A Navy vet's case for gun control

[1775usmarine]

I was a marksmanship coach back in the corps. I believe in gun control as well: Get your dam finger off that trigger till your ready to fire and put that weapon on safe Marine. GET OFF MY FIRING LINE !!!!!!!

 

[edporch]

Another case of "I'm all for the right to bear arms, buuut"


A Navy Vet?s Case for Gun Control - The Daily Beast


These are the kind of people that really scare me. And I think they can do more to damage our rights than even MDA or Everytown, because these are actually gun owners and shooters calling for gun control. And the ever-present "it's for the children" BS.

The guy in the story is an elitist moron.

He's an elitest because he believes his background will give him a "pass" of some sort.

And a moron because he doesn't see that required classes will be used as a "gatekeeper" to prevent anybody "the powers that be" don't want having a firearm.
"Gee, sorry. The classes are already filled for this session".

I remember many years ago, I saw on TV a group debate with several present and former police chiefs from across the country on gun control.

When the subject of required training and qualifying was brought up, one of the moderators even brought up the idea of training classes being "unavailable", and qualifying standards being too high for most people to pass as a vehicle to disarm people.

To which some of the left wing police chiefs slyly laughed and shook their heads in affirmation.

 

[miguel]

Sorry, we have more than a few *******s.

Just kidding!

Of all the retired service members I personally know, the Navy guys seem to have their wits about them best. My cousin was a submarine guy back in the day. (80s)

Anyone who is man enough to get on a boat -- sorry, they always correct me, SHIP -- and cross the ocean kicks ass in my book. But I am just a land lubber, so what do I know!

 

[chipbennett]

Oh, this should be fun...

If you feel, like the fringe gun lobby does, that my 6 year-old son's life is less important than your right to own whatever firearm and ammunition you want, then say that.

Well, you really start off with a bang (no pun intended), with a false dichotomy. Whatever guns I own lawfully will have zero impact on your son or his life. Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens will not help protect the life of your son.

However, I believe that our society is overflowing with lethal weapons and that we must take action to prevent more dead kids.

People are dying not because our country is overflowing with guns, but because our country is overflowing with *criminals*. Restricting the rights of the law-abiding will do nothing to curtail the violence and crime perpetrated by criminals.

Mass shootings are on the rise.

No, actually, they're not.

Children are dying. When will it be enough to actually do something?

Children are dying at the hands of medical professionals. When will it be enough to actually do something?
Children are dying in car crashes. When will it be enough to actually do something?
Children are dying in swimming pools and bathtubs. When will it be enough to actually do something?

Licensing, to be renewed every five years with full background checks and mental health screenings, is the first step.

What other constitutionally protected, natural right should be subjected to periodic background checks and mental health screenings before law-abiding citizens can exercise them?

And what past crimes would have been prevented by such a measure? There are 11-12 million adults who currently have licenses to carry concealed weapons. They commit crime of all kind at a rate an order of magnitude less frequently than even law enforcement officers. How is placing such burdens on the demonstrably law-abiding going to reduce crime in any manner whatsoever?

Adding a checkbox to a driver's license and another form would make this easy to implement. My driver's license tells folks that I am a donor; it could very easily also indicate whether or not I am a gun owner or authorized to carry concealed firearms.

Whether or not someone is a gun *owner* is nobody's business. So long as licensure is required to exercise a constitutionally protected, natural right, I have no problem with simplifying said licensure. (But the fact remains: a right that requires a government permit has been reduced to a mere privilege.)

Before you tell me how I am violating your rights by proposing a record of gun owners, note that the constitution does not say that you have the right to bear arms and not tell anyone. We regulate chemicals, elevators, airplanes, and financial transactions—and none of those are specifically designed to kill anyone.

"Regulation" is a form of infringement.

Also: nowhere in the constitution does it say that YOU have the right to be informed about MY lawful exercise of my rights.

The next step is requiring 40 hours of training prior to license approval...The training hours should jump to 80 hours for a concealed carry permit.

And this is a solution (infringement) in search of a problem. People who go through the effort of acquiring firearms legally simply do not have accidents/negligent discharges with their firearms. CDC stats prove that accidental gun deaths are statistically irrelevant, and, even as gun ownership skyrockets, accidental gun deaths continue to decline to historic low rates. So, what public good is served by such a burdensome requirement?

(And how about a 40-hour Civics study requirement before protesting? Or an 80-hour Civics study requirement before voting (concealed speech)?)

I’m here to tell you that there is little value to having a firearm if one is cannot employ it tactically. I’m not saying we need owners to be trained to the level of Navy SEALs or SWAT teams, but if you claim to want these weapons to protect your home, then you should at least have a baseline knowledge.

Amazingly, millions of people own, carry, and defensively use firearms without your mandated tacticool SWAT training. It doesn't take 40-80 hours to learn four simple rules:

1. Always treat every firearm as if it is loaded
2. Never point the muzzle at something you're not willing to destroy
3. Finger off the trigger until you are on-target and ready to fire
4. Know your target and what is behind it

I taught those rules to my seven-year-old in five minutes.

This training should be done by the government to ensure consistency and quality control and should be covered by the tax on ammunition.
And finally, to pay for the licensing process and training as well as the background and mental health screenings, we can add a modest tax to ammunition sales (think five to ten cents per round—a manageable amount). This way, the costs are spread amongst those who wish to own guns.

And how about a Poll Tax while we're at it?

A tax on ammunition is merely a means to depress ammunition sales, and would do absolutely nothing to address any public good.

Call your state senators, your assembly members, your mayors, and your city councils. Tell them that you want to protect your kids. You want to protect your communities. Hell, you want to protect yourself. Tell them that, with the stroke of a pen, they can improve safety for their constituents and side with the clear majority of Americans.

Here's what you've proposed:

1. Making law-abiding citizens go through mandatory background checks and mental health screenings every 5 years (estimated cost: several hundred dollars each time)
2. Making law-abiding citizens declare their lawful exercise of a constitutionally protected, natural right
3. Making law-abiding citizens under go 40-80 hours of training before exercising a constitutionally protected, natural right (estimated cost: several hundred dollars)
4. Making law-abiding citizens pay a tax of up to 200% the cost of the good, for ammunition

Not a single one of those things will make a single child safer. Not a single one of those things will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Not a single one of those things will help law-abiding citizens protect themselves from criminals.

So, once again: not a single "common sense" gun measure can be found in your litany of restrictions upon the lawful exercise of the rights of the law-abiding.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Another case of "I'm all for the right to bear arms, buuut"


A Navy Vet?s Case for Gun Control - The Daily Beast


These are the kind of people that really scare me. And I think they can do more to damage our rights than even MDA or Everytown, because these are actually gun owners and shooters calling for gun control. And the ever-present "it's for the children" BS.

Interesting that he says he has guns and wants to keep them, but apparently wants to take away everyone else's. As someone else up thread said, I'm not fully convinced; literally anyone can claim to be anything, especially with "stolen valor" laws being ruled unConstitutional, so forgive me if I don't believe the claims of being an instructor, owning guns, being a veteran, or for that matter, claims of masculinity.
In the simplest terms, if you want to bend over and spread your cheeks to take whatever a criminal (gov't or otherwise) wants to give you, that's your business. When you want to make me do the same, that's my business, and you may feel free to go fist yourself.

Take your "suggestions" elsewhere, they have no place in MY country.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[actaeon277]

1st, I think this is a reprint. Or, there's another article out there saying basically the same thing by a Navy vet.

And a Navy firearms instructor? They put a 1911 in my hand told me to point it that way. That was my instruction. That person put it in my hand could call himself a Navy firearms instructor.
So, I'm not really impressed yet.

Interesting that he says he has guns and wants to keep them, but apparently wants to take away everyone else's. As someone else up thread said, I'm not fully convinced; literally anyone can claim to be anything, especially with "stolen valor" laws being ruled unConstitutional, so forgive me if I don't believe the claims of being an instructor, owning guns, being a veteran, or for that matter, claims of masculinity.
In the simplest terms, if you want to bend over and spread your cheeks to take whatever a criminal (gov't or otherwise) wants to give you, that's your business. When you want to make me do the same, that's my business, and you may feel free to go fist yourself.

Take your "suggestions" elsewhere, they have no place in MY country.

Blessings,
Bill

Lot of people out there, some here, that are ok with things being done "their way". But then get mad when anyone suggest they do it different.

Just kidding!

Of all the retired service members I personally know, the Navy guys seem to have their wits about them best. My cousin was a submarine guy back in the day. (80s)

Anyone who is man enough to get on a boat -- sorry, they always correct me, SHIP -- and cross the ocean kicks ass in my book. But I am just a land lubber, so what do I know!

I take offense at that.
I was on a submarine, and I refuse to keep my wits.
Spent too long on minimum oxygen for that.
By the way, if it sinks and comes back up, it's a boat.
If it floats, it's a target. (sorry Birds Away).

 

[MCgrease08]

And finally, to pay for the licensing process and training as well as the background and mental health screenings, we can add a modest tax to ammunition sales (think five to ten cents per round—a manageable amount).*This way, the costs are spread amongst those who wish to own guns.

You think paying for a brick of .22lr from a flipper is too high now? Let's add an additional $27-$53 tax on top of that.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I agree with him on training...I think all of us should take it upon ourselves to actively seek out good training and instruction. And I can almost convince myself that some basic safety training should be part of the LTCH process. I think we've all seen enough mouth breathers at the range doing completely stupid stuff with guns (sweeping other shooters, poor trigger discipline, can't hit a pie plate at 7 yds) that it would almost convince me that some level of training could be applied to the licensing process. Unfortunately our society is less "gun friendly" than it was just a generation ago, so most kids are not being taught basic gun safety and fundamentals by their parents and extended family. It would take a lot of convincing though and I'd be highly skeptical at the cost of such training, either direct (such as sign up fee) or indirect (taxes to cover state funded training).

I absolutely do not agree with registration at all. History has proven again and again that registration leads to confiscation. Even if a pro-gun Congress passed a measure for good reasons, it wouldn't take long for it to be used for the wrong reasons.

 

[Bluejeeper]

Do you also believe that you should have to go through training and licensing to practice your other Constitutionally-protected rights? Like free speech perhaps?

 

[MAJB Retired]

Maybe a required class in High School for everyone. Reading Writing Arithmetic and Shooting. Everyone learns gun safety, how to shoot. That is what MDA wants, safety? Wouldn't that put their panties in a twist. Common Sense, the new Common Core.

I would definitely support this requirement. Can be get it as part of the Common "Four" Core?

 

[chipbennett]

I agree with him on training...I think all of us should take it upon ourselves to actively seek out good training and instruction.

Then actually, you *don't* agree with him on training, because he advocates state-mandated, state-run training. That's vastly different from voluntary training.

And I can almost convince myself that some basic safety training should be part of the LTCH process. I think we've all seen enough mouth breathers at the range doing completely stupid stuff with guns (sweeping other shooters, poor trigger discipline, can't hit a pie plate at 7 yds) that it would almost convince me that some level of training could be applied to the licensing process.

Except that, for all those mouth breathers, gun ownership is at an all-time high, and accidental gun deaths from negligent discharges are at an all-time low. So, state-mandated training would serve no public interest.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Then actually, you *don't* agree with him on training, because he advocates state-mandated, state-run training. That's vastly different from voluntary training.



Except that, for all those mouth breathers, gun ownership is at an all-time high, and accidental gun deaths from negligent discharges are at an all-time low. So, state-mandated training would serve no public interest.

Yes, you are correct...which is why I don't FULLY agree with him.

 

[MAJB Retired]

Do you also believe that you should have to go through training and licensing to practice your other Constitutionally-protected rights? Like free speech perhaps?

Unfortunately, I'm kind of in favor of folks having to have a license to practice free speech or voting.....

 

[Sling10mm]

He's a toolbag preaching to his choir…..

Which government bureaucrat decides which doctor you go to for your mental health screening?

I find it ironic that the same folks who would demand mental health checks, training and licensing to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right have an aneurism when someone suggests that one should show an ID to vote.

 

[Bluejeeper]

Unfortunately, I'm kind of in favor of folks having to have a license to practice free speech or voting.....

Unfortunately, I don't think that would help much seeing as the gubmint would do the licensing. Crying shame too

 

[jblomenberg16]

Do you also believe that you should have to go through training and licensing to practice your other Constitutionally-protected rights? Like free speech perhaps?

Nope, which is why I wrote what I wrote. I think it is each individual's responsibility to seek out training, not the state's. In the same way it is our responsibility to be well versed in facts and issues so that when we exercise our 1A right, it is meaningful, and not just useless drivel.


Personally I think we are doing our community at large a great disservice if we automatically say "I don't need training to exercise my rights!" We shouldn't need training to do a lot of things in life, but unfortunately a few bad apples have managed to ruin it for all of us, and now we have to have mandatory training for just about everything we do in life.

Please make no mistake, I'm not out on the street corners advocating for government provided 40 hour training courses. Rather, I've seen how much better and safer I am as a shooter after I have voluntarily taken a number of courses and would love to see the gun owning community make that a priority.

I got some wise advise years ago on this forum when looking to buy another handgun to compliment the 1 that I already had and carried regularly. The advice was that for the price of the 2nd gun, I could afford a lot of training and ammunition to become proficient with the one I had vs. being at a very low level of proficiency with 2 guns.

 

[Bluejeeper]

I'll remind you what you said since you seem to have forgotten

And I can almost convince myself that some basic safety training should be part of the LTCH process.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I'll remind you what you said since you seem to have forgotten

\

Nope, you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.

Key word is I can "ALMOST" convince myself...meaning I can see his point, but that I DO NOT FULLY agree with him.

Something to think about is that we actually have it pretty good in Indiana as a "Shall issue" state. A lot of other "gun friendly" states do require some level of safety proficiency to obtain a license. I would be interested to see if there have been any long term studies done to see if there is any benefit to that other than to appease those that want compromise in gun control.

 

[chipbennett]

Nope, which is why I wrote what I wrote. I think it is each individual's responsibility to seek out training, not the state's. In the same way it is our responsibility to be well versed in facts and issues so that when we exercise our 1A right, it is meaningful, and not just useless drivel.


Personally I think we are doing our community at large a great disservice if we automatically say "I don't need training to exercise my rights!" We shouldn't need training to do a lot of things in life, but unfortunately a few bad apples have managed to ruin it for all of us, and now we have to have mandatory training for just about everything we do in life.

Please make no mistake, I'm not out on the street corners advocating for government provided 40 hour training courses. Rather, I've seen how much better and safer I am as a shooter after I have voluntarily taken a number of courses and would love to see the gun owning community make that a priority.

I got some wise advise years ago on this forum when looking to buy another handgun to compliment the 1 that I already had and carried regularly. The advice was that for the price of the 2nd gun, I could afford a lot of training and ammunition to become proficient with the one I had vs. being at a very low level of proficiency with 2 guns.

The issue is, essentially, prior restraint versus holding accountable those who act in a culpably negligent manner or otherwise break the law.

Sure, everyone can *benefit* from training. But the State should have absolutely no involvement in that training when it involves a natural, constitutionally protected right - especially when there is ZERO evidence whatsoever that lack of State action causes an adverse impact on the public. The role of the State is only to hold accountable those who exercise a right in an unlawful manner.

So, I'm with you on preaching *voluntary* training. I'm with you on parents teaching their children. I didn't get much of that, but I'm making sure my kids do. And I'll certainly seek out more training for myself.

But fundamentally: I'm ultimately opposed to having to get a State-issued license/permit to exercise a natural, constitutional right in the first place.

 

[jblomenberg16]

The issue is, essentially, prior restraint versus holding accountable those who act in a culpably negligent manner or otherwise break the law.

Sure, everyone can *benefit* from training. But the State should have absolutely no involvement in that training when it involves a natural, constitutionally protected right - especially when there is ZERO evidence whatsoever that lack of State action causes an adverse impact on the public. The role of the State is only to hold accountable those who exercise a right in an unlawful manner.

So, I'm with you on preaching *voluntary* training. I'm with you on parents teaching their children. I didn't get much of that, but I'm making sure my kids do. And I'll certainly seek out more training for myself.

But fundamentally: I'm ultimately opposed to having to get a State-issued license/permit to exercise a natural, constitutional right in the first place.

We are definitely rowing the same boat here. You almost sound like an engineer...do you use facts and data to make decisions?