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

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
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!
 

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
I don’t believe that people who have served in the military should have extra gun rights over non service people. All citizens have the same rights.
I assume you haven't served based on that opinion. Why should those who protect our freedoms not be treated better than those who enjoy our freedoms but won't fight for them?
 

dragon.breath

Senior VIP Member
10+ year member
Nov 22, 2007
877
206
Those Who served deserve our thanks and admiration. But they don’t have more rights than the rest of the citizens of the country.
 

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Those Who served deserve our thanks and admiration. But they don’t have more rights than the rest of the citizens of the country.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobbytwonames

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Should those trained on weapons have easier access to those weapons?
 

Clifff150

Senior VIP Member
10+ year member
Jan 10, 2012
2,367
892
I appreciate your service. I understand what you’re saying but I don’t think veterans should be allowed weapons non veterans can’t. I agree military will have more training and knowledge with guns for the most part though. Family friend tried joining the military but they rejected him because he had a physical issue yet he’s been climbing roofs and doing metal work for years after. I also know a veteran who unfortunately is mentally just not there but he doesn’t have a record.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: audiobaun

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
I understand that nobody will ever say they haven't earned their rights. That's the definition of entitlement, ie conflict of interest.

Please address my points if you respond.
 

dragon.breath

Senior VIP Member
10+ year member
Nov 22, 2007
877
206
You complain about people being entitled, then you want military people to be entitled to own things that the rest of the peons can’t. Sorry, but no. That would very quickly become people being first and second class citizens. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
 

spokey9

CarAudio.com Veteran
Apr 10, 2022
661
247
There's no reason any person should have more rights than anybody else...
 

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Any veterans care to speak up? Veterans should absolutely have more gun rights than non veterans. As I said, please address if you want to speak against me.
 

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
There's no reason any person should have more rights than anybody else...
Why shouldn't those who protect freedom have more privileges than those who enjoy freedom but won't defend it?
 

SlugButter

CarAudio.com Elite VIP
Nov 5, 2019
3,785
1,596
I don’t think creating dual class citizens is the answer to problems, but I see the overall point. People who aren’t in the military do contribute to our society. Not all, but most. Creating classes amongst citizens hasn’t really gone that well through history however,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clifff150

spokey9

CarAudio.com Veteran
Apr 10, 2022
661
247
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...
 

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
You complain about people being entitled, then you want military people to be entitled to own things that the rest of the peons can’t. Sorry, but no. That would very quickly become people being first and second class citizens. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
There is a difference between a sense of entitlement and earned privileges. Do you think people without college education should get degrees (because they're american)? Again, it sounds like you haven't served.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Latest threads