Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:24 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Should We Modify Or Abolish The 2nd Amendment? Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,574
Points:449,665
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 6:45:09 PM

Seems like everybody is dancing around a touchy subject here. So I am going to just say it.

Perhaps it is time to have a discussion about the 2nd amendment.

Maybe we should abolish or modernize the 2nd amendment.

After all, it was written in a time when the most powerful weapons were a cannon, a muzzle loading musket and a sword. The purpose of it was so that the people could protect themselves from a tyrannical government coming after them. (fear of the British Crown) They wanted to be able to form a militia to defend themselves against attacking government troops. They wanted the right to have weapons to form that militia with.

"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."

We have never had the problem the amendment purports to prevent. But allowing the people to keep and bear arms has caused a lot of unintended consequences. We do not have a problem with the government sending troops into American towns and attacking people. And no militia has ever had to defend themselves from government troops. We do have a violence problem from having too many guns around and allowing them into the hands of crazy people and bad people.

Other countries which have no such right to keep and bear arms enjoy more freedom than we do and have far less violence.

USA is not the nation with the most freedom! We rank 7th...
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,780
Points:2,846,345
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 11:58:50 PM

And, Marty, if you compare the reduction in the Australian homicide rate from 1993 to present with the reduction in the US homicide rate for the same period, you'll find they're almost the same.

Which doesn't say much for the effect of Australia's stricter gun laws.

Note also that New Zealand saw the same reduction in mass murders without the stricter gun laws.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 5/22/2013 12:01:55 AM EST]
Profile Pic
PegasusAT
Champion Author Corpus Christi

Posts:29,745
Points:3,401,205
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 9:48:43 PM

>>Middle, But the gun reforms made Australia a safer place, with fewer homicides and suicides, and both Howard and Fischer are now urging U.S. President Barack Obama to take his gun control campaign to the people, just as they did, to gain a consensus...<<

Maybe you should take into account this study:

Australia: A Massive Buy back of Low-Risk Guns

Overall, there has been a decline of 8.9 percent in the rate of total homicide and a 3.2 percent decline in the daily rate of firearm homicide
. However, these observed declines in total homicide and firearm homicide
continued a long-term trend rather than the effect of the Port Arthur
incident.

The use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,595
Points:3,493,670
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 9:14:18 PM

MiddletownMarty once again being confused said: "But the gun reforms made Australia a safer place, with fewer homicides and suicides..."

--Uhh..not from what I've heard. Now criminals are brazen enough to simply break down a door and rifle a house (no pun intended) for valuables. And they'll even do so when folks are at home. There's no chance they can get shot.

And others here are correct that you also have to conceed that Australia has NO RIGHT to personal firearms ownership. We in America sure do. I realize you hate guns, Marty. But that doesn't change the fact that we have the right, as individuals, and it has been affirmed in court, to personal firearms ownership. And the right is not only for hunting or target shooting, it's also for personal protection and the prevention of tyranny.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,728
Points:333,550
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 7:56:53 PM

When some foreigner tells us we need to turn in our guns, it generates more support the pro gun cause than any thing any of the pro gun supporters can do.

So people like Piers Morgan just need to keep flapping their gums.
I originally wanted him gone, but changed my mind when I see the effect he has on uniting people against the anti gunners.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,377
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 6:50:53 PM

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."


To believe that tripe, one would have to believe that the authors of the Constitution had completely forgotten their own definition of treason.
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,289
Points:430,240
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 5:09:19 PM

“I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them,” Morgan said. “I said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous! Your government won’t turn itself on you. But, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government.”

Let me repeat that statement from Piers Morgan an avowed anti-gunner:

"But, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government."

NAH! We don't need the Second Amendment.

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,602
Points:1,546,695
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 8:50:25 AM

CM623.... Public Executions use to be the norm up to (about)100 years ago.
This had a astounding effect on those even contemplating a life of crime. Brought the message home...so to speak
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:24,280
Points:3,818,865
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 2:50:31 PM

Turn in your guns. The government will take care of you. Ask any Native American.
Profile Pic
CatMan623
Champion Author Houston

Posts:23,331
Points:2,992,420
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 11:52:57 PM

Two things will help make this a safer country for us all, and neither involve disarming law abiding citizens:

1. The uncertainty in criminal's minds when the citizens carry concealed. Criminals like sure things, not the chance of getting shot themselves. And,

2. The certainty of punishment for committing a crime with a gun. Vigorously prosecute those who commit a crime using a firearm and, if convicted, lock 'em up. It's not the severity of the punishment that does the trick, it's the certainty. There have to be consequences for breaking the law.






[Edited by: CatMan623 at 5/11/2013 11:54:14 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,494
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 7:17:40 PM

Shock you are still young and tender.......
Profile Pic
kiatoindos
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:2,253
Points:556,735
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 7:10:55 PM

Violent crimes are out of control in Australia and if you don't like the 2d amendment move to canada or mexico most guns are illegal in Mexico that's why no one gets killed by the cartels!
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,012
Points:2,833,690
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 4:39:39 PM

Before my time. I served in the late 70's to mid 80's...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,780
Points:2,846,345
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 12:59:54 PM

Shockjock1961 - "I assumed it was army (or possibly marine) simply because I was unaware of a rank of "Sergeant" in the air force. I knew there was a Staff Sergeant, but I hadn't heard of there being a "Buck" Sergeant. You learn something new everyday!"

Yeah, well, like we've been saying, there isn't any more. This was back in the '70s.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,012
Points:2,833,690
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 8:45:20 AM

"But from RJ's answer I am assuming he was in the Army."

I assumed it was army (or possibly marine) simply because I was unaware of a rank of "Sergeant" in the air force. I knew there was a Staff Sergeant, but I hadn't heard of there being a "Buck" Sergeant. You learn something new everyday!
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,012
Points:2,833,690
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 8:40:17 AM

"Apparently you missed the mention of Senior _Airman_."

Yes I did! Thanks for setting the record straight!
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,937
Points:1,867,540
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 9:21:12 PM

"Apparently you missed the mention of Senior _Airman_. Back when I made E-4, it was Sergeant. Shortly afterwards, the USAF split it into Senior Airman and Sergeant, and later got rid of Sergeant altogether."

I was both an E-4 Senior Airman and an E-4 Sergeant. I only wore Sergeant for about 3 months because I was a Staff Sergeant select and put it on shortly after being "promoted" to Sergeant.
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,289
Points:430,240
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 8:35:39 PM

I do have to say, the anti's are REALLY short sighted in this area, especially Obama. Ok, repeal the 2nd Amendment. Crime goes down and everything is hunky dory, right?

Criminals are still armed; we all agree they won't turn in their weapons, right?

Firearms manufacturers will move out of the country or go out of business. That's good, right?

Ammunition plants will do the same. That's good, right?

Except, criminals will still be criminals and will have carte blanche to harm whomever they want. Not good.

Firearms manufacturers will be gone, but so will the jobs they provided and all the taxes and trickle down money spent by their employees in the communities. Not so good.

Same for the ammunition plants and their workers.

Then there is the ancillary economy that is supported by the firearms industry: hunting clubs, gun ranges, accessory manufacturers, gun shops, training centers, hunting guide services, etc.

How much money is dumped into the economy each year by all this? How much in federal taxes? State, county, local?

Of course the anti's don't believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack. Everyone should all go meekly to their slaughter.

Joe got it right: "Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from, from what it is now."

-Joe Biden-

The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world — by far. And yet, gun crime has been declining in the U.S. Firearm murders are down, as is overall gun violence – even as gun ownership increases.

What is the REAL story here?

Oh, and: "From Canada and Mexico? Really? LOL"
Why not? Holder and his cronies have been selling plenty to Mexico. They would probably love to have them go back north. Canada would just become a trade route; legally or illegaly.

[Edited by: greentre at 5/9/2013 8:40:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,494
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 8:18:43 PM

This is from Marty's linked article.

"Obama wants to ban military assault rifles and high capacity ammunition clips after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, in December. But his plans appear to be losing momentum ahead of debate in the U.S. Senate this month."

It is a classic example of antigun leaning reporting. Maybe some day these gunophobes will learn what in the world they are talking about.

"Obama wants to ban military assault rifles..." Marty these are already illegal in the US except the few made before I think 1984 or 6 that were licensed for private ownership then. A military assault rifle is defined as a rifle capable of select fire single shots or bursts or firing in the fully automatic mode - as in machine gun. NO firearm sold in FFL controlled stores or with few exceptions in any private ownership.

Then he goes on to make even more of a fool of himself with "...high capacity ammunition clips ..." What firearms in common use today use clips. The M1 Garand used a form of clip but it was a semiauto and in a cartridge that is one of the most used hunting calibers around. The 03A3 Springfield of WW I era used a five round stripper clip but that is a fairly rare bolt action rifle again in the same caliber as the M1. There were loads of 98 Mausers imported to the US that used a stripper clip to reload the magazine. Nope cant think of any 'large capacity clips' that we know about.

Marty's link is just more sensational reporting by people who know little to nothing about firearms - except to be scared of them and try and make every one else scared.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,377
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 8:17:40 PM

But Australia is a benevolent country, and I do not agree that the general population has a right to bear arms. The SCOTUS disagrees, which is why I advocate the repeal of the 2nd amendment. It's okay if you and others don't like it. Still there it is, and the very idea that someone even suggests that the 2nd should be repealed sends some into a frothed frenzy.



>>“Australia is an island nation. We are in the middle of other nations. Who's to say that if WE disarm ourselves, that they couldn't be brought in from north or south?”<<

From Canada and Mexico? Really? LOL


[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 5/9/2013 8:22:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,289
Points:430,240
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 7:40:02 PM

Marty,

"Australians do NOT have a Constitutional right to posess arms" is why Australian Prime Minister John Howard should butt out of our political arena. We DO have a Constitutional right to bear arms.

My post was an addition to AC's post about "benevolent" countries. Would you say those are benevolent countries Marty?
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,734
Points:1,288,800
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 7:35:20 PM

>>“Australia is an island nation. We are in the middle of other nations. Who's to say that if WE disarm ourselves, that they couldn't be brought in from north or south?”<<

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol will stop it.

Just like they do now.


[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 5/9/2013 7:37:14 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,377
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 6:48:51 PM

"First off; Australians do NOT have a Constitutional right to posess arms. "

Neither do the countries in your previous list.
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,289
Points:430,240
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 6:14:52 PM

To add to RJ's post:

First off; Australians do NOT have a Constitutional right to posess arms.

From the National Center for Policy Analysis: (April 13, 2009)

"It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women."

Further:

[A] study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,289
Points:430,240
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 5:59:54 PM

Sorry SE3.5. :-(
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,780
Points:2,846,345
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 5:40:27 PM

MiddletownMarty - "But the gun reforms made Australia a safer place, with fewer homicides and suicides, and both Howard and Fischer are now urging U.S. President Barack Obama to take his gun control campaign to the people, just as they did, to gain a consensus."

Funny thing about that. Australia has seen their homicide rate drop by about a third since they "banned automatic and semi-automatic weapons for the safety of all Australians."

In that same time period, so has the US. Without any significant change in gun control laws. In fact, many states have liberalized their gun control laws, including more allowing concealed carry.

So why would you think that their gun ban had anything to do with it?
Profile Pic
Pard
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:92,052
Points:3,783,435
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 5:36:29 PM

Australia is an island nation. We are in the middle of other nations. Who's to say that if WE disarm ourselves, that they couldn't be brought in from north or south?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,494
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 5:36:08 PM

Shock you kind of missed one minor branch.

E4 is a third class petty officer. It may be any of many different specialities. Like ET, or GM or MM or BM or RM.

Then after you have learned enough you may earn a promotion to 2nd class PO. You would then be a E5 - that is if you were a squid.

But from RJ's answer I am assuming he was in the Army.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 5/9/2013 5:40:52 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,377
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 5:31:02 PM

Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S.


Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard wore a bullet proof vest under his suit when he addressed an angry crowd of gun owners in 1996, telling them he was going to ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons for the safety of all Australians.

At other rallies, effigies of his deputy prime minister Tim Fischer were hanged by opponents of gun control.

The battle for gun control in Australia, after the country's worst massacre in which 35 people were shot dead, was risky both personally and politically. Howard alienated a large part of his conservative, rural base and was almost thrown from office.

But the gun reforms made Australia a safer place, with fewer homicides and suicides, and both Howard and Fischer are now urging U.S. President Barack Obama to take his gun control campaign to the people, just as they did, to gain a consensus.



Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:24,280
Points:3,818,865
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 5:30:36 PM

You stole my post, greentre.
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,289
Points:430,240
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 4:16:31 PM

Hey AC,

You could add the World's Most Repressive Societies:
Belarus
Chechnya (under Russian jurisdiction)
China
Cuba
Côte d'Ivoire
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Laos
Libya
Myanmar (Burma)
North Korea
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tibet (under Chinese jurisdiction)
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Western Sahara (under Moroccan jurisdiction)
Zimbabwe

I think these would be classified as 'benevolent' societies that have bans on civilian handguns. I think some of these are Communist or Socialist also. That 'is' the way it works isn't it? Unarmed populace + armed government = Socialist/Communist Serfs
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,780
Points:2,846,345
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 12:19:19 PM

Shockjock1961 - "Actually E-4 is a corporal or Specialist, at least in the army. Sergeant is E-5, Staff Sergeant is E-6, Sergeant First Class is E-7, Master/First Sergeant E-8, Sergeant Major E-9"

Apparently you missed the mention of Senior _Airman_. Back when I made E-4, it was Sergeant. Shortly afterwards, the USAF split it into Senior Airman and Sergeant, and later got rid of Sergeant altogether.

And, in the USAF, E-5 is Staff Sergeant, E-6 is Technical Sergeant, E-7 is Master Sergeant, E-8 is Senior Master Sergeant and E-9 is Chief Master Sergeant.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,937
Points:1,867,540
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 9:51:21 AM

BTW, how did the ban on alcohol go? How about the ban on marijuana? Ban on illegal immigration? Yet somehow this administration and so many Democrats now think a ban on guns is going to prevent criminals from getting guns?
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,937
Points:1,867,540
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 9:49:59 AM

SemiSteve is a pro-government provide for everyone kind of guy so of course he is against guns. The government will be there to protect you and dictate your life to you.

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,595
Points:3,493,670
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 9:46:41 AM

SemiSteve - you talk about societies that ban handguns as "benevolent." Hmmm... one prime example I can think of is 1930's Germany under the National Socialist movement. I think we can all agree that they were NOT benevolent, nor were they "multicultural". Ne pas?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,012
Points:2,833,690
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 9:34:36 AM

Actually E-4 is a corporal or Specialist, at least in the army. Sergeant is E-5, Staff Sergeant is E-6, Sergeant First Class is E-7, Master/First Sergeant E-8, Sergeant Major E-9
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,780
Points:2,846,345
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 11:32:01 PM

flyboyUT - "E4 what?"

Sergeant. This was shortly before they introduced Senior Airman.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,494
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 11:13:18 PM

Johnny some of us had already served our four year hitch and had tome to serve another one plus before the draft ended in '73 I think it was.
Profile Pic
PatAZ
Champion Author Tucson

Posts:10,191
Points:145,670
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 10:57:22 PM

There is nothing to discuss, it should not be changed or interfered with.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,734
Points:1,288,800
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 10:54:25 PM

Y’all must be really OLD. By the time I enlisted there was no draft. ;P
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,494
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 10:52:39 PM

Heck I was just home from the tender mercies of Boot Camp for a couple of weeks . I already had my orders to report to a ship berthed at Alameda NAS. Spent one cruise of four or five months on it then ET school. That short cruise did me good though. I wonder what ever happened to that chunk of paper that said 'greetings from the president'.

E4 what?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,780
Points:2,846,345
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 10:32:38 PM

I'd already been in a couple of years. I think I was an E-4.

The draft notice came in some mail my parents forwarded to me in Berlin.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 5/8/2013 10:33:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,494
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 8:19:38 PM

I hear you rj - my draft notice was waiting for me when I got home from boot camp. I kind of thought it was funny at the time.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,780
Points:2,846,345
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 5:11:29 PM

Some of us got drafted after enlisting.

Of course, my CO thought it was worth a laugh.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,494
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 4:55:48 PM

idheinz - please don't forget that even when they had the draft a lot of us volunteered to serve.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,657
Points:3,005,420
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 11:08:40 AM

SemiSteve - "From what I've seen and heard about war combatants, many should never have been put into this situation. Many who have been forced to kill end up committing suicide later on. Most people are not predisposed to becoming killers. Killing someone would mess them up. "

You DO know that the draft ended decades ago, right? No one is forced to kill anyone anymore.
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,289
Points:430,240
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 9:32:13 PM

SS-"intense training to really become a killer (similar to what police must do),"

RJ-"Has anybody with any actual experience got a response to this one?"

I didn't know the police were trained killers; makes me nervous if this is true. All the officers I know and the training I received was to defuse tense situations and only use the escalation of force scenario if conditions warranted it. Even in the face of deadly force we were trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve compliance with our orders.

Deadly force required four conditions be met:
Jeopardy - a persons life must be in imminent jeopardy of death or grievous injury.
Opportunity - the attacker must have the favorable circumstances to cause death or grievous injury.
Ability - the attacker must be capable of inflicting death or grievous injury.
Preclusion - an attempt must be made to convince the attacker to stop the attack or deadly force would be used.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,494
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 7:25:08 PM

RJ - Johnny said it all right here - "The issue is that decent people have a problem with killing." Steve has no real idea of what he is talking about IMHO.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,780
Points:2,846,345
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 7:03:34 PM

SemiSteve - "intense training to really become a killer (similar to what police must do),"

Has anybody with any actual experience got a response to this one?

Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,937
Points:1,867,540
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 6:43:57 PM

SS: "From what I've seen and heard about war combatants, many should never have been put into this situation. Many who have been forced to kill end up committing suicide later on. Most people are not predisposed to becoming killers. Killing someone would mess them up. We don't want those kinds of people having guns."

SS, you need to stop watching MSNBC. There are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen that have fought our nation's wars and have not committed suicide "later on." The men and women that have taken up that profession because you are incapable are trained to deal with it and the opposite is true...the majority do fine because they do the work of our nation and do it in a just manner.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,734
Points:1,288,800
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 6:21:06 PM

>>>>>"From what I've seen and heard about war combatants, many should never have been put into this situation. Many who have been forced to kill end up committing suicide later on. Most people are not predisposed to becoming killers. Killing someone would mess them up. We don't want those kinds of people having guns."<<<<

I would have to disagree with this statement. All you have to do is pick up a paper from any major city and you will be able to find plenty of examples of young people who have no problem killing. They do it with their bare hands, blunt objects, edged weapons and guns.

The issue is that decent people have a problem with killing. Even when given the chance to kill within the boundaries of the law many decent people decide not to pull the trigger and just hold the suspect at gunpoint until the cops arrive.

In fact in both of the stories I have posted the victim warned the attacker that he/she was armed and tried to get the attacker to stop his assault. Only when that failed did they open fire.

Both of these victims would have been well within their rights to have opened fire without warning but didn’t.
Post a reply Back to Topics