Disappointed in the USCCA

Very disappointed at the USCCA for letting a anti gunner post on their daily feed about how the government need to put more restrictions on our God given RIGHT to carry. Now I know he’s a vet who says he’s pro gun , but for him to say having a dd214 shouldnt be good enough reason for Florida to give him his CCW makes him and his article anti gun . Just a opinion from another Veteran .


43 posts were split to a new topic: “God” Given Rights?

I am VERY Pro 2A (check out some of my posts) and was in the US Army for just over 8 years. I can tell you from experience just because you were in the service does NOT mean you know a Damn thing about weapons safety and concealed carry.

Some of us received much more training than others but I have been places where the only time some people touched small arms was when they had to re-qualify once a year (sometimes not even that).

So a person saying just having a dd214 should not be enough for a CCW I can understand wither I agree with it or not.

This forum is also open to all views on all subjects as long as they are respectful in nature.


Happy birthday


Happy Birthday, @Sidecarr9!

Are you referring to the blog post by Rick Sapp?

Or another post? I’d love to address the situation, but I want to make sure I’m addressing the correct post.


Just the fact that we have to get a CCW to exercise our right is a infringement


Interesting thread we have going here…….

I’m a Vet, and just being a veteran does not mean someone is “proficient” in the carrying of and handling of firearms.

However the 2nd Amendment didn’t put that qualifier on anyone so it shouldn’t be mandated by the Government for anyone to be a Vet or to go through any course of training in order to own/possess a gun (unless they want to institute based firearms safety in HS, then they can incorporate that into the curriculum and mandate).

There are plenty of verses in the Old and New Testaments directing Christians to defend themselves but Jesus said to “offer him the other cheek.” But then later on in the chapter of Matthew Jesus it turning over money changer tables in the temple and later saying that he has “not come to bring peace but a sword.” As @Jerzees stated there is much open to interpretation and based on your religious affiliation and/or belief system.

My opinion is that God gives us life and then the direction/guidelines to protect that life or take it as the situation may require. He also gives us the freedom of choice to follow those directions/guidelines or not and because people have the freedom of choice and there are those out there who will do evil and take life…I think it’s up to others to use their freedom of choice to protect life. Whether that’s with words, a sword, bow or a gun.

So I would probably side on God given right to defend yourself, but hold short that it “absolutely” includes guns (in my opinion it includes whatever is available).

In addition to being pro 2A, I’m pro 1A and think we should allow all sides to express their opinions and points of view. The minute we stop doing that that’s when we’ve signaled we’ve lost the argument because our arguments are too weak to stand up to those opposing views so we would rather suppress them instead. Our arguments and positions on the 2nd Amendment are quite strong, and so we should welcome any and all on here to express opposing views, so we can debate and counter with those strong facts/statistics and positions.

Just my pov.


“I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
1906 Biography by, Evelyn Beatrice Hall. 1868 to 1956.


I’m very impressed with the USCCA. It’s wonderful to hear thoughtful opinions despite my personal agreement or disagreement.

I find that very, very helpful to me.


@Sidecarr9 I’m going to guess that you were referring to that article by Rick Sapp.

While I won’t get into the religious aspect of the conversation that’s gone on here, I will say that I firmly believe people should be educated and trained when they carry a gun. And (sorry veterans) I agree with Rick Sapp in the aspect that the military isn’t necessarily all the training you will need to be a responsibly armed civilian American.

Please note - no where in that did I say training should be mandatory or what type of training it should be. I don’t think mandatory training has the effect that training pursued by those who want to be trained. I know I sat through a geometry class in high school - because I had to - and I don’t remember much of it. But I wanted to sit through a 20 hour 2-day class given by Massad Ayoob and I have a couple of spiral notebooks full of notes from those two days.

We should want to be trained to carry a firearm so we don’t hurt anyone else trying to defend ourselves.


@Sidecarr9. I’m very sorry for stealing this thread. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Let’s go back to the topic: Disappointed in the USCCA
No more talking about “given rights” :zipper_mouth_face:


Lucky you :slightly_smiling_face: I’m jealous :innocent: I love his books :star_struck:


Yeah, I’m with you @Dawn. I read the original as urging everyone to get training, even vets, and I don’t see any advocacy for mandatory training for anyone. Here’s what I wrote to Rick on his post:

“I was airborne for three years and never even formally trained on a handgun. I’d sure know what to do with a fully automatic long gun, a squad of colleagues, and air support if needed, all of which, as you point out, is all but useless in civilian life. Since getting my CCW permits, I take courses pretty regularly and find them exceedingly useful. To my mind, anyone ought to train up for the tasks at hand, vet or no. Thanks for writing!”

I also strongly disagree with the premise that USCCA should only post views that we all agree with. This is one of the forums I most value PRECISELY because of the civil disagreements going on here. I learn a huge amount from this forum, mostly from views I had not been exposed to or thought about.


I second the comments about anyone, including veterans, getting as much training as possible. As a retired USAF weapons instructor I can verify that mot all military people get the same level of firearms instruction. For some it’s just the basic while others get very advanced training. It all depends on your specialty and mission tasking.


I guess my 2 tours in combat trained me rather well, on that note, I think ANYONE whos seen combat as a Veteran has a lot more experience than those who haven’t been deployed and stood in the line of fire.

Tomorrow is always kinda hard on me as to the fact it’s a yearly reminder. A reminder of all the horrors I’ve seen, all the brothers I’ve lost, all the blood I’ve shed and all the brotherhood I felt. But it also proves that I’ve made a difference in some lives.


Lot’s of truth here. Unless you’re in special operations military firearms training tends to be very basic and really does not give a foundation for the civilian or even LEO world.

About the only things that really transfer well are firearms safety and shooting fundamentals.


Veterans Day and Memorial day are both always somber reminders for me.

Whatever issues I’m left with as a result of my service I made it home and remain relatively functional even though I’m approaching 60.

Many did not.

I always use those “holidays” as an extra reason to reach out to the families of guys who didn’t make it home and to vets who came back “broken” physically, emotionally, or both.

“Thank You For Your Service” sure beats the welcome the Vietnam Era Vets received when they got home but I encourage everyone to make it real, go out of your way to help a vet that needs it or the family of a vet that didn’t make it home.


Totally agree with everything you said, I always tell people that I didn’t do it for thanks, I did it pt of patriotism. I gave some blood, sweat and tears, but my fallen brothers gave all and they deserve a lot more thanks.


Well, the truth is that a CC class can only teach you the basics, but learning the law and learning to shoot is a life-long pursuit. It is also true that being a former military member does not mean one knows the laws of the state one retired in regarding self-defense and firearms, nor necessarily being a proficient shooter. Even many LEOs do not know firearm laws well, nor handle firearms proficiently - proven, unfortunately, almost daily. I also could relate at least several personal observations to bear that out, too.


The one vet shouldn’t say anything he should be glad he got cccw without taking a test not gripe about it dont make sense

1 Like