what a novel idea /s/s/s
I’ll take the 40 hours of weapons training when he takes 40 hours of Constitution 105.
Apparently this guy #1 has no clue that govt does not give us our rights and #2 weapons made to kill people are necessary in case we need to kill somebody or in the case of govt tyranny a whole lotta somebody’s.
So I guess he wants us to believe that by infringing on the second amendment rights of law abiding Americans, criminals and crazies will somehow be unable to obtain and/or use firearms. Right. FO dude.
When you start talking about what other people should be allowed to do or own, you’ve made the case for the Second Amendment.
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.
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.
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.
Face it: the gun rights debate in this country is stale.
Not a correct statement. There is no gun rights debate or there should not be.
We have an exisiting Constitutional Right. PERIOD. You don’t like that right, then get the Admendment changed.
I don’t give a flying “eff,” VanDiver, about you or your six year old son. I carry about liberty, freedom and the Constitution. You, Shawny boy, you fascist, are a pimple on the a$$ of a free America.
what a novel idea /s/s/s
“How many shootings will it take before we adopt common sense gun control? “
How many anti-gun laws, beyond the 22,000 currently, before we consider re-defining “common sense”?
Appeal to authority logical fallacy in the headline, and it goes downhill from there.
No sale.
Gee, how nazi this clown is.
This is awful.