Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dakota Meyer calls for ‘full institution of the 2nd Amendment’ following Chattanooga attack
guns.com ^ | 7/16/2015 | Chris Eger

Posted on 07/17/2015 9:49:18 AM PDT by rktman

Medal of Honor recipient and U.S. Marine Dakota Meyer blasted special interest groups Thursday in the wake of a terrorist attack on a Navy recruiting center in Tennessee, calling for expansion of gun rights.

(Excerpt) Read more at guns.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2a; abdulazeez; banglist; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last
By full institution I assume Mr. Meyer means that our supposed right to bear arms without infringement be made "crystal clear" that we be "allowed" to carry anywhere anytime. Thank you Mr. Meyer for your service.
1 posted on 07/17/2015 9:49:18 AM PDT by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rktman

Carry anywhere, anyway, with no feas, no restrictions of anykind. “Shall not be infringed.”


2 posted on 07/17/2015 9:51:51 AM PDT by exnavy (Gun control is two hands, one shot, one kill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Well it isn’t “without infringement”. There is no Constitutional right that is “without infringement” Period.

Having said that. On another issue with which I could use a little info ... when it comes to carrying weapons on military bases, who makes that call nowadays?


3 posted on 07/17/2015 9:52:45 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

I wonder if governors can order National Guardsmen to carry functional weapons while on duty.


4 posted on 07/17/2015 9:55:28 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Sad fact, most people just want a candidate to tell them what they want to hear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

The call has been made by federal statute prohibiting the possession of firearms on federal property. Idiocy. There’s some room for installation commanders to relax the policy, and I saw a couple of years ago that the commander at Ft. Hood had done so for CHL holders, but I think it’s been tightened back up again.

Did I mention idiocy? Fortunately/unfortunately, they rarely ask to check bags or trunks when you go through the gate.


5 posted on 07/17/2015 9:58:04 AM PDT by jagusafr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Agreed. No state or city should infringe our right to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. Courts and Congress need to act to undo the usurption of our rights. SHould be easy action as most laws limiting 2nd amendment are racist, banning guns in areas with majority of population is non-White—California, DC, New York, Chicago.


6 posted on 07/17/2015 9:58:23 AM PDT by Reno89519 (American Lives Matter! US Citizen, Veteran, Conservative, Republican. I vote. Trump 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Hmmm. Base commander via orders from the Pentagon? Guess contracted base security (civilians) are okay but heaven forbid some military person be armed. Ridiculouser and ridiculouser.


7 posted on 07/17/2015 9:58:41 AM PDT by rktman (Served in the Navy to protect the rights of those that want to take some of mine away. Odd, eh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Absolutely, if they’re in state status and not on a federal installation.


8 posted on 07/17/2015 9:59:09 AM PDT by jagusafr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Base security/security forces are authorized to carry because it’s in performance of their security duties. The rest of us, not so much.


9 posted on 07/17/2015 10:00:07 AM PDT by jagusafr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Reno89519

As white folks are minorities in Cali now, can’t they file discrimination suits? Yeah, I know better.


10 posted on 07/17/2015 10:00:35 AM PDT by rktman (Served in the Navy to protect the rights of those that want to take some of mine away. Odd, eh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

And in a lot(most/all?) of these cases, these duties have been farmed out to civilian subcontractors. WTH?


11 posted on 07/17/2015 10:02:49 AM PDT by rktman (Served in the Navy to protect the rights of those that want to take some of mine away. Odd, eh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Yes.


12 posted on 07/17/2015 10:05:08 AM PDT by BlueNgold (May I suggest a very nice 1788 Article V with your supper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I think they can. The national guard come under the authority of the various governers.


13 posted on 07/17/2015 10:09:12 AM PDT by exnavy (Gun control is two hands, one shot, one kill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

If it were up to me a functional weapon would be a standard part of the military dress code.


14 posted on 07/17/2015 10:12:10 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Sad fact, most people just want a candidate to tell them what they want to hear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Hero!!


15 posted on 07/17/2015 10:14:00 AM PDT by Calpublican (Boehner and McConnell are corrupt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

I spent 21 years in the Navy and retired as a Chief Petty Officer in 1986. During that entire time, no guns were allowed on base unless they were stored in a locker controlled by base security.
Even my spear guns were not allowed.
Even back then the liberals had control of the military.


16 posted on 07/17/2015 10:15:12 AM PDT by GOJPN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Many, certainly. I will admit that I go out of my way to get into the lane that has the guy/gal in uniform in it, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I get a salute and a “Welcome to Joint Base Randolph, Colonel”. To be fair, a lot of the contractors are former service members.


17 posted on 07/17/2015 10:17:21 AM PDT by jagusafr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I agree, for military and civilians.


18 posted on 07/17/2015 10:21:51 AM PDT by exnavy (Gun control is two hands, one shot, one kill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

Every free man and woman should be able to arm themselves.


19 posted on 07/17/2015 10:23:29 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Sad fact, most people just want a candidate to tell them what they want to hear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

You’re kind of forgetting the “shall not be infringed” part, which rather clearly destroys the “there is no Constitutional right that is ‘without infringement’” meme.

Insofar as some of us might relent on the total absoluteness thereof (like “incarcerated prisoners lose that right”), there is no question that if it WILL be infringed, the infringement be on a per-case basis, adjudicated for a specific person given specific circumstances & facts - never a sweeping prohibition without consideration of individuals affected. The only other conditions I can imagine are particular facilities (again, adjudication applies) where a shot has an objective likelihood of causing extreme and unexpected damage (something akin to the Bhopal Disaster where a poison gas leak killed thousands), and even then the potential for such damage should cause reconsideration of the facilities’ location & design.

As for carry on military bases, that directive came from the top (at the time GHW Bush).
I’m hoping the next POTUS will, within his first 3 days in office, declares “WTF are active duty soldiers not armed? I don’t care where they’re located! Condition One .45s for everyone NOW!” and the first dissenting officer hindering that directive is demoted to Private on the spot.


20 posted on 07/17/2015 10:24:01 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The world map will be quite different come 20 January 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson