Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws

[AUUSN 823]

]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.

Weapons safety is drilled into all Marines repeatedly throughout their service, starting in boot camp. Drill instructors make recruits pay dearly for every mistake. They are constantly on the prowl for recruits who leave their gun’s safety mechanism off or has their finger lazily on the trigger. The training is rigorous and stressful, but rightfully so.

Marines emerge from this kind of training with weapons proficiency and a deep respect for their deadly tools. They become very comfortable handling guns, and after leaving active duty many veterans choose to legally purchase guns for hunting, recreation or out of a desire to protect those around them.

But I have found that some of the same people who accept nothing less than perfect weapons handling from their fellow Marines have much lower standards for weapons safety in the civilian world. It seemed contradictory to me. Why did I have to go through such intense training and background clearance, when in some places you don’t even need a background check to buy a gun?

While I am concerned that America’s current gun laws are too relaxed, this does not mean that I oppose gun ownership. I believe that most gun owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens. I grew up in Utah — a state known for permissive gun laws — and I have always enjoyed shooting as a hobby. I have taken my younger sisters and my girlfriend to shooting ranges, and I taught them how to safely handle a gun the way the Marine Corps taught me. I do not believe that citizens who pass reasonable background checks and meet eligibility requirements should be prevented from owning guns.

But I must question the yield-no-ground attitude toward gun control that I have heard from many of my friends. Of course, we will never be able to prevent every gun crime or mass shooting, and criminals will always be able to obtain guns illegally. However, responsible gun owners should want to make it more difficult, not easier, for criminals and terrorists to obtain these weapons. Further restrictions on gun ownership would not prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Extensive background checks on gun purchases should be common sense, as should training requirements for concealed carry permits.

Most of us agree that we have a gun violence problem in the United States. There is no simple answer to this problem, and we cannot afford to pretend it is only a mental health issue, just as we cannot pretend it is only a gun law issue. But we can start by making it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns by requiring background checks on all gun purchases. We should be willing to at least consider other forms of gun control, such as prohibitions on military-grade assault rifles, like those used in San Bernardino. I support my friends in their desire to protect themselves and their loved ones, but I do not trust every person in America to own a gun. Veterans — with their weapons experience and training — have a responsibility to lead the fight for more secure gun laws.

http://www.marinecor...-laws/78851050/

[AURaptor 1,137]

Nothing in the constitution about " military grade " and " assault weapons

To the contrary, A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,, would suggest a right to own military grade weapons be protected, not infringed upon.

[JoeBags7277 760]

Nothing in the constitution about " military grade " and " assault weapons

To the contrary, A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,, would suggest a right to own military grade weapons be protected, not infringed upon.

\

But the fedgov's own Supreme Court ruled that that wasn't what the folks who founded fedgov meant when they said that. I mean, I just... feel like a world where fedgov doesn't give its stamp of approval to our rights is just scary. My feelz trump your natural rights.

[AUUSN 823]

Nothing in the constitution about " military grade " and " assault weapons

To the contrary, A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,, would suggest a right to own military grade weapons be protected, not infringed upon.

How about stinger missile launchers? RPGs? Why stop at assault weapons?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Nothing in the constitution about " military grade " and " assault weapons

To the contrary, A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,, would suggest a right to own military grade weapons be protected, not infringed upon.

How about stinger missile launchers? RPGs? Why stop at assault weapons?

Not a fan of the Constitution ?

If Bill Gates or Ted Turner want such things on their land, why not ?

[JoeBags7277 760]

Nothing in the constitution about " military grade " and " assault weapons

To the contrary, A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,, would suggest a right to own military grade weapons be protected, not infringed upon.

How about stinger missile launchers? RPGs? Why stop at assault weapons?

Stinger missiles, RPG's, et.al., are impractical for traditional self defense purposes, to say the least.

There are two words/phrases people either get lost in in the case of the former or gloss over in the latter; "well regulated" and "free." Regulated did not mean in 18th Century vernacular what it does now. It meant to keep something regular- vibrant, free flowing, robust. Much the way we use the phrase vis a vis our digestive system. The founders wanted to ensure that free men could always be counted on to take up arms in defense of their free state. To do so, they prohibited any state restrictions on firearm ownership.

And back to that free state. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a 'free' state." Looking in context, it seems implausible to me that they thought to add that adjective willy-nilly. Is defense of the state paramount, or is defense of liberty? If the state no longer served its stated purpose to secure the blessings of liberty and had instead begun to encroach upon said liberty to the point it could no longer be considered a truly free state, wouldn't the founders have wanted the citizens to be as equally armed as their tyrannical government?

One more thing: To accept that those who wrote the 2nd Amendment did so not taking into account technological advances in weaponry would be to assume they wrote the 1st under the impression that people would always be writing on parchment paper with quill pens. That doesn't hold up, either.

[AUUSN 823]

Nothing in the constitution about " military grade " and " assault weapons

To the contrary, A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,, would suggest a right to own military grade weapons be protected, not infringed upon.

How about stinger missile launchers? RPGs? Why stop at assault weapons?

Stinger missiles, RPG's, et.al., are impractical for traditional self defense purposes, to say the least.

Dont you go stomp'n on ma rights!

[AURaptor 1,137]

Uncle Joe says we should all own shotguns, and nothing more.

Imagine fighting the Russians with just shot - guns, in a Red Dawn scenario.

Fair enough. A well regulated militia will not allow RPG's, or shoulder fire Ground to Air missiles. , but will allow " assault - style " firearms.

Agreed ?

[AUUSN 823]

Uncle Joe says we should all own shotguns, and nothing more.

Imagine fighting the Russians with just shot - guns, in a Red Dawn scenario.

Shotgun is a perfect home defense weapon. That's what he was talking about. It's outstanding in close quarters.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Red dawn scenario. Like the movie lol. Yeah right .

And shotguns are hands down the best weapons for close quarters combat.

[homersapien 12,860]

Red dawn scenario. Like the movie lol. Yeah right .

And shotguns are hands down the best weapons for close quarters combat.

Don't kid yourself.

"Red Dawn" exactly represents the sort of fantasy that largely motivates the purchases of assault-style military weaponry.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Enemies, both foreign and domestic.

[alexava 6,998]

I have a friend very conservative , two tours in Iraq. He is very much in agreement with this argument posted here. He used some of the same logic two years ago when discussing this issue. If the bulk of the right would remove their collective heads from the rectum of the NRA and at least rinse some of the Batshitcrazyness out of their eyebrows we could all get along.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

The new gun laws are going after the wrong people. Most should know that criminals are not purchasing their weapons from gun shows or standard methods...there are gun runners out there that are buying multiple weapons from dealers and then selling them on the street to the criminals. This is where the efforts should be and not targeting ordinary gun owners. I am a veteran and have no problems with people owning AR-15s etc. Our main problem in this country with the improper use of guns is in criminal hands in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, etc....however, the press doesn't press this as much as a mass shooting. People calling for major guns laws post Sandy Hook or San Bernardino nothing proposed or on the books would have stopped the perps in those cases. All of the weapons purchased were legally purchased. Remember that California has the strictest gun laws on the books...so When I hear more people call for more laws then it makes me wonder if they know the current gun laws, are swept up by the media blitz and don't know that much about the laws or do they believe that no one should own a gun. I have relatives that believe no one should own a gun and believe that guns are evil. Of course they have grown up in areas where there aren't any problems and they haven't been robbed or mugged.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I have a friend very conservative , two tours in Iraq. He is very much in agreement with this argument posted here. He used some of the same logic two years ago when discussing this issue. If the bulk of the right would remove their collective heads from the rectum of the NRA and at least rinse some of the Batshitcrazyness out of their eyebrows we could all get along.

Well said.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I have a friend very conservative , two tours in Iraq. He is very much in agreement with this argument posted here. He used some of the same logic two years ago when discussing this issue. If the bulk of the right would remove their collective heads from the rectum of the NRA and at least rinse some of the Batshitcrazyness out of their eyebrows we could all get along.

Well said.

Maybe well said, but it's wrong.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I have a friend very conservative , two tours in Iraq. He is very much in agreement with this argument posted here. He used some of the same logic two years ago when discussing this issue. If the bulk of the right would remove their collective heads from the rectum of the NRA and at least rinse some of the Batshitcrazyness out of their eyebrows we could all get along.

Well said.

Maybe well said, but it's wrong.

nope

[Mikey 16,781]

What good is it to pass more meaningless laws?

Observers claim that Chicago's South Side sounds like a war zone after dark. Those are criminals illegally in possession of firearms. Go in there and start arresting people by the hundreds and then I might listen to talk of more gun laws. Until government demonstrates the will to enforce what laws we already have, any new laws are nothing but useless political posturing.

[Guest NC1406]

Personally I agree a shotgun is the best defense at close range but honestly if you are using a shotgun then the threat has already gotten too close. I prefer my dogs keep them at rifle range. Outside the home everyone is too close so I carry a handgun.

[japantiger 4,279]

What good is it to pass more meaningless laws?

Observers claim that Chicago's South Side sounds like a war zone after dark. Those are criminals illegally in possession of firearms. Go in there and start arresting people by the hundreds and then I might listen to talk of more gun laws. Until government demonstrates the will to enforce what laws we already have, any new laws are nothing but useless political posturing.

Wow, this makes way too much sense...

As for those here, especially the liberals touting the virtue of the shotgun, the most common long weapon used in murders in the US is the shotgun (per the FBI crime database). So, if your motive is really to cut down on murders, you should advocate for more restrictions on shotguns than AR15's....but, this really has nothing to do with cutting down on murders now does it boys...this is all about control. I really don't understand how you clowns are driven to distraction by the AR15....there are under 400 murders committed annually with any form of long gun...and, again, more with a shotgun than any other long gun. If we really cared about human life, we would begin policing in the 10 Urban centers responsible for 85% of all murders like we really mean it...but, we can't do that can we boys...because if we did, we'd have to admit what the real problem is....and neither party wants to do that.

[alexava 6,998]

What good is it to pass more meaningless laws?

Observers claim that Chicago's South Side sounds like a war zone after dark. Those are criminals illegally in possession of firearms. Go in there and start arresting people by the hundreds and then I might listen to talk of more gun laws. Until government demonstrates the will to enforce what laws we already have, any new laws are nothing but useless political posturing.

i agree with most of this. My views are we need to be tougher on crime especially drugs which is the root of it all. But the newest laws are not going to affect me at all. Unless you sell guns at gunshows or you are mentally ill they won't affect you either. I don't get how people can be against any gun law no matter how it affects or don't affect them.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

What good is it to pass more meaningless laws?

Observers claim that Chicago's South Side sounds like a war zone after dark. Those are criminals illegally in possession of firearms. Go in there and start arresting people by the hundreds and then I might listen to talk of more gun laws. Until government demonstrates the will to enforce what laws we already have, any new laws are nothing but useless political posturing.

i agree with most of this. My views are we need to be tougher on crime especially drugs which is the root of it all. But the newest laws are not going to affect me at all. Unless you sell guns at gunshows or you are mentally ill they won't affect you either. I don't get how people can be against any gun law no matter how it affects or don't affect them.

More laws will not fix the problem. You have to start enforcing the laws that are already on the books before people will support new laws and the current proposals haven't stated specifically what crimes this would cut down or which events that have happened over the past several years would this had prevented. The majority of gun crimes happen with hand guns that are bought off the street from guys who buy them legit through gun shops not gun shows. They buy large quantities and then go to places like Chicago etc and sell them on the street. Listen to ATF agents who have been saying the same thing over and over for years. And when our own admin ran a gun running business that killed one of our DEA agents in mexico along with allowing the sale of a 50 cal to ultimately end up in the hands of el chapo...people like me thinks that they can't enforce current laws because they are breaking them so don't allow them any more control until they clean up their act or a new admin can get into office.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I have a friend very conservative , two tours in Iraq. He is very much in agreement with this argument posted here. He used some of the same logic two years ago when discussing this issue. If the bulk of the right would remove their collective heads from the rectum of the NRA and at least rinse some of the Batshitcrazyness out of their eyebrows we could all get along.

Well said.

Maybe well said, but it's wrong.

nope

Yep. Why ? Because it ignores the fundamental reason why we HAVE the right to bear arms, as a free people. This has nothing to do w/ the NRA, as much as those on the Left would LOVE to make it the case, but it simply doesn't.

I'm not a member of the NRA. I pay no $ to that outfit,but I am glad they have taken up in defense of a right which ALL Americans have, and were intended to have, as recognized by our Founders.

[alexava 6,998]

What good is it to pass more meaningless laws?

Observers claim that Chicago's South Side sounds like a war zone after dark. Those are criminals illegally in possession of firearms. Go in there and start arresting people by the hundreds and then I might listen to talk of more gun laws. Until government demonstrates the will to enforce what laws we already have, any new laws are nothing but useless political posturing.

i agree with most of this. My views are we need to be tougher on crime especially drugs which is the root of it all. But the newest laws are not going to affect me at all. Unless you sell guns at gunshows or you are mentally ill they won't affect you either. I don't get how people can be against any gun law no matter how it affects or don't affect them.

More laws will not fix the problem. You have to start enforcing the laws that are already on the books before people will support new laws and the current proposals haven't stated specifically what crimes this would cut down or which events that have happened over the past several years would this had prevented. The majority of gun crimes happen with hand guns that are bought off the street from guys who buy them legit through gun shops not gun shows. They buy large quantities and then go to places like Chicago etc and sell them on the street. Listen to ATF agents who have been saying the same thing over and over for years. And when our own admin ran a gun running business that killed one of our DEA agents in mexico along with allowing the sale of a 50 cal to ultimately end up in the hands of el chapo...people like me thinks that they can't enforce current laws because they are breaking them so don't allow them any more control until they clean up their act or a new admin can get into office.

how do you feel about alcohol sales to minors. The 21 age limit.

[cooltigger21 0]

If the administration is serious about stopping gun violence then they should direct the justice department to vigorously prosecute those individuals who do commit those crimes. Any U.S. attorney that doesn't want to can be dismissed at any time the President wishes. Don't go selling 50 caliber machine guns to Mexican drug cartels would be a nice help too.