Matthew Hess: Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws
This fellow, Matthew Hess, has published an opinion piece in the Marine Corps Times urging veterans to get behind more gun control. Hess claims to be a former Marine Sergeant who is now a freshman attending Columbia University in New York City. He says that we should get behind the President’s latest round of executive orders and even go as far as supporting a new assault weapon ban, whatever an assault weapon is.
Most of us agree that we have a gun violence problem in the United States. There is no simple answer to this problem, and we cannot afford to pretend it is only a mental health issue, just as we cannot pretend it is only a gun law issue. But we can start by making it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns by requiring background checks on all gun purchases. We should be willing to at least consider other forms of gun control, such as prohibitions on military-grade assault rifles, like those used in San Bernardino. I support my friends in their desire to protect themselves and their loved ones, but I do not trust every person in America to own a gun. Veterans — with their weapons experience and training — have a responsibility to lead the fight for more secure gun laws.
Well, you know, if supporting the President’s edicts would stop criminals from getting guns, if strengthening background checks limited criminals’ access to firearms, if banning scary-looking black guns would reduce crime in this country, maybe I could get behind it. But, the truth is that it’s all smoke and mirrors. Scary-looking black guns are already banned in California, yet the San Bernadino shooting still happened. Criminals will still deal in firearms in darkened alleys and parking lots. It’s really just one more step in the journey to ban all guns. When these measures don’t do anything to quell gun violence, the argument will be that nothing short of a complete gun ban will work.
And, oh, by the way, sergeant, it’s not up to veterans to decide who gets trusted with guns and who doesn’t. The Fourth Amendment says that no one gets to lose their rights without due process. An opinion that you don’t trust “every person in America to own a gun”, really doesn’t matter. I’ll be the first to admit that there are indeed irresponsible gun owners out there, there are also irresponsible automobile drivers, irresponsible drinkers, irresponsible pedestrians. At some point, we have to start accepting that gun violence is a result of people behaving badly. Veterans are already saying that, out loud and in public. Haven’t you noticed?
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
I agree with Jonn’s assessment. Veterans get behind firearms control? I don’t think so. Firearms control only works for the law abiding people, not for the ones who don’t care and will get the firearms anyhow.
Yep. What Jonn said.
Hey, Matthew Hess, let me pass on a little of wisdom to you from Will Rogers:
“Never miss a good chance to shut up.”
“Life is hard. It’s even harder when you’re stupid”.
John Wayne
I can get behind 2 elements of ‘gun control’:
Windage and Elevation.
sight picture and trigger control
I have wrote it before:
Good Gun Control is like selling Real Estate; it is all about Location, Location, Location
BRASS. It’s my method of gun control.
Safety and Marksmanship.
Gun control means proper booger hooker discipline. Never put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to shoot, period.
I learned that at the ripe old age of 8…
And it still works today.
I have never had a negligent discharge, never.
Yup.
The 4 Rules of Gun Safety:
Keep your finger off the trigger.
Keep your finger off the fucking trigger.
Keep your fucking finger off the trigger.
Keep your fucking finger off the fucking trigger.
That pretty much sums it up!!!
Is this guy the lost son Bateman?
Sounds like Lars’ brother from another mother (or test tube)…
oh boy here comes Lars and company 🙂
get ready to laugh
They might have been conceived in the same cracked test tube.
And irresponsible media outlets who sensationalize every mass incident for ratings despite the fact that overall gun violence in US has been in a steady decline since the mid 90’s.
The left media will run with this- “VETERANS ALL FOR GUN CONTROL! Story at 11.”
Matthew Hess, you shut your hoe mouth! Just shut it up right now!
another wacko leftist talking shit. I’m on Jonns side on this one
Well, if the comments are any indicator, vets backing any kind of gun control laws will not be happening any time soon.
So far, the comments run about 10:1 against the author and his beliefs.
Every tradesman should carry a ball-peen hammer and a hawksbill linoleum knife.
Professionals may carry a 10 inch titanium letter opener and mace.
Little-old-ladies may wish to carry a screamer alarm and heavy hat pins.
Adolescent girls are already armed, dangerous and deadly.
I personally prefer a garotte and beer bottle.
Not everyone needs a firearm.
“Not everyone needs a firearm.”
True; but the point is not about need.
It’s not called “The Bill of Needs”
Tom Huxton, your view is limited.
I have frequently and regularly espoused the use of any available resources, including cooking spray and a BIC lighter , as useful tools for self defense.
And, in addition, Huxton, you definitely don’t need a firearm. You might shoot yourself in the foot. Oh, but you already did that, didn’t you?
I once had a fist-sized rock, confiscated as an “unauthorized weapon”, They flew out a brand new 2lt too do so. He was terrified of being beyond the wire, and scurried back aboard his flight, carrying the confiscated rock. He had no complaint about my bag o frags, the M60, or the claymores. Maybe he was afraid that I would do myself harm sleeping on the rock, or something.
It was a dandy weapon, with a square-braided handle made from boot laces.
I like that idea. Use local materials for the creation of lethal weapons. Rawhide laces, nylon or cotton?
Regular 72in laces from an SP Pack.
Ended up with about a 10 inch handle which I tucked into my belt. Shoulda bought a KBar,
Was his name by any chance Goliath? Go figure.
Nobody needs a firearm until they need one very badly. Personally, I’d rather have and not need a firearm than need and not have.
I stopped reading after Columbia University was mentioned.
Mr Hess, you do not speak for me…..ever.
Hess, from one Sergeant to another: Fuck off.
This Sergeant will gleefully add his name to this petition for Hess to fuck off.
What the hell? Let’s make it a group effort. I’ll get the coffee going and the line forms to the left.
Marines always knows how to form a line!!
I’m on board ! ! !
Marine – Liberal.
I can’t wrap my head around that.
Don’t Marines take some sort of oath that they won’t say dumb shit?
Ever!?
Liberalism is a disease. Much like madcow it rots your brain form the inside out. Causing the victim to spout bs and foaming foaming drool.
This vicious disease can even find and penetrate the brain of previously stated military branch. Especially when trigger phrases are used: “global warming”; “gun control”; “comprehensive xyz reform.”
I was in Israel last week and I like their form of gun control. Every IDF person that I saw had a slung M4, most with optics and they all sported 30-round magazines. There were a lot of people in green clothes on the street. I saw 75 or 100 IDF guys and gals in Jerusalem Old City alone – they were in teams all over the place. Made my day!
I am opposed to crime. Deterrence in the form of individual firearm ownership is part of the solution to that problem.
Sgt. Hess seems to be for gun control – as though gun-control is the solution to reducing crime.
Individual firearm ownership in Israel is a hell of a lot more restrictive than in the US.
Is he actually what he says he is/was? Or is he embellishing? Inquiring minds want to know.
Standing offer: if anyone can come up with the necessary info (FirstName/MiddleName/Lastname PLUS date of birth PLUS place of birth PLUS approx dates of service), I’ll be happy to file the FOIA request.
SSN also works in place of the DOB/POB combo. Just don’t do anything unlawful to obtain it if you go that route.
I guess his MOS must’ve been 1369 rather than 0311……
I just looked him up on the MOL locator. The MOS listed there shows 8014, which is an enlisted designator – and that he’s in the IRR. Nothing follows.
Come on you never heard of the MOS 1369? Maybe it’s an Old Corps thing (back in the 80s 😉 )
1369=Unlucky C*** Sucker.
13K9. Unlucky son-of-a bitch
Yeah, I saw that 1369 only after I posted my comment and had to chuckle to myself. Come to think of it, I’ve only heard of the 1369 PMOS a couple of other times since 1988.
Still funny as hell!
I just refilled my water gun with bourbon.
I am good.
My guess is his opinion has something to do with vajayjay procurement….I mean, he does attend Columbia.
That article is probably gunna get him more ass than a toilet seat.
We can only hope that his ignorant opinion is founded on so benign a desire. Otherwise, we have a former Marine walking around that knows nothing about the Constitution he was sworn to protect.
We already have that. Check out what’s going in Oregon involving a guy named Ritzheimer.
I usually post some sarcastic remark about the irony of holding NRA members accountable for what non NRA members do with a firearm.
However this current polarization of ultra left vs. ultra right does no topic any good. I wonder if Hess even knows what “stronger background checks” means. I wonder if most people do. Stronger in what way?
As Americans, we have a right to own firearms. That right does not extend to those who are not citizens. Being required to prove that you are a citizen of the United States through proper identification should be required to own, sell, or purchase a weapon.
To carry a weapon in public, I have no issue with requiring some level of training and proficiency. That requirement exists in many states.
I spend more time than most with a weapon in my hand. It does bother me when the vast majority of people that I encounter at ranges have no idea what the capabilities of their weapon is.
It bothers me that some states allow most people to carry a weapon in public by default. Constitutional Carry blurs the line on who is and is not a Citizen. I can’t tell just by looking at someone if they are protected by the Constitution.
What is wrong with:
Proving you are a citizen by providing proper ID.
Proving you are not a wanted criminal felon.
…additionally if you are going to carry in public
Proving you know the weapon you are carrying
Proving you can hit the broad side of a barn
Proving that you are aware of when to use it.
Will this reduce criminals from committing crimes with firearms? NO, but it will help to ensure the people who can stop them actually know how and have a right to.
A cheap Taurus 9mm will kill someone at 200 yrds. I demonstrate that all the time. A 30-06 with new flat line bullets loaded correctly will reach out to 1800 yrds accurately. I wish people who owned weapons knew what it was capable of before they pull the trigger.
And how many drivers do you know that could check the fluid levels in their cars? Or change a tire? Much less know anything about the dynamics of their vehicle on wet pavement? And yet all of the above are involved in the proper maintenance and handling of their vehicles. Americans are the most technologically advanced bunch of blithering idiots the world has every produced.
That is very true. People also purchase vehicles that are capable of going well in excess of 100mph. That is why we have speed limits. Cars can be dangerous, to operate one on the public roads people must prove they know the basic rules and are proficient with a vehicle.
When a person leaves their own property with a firearm they are on everyone’s property. Yes, it is still partly their property but it is also partly mine…and yours.
The right to own firearms was not established so we can shoot bunny rabbits. It was primarily established so we can protect ourselves.
If it was up to me, every citizen would be trained in the use of firearms.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Other things that should have restrictions and training could include having children; right? I mean, just because a woman has a right to her own body (as told to us when it concerns killing the child within), doesn’t mean that she would make a good parent and could provide for the child; right?
Also, a lot of states are now issuing an ID or driver license to illegals, so having an ID doesn’t mean shit, anymore, as proof of citizenship.
There are a lot of things that would qualify to fit the same restrictions as what they propose for firearms, yet only firearms are talked about. I have asked anti-gun types what a “expanded background check” is, and when they tell me, I inform them it’s already that way. Then they start to let me in on what they really want, and that is total registration and in some cases, confiscation.
When someone sets off a bomb; we blame the bomber
When a drunk driver kills someone on the road; we blame the driver
When someone is shot; we blame the firearm, not the person using it.
Throw out that bit of common sense and watch the anti-gunner’s heads explode.
Dunno, Dave. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written it was probably intended to work at three separate levels:
It can be argued that at that time, the use of firearms to procure food was much more prevalent than it is today, and westward expansion was dependent on the ability to survive until an agrarian economy could be established. Deny the ability to put food on the table, and you can literally starve a population into submission. Such might not have been explicitly stated in the 2nd Amendment, but may have been an implied assumption.
Your comment about the need for self protection is valid; all we have to do is read the daily feel good stories on TAH to understand that nothing has changed in more than 200 years. Evil exists, and probably always will.
The third issue is that ultimately, worst-case scenario ultimately, political power rests with we the people, and not a group of rulers answerable only to themselves. When and if government evolves to become a form of tyranny, it needs a reset button, and having such a button already in place acts as a sanity check. It’s not a coincidence that a catalyst for the Revolutionary War was the attempt by the British to seize arms stockpiles at Lexington and Concord.
My father was an ex-paratrooper and when I was a kid, the care and safe handling of weapons was simply a part of growing up. I would have, for example, been in serious trouble if I had ever been caught with an unclean weapon or one locked-and-loaded and not ready to shoot at something. Weapons were also never an object of fetish; you were taught to use one if you needed to in the same way you might reach for a hammer if you needed to fix the porch.
All those things are already the law.
It is already illegal to give, loan, bequeth, sell or transfer a firearm to a felon. I wouldn’t sell to a stranger without having him go down to the local pawn shop and pay $20 for a NICS check.
It’s already illegal to operate a drone, car or firearm carelessly. One ass clown here dropped his firearm in a crowded store and charged with wreckless endangerment.
The polarization is coming from one side. Ronald Reagan signed the amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act IIRC. Written by dems Tip O’Neill and Pat F’in Schroeder. Every time we compromise with left it’s never enough.
Obama and Hillary have already admitted their goal is confiscation. They need a database of gun owners to do that. THAT’S what “universal background checks” is about. That’s just common sense
Tip and Patsy were no hero’s of mine. The NRA pushes for stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, they do it all the time.
All of those things are not current law. Most of them are not. In some states the last three are ignored all together.
Last year the West Virginia Governor vetoed Constitutional Carry. If they over ride his veto this year it will become one of the growing number of states that allow people to carry in public by default.
With the growing number of people carrying a weapon (which I support) there will be a growing number of incidents related to it. Throwing all training out the window will just shoot us in the foot.
You can say a lot of things about them, but Obama and Clinton have never said that confiscation is a goal.
But they have both openly advocated “Australian-style” control… which started with a) universal registration b)the government unilaterally designating more and more weapons as prohibited c)”mandatory buybacks” in which citizens were ordered to sell their guns to the government at pennies on the dollar or face jail time. They may not have called it confiscation directly, but it became confiscation in fact very quickly.
A)Guns didn’t have to be registered before the buyback. All shooters had to be licensed. It had been that way for many years.
B)Full automatic weapons were banned before the Port Arthur massacre (which prompted the buyback)
C)The buyback was actually quite a good $ return for decent weapons. It wasn’t mandatory but, it was no legal comebacks for illegal weapons etc but following the buyback you had better be licensed and register your weapons and provide a legitimate reason for owning said weapons. Legitimate reasons include: Rifle Club membership, Landowners, Hunting with endorsement from landowners for feral control.
Mostly, now, it is criminals who have guns.Handguns are the hardest to get licensed for but that is what most of the crims use. Having said that I would love to be able to own a weapon for the defence of my family and property.
It wasn’t mandatory but afterwards you could go to jail if you didn’t comply, is what you say… sorry, mate, that sounds pretty freakin’ mandatory to me. As we say on this side of the pond – if it looks like confiscation, talks like confiscation, and counds like confiscation – it’s confiscation.
Yep, in the end it was confiscation of nearly all guns. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of our gun laws. They have made it way too hard to own guns. I made the mistake of letting my shooters license lapse when I was in the Navy. If I had of kept it then registered any guns I had I would still have some today. As it stands it is a pain in the ass to try and get it again. As for the buyback, my brother-in-law had quite a few guns and only surrendered a few. One in particular was a pump-action shotgun (which became illegal after the buyback)which he came by in nefarious circumstances for which he got $900 at the buyback. Good outcome that one.
Hey, Hess. From one Marine to another. Shut the fuck up.
Its alarming that the Marine Corps times would even publish this.
The company that produces the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Corps Times was purchased in 1997 by Gannett Publishing. The’re the same ones who also publish the “Marvel Comics of News”, USA Today.
Gannett isn’t exactly known for being conservative, editorially speaking.
You probably owe Stan Lee an apology for comparing his fine line of publications to that bird cage liner.
Ah, yes… as Jim Rome would say “the mulitcolored fishwrap”!
Its alarming that the Marine Corps times would even publish this. Like it or not there are some active duty Marines that are die hard liberals. This conversation could gonsomewhere, don’t treat it like its harmless.
Its not the least bit alarming that Marine Corp Times would publish this nit wit’s opinion piece.
Gannett is lamestream media all the way through its organization.
Securing more guns? Ok
I fully back this Sargent’s call for more gun control. I will concentrate on not limp wristing my 1911.
What a douche. you know, I hate guys that think they have more influence and right to roll out asinine opinions because they served or that their opinions matter more than others. STFU douche
Hey Matthew Hess, what were you, a clerk ? You sound like some desk jockey who avoided going outside the wire at all costs, you son of a Bateman! GFY sideways with triple strand concertina wire wrapped in asbestos and camel shit you candyassed PC wussnoramus of an 0bamite and Hillaryoid!!
Matthew…..My guess is you are trolling for opinions that might lead you to run for political office. Dog catcher is about as well as you are going to do.
From another Marine, Semper Fi DOES have its limits.
If you believe what you are saying, I believe the world would be safer if people like you did not have access to ink pens and paper….or the Internet.
Oh yeh, now I see. You are attending college in New York. Have you ever been intimate with Cuomo? DOes the idea titillate you?
It would seem that more crimes were committed with the weapons lost during “Fast and Furious” than by weapons purchased at gun shows.