Military Officers NOT Supporting the Second?

[USMC - Retired]

While stationed in North Carolina, I was required by the local sheriffs office to obtain a "letter of authorization" from my CO before they would process a pistol purchase permit. When I asked the Col for such a letter he got an angry look on his face and told me to come back in a few minutes. When I returned he handed me a letter stating. "I, Col Shmuckatelli, do hereby authorize GySgt Hard Charger to excersise his god given rights, guarenteed by the Second Ammendment of the United States Contstitution, to purchase any firearm he so wishes." When I presented the letter to the clerk at the sheriffs office they thought it was a fake and called the command only to have the CO read them the riot act for wasting his time and questioning the honesty of a Marine. Gotta love the Corps and Mustang Officers!

 

[Delta608]

While stationed in North Carolina, I was required by the local sheriffs office to obtain a "letter of authorization" from my CO before they would process a pistol purchase permit. When I asked the Col for such a letter he got an angry look on his face and told me to come back in a few minutes. When I returned he handed me a letter stating. "I, Col Shmuckatelli, do hereby authorize GySgt Hard Charger to excersise his god given rights, guarenteed by the Second Ammendment of the United States Contstitution, to purchase any firearm he so wishes." When I presented the letter to the clerk at the sheriffs office they thought it was a fake and called the command only to have the CO read them the riot act for wasting his time and questioning the honesty of a Marine. Gotta love the Corps and Mustang Officers!

 

[Thin Black Line]

Yep, I get several nods of agreement from around the room and some of the other military officers are fully on board rejecting the second as well. Guns it seems are strictly for police and military. These are company and field grade officers.

I've had some opposite experiences in Iraq: an officer who was asked me
about how to build an AR15 from a kit when he redeployed home, another
who had a ccw and attended civilian gun club shoots back home (btw, this
officer was a female), another who thanked me for the extra shoulder holstser
I distributed from a care package because he planned on using it back home,
and plenty of other officers (reservists and NG) who had personal protection 9's
and regularly hunted back home.

So then I drop the proverbial bomb and say "If you are far right wing and don't support the second than the only belief system open to you is fascism." Could have heard a pin drop. And I really get some really blank confused looks. So I give a quick impromptu poli sci lesson and still get no where.

I've had that same response on THR when I bring up that we can't support
the individual right side of the 2A without getting as equally involved in how,
when and under what authority the government uses force from the collective
side (militia) of the 2A --by essentially surrending our involvement in one half
of it that we will lose the whole thing.

This nation is currently traveling two roads: one within our well-managed
so-called conservative rightwing courtesy of multinational corporations who
no longer have an allegiance to a sovereign America and the other within the
so-called liberal ivory tower of pseudo intellectualism courtesy of 19th century
retrograde socialist thought --and both are currently leading to fascism.

Both will require you to give up your guns in the end because your service to the
state requires it.

 

[Igloodude]

I'm probably one of the type of which you speak. Or rather, used to be. As a few others here have noted, there's a different mentality in the (peacetime) military about guns. Onboard ship, I 'qualified' with a 1911 annually in order to carry one on inport quarterdeck watches. That qualification taught me #1 - never remove it from the holster unless you intend to kill someone, and #2 - if you do absolutely anything with it besides point it downrange and pull the trigger, you'll instantly get thrown off the range in disgrace and your CO will get a nasty letter. Not a good path to getting comfortable with firearms.

The Second Amendment? I have a degree in Political Science from the Naval Academy, and I can tell you that if the Bill of Rights was ever reviewed in detail, it didn't stick. I wasn't necessarily a fervent gun-banner, but if asked I'd probably have disliked civilian ownership of guns.

Then while on shore duty in Alaska, my (ex-police dispatcher) wife introduced me to Bullseye Pistol. I ended up getting my own 1911, then got a CCW, and fairly quickly explored both the political and practical elements of gun ownership, and changed my tune. And oh by the way easily qualified for an Expert Pistol medal at a reservist ribbon shoot when my shipboard quals had me scraping by with a barely-passing score.

So no, I don't think the anti-2nd military officers are eeevil, I just think that their training and environment doesn't lead them to consider guns as anything but items to be strictly controlled and occasionally pointed at enemy troops.

 

[Pilgrim]

"Sir, I don't think Americans should have AK-47s and all that. What if there's like a civil war again or something, and we're fighting house to house? I could get shot by some civilian!"

You obviously picked the wrong side.

Pilgrim

 

[coltrane679]

At the risk of being accused of "not supporting the troops", especially during a time of "war" (even a dumb, undeclared--i.e. unconstitutional--one), why do people just assume people in the military are necessarily smarter, more virtuous, etc.? They are just like the general population in many regards: good and bad, well-informed and ignorant, etc., etc. They are also trained to accept authoritarianism in their daily life--soldiers, in reality, live in a semi-police state everyday; that is a part of the deal. The fact that some of them easily transfer this acceptance of "big government" to other aspects of our society is not surprising--they live under big government personified. They, just as much as anyone, need to be educated in the importance of out fundamental freedoms. The typical ignorance about vital constitutional principles that you encounter everywhere (e.g., "what are you worried about if you don't have something to hide?" regarding the 4th and 5th Amendments) is going to be found in the military, too. Why should the Second be any different?

 

[geekWithA.45]

Interesting, related bit.

John Farnam frequently makes the point that all the "cold range" rules, mandatory loadings and unloadings as you proceed in or out of the base, and all sorts of nonsense is designed to ensure that the American fighting man isn't actually armed outside of combat ops in a misguided effort to prevent ADs.

As a result, your average carry permit holder has more cumulative experience _actually_ being armed than your average infantryman.

 

[xd45gaper]

The military is governed not by the Constitution, but by the UCMJ.
Its like my Flight Chief used to tell me "Sgt. Bob, we're here to defend a Democracy, not to have one."

People in the military were civilians before they joined so, their views tend to reflect the views of the civilian population on the 2nd Amendment.

thats no joke! You have no rights when you are in the military lol only the ones the UCMJ give you and those are very far from FAIR!(just think if our society ever went into marshal law and every fell under the UCMJ!)


Just because they are officers does not mean they hate the Second. While im not a big fan of most of them they all do share diffrent views and opions about stuff


Example: we used to have a MMCO that was a Lifetime NRA member big hunter, very pro gun. etc. (well he used to be enlisted lol)

 

[cbsbyte]

I know quite a few people who severed in the military, most where drafted during Vietnam, though a few enlisted in college and became, Warrent officers, or Officers. One is even a retired rear Admiral. All of them are very anti-gun. There are only two that I know of that are pro-gun. One is a 86 year old WWII Army vet, and the other is an active duty Marine, who is despertley trying to get out of the service because of the Iraq war. Besides the Marine, I don't currently know any active duty military people. Maybe things have changed, but it seems that at least during Vietnam a good % of people who went into the military where anti-gun.

 

[Henry Bowman]

The Constutution and Bill of Rights are not something that you either believe in or don't believe in like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. It's real and says what it says. You can disagree with it and wish to change it or you may disagree with how it has been interpreted by various courts. But you can't simply choose not to believe in parts of it.

 

[LRRP11ACR]

Consider this point of view

This is my first post, but I felt that this was a topic that I may have something to speak about. I am a retired US Army Master Sergeant. I live in AZ and completely support the Second.

To me (and I suspect many other on the ground soldiers) it would have been a lot safer for us to do our jobs if those we were doing combat with were not allowed weapons. I'm refering to Viet Cong, Afgan rebels, Iraqi insurgants, etc.

Had that been the case the war in Iraq would have indeed been over the day President Bush landed on the carrier. That being said, is it so hard to understand why Military Officers would be against civilian possession of weapons. It also explains why many former service members are so diligent about the protection of the Second Amendment. We have seen first hand what a Government that controls weapon possession can achieve, and what armed civilians protecting their Country can do.

 

[.41Dave]

He has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution which he IS doing...

Really? How do you know? Just because he is in the military and carrying out the orders of politicians does not mean those orders are constitutional. Fer cryin' out loud, 90% of what our fed.gov does these days is unconstitutional.

How many laws have been passed that YOU DONT LIKE or changes in the Constitution but obey them anyway.... How on earth can you question his loyalty to his country WHILE IN UNIFORM because he doesn't agree with you regarding the 2nd...

Ok, several points here. Just because a law has been passed does NOT mean it is constitutional. In fact, many of them are not. As for questioning his loyalty to his country... I don't think anyone is calling the guy disloyal, and in any case, I think you have confused loyalty to the State with loyalty to country. You see, it is very possible to be a traitor to one's country while remaining loyal to the State/Regime/Government of that country. And can you explain to me why merely wearing a UNIFORM gets one a pass when it comes to questioning their understanding of the Constitution they swore to defend? Or do you believe "I was only following orders" is a valid excuse?

Let me see, he can die for your beliefs but he is not allowed his own...

You have built a straw man here. No one has said anything like that. At worst I think people are saying that he may not have thought very deeply on what exactly it was that he was swearing to support and defend, since he seems to hold beliefs that conflict with said document.

Why is it that some people have such deep reverence of the State that they virtually worship it and become very emotional whenever anyone serving that state and wearing it's uniforms, (be they military or police) is mentioned as possibly being anything other than pure, noble, superior in wisdom, virtue and Godliness, and ready to make sacrifices for a bunch of cowardly civilians that don't deserve such? From such attitudes are totalitarian hells made.

 

[roo_ster]

What .41Dave said, though I suspect we disagree on some particulars if we dig deep enough.

Interesting, related bit.

John Farnam frequently makes the point that all the "cold range" rules, mandatory loadings and unloadings as you proceed in or out of the base, and all sorts of nonsense is designed to ensure that the American fighting man isn't actually armed outside of combat ops in a misguided effort to prevent ADs.

As a result, your average carry permit holder has more cumulative experience _actually_ being armed than your average infantryman.

Ain't that the truth!

So much worry and effort spent trying to prevent ADs/NDs. Perhaps some more training with and every day carry of weapons might do the trick instead of not trusty Pvt Snuffy to carry his issue weapon.

 

[Delta608]

Let me remind you of your original message....

Hmmmm...forgive my ignorance, but does one not have to swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution apon enlistment or being commissioned as an officer?

Two words describe those who swear that oath and then not support the 2nd Amendment.

Oath breaker.

nuf said....Spitting or puking..Regarding a soldier in a uniform DEFENDING YOUR RIGHT TO PUT A BARF PICTURE referringto that very soldier.. Disgraceful...My last response...I wont play :banghead: in the mud with ya...

 

[VMI 1991]

As I am sitting in the Pentagon...

... responding to this post, I am trying to think of everyone on my last ship (A LHD in Norfolk) who could qualify as pro-gun. (The CO of a LHD is an O6, there are 5 O5s, and 60+ O4 and below.) Myself, a USMC aviator, and the Safety Officer (USN LT) were probably the only active shooters in the wardroom. We had a few (2-3) ENSs/LTJGs who liked to shoot.

I consider myself to be very pro-2A.

 

[USMC - Retired]

As I am sitting in the Pentagon...... responding to this post, I am trying to think of everyone on my last ship (A LHD in Norfolk) who could qualify as pro-gun. (The CO of a LHD is an O6, there are 5 O5s, and 60+ O4 and below.) Myself, a USMC aviator, and the Safety Officer (USN LT) were probably the only active shooters in the wardroom. We had a few (2-3) ENSs/LTJGs who liked to shoot.

I consider myself to be very pro-2A.

Get back to work Major! Dadgummed Officers, gotta watch over em every minute!

 

[Green Lantern]

"Elitism" is an ugly, sad thing....

 

[Sindawe]

Let me remind you of your original message....

Who are you directing this to?

How on earth can you question his loyalty to his country WHILE IN UNIFORM because he doesn't agree with you regarding the 2nd...

It is not the mans loyalty I question, but his character. I may be an odd bird out, but I take oaths VERY seriously, and give them greater weight than a legal contract. 'Specially since that oath apparently calls apons the oath sayers deity as witness.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Source: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

I see nothing there about picking and choosing which part of the Constitution those in the military may support, and which they may not. If the person swearing the oath (what ever that oath may be) cannot follow through, then they have no business making that oath. If they swear that oath, they are honor bound to follow through with it, no matter what their own personal opinion may be.

Those serving under arms have my respect and thanks, but that is not carte blanche to violate the very thing they say they defend.

 

[Green Lantern]

Those serving under arms have my respect and thanks, but that is not carte blanche to violate the very thing they say they defend.

+1

 

[Tequila jake]

I'm a retired USAF officer and I can understand--even though I don't agree with--the position of some officers (particulary USAF) who are against civilian ownership of firearms. Few USAF personnel, officer or enlisted, except for those in the sandbox, even come in contact with firearms on a regular basis, much less fire them. And I'm willing to bet that there are many Army, Navy, and Marine personnel who had little exposure to firearms prior to joining the military. Consequently, they associate firearms use only with the military.

BUT, as has been so eloquently stated, military personnel are supposed to uphold the Constitution--all of it, including the 2nd Amendment.

I suppose the reason that I am a gun enthusiast, owner, shooter, hunter is that I grew up in Texas and, even though I lived in the suburbs of Houston as a kid, practically every house had firearms in it.

Perhaps those military personnel who object to civilian ownership of firearms need to be reminded periodically of their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. And then they need to have explained to them the reason, and need, for the 2nd Amendment.

Tequila Jake

 

[Titan6]

Lots of food for thought

I do share some of dave41 and thin black line concerns which is the reason I threw the post out. It is possible that this is a combat arms vs non combat arms mindset, most of the officers I have associated with in the past decade are combat arms and these were all combat support guys that day. I guess when you hang around with people of a certain mindset for long enough you start thinking everyone you know thinks the same way you do.
Could also be the brother in law is frustrated by tour number three to the middle east and is still a little pissed that the Iraqi Army was allowed to disintegrate and disappear with about 500000 AKs that they still use on a daily basis to sometimes shoot at or near us. Because he did mention that as a factor (had some email traffic last week).
Don't know. I do know it is not the norm I am used to and it bothers me. I will also venture for those of you out there who don't think that it is the job of the military to defend the constitution domestically I would point you in the direction of the recent past to the civil rights struggle of the 60s. Since I am certain that there were some soldiers in that day that did not agree that the constitution applied equally to everyone and yet still supported it anyway maybe I am probably letting it get to me too much. The only thing I know for certain are where my loyalties lie and they are to my oath with the creators and owners of the constitution.

 

[Thin Black Line]

It is possible that this is a combat arms vs non combat arms mindset, most of the officers I have associated with in the past decade are combat arms and these were all combat support guys that day.

All the examples I cited were CSS --and mostly medical at that!

Get back to work Major! Dadgummed Officers, gotta watch over em every minute!

I don't know about VMI, but in Iraq when we had officers on the computer it
meant they were in between something bad happening...such as wounded or a
critical event debriefing....a bored web-surfing officer is a good thing.

 

[Speer]

We have seen first hand what a Government that controls weapon possession can achieve, and what armed civilians protecting their Country can do.

Here, here. Good post.

 

[SRFL]

This USAFR Major is a passionate supporter of the Second Amendment, gun owner, and NRA Life Member.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

It's interesting that the title of the original post was "military officers".

My dad did two tours in Vietnam, and a tour in the first Gulf War, as an elisted man. He was on Hueys in both, and his tours in Vietnam included one on gunships and the other on slicks. He's "seen it all", was shot down a few times, and has made comments like "I don't know what's worse, making casualties, or picking them up."

His younger brothers were both officers, and only served in the post-Vietnam cold war military.

My dad owns a pistol, my uncles don't understand why anyone would want to.

I think that many of the obersvations in this thread are correct. This attitude comes from elitism, and a misguided since of "controlling the danger and power that are firearms".

I'm proud of all of them, (and of you guys here that have served -- I'm a severly near-sighted engineer and would do no good in the military), I do wish more guys like my uncles would drop the elitism and see the relevance of the second.