Gun Control

[dahoeb]

Actually, getting a DUI while in the military can get you booted out.

http://www.straightdui.com/dui_artic...e_military.asp

I spent 8 years in the Marines, got out in 2011. Let me provide a real world perspective. I know theres a number of vets on this forum who could also vouche for what I'm saying....

The DoD is not going to outright boot you just because of a DUI. The military invests millions of dollars in each soldier, Marine and airmen to supply them with training, food, medical treatment, etc. They are not going to throw away such a huge investment over a single DUI.

What they will do is NJP you, take away some of your rank, reduce your pay allowances, make you do all kinds of fun things like paint parking lot lines and other "extracurricular work." Then, when you're contract is about to expire, they'll usually deny you're re-enlistment. If the DUI was early enough in your career and you keep you nose SPOTLESS, you might be able to stay in. For those who have a little rank and a couple years under their belt, their career is stopped dead in it's tracks. They have no chance of advancement and basically just end up waiting to EAS or are forced to retire (if they have enough years).

I can't tell you how many people I've served with who have DUIs. Some were able to recover and carry on just fine, others just got bitter about the punishment and spiraled out. I knew one who was a serial "alcohol related event" offender, he didn't get forced out, he got sent to a clinic and finished out the remaining 3 years of his contract. This was in 2009. A year after that article came out.

The part that defeats your point, is that If I get a DUI...I can still go to war, I still have a rifle assigned to me, I still have to go to the rifle range, the grenade range, CQB training and other training, and if I get it as a civilian, I still stand a decent chance at being able to enlist if I want.

Even though it doesn't directly relate to the debate at hand, I saw that your article says that the person will have a dishonorable discharge for a DUI...I have NEVER in my entire career seen that. I dare say, it's an outright lie. Dishonorable discharges are reserved for the ones that are dealing drugs, commiting murder, rapes, sexual assualts, major felony crimes. Things that end up going all the way up to a full court martial. A DUI will normally be dealt with at a Battalion level, with Non-Judicial Punishment. The repurcussions of a dishonorable discharge are literally life altering. Not something handed out lightly for a freaking DUI.

I'm guessing you never served, so hopefully this helps. That article is heavily bias (and for good reason, it's a good cause) and is clearly trying to scare people out of drinking and driving.

[MoeMag]

As if people in Amerca are ever going to revolt against anything.
Get real.

Troll.

[Henchman]

. That article is heavily bias (and for good reason, it's a good cause) and is clearly trying to scare people out of drinking and driving.

I sure hope so. As DUI is the most irresponsible thing a person can do.

[wetwrks]

Anybody who doesn't have the common sense to stay out of fights or drive drunk has no business owning a gun.

So...a fellow here in Denver got into a fight with 4 people on the street...and now should not be allowed to own a firearm? Is this your determination?

[Frizzle Fry]

I sure hope so. As DUI is the most irresponsible thing a person can do.

Really? So the guy who blows a 0.079 is great, but the one who hits 0.081 is more irresponsible than the parents who allow their infant access to harmful cleaning chemicals, the heroin addicts who share dirty needles, the passerby that doesn't stop to help the man lying on the street in a puddle of blood, or the lab worker who forgets the latch on the cage full of ebola monkeys? Sure buddy.



trolllllllllllll

[Henchman]

Really? So the guy who blows a 0.079 is great, but the one who hits 0.081 is more irresponsible than the parents who allow their infant access to harmful cleaning chemicals, the heroin addicts who share dirty needles, the passerby that doesn't stop to help the man lying on the street in a puddle of blood, or the lab worker who forgets the latch on the cage full of ebola monkeys? Sure buddy.



trolllllllllllll

Driving after drinking is completely irrensponsible.
And it's a complete, 100% premeditated choice.
The minute you step in your car to go to a bar, where you now you'll be drinking, you've made the immature and irresponsible choice to drive while under the influence.
And so yes, when you he caught, you not only deserve to get the book thrown at you, but you have proven to be lacking in common sense.
So no, you have no business getting a gun license.
Actions have consequences.
As far as Im concerned they should lower it to allowing not even a single drink.

[Frizzle Fry]

As far as Im concerned they ahold lower it to allowing nt even a single drink.

Would that law apply to typing as well as driving?

I suppose they should take away your freedom of speech as well?

Maybe amendments 5 through 8 should be thrown out too, and the officer can just lynch the guy on the side of the road.



Anyway, good night troll.

[Henchman]

Would that law apply to typing as well as driving?

I suppose they should take away your freedom of speech as well?

Maybe amendments 5 through 8 should be thrown out too, and the officer can just lynch the guy on the side of the road.



Anyway, good night troll.

Of course anybody questioning laws that prevent people who have proven they can't make common sense decisions in life, from owning a gun, is a troll.

Should known criminals who happen to have good lawyers that prevent then from being prosecuted after getting arrested time and time again, be allowed the luxury of legaly owning a gun?

[Henchman]

Really? So the guy who blows a 0.079 is great, but the one who hits 0.081 is more irresponsible than the parents who allow their infant access to harmful cleaning chemicals, the heroin addicts who share dirty needles, the passerby that doesn't stop to help the man lying on the street in a puddle of blood, or the lab worker who forgets the latch on the cage full of ebola monkeys? Sure buddy.



trolllllllllllll

Btw, you are really grasping at straws here.

[Frizzle Fry]

Should known criminals who happen to have good lawyers that prevent then from being prosecuted after getting arrested time and time again, be allowed the luxury of legaly owning a gun?

...So now your saying that even people who haven't been convicted of a crime, let alone prosecuted should not have a constitutionally granted right because in your eyes they are "criminals"?

Btw, you are really grasping at straws here.

Yep, the founding fathers, legal system, myself and anyone with a basic concept of rights US citizens are grasping at straws.


It's a shame stupidity isn't a crime. If you don't like the basic rights afforded to citizens of the US you should go back to whatever socialist European hellhole impressed you so much that you formed the attitudes you have now - after a few years of being told what you should and shouldn't own/eat/read and where you should spend your money, and after a few massive bloody riots as a result of college tuition hikes or the change of retirement age (strangely absent in the US), maybe then you'll change your tune. As it stands my guess is your ignorance of the subject you are discussing and your age (I'll hazard a guess at late teens or early 20s) and life experience don't give you enough sense to make a cogent argument let alone an accurate observation of the issues you're discussing.

[Henchman]

...So now your saying that even people who haven't been convicted of a crime, let alone prosecuted should not have a constitutionally granted right because in your eyes they are "criminals"?

.

I'm asking you a simple question,
Do you think people who keep getting arrested for criminal activity, should be allowed to legally own and carry guns.

Yes, or no?

[Frizzle Fry]

I'm asking you a simple question,
Do you think people who keep getting arrested for criminal activity, should be allowed to legally own and carry guns.

Yes, or no?

Yes.

All people are considered innocent until proven guilty by court of law, and in a criminal case to be found guilty, the commission of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not all people, not even most who are arrested are guilty, and even then not all people charged and convicted of a crime are guilty either. Some people get away clean while others spend years in jail, but in the end you reap what you sow. When a government starts taking away the basic rights of its people as stated in its charter without irrefutable proof that they can no longer safely be afforded that right, it has overstepped its bounds, and when the bounds are overstepped once it provides precedent for them to be overstepped again. That has been the downfall of both nations and entire civilizations, and historically has been the seed of revolution.

I say again, you are very ignorant of the subjects your are discussing, and you would do well to research the difference between a "right" and a "privilege", look up the definitions of "allegation" and "conviction", and look into some basic legal procedures and gun laws in the United States. You might also want to look in to the details of various governments and societies both past and current who have practiced and do practice the kind of prejudging non-justice you proscribe; they tend to end with a bang or continue in fear and poverty.

I will never deny that the Justice System in the US is not perfect, quite the opposite, but when compared with the rest of the world it stands ahead in many of its facets, especially in its support of victims and fairness to alleged criminals.

[dahoeb]

Yes.

All people are considered innocent until proven guilty by court of law, and in a criminal case to be found guilty, the commission of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not all people, not even most who are arrested are guilty, and even then not all people charged and convicted of a crime are guilty either. Some people get away clean while others spend years in jail, but in the end you reap what you sow. When a government starts taking away the basic rights of its people as stated in its charter without irrefutable proof that they can no longer safely be afforded that right, it has overstepped its bounds, and when the bounds are overstepped once it provides precedent for them to be overstepped again. That has been the downfall of both nations and entire civilizations, and historically has been the seed of revolution.

I say again, you are very ignorant of the subjects your are discussing, and you would do well to research the difference between a "right" and a "privilege", look up the definitions of "allegation" and "conviction", and look into some basic legal procedures and gun laws in the United States. You might also want to look in to the details of various governments and societies both past and current who have practiced and do practice the kind of prejudging non-justice you proscribe; they tend to end with a bang or continue in fear and poverty.

I will never deny that the Justice System in the US is not perfect, quite the opposite, but when compared with the rest of the world it stands ahead in many of its facets, especially in its support of victims and fairness to alleged criminals.

Great argument FF, but I think you might be wasting your time on him....I think what he really wants is some sort of government panel or review board to determine on a case by case basis who is "deserving" of the right to gun ownership. And I'm sure that same panel will also determine what kind of gun it will be, how much ammo is alloted per year, and under what specific circumstances it can be used. I'm sure that board will also require a request form to clean or transport it as well.

[Henchman]

No, I want to see people who have no regard for a human life, or who are so devoid of common sense that they think they should eb allowed to do whatever they want, prohibited from owning a gun.
Period.
And people who seem to get arrested repeatedly, most certainly belong in that category.

[Henchman]

Heres a perfect example of a moron with a gun, who will most likely get off.
Should he be allowed to own a gun? Hell no.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/raiders/story/2011-12-01/rolando-mcclain-arrest/51551126/1