Ft. Benning (GA) Sign

[Artilleryman]

Perhaps you should spend a few years in the military if you're going to venture such strong opinions; it'll give you some much needed insight. Military personnel are protected under the Constitution; however Duty does require certain limitations to maintain discipline and order. Your comparision to nazi rule far off the mark. If the civillian population was subjected to the UCMJ then you would have a point. Since it's not- you don't.

 

[jacknast76]

I hope you aren't confusing me with shootshellz.
Artillery man.

I have served. And was told when I was going skiing on vacation. "You'd better not hurt yourself or you may be charged with damaging government property."

Any how. I just object to the rationale of having to register ANYONES firearms or be labelled a te4rrorist.

I pose this question to all. How many violations of the constitution does our current government have to do before we the people hold them accountable? by current gov I mean no particular party. Pretty much the same bozo's that have been there for the past 20 years.

 

[Artilleryman]

that was directed at shootshellz.

haha yeah I heard that "military property" crap quite often too, just another slightly misleading aspect of military lingo. Constitutional rights are there but Service restrictions do tend to make it seem otherwise at times. Soldiers can own firearms but once on post they are subject to all the G.I. bureacracy. Keep 'em off post, and they're only subject to the civillian bueracracy. I agree, the registration concept on that sign-along with the idiotic terrorist reference- is a crock. I'm thinking of writing the HMFIC of that installation with a few comments..

 

[jacknast76]

Sorry, I got an email from the "forum" saying you replied to my comment. hence my thought that you were mistaking me for him.

Cheers, happy holidays

 

[Bhowe]

I know it probably doesn't mean much and I'm sure it was already said but here it is;

My thoughts were that the whacko in TX counted on there not being anyone in the near vacinty that would be armed and may not have done so (or at least would not have been able to wound or kill as many people) if the chance was there that someone was carrying. Same thought process with schools and the whole Columbine tragedy. Its the entire reason 'Active Shooter' training even exsists. It goes to the heart of the constitution. Rid a population of means to defend themselves, and the rest of their rights, and sometimes even their lives. Ban guns in parks and community centers and it could be my kid or yours killed by a lone gunmen at a picnic.

There are over 300 million people in the U.S. (2009 consesus) and roughly 800,000 law enforcement (State, Federal, Municipal, County, and School Campus) officers employed. I cannot and will not rely on them to keep my family safe. The only places I do not carry are where it is illegal to do so (schools court and bars).

Thanks for letting me speak my mind all!

 

[tionico]

Bhowe said:

It goes to the heart of the constitution. Rid a population of means to defend themselves, and the rest of their rights, and sometimes even their lives. Ban guns in parks and community centers and it could be my kid or yours killed by a lone gunmen at a picnic.


and there it is: think Mexico. There is ONE reason the narcotraficantes have been so successful in taking over the whole country and holding it captive: the citizens of Mexico have been disarmed for generations. Thugs come into town, try and take over, they've got guns (and money), no one else does except the two sleepy Federales and maybe a district cop. Three against three hundred, you KNOW the outcome of that. All three cops knuckle under, the town gets taken captive, and Jose, Juan, and Rogelio have three choices... cooperate and live, leave, or resist and die. And their families.

Had a significant number of citizens been armed, the narcoistas could never get a foothold, because Jose, Juan, and Rogelio would have run them out before they could establish that fooothold.

Same thing is happening here. Consider inner cities (Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, where the population is unarmed by government mandate, and the gans and mobs run the places.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

As a member of the military, you are not a Citizen. You are an extension of the U.S. Government, an agent whose conduct acts like loudspeaker which blares out on behalf of the entity (U.S. government) which is responsible for representing The People of the Several States United under the Constitution.

A military person's legal status as an agent of a public service entity is ongoing, 24-7 until their enlistment/contract expires. As an an agent of a corporate legal fiction entity like the U.S. government, you are just that and the Constitution was not drafted by and for government agents. It was drafted by State Citizens through their duly elected delegates who created the Constitution on their behalf and their sole benefit.

That's one of the reasons why service people are so special. They not only make great sacrifices on the battlefield but they also do so by surrendering the very thing we all cherish so much; the rights of Citizens. That is until they become Citizens again. As obnoxious as it may seem on the surface to some folks. When you become more familiar with the subtleties of legal identity, it makes more sense. It's a master/servant thing (public/public servant).

And the government is required through the Constitution, via all the provisions that limit its powers, to make sure that its agents do not become bigger than what the Constitution allows them to become, so as not to acquire power that the People did not intend it or them to have. I served three years active duty and in Desert Storm, but I only came to appreciate the legal identity game that is in effect on this issue after much reading when I finished my enlistment.

I doubt that 1-2% of the people who go into the military really understand what's happening to their rights when they sign that line at the recruiter's office. The recruiters don't spend much time dwelling on it I suppose and we aren't educated well enough on the Constitution in school to really make a fully informed decision.

 

[ZachS]

and there it is: think Mexico. There is ONE reason the narcotraficantes have been so successful in taking over the whole country and holding it captive: the citizens of Mexico have been disarmed for generations. Thugs come into town, try and take over, they've got guns (and money), no one else does except the two sleepy Federales and maybe a district cop. Three against three hundred, you KNOW the outcome of that. All three cops knuckle under, the town gets taken captive, and Jose, Juan, and Rogelio have three choices... cooperate and live, leave, or resist and die. And their families.

Had a significant number of citizens been armed, the narcoistas could never get a foothold, because Jose, Juan, and Rogelio would have run them out before they could establish that fooothold.

I agree with you 100% in principle, but - Afghanistan's a good counterpoint to this. Heroin traffickers are all over the place, mixed up with both the government and the terrorists, and everybody there's armed.

Same thing is happening here. Consider inner cities (Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, where the population is unarmed by government mandate, and the gans and mobs run the places.

Still agree in principle, but counterpoints: St. Louis, Houston, Miami, Memphis, Nashville, Jacksonville, Atlanta, New Orleans, any number of other crime-infested small cities in the states that respect individual rights - heck, even Tulsa has a big violent crime problem! And Anchorage actually has a higher violent crime rate than LA..

Anyway, you can sort the following table by violent crime rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate - there are a few cities in gun-unfriendly states up at the top, but just as many in gun-friendly places.

An armed population's part of the solution, but it won't fix things on its own.

 

[ZachS]

Anyway....

I've never served, so this idea might be completely unworkable/ridiculous, but a good solution might be to allow officers/senior NCOs to be armed at all times on military installations. That would avoid the problems that might occur if access to weapons was unrestricted, but still provide an ever-present deterrent to potential mass shooters.

 

[Member 5605]

When you sign up for the military you agree to follow their policies.

PERIOD.

When you sign up for a credit card, you agree to their terms of use. If you must keep your weapons in the armory... ok. Do it.

Things work well when you follow the rules.

Just my $.02

 

[Scott]

Sir: It is unthinking individuals such as you that allowed the Jews (and others) to be eradicated. Don't think it could happen here? Guess again. Do yourself and myself a favor and move to South America where your pro-military, anti rights attitudes would fit right in with the dictator of the month. Once again, you are an example of one who is TOTALLY CLUELESS of what this country stands for (or did stand for). The founding fathers were willing to go to war over a tax on a beverage; you are willing to deny members of the US military their rights just because they wear a uniform. How far we have fallen......

First you are wrong for accusing someone for being the reason Jews were killed and that is uncalled for. The only people responsible for that are the Nazi's.

The people to put an end to it was the U.S. Military because of the principles founded within the military and that continues today. Don't say anything about the military if you never served and it shows you have not. There is no better organization to stop any country or dictator from killing others. There are reasons that the rights offered to civilians are not the same as military members. You will never know and understand because you have never served. Don't blame members here for the holocaust as well as that shows how ignorant you really are.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

First you are wrong for accusing someone for being the reason Jews were killed and that is uncalled for. The only people responsible for that are the Nazi's.

The people to put an end to it was the U.S. Military because of the principles founded within the military and that continues today. Don't say anything about the military if you never served and it shows you have not. There is no better organization to stop any country or dictator from killing others. There are reasons that the rights offered to civilians are not the same as military members. You will never know and understand because you have never served. Don't blame members here for the holocaust as well as that shows how ignorant you really are.

First off, being former military myself, thanks for your service. The issue of people's understanding about the difference between rights of "civilians" and military members is very interesting to me. You mention "reasons" for the difference between the rights of "civilians" compared to military members and I am sincerely curious to know what reasons you are familiar with because I want to see how many takes there are on how my fellow Americans view their rights.