should veterans be granted carry privileges automatically

[PistolBob]

I think that veterans should be allowed to carry in all 50 states without restriction. After all they have far more training than most anybody. Plus its a nice little benefit for serving your country.

I know a lot of slightly "off" vets that don't own guns, don't want to own guns, and quite frankly they would worry me if I thought they had access to a gun.

Being a military veteran doesn't automatically make you a good person. Nadal Hassan was a Captain in the US Army, and used his sidearm to kill 13 fellow soldiers.

However, on the other side of the coin...carrying a gun is not a privilege, it is a right, and if the guy/gal wants to carry a gun, then I suppose that is OK with me...but I am keeping my eye on him/her.

 

[sgreen3]

Its a right, not a privilege. EVERYONE should be allowed to carry in all 50 states without restriction.

^^^ Cannot put into words how much I agree with this!^^^

 

[Titanium Man]

Its a right, not a privilege. EVERYONE should be allowed to carry in all 50 states without restriction.

+1

 

[foszoe]

As I stated before, I voted yes easily.

Since then, I have seen a lot of no's voted that seem to fall into two categories however anecdotal or legitimate the reasoning that led to the no being voted.

Those two categories are:

I wouldn't trust them because I KNOW them with justifications being from personal experience of another's physical or mental approach to handling and the use of firearms.

or,

Being in the military does NOT equal proper training.


To those who have voted no with any element of those two justifications. I would say we are introducing a slipperly slope into the argument. We, myself included, know plenty of "unstable" or "untrained" or folks we would consider to be "mentally challenged", HOWEVER, I would venture to say the majority of us are not qualified to make that determination according to the rule of law and societal norms.

Furthermore, most of the reasoning behind a no vote is in effect creating a subgroup that basically must be tested and proved worthy of a right that most of us already believe is a right that we all are BORN with regardless of mental or physical functioning and/or training. It is a right that we must actively LOSE, but if we vote no to a VET, then we are saying its a right that must be actively GAINED. At the low end of the scale the right is granted through registering as we do in Indiana so that the gov't can database us and keep tabs if they desire to the high end where formal training is required prior to permitting. We could even go to psychological testing to determine mental "soundness" and if there is any tendency to commit crime based on the answers to a standardized test.

In my opinion, you can take the word veterans out of the poll question and insert your own or anybody elses previous or current occupation as listed in the US DOL books so drug dealer doesn't count and then ask it again. What would result in a no vote now? If the answer changes then perhaps the problem is not with the other group, but within ourselves and a bias or prejudice (as in pre judge, not meaning the word negative in any way) that we have towards a particular group.

In voting no based on reasoning approaching the above is at least tacit support for licensing and training as being necessary to the practice of our 2nd amendment rights and not really just for the justifications sited above but for ANY future reason some special interest group and invent and popularize.

As to veterans? I hate the way our country and our population has treated vets (especially those that have seen combat) and unless they have acted in a way to LOSE this right, they should have it.

IC XC

foszoe

 

[Bunnykid68]

As I stated before, I voted yes easily.

Since then, I have seen a lot of no's voted that seem to fall into two categories however anecdotal or legitimate the reasoning that led to the no being voted.

Those two categories are:

I wouldn't trust them because I KNOW them with justifications being from personal experience of another's physical or mental approach to handling and the use of firearms.

or,

Being in the military does NOT equal proper training.


To those who have voted no with any element of those two justifications. I would say we are introducing a slipperly slope into the argument. We, myself included, know plenty of "unstable" or "untrained" or folks we would consider to be "mentally challenged", HOWEVER, I would venture to say the majority of us are not qualified to make that determination according to the rule of law and societal norms.

Furthermore, most of the reasoning behind a no vote is in effect creating a subgroup that basically must be tested and proved worthy of a right that most of us already believe is a right that we all are BORN with regardless of mental or physical functioning and/or training. It is a right that we must actively LOSE, but if we vote no to a VET, then we are saying its a right that must be actively GAINED. At the low end of the scale the right is granted through registering as we do in Indiana so that the gov't can database us and keep tabs if they desire to the high end where formal training is required prior to permitting. We could even go to psychological testing to determine mental "soundness" and if there is any tendency to commit crime based on the answers to a standardized test.

In my opinion, you can take the word veterans out of the poll question and insert your own or anybody elses previous or current occupation as listed in the US DOL books so drug dealer doesn't count and then ask it again. What would result in a no vote now? If the answer changes then perhaps the problem is not with the other group, but within ourselves and a bias or prejudice (as in pre judge, not meaning the word negative in any way) that we have towards a particular group.

In voting no based on reasoning approaching the above is at least tacit support for licensing and training as being necessary to the practice of our 2nd amendment rights and not really just for the justifications sited above but for ANY future reason some special interest group and invent and popularize.

As to veterans? I hate the way our country and our population has treated vets (especially those that have seen combat) and unless they have acted in a way to LOSE this right, they should have it.

IC XC

foszoe

Why should a vet get access to a right more readily then myself?

 

[foszoe]

Why should a vet get access to a right more readily then myself?

That is my subpoint. We shouldn't be granted access to rights. RIGHTS are ours to lose not something to be given access to. However, the question at hand pertained to vets. I did state that you could insert your occupation in the question and the answer should still be yes. I will go even further. Any of us could insert our legal name in the question and we should all answer yes to the poll as long as the named person has not acted in a way that through exercising his/her right, the rights of another have not been infringed upon.

We should be granted or given access to things that are privileges.

So to answer you directly. They shouldn't but two wrongs don't make a right. (pardon the pun ) In this world, just because I am treated unjustly doesn't justify the unjust treatment of others and I would feel morally and ethically obliged to stand for the rights of others even if mine are not able to be freely exercised.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That is my subpoint. We shouldn't be granted access to rights. RIGHTS are ours to lose not something to be given access to. However, the question at hand pertained to vets. I did state that you could insert your occupation in the question and the answer should still be yes. I will go even further. Any of us could insert our legal name in the question and we should all answer yes to the poll as long as the named person has not acted in a way that through exercising his/her right, the rights of another have not been infringed upon.

We should be granted or given access to things that are privileges.

So to answer you directly. They shouldn't but two wrongs don't make a right. (pardon the pun ) In this world, just because I am treated unjustly doesn't justify the unjust treatment of others and I would feel morally and ethically obliged to stand for the rights of others even if mine are not able to be freely exercised.

I follow your line of thinking, must have missed the point in your previous post.

 

[easy]

My vote, based on the Constitution would be a YES!

Based on the reality of some of those I served with, NO.

ETC(SW) USN ret

 

[dmfisher71]

i vote no on this cause i know a guy (dont want to be around anything that shoots a projectile) we were at a bar a few months and he got back from Iraq.. once he had enough in him to be pretty well lit guy started having flashbacks... if he would have had a gun on him whats to say he dont pull it out and start poppin off rounds

 

[Taylorz71]

Its a right, not a privilege. EVERYONE should be allowed to carry in all 50 states without restriction.

+1 True Story