Posted on 11/23/2014 7:19:19 AM PST by Second Amendment First
To a gov’t or ex gov’t employee (Navy firearms...etc) more government is the answer to everything.
Actually, government is the answer to just about nothing.
Good catch. The fail safe way to detect a mindless liberal: liberals rely on feelings, while conservatives rely on thought.
When you start talking about what other people should be allowed to do or own, you’ve made the case for the Second Amendment.
Wow! Excellent background on this guy! Thanks.
I knew it instinctively but was too lazy too look it up!
Probably works for Brady’s crew too!
Wow! Excellent background on this guy! Thanks.
I knew it instinctively but was too lazy too look it up!
Probably works for Brady’s crew too!
Being a veteran does not give one a greater position of morality or expertise to expound on constitutional issues.
Being a current or former weapons instructor doesn’t make one an expert on issues related to gun control.
This is no aspersion on honorable service. But the past history indicated does not establish the foundation the writer thinks it does in terms of proposing to teach others about what the constitution does or does not say, and in terms of what is or is not good public policy.
The self aggrandizement the writer makes based on their service is, to me, unsettling.
Every soldier who has stood guard duty is not an expert on anti terrorism. Every public affairs officer is not an expert on free speech. Every chaplain is not an expert on freedom of religion.
This would be akin to someone who worked for a few years as an Apple Genius proposing that they are qualified to not only advise the CEO, but that they are qualified by such experience to advise the FCC or the Patent Board.
This is an old leftist fallacy of appealing to false authority: “you must be X in order to have any credibility to speak on Z”
I have seen people on the right fall into the trap AKA “he’s a vet so he must be a patriot” or “He handled guns so he mush know what he’s talking about”.
Tis better to judge a man on his deeds rather than rely only upon his words.
I am doubtful of the claim that “mass shootings are on the rise.” I also dismiss quite readily the idea that because object X can be deadly to children that the only way to keep children safe is by a wide restrictions on object X.
Using that logic I would have to conclude that objects that cause even more deaths than guns must face more severe restrictions, even being banned. So should we ban automobiles and swimming pools and open flame.
My other objection is that to truly keep children safe from guns (which I suppose would mean no gun fatalities or injuries at all) we would have to factor in the big unknown of human behavior. That means we must assume that those who are considered “safe” gun owners could at anytime experience a crisis or a mental health break which would make them “unsafe” gun owners. So there can be no true removal of a threat to children unless you severely restrict the use of firearms and ban them if children are likely to be present.
All of this means when I read an argument that claims “It’s for the children” I immediately suspect the true argument is “Your constitutional rights must take a back seat to my fearmongering.”
This guy is a moron, their is a movement in the NDA to classify gun ownership as a health risk and a mental disorder.
“40 hours training”
I am quite sure the gangs would get right on this idea.
True enough for the most part. But when the action is advocacy, and it is here, his words are enough to condemn him to the "enemy of me" pile. The fact that he served does not override his intentions to nanny me.
I could make the same argument for lawn mowers, bicycles, or baseball bats.
I guess I was lucky. I signed up for the Honor Guard at Keesler in 1974. I had to requalify to carry a pistol and an M-16 for the guard so they cut a temporary TDY over to Gulfport where the Marines taught the SeeBees weapons handling and marksmanship. After four days personal instruction with a Senior Chief Marine, I was comfortable with the M-16 and M1911 .45 Pistol. It was some of the best weapons instructions I have ever had.
This loser (Shawn VanDiver) is a serious leftist.
Major Obama backer and member of Organizing For America.
Member of Truman National Security Project Defense Council. It has Joe Biden’s son, R. Hunter Biden on its board of directors. Remember, he was the one discharged from the Navy for being a cocaine head.
I agree that the Navy Vet should be able to comment on what he professes to be qualified on but I don't think the public should be allowed to carry torpedoes even with 40/80 hours of guberment training.
By the way, Guns are mounted on ships or other platforms. Weapons are carried by personnel.
Serving in the military is no guarantee that you aren’t a mentally ill liberal. This screed is evidence.
Who is funding this propagandist? Many of the statements he makes are nothing but pure propaganda and in many cases factually wrong. There is no “fringe” gun lobby just regular Americans. X hours of training? Just how does “hours” of training rather than knowledge, regardless of training, influence threat? And why does gun ownership need to be public? Could it be to harass, threaten, and intimidate those who don’t want to knuckle under to others? Where does public knowledge make people safe? This is disgusting propaganda.
Despite Americans becoming increasingly aware and educated regarding the threats to personal safety and health that are posed by the socialists, the socialists are simply increasing the push to oppress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.