First off, thank you to everyone who has served. I hold you in the highest regard.
In light of the current state of picking a side in the Second Amendment debate, I got to wondering what the folks in the military think of the rest of the population’s right to own the AR-15 of their choice?
I have been very disappointed with the folks in my agency, both agents and police officers, in that far more than I would have guessed have bought into the “Why does any civilian need an AR?” argument.
I am still of the opinion that, hypothetically, if it got really bad, there would be more military/police on the pro-gun side than the anti…but my percentages have changed. Initially, I thought it would be damn near 100% would refuse to enforce any un-Constitutional efforts to disarm the populace or enforce any portion of these laws; now, not so much.
Where do you, the soldiers actually fighting and dying for these rights, fall on this?
Fully support ownership and skill advancement.
I signed up to support and defend the constitution and the American people, why would I want to restrict their/our freedom and independence?
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
As a former soldier, I viewed the citizen’s right to bear arms (IF they weren’t criminals), supporting the same Constitution that I took an oath to support and defend, as vital to the security of our nation and the backstop to the defense of our county if we were ever attacked. I never considered for a second armed citizens as a threat as I knew we were all on the same side.
I wonder if those same agents in your agency have considered the day they retire or leave said agency…and no longer have these ‘special’ rights…and are considered then as a ‘theat’ to the same agency they belonged to the day prior…
Well I am sure M4C members support “mere peasants” owning guns.
What I worry: Do any active duty know some of the younger guys who do not support Civvies having guns? Who would do as they are told, whatever that may be?
I was speaking with a local LEO on this just the other day in my office. He’s got a couple of opinions about the current state of affairs, and while I can’t agree with him 100%, I can see how his opinion has been formed.
First and foremost, he takes no issue with responsible law abiding citizens owning firearms. He’s in an area with a moderate amount of crime, and he understands that sometimes waiting for the police isn’t the best possible option. His opinion was that it would be best if everyone who could own one was well trained in the use of firearms.
Which brought about his second opinion. The current political climate has brought people out of the woodwork who would never have bothered to purchase a firearm simply out of fear that they will not be able to in the future. These are often uninformed and untrained people who have no clue how the weapon functions, how to fix potential issues, and how to be safe with a firearm. His biggest concern is that the first time they fire a round from the weapon will be when someone startles them. The “more often than not” scenario is that this will end up being a member of the household and not an armed intruder.
He is very much a positive person when it comes to firearms. His thoughts on the AR platform is that it happens to be one of the most reliable and simple choices for a rifle, and that it’s versatility makes it an easy choice. He’s just worried that many of the people who rushed to buy one without knowing a thing about it will end up making bad choices. Which, in the end, will only lead to more calls for firearms legislation.
As quite a few of us on this forum are veterans, why on earth would any vet feel that the civilian population is not entitled to the firearm selection of their choice? I, like many here, would like to promote to everyone interested, firearms safety, training and responsibility, and to pass those traits onto anyone curious about learning or purchasing a firearm, especially family members. The problem is that people who decide to get a weapon, never even takes a basic rifle, pistol or shotgun course. It’s the ‘call of duty’ crowd that I’m most concerned with, thinking that they are ‘operators’ because of a game they played, then show up to a local range, and proceeds to be a danger to everyone there while destroying the range at the same time. I’ve seen it happen many times…
IMHO, that’s in part of result of working for government. I used to work for the government (transportation) but there is a prevailing attitude that government knows all and needs to shepard the citizens to make the “right” choices. If they don’t agree with government’s decisions or policies, they need to be educated.
The arrogance of power. All the training in the world won’t stop a stupid person from acting stupidly. Most of us, however, have enough common sense to handle all the dangerous things in life without being supervised.
On the topic at hand, I wondered that too. We military and LE laughing at us as we play war or did they respect our determination to learn to defend ourselves and maybe someday our country. It’s nice to know that at least some view and armed and prepared citizen as essential to liberty.
That is precisely the point that I’ve found gets the most positive response. Although more than a few have said that they just won’t own a gun once they retire. To which I reply, “And that is your choice; just don’t presume to force your choice to be my choice”
Absolutely support private ownership and use, though I reserve a special respect for those who are committed enough to the exercise of their rights to get some formal training and /or pursue some regimen of skills development. Possession does not equate to competence, of course, but nothing nothing in my oath supports the disarmament of American citizens operating within the law – or in this case, under the somewhat broader framework afforded by the Constitution.
The challenge for those of us wearing a uniform is to have the knowledge and discernment to recognize a potential infringement situation for what it is (i.e. officials directing that citizens be disarmed after Hurricane Katrina probably seemed a reasonable precaution to some). Since we’re in the business of following orders first, and just about everything else a distant second, this is a fairly serious business for us. Taking a stand could very well come at a personal price, but it’s that one most I know would be willing to pay in the face of a blatantly unlawful order.
We were all civilians at one time, and most of us will be again, so there is something of a natural tendency to aggressively support individual rights. Take a look at where most veteran’s groups stand on issues like freedom and personal liberty, and you’ll likely glean the insights you’re after.
As Stormin said about people buying guns that really have had no training or pryer use. I saw a guy take a new pistol outa the box next to a guy at an indoor range.
Load the mag, jack the slide, THEN look down the barrel of a loaded and cocked pistol,then he pointed it down range and started shooting.
I left right then and went home…I just couldnt belive what I just saw…lol…
I doubt it. When California enacted the AWB, California LEOs bought into the promise of exemption for active and retired. If I understand it correctly, one of the reasons they supported the ban was because of the promises. That was great until last year when factions within the state government decided to revisit the situation. Certain members of the state gov started a hard push to make retired LEOs subject to same firearms restrictions as every other citizen. And IIRC, they were also pushing for active LEOs to bring their personal armories (IE; anything not used for your current duty assignment) up to restrictions.
OP, I mention this because I don’t care what the politicians are saying, they’ll eventually go back on the agreement and try to make LEOs abide by the restrictions in some way or another. It won’t just happen in CA, it will happen in every other state that allows their rights to be curtailed. You might want to start a discussion about that with some of your colleagues that support the restrictions and see how they react. If they don’t believe it will happen to them, all they have to do is look at CA. It will happen.
As a vet and now a LEO… I’m all for law abiding citizens to own whatever they want.
I’ve owned an AR before the military and will own one after I’m a LEO. I think it boils down to freedom of choice. If you don’t want one - cool… but I do… I’m not forcing you to own one, so don’t force me to NOT own one.
I would say (atleast in my dept) most share my views. Not all, but most. The one’s that don’t are still pro-gun… they just want some kind of mandate that requires training and proof of competency in order to own a rifle/handgun. I don’t think it’s a bad thing IMO.
BTW not every Officer in the military came through an academy. OCS pushes a good number out to the force. But, I fail to see you distinction when noting academy grads? What’s the point?
Of the VMI, West Point, and Naval Academy grads that I know (and a few that are very good friends of mine and members here) they are pro-2A to a man.
The same goes for members of SF units.
If someone really believes that the US military will turn on civilian gun-owners, well, they will be pleasantly surprised come that dark day.
