- Oct 21, 2007
- 1,456
- 735
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!
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!
