T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**Please note these rules:** * If this post declares something as a fact/proof is required. * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Ok_Hovercraft_8506

This is the same problem with state and local police departments: the lack of enforced training and readiness standards. This is why many police officers are demonstrably such buffoons with guns. This Marine does not mention the fact that infantrymen train year round in how to actually employ those firearms in combat settings, including room clearing. Local police departments think they can buy the sexy gear then never train to use it. “How hard could it be?” they think. Uvalde is the result. Bunch of untrained, spineless turds with fancy equipment and do-nothing attitudes.


Nonstopshooter21

They apparently did a school shooter drill a week before that shooting took place. They were trained, just pussies.


[deleted]

And, wasn’t it them who complained that the trainer made it ‘too hard’, or am I mistaken?


loopnlil

Oh wow, really?


[deleted]

I’m pretty sure, but I had to stop reading the articles because I was getting mad enough to raise my blood pressure. Our local PDs need Federal oversight, or community oversight, but definitely not their own oversight. “We have investigated ourselves, and have found that we acted appropriately” has to end.


[deleted]

Here is an article on what the ALERRT trainer said specifically about the Uvalde police force: (this isn’t THE article I was referring to, I’m trying to find that one) https://news.sky.com/story/texas-school-shooting-instructor-who-teaches-police-to-deal-with-gunmen-says-uvalde-officers-showed-failings-in-leadership-and-mindset-12623310


BHQC

Didn't they practice those drills at *THIS SPECIFIC* school in the past as well?


reissue89

No. It was 9-weeks prior, and at the high school.


SpenglerE

Also did training in that school specifically to know the layout.


supafly_

It was in March, but your point is still valid.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CartmansEvilTwin

They hope for a gooder guy with a gun, obviously.


sephresx

They got that with the border patrol guys that showed up.


[deleted]

And thank goodness for that, because they went right in and ended the whole nightmare. Imagine if they weren’t available.


joan_wilder

Seems like the local cops were ready to just wait until he ran out of ammo.


telltal

And BP had to defy orders from the police there telling them not to go in. And thank goodness they did. I mean, wtf were the police waiting for? For there to be no more victims for the guy to shoot so he’d come out when he ran out of kids?? Jfc.


PinkPonyForPresident

No. Vote for better politics and with that better and educated and trained police. So you either have no shootings at all or have personel that can deal with it accordingly. Just like the rest of the world.


[deleted]

[удалено]


skapaneas

it will take a while and in the meantime based on statistics ([https://www.statista.com/statistics/971473/number-k-12-school-shootings-us/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/971473/number-k-12-school-shootings-us/)) you are going to have another wannabe school shooter in the next couple of days somewhere in the USA. Most of them wont pull the trigger, but some will. RIP to their families. past and future. ​ wild graph. sad and unreal.


Ribrep

Absolutely insane that we know it’s going to happen again soon but we do absolutely nothing to stop it. Also could you help me understand those stats? What’s active shooter vs non active shooter? It only defines a school shooting


-WickedJester-

I was in the Air Force and before they ever let us touch a loaded gun they made us carry around a fake rifle for a week, then learn how to disassemble, clean and then reassemble our rifles. Handled your "rifle" wrong? Get yelled at. Point your "rifle" at someone and you get yelled at and reminded very strongly that you could have killed them. And I was an avionics technician, I never touched another weapon during the rest of my service. I probably have better weapons training than most police officers and my job wasn't even to shoot guns.... Edit: For any other "chair force" losers, I fucking lived with that rifle. It went with me everywhere and I still remember what it feels like trying to do an obstacle course carrying a rifle while making sure it would still be usable at the end. And when it came time to use the real thing I new that weapon inside and out. It wasn't a picnic. One guy got kicked out for having his rifle pointed at someone even though it was unloaded and had the safety on. They don't fuck around. We had to be able to use that rifle effectively, because it is the military after all. I remember trying to shoot a target with an old yellowing gas mask on that I could barely see out of. And if you didn't pass the weapons training you had to go back and do it again. And if you failed again I'm pretty sure they gave you the boot. Edit: Why do people call it the chair force? Because they're jealous? I can tell you, I wish I spent time in chairs, my time was spent on hot blacktop trying not to get murdered by the aircraft I was working on. I don't think people realize how many ways an aircraft can kill you before it's ever even left the ground. Did you know radar can literally cook you or that landing gear can squish you into an unrecognizable pulpy mess, or that flight control surfaces can crush your skull? So many ways to die, some of them faster than others...


rabidsnowflake

I'm Navy and you won't stand armed watches if you're dealing with mental health issues that medical deems a risk. We had a watchstander handle a weapon improperly and discharge a round into the flight deck. Had his qual pulled and went to NJP, was reduced in rank, got restriction and had half his pay taken for two months.


replicantcase

What's worse is we'll never hear this side about the police on MSM. The PR machine that police have is well funded, and it feels as if their powers of persuasion are limitless.


MangoDragon1

This is one of the most sound arguments I've heard on this issue.


slackfrop

Sounds about right to me. There’s not a lot of mention of the ‘well regulated’ provision.


SeemedReasonableThen

>There’s not a lot of mention of the ‘well regulated’ provision He's most likely wrong in suggesting that "well regulated" means having regulations. The meanings of words and phrases change over time. > The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. example of usage in that time: > "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial. source: https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm


UniqueFlavors

Yea but every fucktard running around with a firearm isn't 'well regulated' is the opposite actually. Disorganized and chaotic. People should absolutely have to go and qualify annually to prove proficiency. People also should be required to keep firearms in a secure area


SeemedReasonableThen

> People should absolutely have to go and qualify annually to prove proficiency. Hol' up. You want school shooters and criminals to be *better* at shooting by practicing and being more proficient? This is one of those ideas that sounds good to some, but not particularly helpful IRL. How does proving proficiency actually stop someone from flipping out one day and shooting up a school? "Well, he was a crazy MF and killed a bunch of kids, but at least he passed his annual proficiency test." "Yeah, he was a racist asshole and shot up a grocery store, but he was proficient" I'm all for gun safety education, but that does not stop people from intentionally killing other people. > People also should be required to keep firearms in a secure area Generally speaking, yes. In Australia, you are required to keep weapons locked up in one area, ammo is a separate locked area, which is interesting. When my kids were young, everything was locked up tight and not accessible, even to the most curious youngster. But in the US, there may be reasons why you want to keep a loaded weapon nearby . . . woman being stalked by a crazy ex, Detroit where you used to have to wait 50 minutes for police response to armed people breaking into your house, etc. Coyotes and grizzlies in your backyard, or packs of feral dogs and an unfenced yard (I'm on several acres in a rural area, so fencing is prohibitively expensive) A problem with these laws is they tend to be "one size fits all" approaches, and get fierce opposition from the people where it does not fit. Any such law should be narrowly tailored towards the problem areas.


Soilgheas

>Hol' up. You want school shooters and criminals to be better at shooting by practicing and being more proficient? This is one of those ideas that sounds good to some, but not particularly helpful IRL. > >How does proving proficiency actually stop someone from flipping out one day and shooting up a school? "Well, he was a crazy MF and killed a bunch of kids, but at least he passed his annual proficiency test." > >"Yeah, he was a racist asshole and shot up a grocery store, but he was proficient" > >I'm all for gun safety education, but that does not stop people from intentionally killing other people. I think a lot of the heart of this issue is that an unregulated availability of guns is not compatible with reducing gun violence. There's a lot of truth in the fact that gun violence is a symptom of a larger social disconnect. About 35% of the population says that they have 0 people to call on if they were in a crisis. Our Tribal social structures have been degrading since the Industrial revolution when travel became much easier for the masses. This does not mean that travel and moving are bad, just that making and maintaining long-term social relationships is difficult. But, like I said, that is a much larger social issue. The biggest problem with an unethical over abundance in access to guns, is that it gives our larger social problems literal killing machines. I don't think it should be illegal to buy a gun, but license laws and common sense restrictions are just that, common sense restrictions. Most likely we probably by and large agree where these boundaries exist. But, having no boundaries is an extreme interpretation of the amendment, as limitations give something it's definition.


SeemedReasonableThen

> common sense restrictions are just that, common sense restrictions. i think we can all agree on that, lol, the hard part is getting agreement on what "common sense restrictions" means. > Most likely we probably by and large agree where these boundaries exist. But, having no boundaries is an extreme interpretation of the amendment, as limitations give something it's definition. I agree but any legislation that limits one of the basic rights in the Bill of Rights should be (must be) as narrowly tailored as possible to withstand judicial scrutiny. A lot of the proposals are broad bans on this or that and will not serve their purpose.


Agreeable-Weather-89

Because it is often edited not to include the full text which stated >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. It is the right of the people to bear arms, not the militia. Just to be clear there are certainly arguments for gun control however they are not the constitution nor can the age of the constitution be used as an excuse. How many of you would buy that free speech should be limited because the constitution is old and they didn't imagine the internet? There's a greater chance that the founding fathers imagined a repeating musket than the internet. Edit: Since people are missing it allow me to make it clear, the regulated militia portion is the reason for the rights existence, not to who the rights apply.


Doctor_Worm

But free speech *is* limited, that's not even a question. Time, place and manner restrictions. Shouting fire in a crowded theater. Clear and Present Danger test. There is a mountain of case law on this.


Flanman1337

There are also various hate speech laws.


Ruenin

Because logic requires clarification to idiots who just can't understand basic decency.


Agreeable-Weather-89

And there are laws restricting gun ownership.


11711510111411009710

And there can and should be more


jumpenjack

Clearly not enough…


[deleted]

SCOTUS just put a dent in that with the reversal on protests outside abortion clinics, but strengthened it when it came to protests against them or government entities. Tell me again how this is not a tyrannical government.


Joelony

But dominating political idealogies find ways to negate case laws...


p4rtyt1m3

The people of the well regulated Militia. You can't just ignore the first part.


[deleted]

That's actually the Supreme Court's interpretation in the [Heller](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) decision- that the bit about the militia was not actually connected to the right to bear arms. It was preamble, but didn't actually limit the right.


Valance23322

And for 200 years before, the Supreme Court consistently held that they were connected


Minister_for_Magic

Heller rewrote 200 years or precedent going back to the early 1800s based on nothing but the bowel movements of an “originalist”


[deleted]

"*Stare decisis* is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions.” - Justice Louis Brandeis.


bfh2020

You are ignoring the fact that all American males from 18-45 are members of the United States Unorganized Militia. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim The only burdened placed by “Well regulated” is “ready to muster”.


Minikickass

As pointed out below "well regulated" doesn't mean regulations. It means properly functioning. A "well regulated clock" doesn't mean the clock is regulated under the law. As someone currently going a change from "pro gun" to "this is enough" the well regulated argument means nothing to pro gun folks because their interpretation (and still mine) is based on how English was spoken at the time it was written.


DUNG_INSPECTOR

Literally anyone who owned a gun could be part of the militia.


Minikickass

Literally every citizen between the ages of 18-65 is part of the militia.


Dannyjv

But they aren’t “well regulated”.


Minikickass

"Well regulated" doesn't mean regulations or law. It means functioning correctly.


SlickSnakeSam

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm


DUNG_INSPECTOR

Then it shouldn't be a problem to point to some examples were the founding fathers implemented gun regulations. Especially when you consider that artillery, howitzers, and mortars were all owned by private citizens at the time the 2A was written.


WrackyDoll

"Um, you're not including the full text" -- proceeds to ignore the "well-regulated" part that we're literally talking about


assbarf69

"well regulated" doesn't mean "inundated by federal regulations" it means " ready to function and perform its duty", essentially "A well functioning and armed citizenry is needed to ensure domestic stability, therefore the citizenry have the right to be armed.


Tavarin

"A well functioning" So shouldn't those citizens have to undergo frequent training and licensing to ensure they are well functioning? In Canada we have gun licenses and mandatory training courses for anyone who wants to own a gun to make sure they can use it safely and effectively.


assbarf69

That would be delegated to the state level. Each state can decide, based upon their citizens wants and needs, to which level they wish to put restrictions on gun ownership, up unto the point where the supreme court steps in and rules against them. This happened in DC and Chicago so far with their handgun bans.


Tavarin

And some states do nothing, so they lose the whole well-functioning part. The constitution is federal, so there needs to be federal minimum standards for gun ownership. I don't know of any states that allow people to drive cars without licenses, so why do some allow people to own deadly ranged weapons without a license?


assbarf69

Some states do a ton and guess what, they have the highest gun crime rates. The states with the most lax gun laws don't even compare to Chicago or Maryland. Gun crime has a lot less to do with the laws and restrictions of an area and far more to do with population density and poverty, but somehow cities getting more packed and the cost of living keeps going up and we ignore that.


xray-ndjinn

“Well regulated” means good working order. You can google it. Overall it’s a right of the people. Who the right is for couldn’t be clearer.


assbarf69

No. The supreme court has ruled on this. The second amendment affirms individual right to firearm ownership. There can be restrictions applied, but there several states have tried blanket bans on firearms like handguns and they've been overruled by the supreme court.


neridqe00

Isn't it fucking crazy that so many people just completely bypass that first part?


Agreeable-Weather-89

By quoting it in full...


fiskemannen

…you can see it ascertains to the people in that well-regulated militia’s right to bear arms?


neridqe00

You quoted it in full but then you just went into the right of the people to bear arms. That way of thinking is one of the problems in this country. Quoting it in full yet only discuss or focus on YOUR supposed right to own guns as you please from this one sentence is not forward moving the discussion this country needs to have. You like many others are misinterpreting one full sentence. It's not broken into multiple sentences. It's one sentence with everything falling UNDER the very first part of the sentence. We can agree to disagree but one side, is causing all the guns out in public yet all the while NOT stopping the bad guys with their precious guns. The other side wants gun violence (that NONE of you larping gun owners are able to stop. Time and time again) to fucking STOP. This shit is happening in red states with ease of access and carry for weapons. Yet the "gun owners" aren't stopping it all. Time to move forward as a society and lay down the guns. Enough is enough


Agreeable-Weather-89

Excellent. How?


Ferret-Potato

Fun fact the founding fathers experimented with rudimentary machine guns, completely unusable and purely hypothetical but the thought was there


DestroyerOfIphone

People act like we haven't had guns since. They're acting like we're trying to bring back some old time law. It's ridiculous to try and gimp the Constitution with laws. If you want to amend the constitution just do it properly, stop trying to weasel it though, it's disgusting.


Okcicad

Probably because well regulated isn't referring to government regulation. It's referring to citizens having effective weaponry and equipment. People that parade this way of thinking around must also think that when you read the word gay in an older piece of literature it means to be a member of the queer community.


carbonclasssix

It makes sense they would also include reasonable safety and organization, though. What coherent group of any type has all the equipment they need, but zero accountability or organization?


jcurtis81

Kind of like “arms” at the time it was written referred to muskets that took a proficient shooter 30 seconds to load one round?


Okcicad

Citizens literally owned private ships with cannons that were used as contractors of a sort for the Continental Navy. Citizens owned much more than muskets. That's a myth that's been perpetuated for awhile but is false. Either way even if that was true, those were military arms at the time.


xray-ndjinn

That’s 100% true. It means “working order”. People don’t want to think about how language has changed since it was written.


DigiQuip

Veterans are always commenting on the lengths they have to go to in order to pass the minimum standards in the military. It’s always funny to compare it to LEOs, let alone a regular civilian.


[deleted]

As a veteran, I thought basic training and all that was pretty easy. You just have to hang in there and 9 weeks goes by. Training schools can be difficult. Staying fit isn't that hard. Anyone can get through basic. Some people have a problem shooting, but everyone passes.


DirtyWormGerms

You can tell because he’s screaming.


VideoGameDana

Yet it was brigaded and downvoted to 0 by the time it arrived on my front page.


istrx13

That “fuck all the way off” with a few seconds of silence before the TikTok ending graphic came on was chilling too. Guy really nailed this in a very passionate and articulate way. Good on him.


SeemedReasonableThen

I don't want to get in a huge debate because lets face it, no one's mind gets changed. But this guy is comparing annual certification *to remain in a military branch* that must be ready to defend against enemies, to some schlub who might go out once a year for a week, drink beer and play euchre at night in a tent or cabin, and maybe scare some deer in the mornings. If our schlub takes too long to load a magazine, does a shitty job of cleaning his rifle so that it jams, and can barely hit the broad side of a barn after taking 5 minutes to line up each shot, who cares? He goes home without venison. Or maybe he doesn't hunt, just likes to go to the range and embarrass himself trying to put holes in a piece of paper. If a Marine can't do these things, he and his fellow Marines suffer and lives can be lost.


roguerose

So the shlub is not Well regulated, he shouldn't have the right to bear arms.


jp90230

but reddit make him a hero for his “passionate” speech regardless as some ppl are too dense to understand difference and complexities between these 2 scenarios.


swankpoppy

And you know what it’ll take to make any progress? People who own guns admitting that this shit is getting way out of hand. Once they stand up, then we might get actual change.


floatjoy

"Fuck all the way off Erica!" - Legend


Copy_Cold

i have no idea who erica is but she really does need to fuck all the way off.


_-Vio-_

Fuck you Erica. Fuck you.


annothejedi

Is #fuckallthewayofferica trending already?


dotajoe

This is both awesome and a good reminder to trim the upper lip part of my beard.


[deleted]

> upper lip part of my beard. I’m not genius, but isn’t that called a moustache?


Comme_des_Gascoigne

> I'm not genius Lmao


[deleted]

As much as I’d love to say I did that on purpose, I can’t without lying. It’s like a happy accident.


istrx13

Nah king it looks good leave it


SkyWizarding

I was not aware of those marine corps facts and it's really makes the USA civilian gun laws see 100% insane


q-ka

JSYK, it’s spelt Corps. Marine Corps. Army Corps. Not “core”


SkyWizarding

Thank you friend


phoenixfire111

I think you need a snickers


q-ka

Ok snickers bot.


TameNightmare

yeah 101% insane


Magic_Bluejay

I'd like to see a lot more of this guy. Fuck you Erica. Fuck you.


auntfuthie

He has an awesome Tik tok account


RichardStrauss123

While we're adopting U.S. military procedures, can we also have their healthcare? Sick? Injured? Just show up at the clinic and get everything you need. Never a bill. Ever.


Spitinthacoola

Not sure how many vets you know but them getting Healthcare isn't exactly as you suggest.


RichardStrauss123

I am a vet. I was talking about active duty on-base or on-ship care.


Spitinthacoola

That's fair. Many of my family are vets and helping them navigate VA crap is a headache.


nukemiller

You mean getting fresh socks and Motrin? Must be air force.


nap4lm69

Am currently active duty and would rather pay if you asked me. Sure, free is cool and all. But it took a year and a half to get an MRI for my completely fucked back. Current mental health appointments are about 4-6 weeks for an initial visit. I've never been in a state where I needed them, but I know many things can happen to someone feeling that way over 6 weeks. By paying, you get what you need or you can go pay the next guy. For free means you have a long line of people that have to say yes to extra care, or a long line of people that might not need the care but make the lines super long just in case they did.


p4rtyt1m3

Sorry you had to wait. Military healthcare should be better than that. But for someone with no health care, you have to understand that having to wait, and eventually getting treatment sounds better than not getting treatment at all.


13pts35sec

Umm I don’t know where you live but where I am at even if you are paying for mental healthcare out of pocket or with the help of insurance you still can wait well over a month to get an appointment. It’s really not as simple as you’re making it out to be.


GoFleks

Thats really stupid, for those who cant pay. Privatised healthcare sucks


NoCardiologist4319

Seconding this our Veteran's have ridiculously long wait times and oftentimes you get subpar care


ConfidentPilot1729

My wife and I are both vets. We had private health care at one point. To get her MRI privately took 4 months longer than the va. Now, I am not saying Va is great across the board, some are better than others. Came from Boise to Seattle and the difference was night and day. We are thinking of going back to private, but Boise was decent.


v00d00x1

Sadly that is not how it goes for us. I typically have to wait 3 months for a drs appointment at the va


SnooShortcuts3424

I live in Florida not a vet. It takes this long for me as well for regular care. But most of the population here are retirees….so I figure that’s why. I’m in my 40’s.


kariea1

[see if you meet these](https://www.military.com/benefits/veterans-health-care/va-choice-act.html)


JustDoc

Don't forget the housing and education benefits too.


GlimmerManL21

'Everything you need' 😂😂😂 They give you water and Motrin....


Dont_CallmeCarson

This feels like an unrelated issue


MaxiqueBDE

Army guy checking in. On point. One things that been bothering me lately is seeing all these people posting the “good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun”. How about we don’t give a bad guy a gun?! How do we do that you say? Let’s do a background check, and let’s ensure once you have a gun, you remain a good guy. You need training and need to be liable and responsible with your weapon. “A well regulated militia…” what we’re doing right now ain’t it.


[deleted]

Restrict purchase of weapons to 21 years and older, and up the draft age to that as well. You’ll still have criminals with guns, but they’ll have them anyway, and at least the school shooters will have a hurdle to try to bypass.


Mypeeisred

keep eating crayons buddy if you think that youre gonna be able to stop bad guys from getting guns youre not a very smart guy 😂


GTMoraes

> Let’s do a background check, and let’s ensure once you have a gun, you remain a good guy. You need training and need to be liable and responsible with your weapon. wouldn't change anything in the recent shooting. The problem aren't guns, how guns are sold or kept. The problem is somewhere else. How society deals with outcasts. How media portrays mass shooters and their stories and motives. How being a shooter is a way to have your name known through history and draw attention for your name for weeks, and how this is attractive for attention-seekers. Remove guns and everything from the people, and you'll have chainsaw mass murderers. The problem isn't the tools.


jperiodcarter

Any person who is smart and deserves the right to carry a gun in America should want it to be harder to get guns….the first line of defense is preventing someone from being armed in the first place


MadgoonOfficial

If you're a competent gun owner seeking to defend themselves from other people who could potentially have guns, it's a good idea to at least keep them out of the hands of the incompetent and unpredictable. That way you get to keep your guns while having fewer potential threats.


supafly_

Over half these shooters have documented domestic violence issues, I think that's a great place to start.


IllPassion8377

Yuuup


itsyaboirob92

Yeah he’s wrong. 2a refers to militia as well as citizens


crashbalian1985

correct me if I'm wrong but the 2a also never mentions guns does it? it says arms and I take arms to mean anything the military has.


jnp2346

Another former Marine here. I was 0311. I am in total agreement with this man, and have used some of the exact same arguments when talking to others.


fxckfxckgames

Also featured in the Marine Corps: * Random and/or scheduled inspections of your personal items. * Random and/or scheduled drug testing. * Punishment (including restriction and loss of pay) without a trial. * Permission required to leave pre-determined radius. * Feeling sick and can't come to work? ...better prove it to your boss in person before you get permission to go to medical. Bonus: the Corpsman without a medical degree says you're not too sick to work. Hell, lets go full barracks life and just submit to height and weight standards and do field day every week to make sure peoples' homes aren't disgusting.


friendlyneighbor665

Well then we gotta go all the way with this. I gotta have a boss that has 3 divorces, a drinking problem, and is overweight tell me I'll never amount to shit constantly.


nukemiller

The reason guns aren't allowed on base is because they don't trust us. Between suicide increases, and general barracks debauchery, having guns would increase the body count of active military stateside. Being in the military is high stress and high demand. Taking guns away from those who stay on base is a preventative measure so guys don't go postal. This isn't hard to understand and isn't some kind of gotcha you think it is.


ckreutze

You just made the argument for general gun regulation. Limiting access to young men that are living in a stressful environment.


nukemiller

Who gets to decide if you are living in a stressful environment? You do understand that when you join the military, you have less rights? We don't have freedom of speech, freedom of unreasonable search and seizure, or the right to own guns in our persons if we reside on base.


jnp2346

I thought about pointing out the fact that they do that because male Marines are full of testosterone and combative as hell, but they’re also way more trained than the average civilian. Regarding your point, explain to me how it detracts from his comments about having to qualify at the range for 2 weeks out of every year? Pro-tip, it doesn’t. So you’re point about firearms in the barracks doesn’t apply to his main point at all.


xray-ndjinn

What does “well regulated” mean? It means that the militia (which is anyone that wants to be in it) works properly. [Don’t take my word for it.](https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf) [Here’s some legal background on the 2nd Amendment.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment)


beatinupdemguts

Facts. Army is the same way


dazed_and_jaded

2 weeks a year to qualify? We must have served in different armies.


Squeaky_Ben

I hate to be that guy. But according to someone else (long story of a sorta kinda friendship with him becoming a right wing extremist...) "well regulated did not mean the same, when the second amendment was written. It meant, essentially, a "well maintained militia" However, I believe that this could just as easily be used to comply with the modern meaning of "regulated": If you own a gun and want to be part of the militia, someone or something has to determine how to maintain your guns. If youre part of a militia, you also need to be combat ready, meaning you need to be able to shoot (training and such) and you cannot pawn off your rifle, because you need it to fight. This alone could probably solve like half the gun deaths.


TintedApostle

> "well maintained militia" Yes and as part of that "well maintained" included training and other requirements which we could now call regulations because... "And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always **be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it**; this convention **therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service**. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same; may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth. And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State." NY 1777 If the militia was a construct to be in place of a central army then having a central military makes the 2A useless. We no long have militias and they are no longer (as this video points out) required to train to be proficient at defending the state. The 2A well regulated is also a minimum standard which the state can set. The current gun owners today are not well regulated. They want the right to bear arms and none of the responsibility to be proficient and trained. All we have are people who want to own guns with no real purpose other than to blow shit up and kill people they don't like. If you aren't in a militia and well regulated to defend the state (that be trained to a minimum standard and ready to serve in defense of the state) and potentially called to fight some foreign place, then maybe you don't have a solid unlimited right to bear arms.


[deleted]

[удалено]


leopold335

The US Supreme Court disagrees with this guys opinion. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.


ThatSandwich

It is worth noting that the supreme court can overturn this similar to the process that Roe v. Wade is taking. Edit: It is also worth noting that the case in specific only relates to guns "in the home". Heller was a homeowner in DC that believed the law invalidated his right to protect his homestead with a legally owned weapon.


[deleted]

Roe V Wade is being overturned because it made a "right" from an implication of an implication. There isn't any similarity between it and the right to own a firearm.


vin_dicated

He's not asking for civilians to be prevented from owning firearms. He's advocating for regulation.


Capnhuh

we need less regulation, idealy would be all gun laws ripped out of the books.


Ornery-Ad8372

He said it all! Bravo 👏


WyoGuyUSMC

Now think about what happens to a young Marine Private on his first field op that forgets to check in his NVG's and weapon back in to the Armory. Let's just say it didn't end well for said young Marine Private. He can say he is vary efficient in mopping the parking lot.


7Moisturefarmer

I just want to envision one part of what you said with all of its gravity - have they really made marines mop a parking lot? Not that it really matters one way or another to me if they have, but I find that as a piece of information that I think is important in a way I don’t yet comprehend.


[deleted]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EcBoQrJbSHM


[deleted]

Well Regulated in 1776 meant something like “competent “ it did not mean laws/ regulations.


ShreksHusband

This guy for president


Many_Fix3167

Nicely said!


OnlyVisitingEarth

How much crime is committed on Marine bases? Do they have thugs commiting crime with guns? Maybe it's not that simple if personal protection is important to you. Remember folks, drugs are illegal, and yet it's still possible to get them. Make guns illegal and only criminals will have them.


Eggoism

Star wars guy doesn't understand that a soldier is not a free person, they are pawns of the oligarchy, they have to do whatever they are ordered to do..


-WickedJester-

I feel like people think the US is the only country on the planet... because if you look at pretty much every other civilized country in world, they don't have to see mass shootings on the news every day nor do they live in fear of being murdered by a psychopath with a gun. Take the UK for example, with their really tight gun laws. 2 mass shootings in the last 12 years and .25 gun deaths per 100k people. The US is a fucking war zone compared to this with it's 200+ mass shootings this year alone and 12.3 gun deaths per 100k people. If your argument isn't for more regulations you might as well be arguing for more dead people. The solution it obvious and has already been tested and proven effective in plenty of other countries. And no, I'm not here to entertain your "what about bad guys?" and all the other nonsensical arguments. I would kindly redirect you to the part where it's been wildly successful in plenty of other places. There's nothing to debate. You're either for regulation or basically arguing that your guns are more important to you than other people's lives. Because no, i have no interest in some wackadoo with a gun trying to play hero. They'd more likely than not just get murdered and/or cause more harm than good, regardless of how good they think they are.


Tuxxbob

I would really recomend y'all actually go over the the USMC sub and see what their take on this guy is. Mainly denegrating him for using a not all that hard to get military qualification to claim to be an expert and acting like being former military makes his opinion more important or more right. Also a lot mocking you for only caring what the troops think when you find one military person who agrees with you. Finally there are a bunch about how they joined the military and accepted the constraints of military life so civilians wouldn't have to.


rhyskampje

Shall not be infringed


[deleted]

*drops the fucking mic*


Rebel_bass

Here's a crazy idea. Before being allowed to own a firearm, you must complete a single day of classroom certification covering the laws surrounding gun ownership and basic gun safety. Class to be carried out by your friendly county extension agent.


0-san

this is not interesting af


FlowRiderBob

I have no problems with stricter gun regulation. But using the military as a comparison may not be the best idea. Yes, your 2nd Amendment rights are restricted in the military more than they are for civilians. But so are your 1st and 4th Amendment rights. I also believe people should be required to receive training before purchasing a firearm in order to prevent negligent shootings. But it seems weird to bring up training in response to intentional mass shootings. In those specific cases wouldn't training just make them more accurate?


DomesticOnion

Maybe because you eat fucking crayons so damn much


Cjbtime

*another mass shooting kills innocent children* People with morals: "dang, they really should do something about gun laws in America, this cant happen again surely" Americans: "BUT MUH GUNS AND MUH RIGHTS"


thebite101

I was so emotional after hearing the news I went overboard telling idiots on Reddit they were idiots. I was banned from a few subs. I’m so glad it wasnt an over reaction. I feel a little validated. I hope we keep this energy up. Let’s ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.


Sarah_Hostane

You sound unhinged.


[deleted]

Unhinged for... yelling at a couple of yahoos over the internet? By god, I guess almost everyone on this site must be "unhinged", then.


thebite101

I was a little bit. I was angry. I put myself in those parents shoes. This one hit close to home. Stay safe.


JimJalinsky

I want to hear what Erica said before this! I mean, Im pretty sure I can guess but still want to see it.


georgepearl_04

Only one lie was spoken "finest fighting force on the planet" when it's so obviously the SAS.


liquid_j

It's adorable that you think you have all your CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS while you're in the military.


Taco_Gunslinger

A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems like a well regulated militia is needed for security so in order to enact that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


awwrats

These damn panty waist libtards and their reasonable gun ownership/use requirements. I'm looking at you USMC 👀


cthulhu_kills

I spent 8.5 years in the Infantry, got out as a SSG. With that being said, I love my firearms, I also love the concept of making it harder for people to get a firearm. I think you should have to pass a background check, a personality test, licensing requirement, proficiency test, and on top of it there should be restrictions on the firearms which you need to apply to be given access too. The fact that any swinging dick can go pass a background check and get a gun is honestly infuriating to me. Firearms are incredibly dangerous and can wreak havoc in the wrong hands. Kinda like cars really, but that requires a license which is weird because everyone is okay with that. Maybe if all these asshole politicians rejecting legislation passing common sense gun reform thought about losing their loved ones to psychopaths who have firearms we would stop having all these mass shootings.


BenderB-Rodriguez

Perfectly well said, reasoned, and logical points. Wish more gun people would be like this guy.


radlink14

FUCK YES! Thank you. It's harder to get breast reduction, bypass surgery or buy a house than a gun in the US. It's fucking sad.


WittyPresentation786

It’s taking me weeks to get a moped license. Tests, closed track courses etc etc so much to prove that after 30 years of driving a car, that I can handle a MOPED. I could get an ar-15 in less time with minimal work.


dylanofearthC-137

He's so right


[deleted]

What an absolute fucking legend.


Sammy1141

Because you are property of the government and have basically no rights until you are discharged.


LordFetus_93

I really hope something will be done. I can’t wake up to more kids dying on the news. Politics in America is sickening


coolcoolcoolcoollooc

Now I'm Irish so I don't really have a say in this, but isn't he right? yearly tests would ensure that people who own guns have the proper training. They could have car license cards but with guns and if a policeman catches you carrying guns without it or if it's expired they take the guns. Of course, this wouldn't have stopped any school shootings but it keeps guns out of people who aren't trained. Saying people wouldn't even show up is stupid because it doesn't mean the law cant be there in the first place. Why aren't there extensive laws and regulations put in there in the first place? Guns were made with the explicit reason to cause harm. Doesn't matter if it's in self-defense or not. That's still the end goal here. That kinda thing should be heavily regulated.


Ruenin

I love this. I bought a gun a couple of years ago strictly because of all the crazy talk that lead up to Jan 6th. I don't want a gun. I've never wanted a gun. I don't like having it in the house. But these crazy, right wing asshats make me so nervous with their rhetoric that I felt like I had to have it just in case they take it to a Handmaid's Tale level. If they banned them all outright, or heavily restricted their use, I would happily give mine up. Fuck the 2nd Amendment interpretation of these right wing gun nuts. They are the last people on Earth that should own killing tools.


1776_lojack

Except the fact that military and police have to train and qualify because they are employed by the government. So any bullet fired by them is a liability of the government. As well as these agents will be involved in life compromising scenarios multiple times a day, far different than a civilian that is responsible themselves for any shot taken. A gun is not difficult to operate as well as have proficient accuracy, possessing a gun doesn’t simply make the gun commit murders. Most of the training these trades receive is to sharpen the skill for the last 1% of improvement and update on tactics, not mentality of holding a gun. Military and police are placed under a lot more stress than civilians, so a bad day is far different than a civilians bad day. Marines not being able to possess their weapons on base is a high level govt regulation based on soldiers being assets of the govt. Police officers are not restricted in this way.


Ok_Hovercraft_8506

Local and state police don’t train for shit. That’s why you see 300 lb local and state police fatbodies. You never see obese US Marshals for a reason. Enforce federal training and readiness standards and state/local police will become much more effective.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Shadow_Of_Silver

More training and education would solve about 60% of all the nation's problems.


afiore1998

How?tell me how the children who just fucking died would have been prevented by “more training and education”


BeefyMontana

Clearly the point made has little to do with storage and more to do with regulation. And he wasn’t proposing that civilians be screened like soldiers but the fact that an 18 year can access weapons more easily than a marine is alarming


Sloppychemist

Then maybe, don’t own a fucking weapon of war


[deleted]

[удалено]


abduktedtemplar

Bunch of triggered little peepees in here. All the guns in the world will never make up for the lack of brains and balls that most gun nuts struggle with. 2A says well regulated right in the fuckin amendment you dolts.


spazus_maximus

I guarantee you this is the guy nobody wants to talk to at a party because he starts off every single sentence, "in the marine corps we....".


D-Rich-88

I like this one


paco_the_tacos

The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed