Should we assume instead that you were closely observed and extensively trained for several months before you were sent?
You can assume whatever you like. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you haven't spent any time in uniform. This is not meant as a dig; you just don't seem to have a grasp of how the military currently works. When I think of supervising a juvenile with a gun, I picture being on a range ensuring that safety rules are followed at all times and shooting with the goal of improving marksmanship and having a good time. What I just got back from doing in Afghanistan involved "supervising" from up to 100 miles away for small teams. By title I was their supervisor, but I couldn't check their chambers and tell them where to point the guns even if I wanted to.
Just because folks of a higher rank are around doesn't automatically make them supervisors to others, nor will they act as such. This can be a good thing. A full bird colonel wearing a shoulder holster down to his knee isn't someone I want giving tactical directions to my guys.
Whatever, when you got there the U.S. issued you a rifle and a grenade launcher.
Were you then free to take those weapons and go where you wished?
You'd be surprised. Much like now, I can't carry in prohibited places stateside. I couldn't take a care load of buddies with long guns and cruise down to Mexico. However, that doesn't mean that I'm supervised by my local constabulary and by the Border Guards. Basically, I'm saying that having restrictions placed on one's movement and use of property by an authority figure is not tantamount to supervising.
No, we did not just hop in a vehicle and roll randomly through the countryside. However, this had nothing to do with my "supervisors," as I wouldn't find such a move advisable under any circumstances in Iraq at that time. Same with Afghanistan. I never told my guys "Don't go off on your lonesome for a joyride." There's still a handful of folks left with a shred of common sense I guess.
If I'm wrong I apologize, but sorry, I don’t believe it.
It's the internet. Making believers in anything by this medium isn't a goal of mine.
And did you notice that before you left Iraq you had to return the weapons?
And did you note also that, in general, you are not allowed by the military to carry any weapons anywhere in the U.S. (yes, there are exceptions, they are few).
Actually, I didn't notice that. Weapons were issued a couple months prior to deployment and turned in when we got back. Same thing this time around.
Quote:
Without your prejudicial laws, I may have been exposed to alcohol below the arbitrary age of 21; this would have been terrible as nothing could have possibly prepared me for that.
So what exactly are you saying?
All arbitrary age laws are wrong?
Would you let all 19 year olds buy beer or carry a gun? All 16 year olds?
You seem to be saying yes, but I can't believe you really mean that. Wherever you draw the line, it’s arbitrary.
I'm saying, as many others have, that I met plenty of folks both military and civilian of a broad age category who ought not be allowed to handle weapons, and plenty of younger folks both military and civilian whom I would trust 100% with a weapon. Briefly thinking about it now, I would say that yes, I believe that all arbitrary age laws are wrong. Can you safely pass a written and practical driving test? Get a license. Don't want your child abusing alcohol as a youngster? Try actually being a parent and see if that works. Voting I would take a different angle to: Must own property, have given of civil or military service, or be employed to the point of self-sufficiency (no welfare recipients). I don't believe that those who are in the best position to drive the system into the ground to give themselves a leg up deserve to be piloting the ship. Contractual obligations are the one thing I can't immediately develop an alternative to; perhaps it doesn't need one as we've gone into a different realm. Certainly a 6 year old or a person adjudicated mentally defective should not be entering into contracts.
Bottom line, I fundamentally disagree with arbitrary age laws.
Quote:
I can't wait until I reach the age of 40 so I can recognize my own maturity to the point of dictating an arbitrary age for others. It'll be great fun, eh chums?
Last try. Those ‘prejudicial arbitrary’ age rules exist for sound reasons. In general they are right and their wisdom is proven by experience. If you’ll notice, they are only bypassed where circumstances allow for carful, extended training and screening. Giving every 18 y/o who asks for one a gun permit doesn’t qualify. For those states which allow it, well we just disagree. I'd make it 21 minimum and require real training and background checks.
I never received any of the careful, extended training and screening that you describe when I got my permit at 19. I got it the same way everyone else did in a shall issue state, meet the minimum requirements, pay the fee, and wait by the mailbox.
We've reached a point in the debate where we can cross from the philosophical to the evidential. Since you're making the claim that the laws exist for good reasons, please provide some examples. If you are making your case as a man of logic, and believe that folks 18-21 should not carry, I'm looking for a list of incidents from you that specifically shows 18-21 year olds with carry permits abusing the government-regulated privilege.
Slamdunk case on your part if you can provide this.
Also, for your situational awareness, if you look at many European countries where alcohol age limits are very low, unenforced, or non-existent, you'll find that they have lower rates of youth alcohol abuse than we do in the States. I suspect there are other factors at play here (culture being a big one both in practice and in the implementation of the laws, for example). However, arbitrary age limits will not protect people from themselves any more successfully than drug laws have.
