1. I was a conscript soldier in Turkish army. we could only have our weapons on guard duty or on military parades.
    Even if they gave you your gun that doesn’t mean they gonna give you any ammo. You can only have ammo if you are going to the guard duty.
    I’m actually simplifying the protocol. There are many steps and different officers involve in the process.
    You just don’t want regular dumb asses carrying a loaded assault rifle inside the base.
    Only Professional soldiers could carry sidearm inside the base.
    Of course, if your base is on the border that’s another story.
    don’t get me wrong. I love guns and I love watching gun channels. but my god you can’t just let everyone to have guns. Especially an assault rifle.

    1. @Kaiser Milo What a poor and horrible argument to do absolutely nothing and offer no alternatives.

    2. @Kayhan Ayar Huh, seems like the Afghani’s with assult rifles kicked out the most powerful military in human history. Iguess they didnt listen the the gun banners telling them they couldn’t do this.

  2. This was the same with the U.S. Army when I served, and I’m sure it still is. It’s a simple, responsible, and obvious safety measure. Military policymakers know that even the most well trained among us can snap. I’ve seen my share of soldiers “losing it” in the barracks and trashing their rooms or getting into fights. The idea behind the military’s policy is to keep things from escalating from a fight to a shooting incident, which probably would happen in a lot of cases if privately owned firearms were kept in the barracks or on their person.

    1. @That Boy Preston Why would someone want to break into your home? Most people who claim this don’t have anything worth stealing or are teens who have played a lot of COD living in white bread suburbia with their parents who want to play the hero. You want to play with guns, join the military.

    2. @thor wilkinson exactly my point. I live in Canada and we have very low gun ownership and low crime rates as well. How do you explain that huh?

  3. Same thoughts running through my head. Confounded by all the weapons training and security I was required to sustain in the military – always conscious that I was dealing with tools designed primarily to kill humans. Absurd that any silly yahoo can buy such weapons over the counter, without any restrictions on their storage and handling. I had to prove to my country that I could be trusted with these weapons. It’s an insult to know other citizens are not held to the same high standards.

    1. Here’s another insult: I have a beard, haven’t had a haircut in a while, and might carry a bit of weight. Rant all you want about dress and grooming standards, this silly yahoo doesn’t care. And I feel the same way about your opinions on my firearms. If you imagine for one second that *civilians* should live under *military* standards, you don’t understand the Constitution you were supposed to defend.

  4. The fact this guy offers rational, reasonable, real world solutions tells me he wouldn’t last 10 second in Washington. Sad but true.

  5. I heard what the man had to say and I whole heartedly agree with him about firearm safety and proficiency courses to legally own firearms.

    1. @keith2092 if you are supposed to be normal I’m glad I appear strange. 😂 A limerick? Next time you should read a little bit slower so you can comprehend it a little better.

    2. @Robert A Actually it falls under a category of the constitution. Hence it being ruled a right and not shall issue. Part of the constitution is what they referenced when creating the argument. Sorry just like ar-15’s didnt exist when the constitution was written neither did cars…lol 🙂

    3. @Misc??? Gun powder existed. Guns existed. Keep trying. You may actually make sense if you keep on trying hard enough.

    4. @Robert A Ok by your example guns existed and gun powder existed also canons existed and explosives existed. All “arms” of the period. Therefore anything based off those should be legal in your example cause similar things existed at the time. Where do I buy my 150mm howitzer from? Its just a really big bullet, gun powder and explosives. Can I buy 30mm gatling gun from home depot?

  6. As a lifelong gun owner, target shooter, I completely agree with this man. My guns live in a safe. I have never had a gun accident. And I have never killed anyone.

    1. @Vekta your talking about events of the past, things have changed. Your crime rate has quadrupled since the 1700’s. You guys really need to change the way your laws work. Look at all your gun crime, now look at the other free countries gun crime.

  7. He made some good points. As a former Marine and 3 time rifle expert I can say that safety is important now matter who owns a firearm. More power more responsibility.

    1. Are we pretending they didn’t keep sending you to the range until you got that expert proficiency? 3 times? so you were in the military for 3 years? Cause you have to recertify annually.

    2. @TIB1973 second year I got sharpshooter because I didn’t discipline myself to do what I was taught. Point is treat weapons serious. The right is also something serious.

    3. @TheDesertRat_95 I’m glad there was already a law in the books with regards to competency, as in your father’s situation..
      My fear is that once we create a recertification approach, then we totally surrender to the government what that recertification standard is. They wouldn’t even need to pass a law to change it.

  8. Thank you Sir for this intelligent solution. I fear though that we are moving into a society that accepts no responsibility. We want rights but not responsibilities. To me rights and responsibilities and two sides of the same coin. I recall my dad teaching me how to handle power tools around the age of 8 or 9. Fifty years later I use the same language when teaching young people to handle (potentially) dangerous power tools. Respect the tool, respect the gun.

    1. Rights without responsibility eventually see those rights turned against themselves. This is why speech has to have limits even in the United States.

  9. As an Army veteran I have felt firearms need better regulation and control and I am always amazed when fellow veterans who really should know as well as I do act like total “guns for all! no restrictions!” lunatics. Glad to see this man didn’t fall for that.

    1. The 2A is more of a deterrent for tyrannical government, yeah statistically civilians would not win a war against the military but then again the US Military only makes up roughly 7 percent of the US’s population and also taking in to account that not all those serving would be willing to kill citizens in their home country, point is that it always starts with something small like banning semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and then you’ll end up with countries like Canada that have already pretty much banned rifles and then more recently handguns and its not like Canada already has a good track record for not over stepping its bounds

    2. @Scorpion 40 hmmm, every time, really? Common sense gun laws exist in every western country except the US. Haven’t seen genocide in any of those countries yet.

    3. @hazie to fight a modern army you should own some anti-tank weaponry, just look at Ukraine. You also need to organize and train for war. A tyrannical government rules through fear and propaganda, there will be no problem for them to kill civilians, look at Russia. Just define the civilians as “nazis” and they’re free to kill. No, today the 2A is nothing about being a deterrent for a tyrannical government, it’s about culture and identity.

  10. Basic regulations that I, as a former police chief, have advocated for years. I would add that CCW permit holders should go through the same scenario based judgmental pistol shooting course that I and my officers had to complete. These courses are much easier to take now with the advent of digital video laser training systems.

    1. @Joshua Dela Cruz I can agree with a system of ongoing training. That’s being well regulated. Limiting magazine capacity is an infringement. Could we get nation wide carry?

  11. Mr. Gordon – your comments on needed gun regulation are spot on. Thank you for voicing the most sensible requirements for responsible gun ownership I’ve heard to date. I’m a long time gun owner and support more stringent requirements for the privilege of owning a firearm. Oh, and thank you for your service.

    1. But the vast majority of gun owners are already responsible. There are about 300k gun crimes a year… but nearly 80 million gun owners… responsibility is already a thing within the community.

  12. Me, too! Exactly! Helps alleviate the need for registration (the bane of gun owners everywhere), better equips the average dude who thinks he/she is born with the skills to safely and effectively handle a deadly weapon, and provides an opportunity to evaluate those who should not own firearms. Make the training mandatory AND pass/fail based on stringent adherence to safety/use protocols. In other words, make these goombahs actually do more than they did in high school.

  13. Gave me chills, I’ve never been in the military and I just have never considered it the issue from this angle. Around the world people wondering what’s going on in the United States I imagine they’re looking at us like that we are miscreants or something we

  14. I’ve been saying something similar for years. This is where we need to start. We need a think tank of people that understand firearms to make recommendations for legislation and this guy needs to be on that committee.

  15. As part of the licensing process anyone who sells firearms or parts should be required to ID whomever is making a purchase. That would also provide some local accountability and tracking.
    Yeah, this guy is right. Military standards of safety on a range are very high. Everyone who wants to possess a firearm should have to prove they are safe in a difficult setting.

    1. “As part of the licensing process anyone who sells firearms or parts should be required to ID whomever is making a purchase.”

      Background checks are already Federal law.

  16. In my military service, (Warsaw pact) our weapons were locked away and locked. We were given our weapons only when we needed them: For practice, for marching drills, and for armed duty. The only positive thing I learned from my military service is, the SAFETY instructions.

  17. Thank you Matthew! This is common sense. Before a person can buy a firearm, they need to be properly trained on how to use a firearm.
    Each individual must have a background check, then they must satisfactory pass written and field firearms tests. These basic requirements need to be the same in all 50 states and US territories.

    1. “Each individual must have a background check…”

      Background checks are already Federal law.

    2. Sure, same with voting, need a course showing how voting for politicians can affect your fundamental rights,, also need a course for everyone who thinks they want to join the military showing them how you can die as well.

  18. When I was going through basic training we were trained on the M1 rifle and the AR-15 was just being introduced.
    We were shown what damage the AR-15 bullet does when it hits the soft tissue of the body. I think our legislators should see that movie, there is no reason that anyone should have access to that bullet and it should be banned for sale to the public.

  19. We must enforce the “well regulated” portion of the Second Amendment. Background checks, firearms training, and securing your weapons when not in use, must be mandatory!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.