A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[Lewdog]

I got a scholarship because of my high SAT scores and high school GPA. Unfortunately, since I was only given a "General Under Honorable Conditions" discharge, instead of a "honorable," I am not allowed to use the GI bill

That's true due to the nature of your discharge. I hope the stigma sometimes associated with a General Discharge doesn't cause you too much trouble. Congrats on the scholarship.


In contrast, a “General, Under Honorable Conditions” Discharge (commonly referred to as a General Discharge) is for service members whose service was satisfactory, but involved situations where the Soldier’s conduct and/or performance of duty were not so meritorious to warrant an Honorable Discharge. Recipients of General Discharges usually have engaged in minor misconduct or have received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. While the “under honorable conditions” terminology is slightly confusing, there is a clear disadvantage to receiving a General Discharge in contrast to an Honorable Discharge. While recipients of a General Discharge will receive entitlement to benefits such as VA medical and dental services, VA home loans and burial in national cemeteries, they will not receive educational benefits under either the Montgomery or Post-9/11 GI Bill.

Additionally, there can be quite a stigma attached to having not received an Honorable Discharge. This stigma can have negative consequences while searching for work or applying for school.

Leaving on good terms: Types of discharges, their consequences

It won't affect anything. The only time someone is really affected by their discharge status is if it is Dishonorable.

Not exactly true.......if you don't have an honorable discharge, it can effect who will hire you.......there are a lot of vets they can hire with Honorables...they can be selective....

Here: Can I ask a Veteran About the Type of Military Discharge He Received?

Like I said, unless the job requires some kind of security clearance, it doesn't matter. that is unless it was a discharge because of financial reasons, which then would mean bad credit, which then would keep the person from getting certain jobs like working for a bank, jewelry store, or something like that, but that would be found through a credit check and have nothing to do with the type of discharge.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Thank you for being the voice of reason here

 

[williepete]

I've seen a lot of applications, and unless it is a job that requires some kind of security clearance, they only ask if you were discharged with anything other than Dishonorable. If you put Dishonorable it then asks for an explanation sometimes, while other times it doesn't.

I have too and I agree for the most part. But that leaves a lot of government jobs; city, county, state and federal where the stigma would hurt. Any contractor dealing with a government agency would pass over a general discharge for someone who had never served or a Vet with an honorable. Any private business where the owner or manager is a Vet would look twice before hiring--or just take the easy route and hire someone else who had never served or a Vet with an honorable.

A general discharge follows you to the grave. Just something to work around. This kid wants to go into "law or justice". The court system is kind of tooth and jowl with government.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Thank you for being the voice of reason here

Yes the Constitution was made to be amended, but the right to bear arms hasn't been... well ever. The Second Amendment isn't there to say that civilians that serve in the military can have guns. It's meant as a protection so that civilians can defend themselves against a tyrannical government. ie. Like the British Empire.

When the government takes away guns, and then it creates the opportunity to take away more and more rights.

Your little AR15 isn't going to stop the U.S army, which has tactical nuclear missiles, M1 Abrams Tanks, and a fleet of drones.

And yes, I've served in the Army, so I know this very well

And you think those of us who have, yes, served in the military, believe that our military will use these weapons against the citizens of the US?

Looking for a civil war?
You know shit, very well.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

we will have to wait for the chairmen of the board to get back from the latrine to hear his well thought out reply....

I hope he washed his hands.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Liar.

BTW, I have never heard anybody say they need an AR15 for hunting lol.
And I have never met a veteran who did not fully support the right of American civilians to pack weapons. Never.

So I know you're a lying piece of garbage who is pretending to be a soldier of honor. Despicable.

Hes a paid poster

He's not very proficient at being a paid poster.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

We've discussed your misguided interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on this site many times. The Bill of Rights enumerates INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS; it is not a collectivist treatise.

Who's sock is this guy?


.

Joey

 

[Wyatt earp]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

We've discussed your misguided interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on this site many times. The Bill of Rights enumerates INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS; it is not a collectivist treatise.

Who's sock is this guy?


.

Joey

?

 

[Little-Acorn]

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle.

That's the core of this cut/paste post. He cannot understand.

(yawn)

 

[francoHFW]

e

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

oh bullshit
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
You leftist totalitarians are ALWAYS trying to "interpret" basic sayings. Its pathetic. Try honesty. Or at least try to think.

Back when the constitution was written, the vast majority of voters rejected the idea of a standing army. However, the founding fathers thought that it was important for the country to have a standing military in case of emergencies.

Therefore, they wrote the second amendment in order to grant the "people" (not individuals, but the people as a whole) to form and maintain a military in spite of the public opposition to a standing army.

Even though the fucking people that wrote it say different? Get outta here

The constitution was written 200 years ago, by rich white slave owners, when women and people of color weren't allowed to vote. The times change. The meaning of the constitution changes too.

Besides, the founding fathers made it clear that they wanted a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

In YOUR mind. The people that wrote it say different. Your emotional appeal is pathetic. Yeah, some great debater you are..

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

oh bullshit
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
You leftist totalitarians are ALWAYS trying to "interpret" basic sayings. Its pathetic. Try honesty. Or at least try to think.

Back when the constitution was written, the vast majority of voters rejected the idea of a standing army. However, the founding fathers thought that it was important for the country to have a standing military in case of emergencies.

Therefore, they wrote the second amendment in order to grant the "people" (not individuals, but the people as a whole) to form and maintain a military in spite of the public opposition to a standing army.

Even though the fucking people that wrote it say different? Get outta here

The constitution was written 200 years ago, by rich white slave owners, when women and people of color weren't allowed to vote. The times change. The meaning of the constitution changes too.

Besides, the founding fathers made it clear that they wanted a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Oh look. Joe jr.

You do realize that there are millions of veterans who are gun owners, that will insist that they are the "well regulated militia," who are trained and proficient in the use of their firearms.

Just fix the gd background check system....

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I'm not a gun nut, dont' even own one (cough cough)

But I do enjoy trying to hit graham crackers at 100yds

Brunswick bowling pin logo's.

 

[Auld Phart]

I'm not a gun nut, dont' even own one (cough cough)

But I do enjoy trying to hit graham crackers at 100yds

Brunswick bowling pin logo's.

too expensive

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Thank you for your service. Now kindly & gently stick your head back up your ass.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

We've discussed your misguided interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on this site many times. The Bill of Rights enumerates INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS; it is not a collectivist treatise.

Who's sock is this guy?


.

Joey

?

JOEB131

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I'm not a gun nut, dont' even own one (cough cough)

But I do enjoy trying to hit graham crackers at 100yds

Brunswick bowling pin logo's.

too expensive

I get them from the bowling alley.

They trash them when they are worn.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah the Swiss are armed to the gills with guns. BUT... do you understand the system? They have mandatory military service and they then get to keep their rifles, BUT the ammunition is rationed. So unless they plan on using their rifles as clubs, it isn't quite the same as the way you are making it out to be.

Wrong...you don't understand the system...only military ammunition is rationed.....private ammunition is not. And do you really think it is hard to smuggle ammo from the guy on the block who is supposed to be controlling it?

Dude, my friend is from Switzerland, and he did his mandatory military service there. He told me that all privately owned firearms, even a double barreled shotgun, are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, and that the ammunition is kept by the MILITARY, not by local armories

Quot lying they can buy there military weapons.

Actually I'm pretty sure they get to keep their rifle from their military service. That's a large reason why there is such a high percentage of gun ownership in Switzerland. I'm not arguing there can be private gun ownership, but as far as military weapons goes, they can keep their weapons at home but the ammunition is rationed to them... as I said it is a preventative measure in case of a foreign invasion.

Yea evetythin I read is the same, they can buy there military weapons but the ammo is stored by the Swiss government.

I'm sure there are no swiss anywhere who load their own lol.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For all you people who are claiming that the second amendment was ruled to include individual gun rights, remember that supreme court decisions can be overturned, and that Justice Scalia, who rule in favor the NRA during that case, is now dead and gone

For all you people who think that a rifle can be used to beat a military with thermonuclear weapons:

Which in no way mitigates the fact that current Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm.

 

[koshergrl]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

We've discussed your misguided interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on this site many times. The Bill of Rights enumerates INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS; it is not a collectivist treatise.

Who's sock is this guy?


.

Joey

The stupidity and dishonesty levels are right....

 

[Auld Phart]

I'm not a gun nut, dont' even own one (cough cough)

But I do enjoy trying to hit graham crackers at 100yds

Brunswick bowling pin logo's.

too expensive

I get them from the bowling alley.

They trash them when they are worn.

No bowling alley in town

 

[Wyatt earp]

Wrong...you don't understand the system...only military ammunition is rationed.....private ammunition is not. And do you really think it is hard to smuggle ammo from the guy on the block who is supposed to be controlling it?

Dude, my friend is from Switzerland, and he did his mandatory military service there. He told me that all privately owned firearms, even a double barreled shotgun, are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, and that the ammunition is kept by the MILITARY, not by local armories

Quot lying they can buy there military weapons.

Actually I'm pretty sure they get to keep their rifle from their military service. That's a large reason why there is such a high percentage of gun ownership in Switzerland. I'm not arguing there can be private gun ownership, but as far as military weapons goes, they can keep their weapons at home but the ammunition is rationed to them... as I said it is a preventative measure in case of a foreign invasion.

Yea evetythin I read is the same, they can buy there military weapons but the ammo is stored by the Swiss government.

I'm sure there are no swiss anywhere who load their own lol.

Thanks reminding me my friend like the Swiss watch or Swiss knife don't show what they can do with minimal of tools