Last time I was driving ‘too slow’ on a mountain road in NM, the other guy just clipped my rear end, smashing the tail light and bending in the body: I got off easy!
I hope that if the shooter was a Marine, current or former, he seeks and finds some help. Personally I would support states enacting firearms laws that required closer scrutiny of combat veterans before allowing them to own and carry hand guns and assault style rifles.
So you’d like to create statutes that discriminate against combat veterans, the very people who are trained and skilled in the use of firearms for self protection and the ones who faced firearms and death to protect the citizens of our country, the ones who are fully trained in firearms safety. IMHO there is no category better equipped, trained, proven, and deserving of our support in the open carry of firearms than our combat veterans.
I would rather be among a giant crowd of armed combat veterans than one of you. Remember that the only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.
I’ll go even further. EVERYONE should serve at least two years in the military immediately after graduation from high school or college, where EVERYONE will be trained in the use of firearms. And then everyone should open-carry… except those convicted of a premeditated violent crime or a violent crime committed in the act of a crime. They should be off the streets for life. Those convicted of murder should be allowed one appeal. If it fails, they should be marched straight to the gallows.
Mr. Knox is not expressing dislike of veterans but making a valid point that these current unnecessary conflicts with no end insight are causing more mental damage than ever before.
The only problem is when law enforcement shows up and 40 people have guns drawn, how do you tell the good guys from the bad guys. Have read reports of conceal carry people not taking action for fear of being mistaken for the bad guy.
PTSD can affect anyone. It does not have to be a vet. I’d rather have a vet with PTSD beside me with a gun than almost anyone else. At least they understand the affect a firearm has and how to use one properly.
This is a very tricky issue. Taking away property and the right to bear arms without due process violates 3 of the basic rights granted by the Bill of Rights. the 2nd, the 4th and the 5th
So how do you take away property (the gun) and his right to bear that because of what he might do rather than what he did do? If we let that happen with guns, where does that end?
The Militia Acts of 1792 required every white male citizen 18-45 own a rifle or musket, ammunition, and show up for training with his state’s militia twice yearly. That was the real purpose of the 2nd amendment: to make a standing army unnecessary to defend the country so that we didn’t have to have one. Washington was put out by their poor response to the Whiskey Rebellion.
FWIW I was drafted into the Marine Corps in 1968 and did a tour in Vietnam. But I hope my post hasn’t stirred up a war of words here.
Sincerest thanks for your service. I too contributed in Vietnam, but not as a combat vet. I helped bomb Hanoi in Operation Linebacker, the bombing of Hanoi, particularly Linebacker II in December of '72.
The thing that bothered me was the suggestion that combat vets should be subjected to scrutiny beyond that of other citizens before being allowed to own guns. Combat veterans are far safer gun owners overall than those who don’t understand or recognize what a gun can actually do, and than those who’ve never been trained in gun safety.
Every citizen should be allowed to own guns, and those who abuse that right by misusing guns for the commission of crimes or violent acts should be removed from society. Those who abuse guns to commit crimes should be subjected to restriction and oversight, not veterans who didn’t commit crimes. I would even argue that there would be less violent crime if open-carry were allowed, accepted by society, and considered normal… combined with beginning to provide and enforce serious prison sentences for those convicted of violent crimes. I include drug trafficking in that statement, even if no violence was involved.
I think we have here a conflict of beliefs rather than a war of words. And IMHO we should accept that in peace.
I think we’re missing a whole lot of information and especially since the supposed veteran has not even been identified. Of course there are vets that have issues as well as non vets who have issues. Just more silly thinking to suggest folks trained in firearms and defense shouldn’t have guns.
And Random, that’s not exactly the way it was back then when they were writing the constitution. If you read some of the federalist papers and other arguments that were made as the document was voted on and agreed to. There was a militia composed of the public as well as a paid military (see Civil War, Indian wars, etc.) The public was to be armed in order to protect themselves from a tyrannical government and over-throw it if necessary. Yeah wouldn’t some of these folks love to see a defenseless public?
Good evening. Could you please bring this back closer to topic? Thank you.
too much info. i know folks here like to link stories about “car” subjects. but, sometimes the thread title is too descriptive and/or depressing. why not just say, “road rage-driver shot”?
Wow! I was beginning to think I was the only one aware of the purpose behind ‘A well regulated (trained) Militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state’, being included in the 2nd amendment.
US Code Title 10 Armed Forces Section 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Section 312 Militia Duty Exemptions:
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
The Vice President.
The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
Pilots on navigable waters.
Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
A very debatable issue for many reasons.
The latest Supreme Court ruling is District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008 that decided that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
So opinions aside, that is our right. To remove that right requires due process as does the confiscation of property.
It is sad that road rage has to elevate to that level, but it doesn’t take a gun to cause injury or even death. The vehicle itself will do.
According to a study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that examined police records nationally, there are more than 1,200 incidents of road rage on average reported per year in the United States, a number of which have ended with serious injuries or even fatalities. These rates rose yearly throughout the six years of the study. A number of studies have found that individuals with road rage were predominantly young (33 years old on average) and 96.6% male.
Do with is data what you please.
They disbanded most of the army after the Revolution, why we were so unprepared for 1812 , then again after 1812.
That the public was to be armed to protect themselves from government is also wrong - and a fantasy today.
Heller is clearly wrong.
You make a mistake by imputing that I’m interested in gun control. Gun-owners kill themselves, their wives, their girlfriends, their children, other family members, their friends, that guy they met at the bar who seemed so no nice until GO found out he drank Miller Lite. Don’t own a gun, stay out of GOs’ homes, out of their bars and other meeting places, and you’re as safe as a Canadian. People who want to shoot themselves up - give 'em another round.
Clearly you have been drinking that Kool Aid again. Around here you’d have a hard time finding a home without at least one gun in it. Generally you need both a shot gun and a rifle at a minimum. And no one I know has killed anyone yet. Don’t believe everything you’ve been fed.
There is an interesting story about the militia marching from St. Peter to New Ulm to save it from indian attack in 1862. The militia was any able bodied farmer or what have you and left their work to protect the town. There was also the US Army involved later as the war progressed and of course the Army busy with the Civil War too.
Your opinion, and we’ll leave it there.
Stay out of Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, DC, Detroit and Los Angeles and you are as safe as a Canadian.
When I attended public elementary school in the latter part of the Jurassic period, history was still taught as a stand alone subject. In the 6th grade (1963) we studied the ‘Bill of Rights’. I recall the 2nd amendment being clear and concise. By far the easiest to understand. We were taught the meaning of two key words.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the SECURITY of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
SECURITY: There was well founded concern of the British attempting to reclaim their former colonies by force. There were also other European nations to worry about. A large standing military was fiscally impossible at that time so the solution was a large civilian militia. Even if a large standing military were possible the founding fathers were rightfully concerned of it being used to establish a tyrannical government from within which was certainly not unheard of in Europe.
PEOPLE: For the United States of America to maintain true free nation status the citizens had to retain the means of defending themselves individually and their nation collectively.
I have raised my hand and swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic 5 times. The last time was 2004 but as far as I know there is no expiration date.
Why has it been made so complicated?
“Minority Report” of course!