoops just to observe my constitutionally protected right. And further more, this could lead to further burden on the poor who can barely scrape enough pennies together to get a means of protection. The last thing they need are all these other added on expenses.

how about we end the war on drugs and get rid of these worthless drug task forces. . then take that 680 billion a year spent on that worthless cause and just provide FREE TO THE PUBLIC gun education seminars and training.