I think this is funny. Army grunts are stupid and need babysitting? Is that the assumption that we are suppose to believe when asking if they can carry a gun? They get the best guns if I recall correctly.
Printable View
I think this is funny. Army grunts are stupid and need babysitting? Is that the assumption that we are suppose to believe when asking if they can carry a gun? They get the best guns if I recall correctly.
I can explain it, but I cannot make any of you naysayers understand it.
Let me try again:
This bill would have military members 18-20 be allowed to CCW contra their civilian peers vis-à-vis age group. Why? Because there is an incorrect assumption they are somehow more suited to it.
Fact: they're not. None of their training is meant to cross over, is not applicable, and in certain situations would be a liability without a look at how to address the specific differences in being a soldier and being another civilian on the block with a CCW.
Another fact: This bill doesn't mean SHIT to the Division Commander, the Brigade Commanders, the Company Commanders and all the 1SG's and CSM's. Not a crusty turd will be shat out of their care holes. Why? Because the State of CO doesn't make the rules.
Another fact: If this passed, guess who lives in the barracks? the single guys (18-20). Guess who has to register their weapons on post and cannot keep them on post except in the Arms room and that's as massive PITA to get checked out? The single guys. Guess what would be a violation of current Colorado law? Leaving one's weapon in the possession of a buddy off post as a normal thing, so you don't get hosed by the Arms room being inaccessible to check out your personal weapon.
Again, I ask, why not simply make it law that allows everyone 18-20 do CCW? At least then it wouldn't be a hollow bill with Rah Rah PV2 Jimmy Bobb bullshit behind it. At least then, it wouldn't put the commanders on edge and be effectively worthless.
I say again, there is nothing special about young soldiers as concerns the intention of this bill. Nothing.
Your replies indicate you do not understand what I'm saying. You further seem to be stuck on an aspect that I specifically addressed and don't seem to realize I agree with you that there should be no qualifiers for 2nd amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoMinuteMan
I also stated that in my final bullet/sentence on my original post.
You're so stuck on an ideal and have no understanding of how the military works, at least in this regard, to understand this bill is simply retarded because it's nothing but window dressing and rah rah BS with no substance or practical application behind it.
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
Your message isn't clear to me because you appear to contradict yourself. You produce a litany of reasons why the military doesn't prepare you to carry a firearm, and also explain that you believe that there should be no qualifier to carry, and then you say "but." If you believe in constitutional carry, there is nothing to add.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
If it makes you feel better to believe that I'm an ignoramus, feel free. I'm not here to impress anyone. Have a good evening.
I'm with you fellas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
Quote:
How true. There's a misconception out there that being in the military they have better training when it comes to concealed carry. because, once again they are military trained
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
I guess my question is, better in relation to what? To conceal carry, it requires only a basic handgun safety class in the state of Colorado. I personally think military recruit level training is equal to, if not better than many handgun safety courses. As mentioned above, there are 4 rules, if you follow them nobody gets hurt.
I say give freedom a chance. It always sounds better on paper to restrict something. I mean common sense says nobody should have a gun and cops will protect you. In reality that is a bad idea and it always falls on its face. I'm not a paid blogger so I don't want to type out a huge reply here so I will keep it short. However, I think that just like any thing in this world its worth keeping a right instead of giving power over to someone else to control. If they screw up they will face the music and pay for it. Can't we just preserve the freedoms we have now for the next generation? Can't we think of the children for once? Imagine if we got rid of a real killer like cars just because they are dangerous. We would all be mountain biking or on mopeds like some third world country. Some may like the idea given the current look of the streets these days but I don't see those guys riding their bikes in the snow even the biggest supporters of gun control and mountain biking (e.g. felons and multiple DUI's ) out there to protect freedom and ride in the snow. They just stay home that day.
My opinion.
As American citizens, our Constitutional rights are infringed upon everyday.
On the scale of freedom, acknowledging that ANY group of adults 18+ should have their Constitutional rights reinstated is a move towards the side of liberty, not the other way around.
I do not fall into the Dudley category where "more is less" and "we cannot support the HPA...we need to repeal the ENTIRE NFA"
Doh!!!
If you pulled the Military members out and inserted EMT's, Electricians, Police Explorers, or Law Students I could care less. If it gets MORE good guys guns I'm for it.
I am 100% against
NFA/ Hughes Ammendment
All portions of the1968 GCA
Universal Background Checks
But if we can put forth an effort to undermine any of these unjust, unconstitutional laws by even 0.5% I am 100% in favor those efforts.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)