Man the people who make this argument are REALLY stupid:
What they forget is that our brave military members GIVE UP most of their rights. Their speech is limited, their right to privacy is limited, and their right to keep and bear arms is totally destroyed.
Remember the shooting at Fort Hood? Dozens of service members being gunned down like sitting ducks. Why? Didn’t ALL of them qualify on the M16/M4 rifle? Didn’t many of the qualify with the M9 pistol? Why were they unarmed? Did they CHOOSE not to exercise their right?
Of course not, they were disarmed by the contract of their service.
They also are not allowed to sue the government for leaving them vulnerable to a terrorist in their own ranks, despite many complaints and observations that he was a danger.
Sorry you aren’t exercising your rights to keep and bear arms once you enter the military. Hell you can’t say “You know, Sarge, I’d rather not carry that gun!” any more than you can say “Hey Sarge, I would like to keep and bear my rifle while on base…and while off post!”
Heck you often can’t even choose how many magazine you carry, or how much ammo can be loaded in them. When most people carry a M1911 pattern pistol, or a Beretta 92 pistol they carry it with a round in the chamber, that is also forbidden.
These sacrifices are some of the reasons why I am so thankful for the people who volunteer for service…I just wish the Brass wasn’t so stupid about how they treat their soldiers.
Actually, unless it has changed since I was in, the standard mode of carry for the M9 pistol in the USAF was one in the chamber, safety off.
Interesting. I’d heard from others the mandate was Condition 3. Good to know some people got to carry them the proper way.
That’s the way I carry mine. It only makes sense. The double-action first pull precludes unintentional discharges, and the safety really is primarily a safe-hammer-drop system.
My Beretta 21A is hardly the same beast, but the gun IS double action with a thumb safety. I NEVER use the safety, I just tip the barrel away and drop the hammer onto the empty gap if it happens to be cocked, then load up the gun and pocket it in a pocket holster.
The gun would be BETTER without the Safety IMHO.
I did enlist. I got rifles like that. I also enlisted to help ensure the other citizens could keep their rights.
That is like saying that if you want to exercise free speech, you should become a reporter, or freedom of religion, become a priest. If you have to go and ask permission of the government to exercise a right, it isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.
I too enlisted.
Good thing I didn’t enlist to get the guns because I didn’t get to keep the weapons I was issued.
I’d have an M3A1 SMG, an M1911A1, an M9, and M16A2, an M240 and an M2HB at least. Perhaps even an M68 and M256!
I did. Both enlist for 6.5 years and purchased the closest rifle to the one posted, as possible. Silly statement….
Heh….
I enlisted. In the Navy.
You don’t get to play with those unless you are attached to some special units.
I qualified with the M9, M-14, M-16, and Shotgun, and the Colt .45.
What that means …..is that I knew which end the dangerous stuff came out of and I was relatively accurate enough to qualify Expert in both pistol and M-16.
Navy expert…which compared to our “shootin’ services” really doesn’t mean much.
So, for at least two services, because the Air Force also doesn’t use such toys all that much, that poster is wrong….. even for the military.
And those of us medically unfit for service apparently have no second amendment rights.
And for the record, I wanted to serve. Had taken the ASVAB. Qualified for the High School to Flight School program. Was going to fly Apaches. Then I blew a knee that never healed right. Glad I only kissed the career goodbye that day, and not my precious freedoms.
Jeff Soyer pointed out more of this insanity.
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=3061
Ex-SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens has a fantasy on how he’d edit the 2nd amendment.
+++++++++++
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
To support the change, he argues: “Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.”
++++++
He IS aware that military personel have no *right* to keep and bear Arms when serving?
You carry a gun because your CO has ordered you too. If he orders you to give it up… you give it up. There’s no “It’s my right to be armed.”
This goes up to the unit level as well. Even collectively a unit can be disarmed (or armed) by the orders of thsoe up the chain of command. In a military unit the state of being armed is *definitionally* infringed by the government.
Unless he’s talking about non-govermental militia units… which… doesn’t square with is fantasy of “preventing the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.”