Younger Generation

[proud_to_serveUSAF]

imported post

acrimsontide wrote:

Nor does being in the military mean that you are familiar with all firearms. I work part time in a gun shop in a military town and some of the soldiers honestly don't know squat about handguns. I have had young soldiers come in to look at hand guns who absolutely nothing about them. Now these same young soldiers could probably break down and put back together an M4 with their eyes closed but are not familiar with handguns at all and if they chose to carry a handgun should definitely have training. I am a Vietnam vet and all for rights for those in the military, but wearing a uniform does not automatically prepare someone to carry a firearm, nor does a civilian reaching 21 make them automatically prepared. Concealed carry or open carry of a firearm in the USA is far different with different "rules of engagement" than a soldier with an issued M4 on a battlefield. Decision making in combat unit is far different than the decision making required when carrying a handgun in a civilial environment in the USA. Sorry but even as a veteran, I can't buy the argument of being someone being responsible enough to carry a firearm just because someone is in the military.

And before someone thinks I am forcing an opinion, I am not. This is just MY opinion.

I definitely agree that serving doesn't necessarily constitute a familiarity with firearms or proper training. I think it got off topic when people started talking about serving should allow you to carry. That's not what I meant by my original statement about being in the military. I definitely agree that there are plenty of no-brained people that are in that shouldn't even be in, much less that extend an allowance for them to be carrying. I just meant that I believe that some peopledon't like young people to carry should re-evaluate the scenario. They believe its okayfor everyone at age 18 to join the military and use firearms to defend yourself andothersin another country (with proper training), smoke, go to strip clubs, etc. And at 21 you are given the responsibility, if you so choose, to drink and not use a deadly weapon (car). But those same people look at you funny for being young andwanting to defend yourself (which I do believe shouldcome with proper training)in the same country you can die fighting for at the age of 18 while they have absolutely no problem with that.I was just using that as one example out of many.

I'm not saying everyone that is in generations after us looks at us that way, nor am I saying that they wouldn't look at a 60 year old man as crazy for doing the same thing. Just wondering if anyone else had had problems or comments made based solely on their age. Ex: I was in McDonald's in Danville a few weekends ago where I was visiting my parents and eating breakfast with them while in town. As always, I was OCing. I heard a group of elderly men grumbling about "look at that. hes got a gun. thats whats wrong with kids these days. all think they can just kill each other." i just went on my way. had i spoken to them im sure they wouldve realized that is not my intention for carrying and thought i was a great "kid".

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

proud_to_serveUSAF wrote:

acrimsontide wrote:

Nor does being in the military mean that you are familiar with all firearms. I work part time in a gun shop in a military town and some of the soldiers honestly don't know squat about handguns. I have had young soldiers come in to look at hand guns who absolutely nothing about them. Now these same young soldiers could probably break down and put back together an M4 with their eyes closed but are not familiar with handguns at all and if they chose to carry a handgun should definitely have training. I am a Vietnam vet and all for rights for those in the military, but wearing a uniform does not automatically prepare someone to carry a firearm, nor does a civilian reaching 21 make them automatically prepared. Concealed carry or open carry of a firearm in the USA is far different with different "rules of engagement" than a soldier with an issued M4 on a battlefield. Decision making in combat unit is far different than the decision making required when carrying a handgun in a civilial environment in the USA. Sorry but even as a veteran, I can't buy the argument of being someone being responsible enough to carry a firearm just because someone is in the military.

And before someone thinks I am forcing an opinion, I am not. This is just MY opinion.

I definitely agree that serving doesn't necessarily constitute a familiarity with firearms or proper training. I think it got off topic when people started talking about serving should allow you to carry. That's not what I meant by my original statement about being in the military. I definitely agree that there are plenty of no-brained people that are in that shouldn't even be in, much less that extend an allowance for them to be carrying. I just meant that I believe that some peopledon't like young people to carry should re-evaluate the scenario. They believe its okayfor everyone at age 18 to join the military and use firearms to defend yourself andothersin another country (with proper training), smoke, go to strip clubs, etc. And at 21 you are given the responsibility, if you so choose, to drink and not use a deadly weapon (car). But those same people look at you funny for being young andwanting to defend yourself (which I do believe shouldcome with proper training)in the same country you can die fighting for at the age of 18 while they have absolutely no problem with that.I was just using that as one example out of many.

I'm not saying everyone that is in generations after us looks at us that way, nor am I saying that they wouldn't look at a 60 year old man as crazy for doing the same thing. Just wondering if anyone else had had problems or comments made based solely on their age. Ex: I was in McDonald's in Danville a few weekends ago where I was visiting my parents and eating breakfast with them while in town. As always, I was OCing. I heard a group of elderly men grumbling about "look at that. hes got a gun. thats whats wrong with kids these days. all think they can just kill each other." i just went on my way. had i spoken to them im sure they wouldve realized that is not my intention for carrying and thought i was a great "kid".

+1 on both posts...

Not all servicemen (and women) are unfamiliar with pistols. It depends on the branch of service. When I went to Coast Guard boot camp in 1983, We shot the basic rifle and basic pistol courses (old "1000 inch reduced M-16 course and"Navy F" Pistolcourse on the bullseye <B-8 target>). We used M-16's(not even A-1's) and 45's. Some of those old 45's were even Singer, Remington Rand and some other WW2 collectibles.

When I went back there as an instructor in 1987, they were still shooting the same rifle course but had changed to the TrasTar II target for the basic pistol course, but similar course of fire. They had a few A-1's by then and still shooting the 45. While I was there, The Coast Guard was transitioning to the Beretta 92F 9mm. On Pistol days, the recruits would shoot one pistol in the morning and the other in the aftenoon. Made for some very LONG days at the range. I also found out that whatever they shot in the afternoon, their scores improved. Whomever thinks you can shoot one better than the other because of caliber, its PURE POPPYCOCK! As an instructor, I learned thatshooters improvetheir scores with practice and the close attention of a good instructor. Even those "rattle-battle" 45's that made a lot of noise when you shook them could keep the rounds in the "5-ring" of the human torso sized TransTar II taget without a problem.

Shortly after I left there in 1989, the Coast Guard decided that recruits didn't need to shoot the rifle as they weren't likely to need the quals at their new duty station. They would MOST LIKELY need pistol quals as that would be their primary weapon if they went to a ship, small boat station or other unit with law enforcement duties. I think they also started having recruits shoot the shotgun, but I don't know if that was just an "experiment" or not. The Coast Guard carries a modified Remington 870 with a 14" barrel and an ACOG Reflex sight on it. They shoot 3" magnum slugs, 2 3/4" 00 Buckshot and 'less than lethal' beanbags, fin-stabilized rubber slugs and 00 (or bigger) rubber "bb's. When they get to their new duty station, IF they are assigned duties that require rifle quals, then they get it from their unit's Small Arms Instructor (SAI).

Below is the Coast Guard's "new" shotgun.

After basic training, they go through more training with the pistol (and rifle & shotgun if necessary) for practical courses (PPC) and combat courses . They also use a laser system similar to the FATS system that was coming online while I was still in. The new laser system is portable. Its built right into a 40' trailer so it can be used by many units throughout the area in which it is assigned. Then they go through many hours of LE training and must qualify on the "Judgemental" course of fire and finally be signed off by the CO of the unit.

They aren't "turned over" to harass the general boating public until they've had a LOT of training and even some OJT.A Coast Guard boarding team will consist of at LEAST 2 members: A Boarding Officer (BO) and Boarding Team Member (BTM). There may be a boarding team of 10 or more if they are going aboard a large ship or on a "high risk" boarding.

A few days before I retired, I was "forced" to test fire 1,000 rounds through one of the new .40 cal Sig P229DAK's that they had just been issued. I was a bit sore afterwards. That was a LOT of double-action trigger time.

I'm confident the "kids" doing boardings in the Coast Guard today are well-trained and well-disciplined. During my 20 years as an activeSmall Arms Instructor, I never had an "AD" or UD or whatever the popular term for it is now... The closest anyone ever came to having one was when someone shot about a second before I blew the 'commence fire' whistle during a course of fire.

The Judgemental course is a fairly accurate example of what they would be expected to do as a civilian OC or CCing. Of course they would need to be familiarized with State Laws, but I would be willing to say they're fairly well-prepared to carry as a civilian.

 

[essayons]

imported post

acrimsontide wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

"why it's OK for you to die for them overseas but not OK for you to protect yourself and your family here in the USA."


Let's be honest people.... Just because you are 21 and in the military does not mean you good at decision making.

Nor does being in the military mean that you are familiar with all firearms. I work part time in a gun shop in a military town and some of the soldiers honestly don't know squat about handguns. I have had young soldiers come in to look at hand guns who absolutely nothing about them. Now these same young soldiers could probably break down and put back together an M4 with their eyes closed but are not familiar with handguns at all and if they chose to carry a handgun should definitely have training. I am a Vietnam vet and all for rights for those in the military, but wearing a uniform does not automatically prepare someone to carry a firearm, nor does a civilian reaching 21 make them automatically prepared. Concealed carry or open carry of a firearm in the USA is far different with different "rules of engagement" than a soldier with an issued M4 on a battlefield. Decision making in combat unit is far different than the decision making required when carrying a handgun in a civilial environment in the USA. Sorry but even as a veteran, I can't buy the argument of being someone being responsible enough to carry a firearm just because someone is in the military.

And before someone thinks I am forcing an opinion, I am not. This is just MY opinion.

I've had to bite my tongue (well... fingers really) quite a bit so far in this thread, but I can't hold off any longer.

Yes, not all members of the military are responsible enough to carry, or even own firearms. However, the level of firearms handling, safety, and overall training in the military far exceeds the requirements to obtain a CCW in Virginia. For that matter, I would trust the average Army or Marine Private fresh out of basic far more with a firearm than the average brand new police academy graduate. Having experienced both, I can say that weapons safety is drilled into a young Army recruit's head in a way that a law enforcement academy cannot approach.

This crap about "I know guys in the military that shouldn't be trusted with firearms" is just that.... crap. I know private citizens and LEOs that shouldn't be trusted with firearms. As far as I know, military and private citizens don't recieve any special privelages re: firearms ownership/carry. LEO's do, and frankly, sometimes this scares the crap out of me.

Yes, military service is not a garauntee of a person's responsibility. However, the Commonwealth of Virginia deems a DD214 enough to issue a CCW, so I guess it just has to be good enough for me. And yes, I would trust someone with military experience more with a firearm than the average joe schmoe off the street, simply for the fact that 3 weeks at basic dedicated to firearms safety and instructions is far more impressive than a weekend at a CCW class.

For all the comments about ROE in the military and overseas being simpler than "ROE" for civilian self-defense... you don't know what you are talking about. ROE overseas is 10x more complicated. I've never heard of a court asking someone stateside if they used proper escalation of force before shooting in self-defense. I could go on with examples but I'll save that for another thread.

LEO 229: re: your comments on Desert Storm... I have no idea what unit or type of work you did, but I can take a good guess. Please don't put forth your "story" on how it was, when you should know well that it was not the case for frontline units, and today it is certainly not that way even in the REMF units.

Example: in OIF, all units are issued a small amount of ammunition, even while riding buses from the airport to staging camps in Kuwait. This ammunition is not given to the company commander or squad leaders, it is usually given to selected junior enlisted soldiers. Once in country, if a soldier is found to have less than a full combat load of ammunition, his team/squad/platoon leaders will be in a world of hurt.

MSC 45ACP: You are absolutely correct. I was qualified expert in the M9 at the age of 19, and they had me running the M9 qual range for battalion staff in preparation for attendance to Small Arms Instructor School. The only trouble I had was with the Battalion S3 (a major) and the Bat. CSM, who is now a division level CSM. The major had an annoying habit of turning around with his weapon to talk about how he did on the qual course, and the CSM had a ND into the ground about 2 feet in front of him prior to the start of the qual course. I was the PFC at the time, and was doing my best to maintain a safe range while maintaining the proper respect and decorum for the rank.

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

Sorry, I couldn't sleep, So here's my next wooden nickel...

The only people I ever threw off the range for safety violations were some very SENIOR people. The most senior was a full Commander (O-5) dentist. I guess the Senior MedicalOfficer cornered our ol' Warrant Gunner (CWO4) up inMedical one day and asked if we had the ammo and time to run the medical folks through.

It happened that we had some time between recruit companies one week, so we had the medical folks for a couple days. We only let them shoot the basic pistol course and we went to 1 coach for every 2 medical people rather than our usual 1:3 or 1:4 ratio with recruits.I guess the Gunner had the medical folks at the range before I was stationed there, so he knew what to expect.

One of my people was an E-7 Corpsman and the other was an O-5 Dentist. The Chief was doing ok and being safe. The dentist kept leaving his finger on the trigger after bringing the weapon down between shots on slow fire and even pointed the pistol at the overhead a couple times. I firmly but politely admonished him each time he did the "fingering" thing and more seriously when he pointed it at the roof. I showed him the results of others that had pointed at the overhead and actually improved the ventillation as a result. He said he would be more careful.

When he completed the slow fire string (sooner than the Chief), I had been talking to the Chief. I saw movement in my periphery and felt a tap on my shoulder at the same time. They had been instructed several times during the pre-fire if they had a question or problem, to keep the weapon pointed down range, bench the weapon with the finger off the trigger, and put the weapon on SAFE! I guess he slept through that part of the prefire instructions and possibly the whole thing because they hear it more than once during the prefire. I turned to look at him. His finger was still wrapped around the trigger and the weapon was pointed at the Chief's outstretched arms as he prepared to fire. Fortunately, the doctor'sslide was already locked to the rear. I asked him to bench the empty weapon and step back behind the yellow ready line. I finished clearing his weapon (magazine out, safety/decocking lever down/on) and inspected the bore to ensure it was clear... I finished up with the Chief and he did as he had learned in the prefire without flaw (ejecting the mag, safety down/on, inspect the bore/chamber and benched the empty/cleared weapon). After the Chief had stepped back to the ready line, I invited the doctor outside for a chat. I spoke to him about the seriousness of safety violations and told him that repeated violations were unacceptable behavior.

I asked him to sit on the bleachers behind the range while we finished the rest of the course of fire. He asked if he could finish and I told him he would need more training before he could shoot again. When the Senior Instructor came by with the clipboard after scoring of targets was complete, he noticed the doctor had only3 rounds on the target. He had completed the first stage of the slow fire and not been allowed to load his second 6-round magazine when I had removed him from the line. The boss asked me what had happened, and I told him the doctor needed a little more training and I would keep him at the same point during the next line of shooters. He agreed. I thought I could "reach" the doctor and perhaps instill some "common sense" in the man.

I sure hope he was a good doctor, or good at whatever else the Coast Guard (or Public Health Service, which is where Coast Guard doctors come from) paid him to do, because he should NEVER be allowed to handle, much less OWN a firearm. he was completely CLUELESS, even after I spent at least 15 minutes with him (and held up the rest of the line by 10 minutes) trying to get him to stop "doing stupid chit". He never "got it". He was so aloof, he was absolutely amazed when I asked him to leave the range and not come back until he was ready to "put his mind in the game".

He went to complain to the Gunner. The Gunner asked him what happened... He told the Gunner "He said I had several safety violations, but I don't see what I did wrong..." I saw the Gunner's mouth drop and his eyes:shock:as he listened to the Commander's side of what happened. The Gunner still pointed to the door to the parking lot and suggested he have a nice day. Of course the doctor complained to the Training Officer (another O-5) who was the Gunner's boss. He was a Mustang and backed the Gunner's decision.

I've dealt with a few boneheads and clueless people at the range, but it was never the folks that were there for LE training. I guess the screening process works for us and the sporks are weeded out of the program before they make it to the Range. I had a couple knucklehead recruits that couldn't seem to find the target, but very few of them were guilty of safety violations. I guess the clowns didn't make it to the 7th week of training (range week) and went home or had been reverted (sent back)a few weeksand recovered from their near-fatal case of rectal-cranial inversion by the time they were allowed to go to the range.

I don't know if it is still a practical factor for graduation from CG boot camp, but while I was in, a recruit HAD to go to the range and complete the course of fire safely before they could graduate from boot camp. They weren't required to qualify (and quite a few didn't), but they WERE required to shoot the course and complete it safely. Any recruit that was removed from the line and did not complete the course was either reverted a week or two or thrown out of the Coast Guard. Range safety is SERIOUS CHIT everywhere I've been stationed, especially at Training Commands.

Coast Guard recruits graduate from boot camp as E2's if theycomplete all requirements and E3 if they had JROTC, Sea Cadets or some college. If you ever see an E-1 in the Coast Guard, he's been in front of the Green Tablecloth and lost a stripe as a result of NJP (Article 15 for you non-seagoing folks and Office Hours for you Marines).

--stepping down from soapbox now :idea:...

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

It comes down to this.

I served in the militaryfrom age 18 so I have first hand knowledge of young soldiers under 21 and how much firearms training they receive. I also participated in Desert Storm and my unit disarmed us!!Soldiers were trusted so much thatwe could have ammo. So much for military leaderstrusting soldiersin a war.

Young soldiers are no different that young civilians. The only difference is they have been shown how to shoot a rifle under strict supervision. In basic training, there is no extensive training and exposure with firearms. They go down range, sight in the rifle and then qualify. After that... theycarry an empty rifle on many road marches and in the field. They only shoot once a yearand it is just enough ammo to qualify. It does not make them good decision makers.

The state accepts the DD214 because they have had training in firearms just like any civilian witha one day training class. It simply means you know "something" about guns. It does not mean you are an expert. Nor does a DD214 mean you are a good decision maker.

People are not scared you have a loaded gunandit might go off in your holster. They arenot scared that you do not know how it operatesor that you cannot shoot straight. They are scared that you might draw it at the wrong time and shoot someone.

A police recruit has far more time at the range than any military recruit. I can say this because I have been in both settings. A police recruit has also received training on when to deploy and they are at least 21 years of age.

I am not saying that all young soldiers are bad decision makers.There are always exceptions.You can trust the young soldier all you like... but you are fooling yourself.

Simply put... If you appear young... even you nova... it may make older adults nervous. Not your fault or even your problem. But this can and will happen and you have to accept it. Getting pissy with the person expressing their feelings about it will only confirm they is right and you are not to be trusted.

The the record.. I have met nova... I trust him as an older adult.

 

[HankT]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

It comes down to this.

I served in the militaryfrom age 18 so I have first hand knowledge of young soldiers under 21 and how much firearms training they receive. I also participated in Desert Storm and my unit disarmed us!!Soldiers were trusted so much thatwe could have ammo. So much for military leaderstrusting soldiersin a war.

Young soldiers are no different that young civilians. The only difference is they have been shown how to shoot a rifle under strict supervision. In basic training, there is no extensive training and exposure with firearms. They go down range, sight in the rifle and then qualify. After that... theycarry an empty rifle on many road marches and in the field. They only shoot once a yearand it is just enough ammo to qualify. It does not make them good decision makers.

The state accepts the DD214 because they have had training in firearms just like any civilian witha one day training class. It simply means you know "something" about guns. It does not mean you are an expert. Nor does a DD214 mean you are a good decision maker.

People are not scared you have a loaded gunandit might go off in your holster. They arenot scared that you do not know how it operatesor that you cannot shoot straight. They are scared that you might draw it at the wrong time and shoot someone.

A police recruit has far more time at the range than any military recruit. I can say this because I have been in both settings. A police recruit has also received training on when to deploy and they are at least 21 years of age.

I am not saying that all young soldiers are bad decision makers.There are always exceptions.You can trust the young soldier all you like... but you are fooling yourself.

Simply put... If you appear young... even you nova... it may make older adults nervous. Not your fault or even your problem. But this can and will happen and you have to accept it. Getting pissy with the person expressing their feelings about it will only confirm they is right and you are not to be trusted.

Why?

Why do you persist in offering facts,experienceand logic? Why?

Toroll!

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

nova wrote:

Like it or not, at age 18 I can possess and open carry a handgun. I don't need anyone's permission or approval to do so, nor do I need anyone's respect. I don't need to serve in the armed forces in order to gain any rights or privileges like that is necessary in other nations.

Read the Declaration of Independence. The constitution nor anything else on this planet gave me my rights, I was born with them, as we all were. I have not done anything to cause my rights to be taken away through due process.

I respect people who respect me. If people judge me due to my age then that's their problem.

I treat everyone I meet with kindness, if they treat me like crap then I'll return the favor.

Like it or not... the declaration, constitution, and other historical document do not say anything about the rights of a 6 years old packing a loaded firearm either. It does not mean it was intended for them to be armed... does it?

It is common sense approach. Obviously, at age 18 most states allow you to possess a gun. It does not say people have to accept it and feel good about it.

But maturity on your part will help you understand it and allow you to get past it if and when they express it. You are not going to change their opinion. You can only prove them right by your response.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Why?

Why do you persist in offering facts,experienceand logic? Why?

Troll!

There.. fixed it for ya'!

If you are going to call me a troll.. please spell it correctly.

Why? Because I just want to see what BS reply I will get to justify their reasoning.

As you indicated.. mine is based on fact andexperience. Theirs is based on opinion and belief. While I accept their opinion.. I am pointing out the flaws in it so that they may adjustaccordingly.

But you can lead a horse to water.. but you cannot make 'em drink!!

:lol:

 

[HankT]

imported post

 

[acrimsontide]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

I sure hope he was a good doctor, or good at whatever else the Coast Guard (or Public Health Service, which is where Coast Guard doctors come from) paid him to do, because he should NEVER be allowed to handle, much less OWN a firearm. he was completely CLUELESS, even after I spent at least 15 minutes with him (and held up the rest of the line by 10 minutes) trying to get him to stop "doing stupid chit". He never "got it". He was so aloof, he was absolutely amazed when I asked him to leave the range and not come back until he was ready to "put his mind in the game".

This is a confirmation of what I posted that being in the military does not automatically prepare someone to carry a firearm nor does turning 21 automatically prepare a civilian. There are many job classifications in the military, other than medical personnel, who are likely not that familiar with firearms. There are also many civilians who are not properly prepared as well, both young and old.

All of us who carry a firearm certainly have the right to do so and I support that. With that right comes a huge responsibility regardless of age or profession.

 

[nova]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

nova wrote:

Like it or not, at age 18 I can possess and open carry a handgun. I don't need anyone's permission or approval to do so, nor do I need anyone's respect. I don't need to serve in the armed forces in order to gain any rights or privileges like that is necessary in other nations.

Read the Declaration of Independence. The constitution nor anything else on this planet gave me my rights, I was born with them, as we all were. I have not done anything to cause my rights to be taken away through due process.

I respect people who respect me. If people judge me due to my age then that's their problem.

I treat everyone I meet with kindness, if they treat me like crap then I'll return the favor.

Like it or not... the declaration, constitution, and other historical document do not say anything about the rights of a 6 years old packing a loaded firearm either. It does not mean it was intended for them to be armed... does it?

It is common sense approach. Obviously, at age 18 most states allow you to possess a gun. It does not say people have to accept it and feel good about it.

But maturity on your part will help you understand it and allow you to get past it if and when they express it. You are not going to change their opinion. You can only prove them right by your response.

Well, those documents use the term "men", and "people". It is generally accepted that 6 year olds are not "men".

Aside from the fact, in many places kids that age to carry firearms when out hunting ,for example.


As you said, I have rights but everyone doesn't have to like it. But luckly for me (and everyone for that matter) yourself and most others who's duty it is to uphold law, stick to doing just that, and that I respect. I welcome other people's opinions including yours, even if I don't agree with them.

 

[proud_to_serveUSAF]

imported post

acrimsontide... i know im going off subject in my own post BUT i just had to let you know that your icon is extremely offensive to me (not really)haha. You should replace it with a nice auburn one. war eagle baby. sorry, just born into it. not a decision lol

 

[acrimsontide]

imported post

proud_to_serveUSAF wrote:

acrimsontide... i know im going off subject in my own post BUT i just had to let you know that your icon is extremely offensive to me (not really)haha. You should replace it with a nice auburn one. war eagle baby. sorry, just born into it. not a decision lol

Well, since you were born into it vs not making a decision, I guess you were just unlucky!! LOL WAR EAGLE (Except for one game each season of course)

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

To those that have served their country, I salute you and thank you.

To those of younger generations that chose to OC, thank you for being
part of the solution and for doing so responsibly. We need you.
You are the future of our country. I'm not being overly dramatic;
it is the simple truth.

Yata hey

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

nova wrote:

Well, those documents use the term "men", and "people". It is generally accepted that 6 year olds are not "men".

Aside from the fact, in many places kids that age to carry firearms when out hunting ,for example.


As you said, I have rights but everyone doesn't have to like it. But luckly for me (and everyone for that matter) yourself and most others who's duty it is to uphold law, stick to doing just that, and that I respect. I welcome other people's opinions including yours, even if I don't agree with them.

Kids are people too... :lol:

We do not have to agree. We only need tounderstand that each of us will eventually seethings differentlybut will allow the other person the time to explain why they feel the way they do.

To be willing tolisten and possibly agree on some other areas or even change our own views based ofalternative ways of seeing things.

To not resort to name calling, personal attacks, ordegrading othersdue to spelling, grammar, or punctuation to avoid their message.:uhoh:

 

[TexasNative]

imported post

Oh, shut up, you citizen-intimidating, rights-stealing, corruption-hiding jack-booted thug!

~ Boyd

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

TexasNative wrote:

Oh, shut up, you citizen-intimidating, rights-stealing, corruption-hiding jack-booted thug!

~ Boyd

That only took 6 minutes!! :lol:

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I also participated in Desert Storm and my unit disarmed us!!

Whoever made this decision.... I nominate him to replace the Alexandria police chief whojust crashed in a city vehicle while DUI this past weekend and injured a young lady.

Take away their cars! Take away their guns! Make the streets safe again! :lol:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

I will nominate them for our next POTUS. Wait.. maybe Obama can do it.


Take away their cars! Take away their guns! Make the streets safe again!


American citizens are out of control. They need to all be disarmed to make the streets safer. Take away their cars and they will stop having accidents.

 

[wylde007]

imported post

Now I can't tell if you're serious or just seriously deranged.