As an active United States Marine I’m curious as to the general consensus on gays in the military from all aspects, including other active duty military personnel as well as prior service and civilians. Now it doesn’t take a wise man to know that there are already gays in the military but with this new law in which they can openly join it, how do you think it will effect the military and the civilian world in general. My own argument is that while i have nothing against gays in the military i do have a problem with them being in it openly. Because of this law i believe many other countries who don’t think gays can do anything and are filled with egos with rifles will view our military as weak because of the gays and America will lose respect since politics is like high school and its all about what others think of you. please though no ignorant responses like "i don’t wanna wake up one day and find a gay suckin on my pecker." or "gays can’t fight" etc etc but i am dying to know your opinion.
Of course gays have a right to fight for their own country that is not the problem in my opinion its how people will people view them and because of that us and as for the comment that says that ppl will under estimate us which is a good thing – you’ve never served have you -__- no one wants to fight a war just so we can prove ourselves -.- not again at least but your right that mentality of others viewing us does indeed need to fade but there are better ways to do it its as if we have to work our way up to this event not jump right into it – as far as any arguments about unit morale going down because of gays joining that’ll be dismissed the second one gay man saves a life.

Share This

So I was talking to my recruiter today and he was telling me about all the other jobs he does besides the military. He told me that he does private security for rich mofos here in southern California. I asked him what he does and he said that he drives them where ever they want to go and if anything happens he has to handle it. He told me he’d be screwed if people with guns ambushed him and who ever he was with and I asked why. He told me that he only carries a tazer with him and I asked why he doesn’t carry a fire arm. He said that he does have his concealed weapons license yet. I didn’t think military could have a concealed weapon… I took a law enforcement class in high school and the former cop who was my teacher for 2 years told me that only law enforcement officers can carry a concealed weapon. Can military personnel also get a concealed weapons license to carry a gun on them at all time? Or is it a regular license that a civilian can get as well?(I’m almost positive that civilians can’t but I’m just throwing that out there to confirm) Or was my teacher right and my recruiter is just a dummy? Remember I am in the state of California because I’m sure different states have different laws about guns.

Thanks

Share This

So I was talking to my recruiter today and he was telling me about all the other jobs he does besides the military. He told me that he does private security for rich mofos here in southern California. I asked him what he does and he said that he drives them where ever they want to go and if anything happens he has to handle it. He told me he’d be screwed if people with guns ambushed him and who ever he was with and I asked why. He told me that he only carries a tazer with him and I asked why he doesn’t carry a fire arm. He said that he does have his concealed weapons license yet. I didn’t think military could have a concealed weapon… I took a law enforcement class in high school and the former cop who was my teacher for 2 years told me that only law enforcement officers can carry a concealed weapon. Can military personnel also get a concealed weapons license to carry a gun on them at all time? Or is it a regular license that a civilian can get as well?(I’m almost positive that civilians can’t but I’m just throwing that out there to confirm) Or was my teacher right and my recruiter is just a dummy? Remember I am in the state of California because I’m sure different states have different laws about guns.

Thanks

Share This

violate "separation of church and state"
FOR THOSE WHO DON’T KNOW ME….NO, I am being sarcastic with this question, but it seems to be what some liberals want.
1k I can tell you’re a liberal. Only liberals have this opinion that the military is superior to civilians. Conservatives in the military understand it’s a volunteer service and take pride in serving the civilian population.
And once again people show that they don’t read the whole question, since they are accusing me of believing this.

Share This

What is the difference between the Remington ACR and the Bushmaster ACR? I heard that the Remington ACR is designed for the military and will be select fire, and the Bushmaster will be for civilians and will be semi-auto only.

Share This

i wanted to ask this again hoping for more comments in a different category thanks and do swat or civilians with weapon permits use lmgs or their too heavy

Share This

I have a question. Has anybody ever heard of a school shooting on a military base? Has anybody ever heard of a domestic disturbance involving a shooting on a military base? I have not, Does no one find this odd that the military who are trained to and use firearms a lot don’t allow them in their houses? And there are few IF ANY shootings on these bases. Yet in public schools, homes, and life we can find countless reports of gun incidents and deaths. So how is it that the pro gun, Republican, military have banned guns outside of war have no incidents and civilians who are declaring it is their right to own firearms in their homes have escalated gun violence? Even now nursing homes are being targeted. And a child was killed at a gun show.

Share This

The second amendment says:

"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."

Where does this say that every civilian has the right to own a gun? It says that a "well regulated militia" (military) has the right to have guns. Not civilians.

Share This

Would they just get tanks and guns and go around shooting people? would they set off bombs? Which side do you think would win? The Military/government or the people?
Cant you idiots just answer my question? I am not republican nor do I want there to be a revolution.
The reason I am asking this is because my friends are having an argument, one think that if there was a revolution the civilians would win and the other thinks that the military would easily win.

Share This

This dumb ‘question’ was an answer to one of my questions. How do you think one of the Rebels of 1776 would answer? Maybe since we’re all "civilians" we should have to to make gun powder from horse manure, sulfer, and charcoal. Can a "snoopy" fishing pole catch a big fish?

Share This

This dumb ‘question’ was an answer to one of my questions. How do you think one of the Rebels of 1776 would answer? Maybe since we’re all "civilians" we should have to to make gun powder from horse manure, sulfer, and charcoal.

Share This

Prior to and through the Eighteenth Century, predominate usage of the expression "bear arms" exclusively referred to the profession of military service, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians[3][4][5].

"In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. . . . As a review of the Library of Congress’s data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of ‘bear arms’ and ‘bearing arms’ in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States’ Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia.[3]"

As an example, the expression ‘bear arms’ is contained in the United States Declaration of Independence in the sense of ‘military service’ on a warship, as part of an indictment of the King of Great Britain for conscripting Colonial sailors to serve on British warships.
im not saying that people in the military can have guns but that the term right to bear arms literally meant to have and serve in an army not have your own gun to shoot who you please

Share This

ive seen this on several news shows and from what im getting out of it hes going to make it harder for regular civilians to get guns and raise the taxes on them i think 500% if not banning them altogether. i also heard one of them mention hes planning on cutting the military funding down by a 1/4. hows that possible when we are getting a 3.5% pay raise in january and over 27,000 marines and double army is due to go overseas
with the guns the news said he only supported concealed carry for retired police, what about military we are trained 200% better in the use of firearms of all types than police. what about people who own assault rifles, like myself.
if he cuts the military funding hows that going to affect people like me who served in the military for 10 years and plan on retiring from the armed forces, in my case the marines.

Share This

Gun sales have been soaring since 2007, and they are still increasing. Military guns and assault weapons in particular are selling like hot cakes… why do you think?

" "We sold out of small handguns yesterday," Barry adds. "Since the election, several models of guns are six months to a year back-ordered."

The models Walker is referring to – the ones that gun makers can’t make enough of – are military-style weapons. During the Clinton administration, Congress passed a ban on these so-called assault weapons, making it illegal for civilians to own them. The Bush administration allowed this ban to expire in 2004. For the past five years, assault weapons have been flooding the market.

The economy’s bad. People are losing their jobs. Most first-time gun buyers are scared. People are scared of armed robbery. That’s why they’re buying guns. That reaches deeper than the Clinton or Obama plan. That’s a social issue." "

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-02/2009-02-03-voa31.cfm?CFID=142437049&CFTOKEN=50286427&jsessionid=de30af89eca03c850a3d27284f67422c7d5b

Share This

Since they are classified as civilians, if there is another assault rifle ban how will they be able to get their weapons? will they have to use handguns and hunting rifles or what?

Share This