The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

johnwilliamson062 · July 2, 2013, 08:32 AM

You already need to be a veteran to get a job(OK, so it is only that an employer gets huge subsidies for hiring a veteran). Why not just make veteran status a requirement for voting?

Giving active military and veterans rights not extended to civilians has only been a tactic used by almost every historic government on a campaign to smother freedom.

I love the "highly qualified professional" blanket and how it covers anyone in the military, police, or in some minds medical first responders. We all know there are some VERY skilled military and police officers and even some very skilled fire and EMTs, but, for the most part, the general training offered to such professionals does not qualify them as skilled with small arms. I have a family member who's entire small arms training in the Navy was firing one magazine off an aircraft carrier's deck in the general direction of a buoy(Aircraft electronics technician). I am acquainted with an Air Force engineer who had more evasive driving training than small arms training(which made sense in his position). People seem to be unable to accept that over half the military is support.

On the other side of the spectrum I shoot/have shot in local informal competitions with several active and retired LEO/.mil who were very skilled. WAY WAY WAY past where I was even when shooting a pistol, rifle and shotgun event every week. Some of them got there with gov training, but most did it on their own dime. As budgets shrink I imagine the latter will become even more common.

I do not like the idea of qualifying someone based on a DD 214 or even active service.

July 2, 2013, 08:32 AM	#27
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	You already need to be a veteran to get a job(OK, so it is only that an employer gets huge subsidies for hiring a veteran). Why not just make veteran status a requirement for voting? Giving active military and veterans rights not extended to civilians has only been a tactic used by almost every historic government on a campaign to smother freedom. I love the "highly qualified professional" blanket and how it covers anyone in the military, police, or in some minds medical first responders. We all know there are some VERY skilled military and police officers and even some very skilled fire and EMTs, but, for the most part, the general training offered to such professionals does not qualify them as skilled with small arms. I have a family member who's entire small arms training in the Navy was firing one magazine off an aircraft carrier's deck in the general direction of a buoy(Aircraft electronics technician). I am acquainted with an Air Force engineer who had more evasive driving training than small arms training(which made sense in his position). People seem to be unable to accept that over half the military is support. On the other side of the spectrum I shoot/have shot in local informal competitions with several active and retired LEO/.mil who were very skilled. WAY WAY WAY past where I was even when shooting a pistol, rifle and shotgun event every week. Some of them got there with gov training, but most did it on their own dime. As budgets shrink I imagine the latter will become even more common. I do not like the idea of qualifying someone based on a DD 214 or even active service. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; July 2, 2013 at 08:52 AM.