Discussion in 'Legal' started by the iron horse, Jul 15, 2007.
I certainly hold our veterans in high regard. My son served, and my father was career Navy. (I'm the odd one out, but only because I flunked the physical trying to enlist.) But a lot of good reasons have been put forth why this is not a good idea. I second them all.
America has no royalty class and soldiers are not gods
Not all soldiers serve or are trained for combat many are simple mechanics and cooks with little to no weapons training after basic
I went to the range about every six months, if I could not scam out of it
What training I did have taught me to shoot anyone wearing the wrong clothes
Any soldier that would agree with this idea is not worthy of wearing the uniform
Before I ever stepped on the yellow footprints I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution. One of the basic priciples of that document is that ALL men are created equal and should be treated as such under the law. I would be against any special treatment for veterans just as I am against it for LEO's, Elected Officials, Judges etc. Of course I'm also one of those crazy folks that also believes that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! I do believe a license with taxes attached being required to excersise a constitutional right is an infringment.
Even though such a proposal would benefit me, I would say no.
If other Californians cant carry, there's no reason I should be able to simply cause I was in the Marines. Hell, I only fired the pistol for one week in the Marines. They needed an extra armory custodian so I had to go to pistol qual. If it wasnt for that, I would have never touched a pistol in the Marines.
I was in the Navy in Nam. We had no training in small arms. I owned guns since I was six years old and could strip a 45 quicker than most who carried one. We shot 8 .22 bullets in boot camp from a bolt action and a mag worth of 45 into the water at sea. That was it.
I'm a vet, served 10 years active, 10 inactive reserve and 7 active reserve as an Air Force MedicalOfficer. Yes a lot of service personnel do not receive adequate small arms training. While active duty I only qualified with M-16 while in basic and with 38 revolver while in OTS. Later when in active reserve, only once a year with 9mm (m-92 I think) handgun.
Remember, there are some vets out there with a mindset like Timothy McVeigh. Do we want them as "legal" concealed carriers? Yes they will probabley carry anway, but not with our blessings.
Most vets have no idea about the laws and responsibilities of carrying a gun for SD let alone how to shoot. That is the training that is sorely missed.
I don't agree with special "rights" for vets and I am one.
I disagree with the special rights as well and I extra special disagree with the elected officials being on that list to start with.
A government of the people, for the people, by people that tell them what to do!!
In Virginia they already can just pay the fee. But also any hunter safety course is sufficent as well.
In Texas you don't have to pay the fee anymore but have to go to the class.
This may be true but I am against the "requirement" to take a class even though it is a good idea. CCW classes are a relatively new invention and people got along just fine without them in years past. I am in favor of a return to open carry with no lic.
What training and understanding of the responsibilities of carrying a gun do you think a Vet is lacking? Just a thought but when is the last time you were in a combat zone and have been in a shoot or be shoot confrontation? OH thats right a paper BG target with a gun and some mall ninja teaching the course is superior.
#1 Your life needs it you use it, you pull it you shoot it. Whats so hard with that?
This isn't theater we are talking about here. Maybe you should take a course before you judge and dismiss it.
I am detecting a hint of sarcasm but it's an interesting concept. Consider this, no class of citizen contributes more to any country than farmers. Without farmers civilization would be absolutely impossible, civilization itself is an agricultural product. Yet farmers are constantly getting pushed around by the gov. Probably because most are so busy working hard to make sure you get to eat.
To hear some people talk you'd think the police and military use convicted criminals or captured enemies as targets in all their training and constantly conduct live fire force on force training. Truth is both shoot at a lot more paper and plastic than they ever do at badguys. You'd also think every day after BCT/AIT was a shootout and it was all one shot/one kill. One might even get the impression that a handgun was a primary battle implement.
Conversely you'd think every civilian lived in some kind of peaceful, perfectly safe utopian Pleasantville.
Somewhere along the line it seems everybody forgot where soldiers and police come from and how they became soldiers and police. It ain't by magic. Every man jack of them is a civilian who passed some courses.
Actual experience and ability is an individual matter.
After all, the Second Amendment doesn't fully apply to the peasants in this country.
Uh-uh. Vets are citizens just like everybody else.
I think every citizen should be exempted from all CCW training and be allowed to carry anything, anywhere unless they have been specifically adjudicated a full felon or completely nuts.
As far as vets, military service doesn't mean you know anything about firearms beyond the minimal training in basic. In some branches you may not even know that much.
As I'm sure you know, we have laws in place for CCW in many states. In my state, everyone must sit through a class that details the use of deadly force, where and when you may/may not carry, etc. in order to obtain a permit. My point being that it is both unwise and unfair to create a special group of people who are essentially above the law and are not required to follow the same carry laws (or know when use of force is appropriate) as everyone else.
If you want to profess how everyone should be able to carry, anytime, anwhere, go right ahead. I won't argue. But, I do not appreciate your remarks as if I was some anti-gunner who wants CCW strictly regulated - I neither said nor implied such a thing, only replied directly to the topic specifically listed in the OP/thread title.
I concur with Art.
Like others have said. As a vet, I swore an oath to the Constitution, and such an idea is as repugnant to that Constitution as are any of the countless other infringements foisted upon the citizenry. It doesn't say anything about the "right of the militia", or "the right of the state", or "the right of the United States". It protects the right of the "people". While that may sound extreme, to suggest anything else is just silly.
Yup, and so should any other citizen who choses to.
I think "davec" in post #3 said it best, there should be no special class, or special privilege.
The new guy "uneasy_rider"said
I would have to agree. I prefer Open Carry myself, If I had a handgun you would see it plainly on my hip.
What special training does one need to hide that same gun under a coat?
Separate names with a comma.