The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 7, 2018, 07:29 AM   #1
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,169
I'm a Vet and I Hate Guns...

..... here we go again.

https://www.thelily.com/im-a-veteran...r-regulations/


I lost track after about six different lies. Practically zero vets I know are in favor of more gun control. But the ones that are in favor of it seem to get all the attention.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 07:54 AM   #2
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,105
Quote:
Practically zero vets I know are in favor of more gun control.
I, on the other hand, don't know a single vet that isn't in favor of a whole lot more gun control .....

IMHO - being a vet has nothing to do with being pro or anti gun.

Among my family members who served are, my brother, my son, my brother in law, my wife's sister's ex husband, my nephew(s), my late uncle - a few cousins that I can't recall exactly which ones served where.
Hal is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 08:11 AM   #3
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,630
Becky commanded “two special operations companies” during a time frame nine years prior to Columbine? Sounds as if Becky may be burnishing her credentials for argumentum ad verecundiam.

In any case, her own words are ample evidence that carrying a firearm in the military or toting a shotgun through the fields doesn’t make you a firearms expert. She is wrong on a number of details where she attempts to display her firearns expertise. And I’d bet small money that a more detailed accounting of her service experience would reveal her combined weapons handling time over nine years could be measured in days if not hours.

And as a general rule, “I’m a vet so...” is a pretty good indicator that a person can’t make an actual argument backed up by facts and is just trying to shout you down. How many times do we see “I’m a Recon/Delta/Ranger/SEAL with the 101st Space Shuttle Doorgunner division and I think firearm X sucks so you should shut up!” Same thing.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 08:16 AM   #4
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
IMHO - being a vet has nothing to do with being pro or anti gun.
https://www.isidewith.com/poll/3507538/2702430716

2/3 against vs 2/3 in favor of. Seems a bit lopsided to me.


http://time.com/5167216/americans-gu...ort-poll-2018/
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 08:45 AM   #5
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,105
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/...ks-poll-089930

This one is even more lopsided - - but - - since it's from a source proven to err,,massage,,,it's reporting, I doubt the numbers..

Anyhow - given enough time, I'm sure I could find an even number of sources that would support either side.


My whole point is - vet or not, it's doesn't make much of a difference.
Hal is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 09:03 AM   #6
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,169
My issue is more along the lines of her appeals to authority in her status, training and expertise that is clearly lacking based upon the wrong facts in her article.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 10:24 AM   #7
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,191
A woman commanded TWO special operations companies -- within a nine-year career? Back in the early 1990s?

Unlikely.

They're out there. A few years ago I had a co-worker who was, like me, a Vietnam veteran. I was Army, he was a Marine. He was adamantly pro-gun control. He was a Fudd, a Zumbo. He didn't think "civilians" needed anything more than a 5-shot hunting rifle. He was vehemently vocal on the subject, so I learned very quickly to not discuss it around him.

I have a younger friend -- early 40s -- who is an Army veteran. He was in Armor, and did a tour in "peacetime" Korea. He's also pro gun-control. Same basic idea -- he's from a hunting family background, and he just doesn't see that the Second Amendment applies to more than your basic hunting rifle. I pretty much don't discuss it around him, either. He's a hard-headed German-American, and logic and facts aren't likely to change his mind.

Back to the article -- FILLED with half-truths, myths, and outright disinformation.

And her time line doesn't make sense. She was ending a nine-year career around the time of Columbine. That was 1999, so her military career started around 1990. If she was 22 in 1990, that would make her 42 in 2010. While it's possible that she might have delayed family building and had two children in her mid-40s, it's unlikely. So IMHO either her two "young" children don't exist, or they aren't really "young" and she just used that adjective to add literary effect.

Doesn't add to her already dubious credibility.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; June 7, 2018 at 10:30 AM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 11:58 AM   #8
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,829
All I did was google the author’s name. This was on top.

https://www.indivisible.us/becky-margiotta/
rickyrick is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 12:34 PM   #9
Wyosmith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Location: Shoshoni Wyoming
Posts: 2,519
Sounds like BS to me, and such a command would be VERY easy to verify.

Many leading libs (if not all) are liars. Why would this be a surprise?

Here's one for ya.........
I am a vet, and like guns.

There....................... My "vote" cancels hers.
Issue over!


But the Bill of rights is still there.

(Much to the agony of the Dem/Comms)
Wyosmith is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 02:08 PM   #10
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,135
Being "around guns" in Armyspeak means your unit has an arms room, doesn't mean you go to the range regularly, become thoroughly familiar with them. Again the Army I served in 1967-1971 was ungun, firearms aficionados were dismissed as oddballs and potential thieves. Starting in 1970 we didn't take weapons on guard duty, people who have served since said they didn't even take them on FTXs. And she sounds like a Big Government type. Socialist in practice if not in name.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 02:29 PM   #11
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,829
They don’t even attempt truth anymore, any truth that does show up is purely coincidental. These articles are not intended for us. The articles are intended for those that would support gun control. Most media outlets are not concerned with truth, they are concerned with spouting whatever excrement supports their agenda. It’s only gotten worse since the last US election.
rickyrick is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 03:48 PM   #12
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Potatoes and Hops
Posts: 11,332
I'm with Bartholomew Roberts, here. She's got nothing to argue with, so she's trying to use the "I'm a veteran..." to gain false authority.


Quote:
I, on the other hand, don't know a single vet that isn't in favor of a whole lot more gun control .....

IMHO - being a vet has nothing to do with being pro or anti gun.

Among my family members who served are, my brother, my son, my brother in law, my wife's sister's ex husband, my nephew(s), my late uncle - a few cousins that I can't recall exactly which ones served where.
Similar for me...

Most of the guys (and gals) that I personally served with are pro-gun and not afraid to say it publicly.

However, all of my family that has served, except one grandfather, are anti-gun or in favor of strict "gun control", including an LEO.


Upbringing and background sows those seeds, not military service. (I'm glad I escaped...)
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

Last edited by FrankenMauser; June 7, 2018 at 03:53 PM. Reason: Remembered one pro-gun veteran
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 04:26 PM   #13
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,088
Quote:
Many leading libs (if not all) are liars. Why would this be a surprise?
Just trying to keep up with Trump./sarcasm.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#595c33325774
Buzzcook is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 05:19 PM   #14
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,191
Then there's this from the original link:

Quote:
After high school, I set off for West Point, where shooting was no longer a hobby – it was a professional skill. While at West Point, I logged countless days on the range, learning to operate weapons that were new to me – like the M-16 rifle – and honing my skills. I remember learning that the 5.56 mm ammunition used in assault rifles is intentionally designed to slow down upon impact so that it can tumble through the victim’s organs and inflict maximum casualties.
Are there any West Pointers here? Do cadets really spend "countless" days on the range, "honing their skills"? I wasn't an officer, but my impression has always been that West Pointers received basic weapons familiarization and that's about it, because they had other things to learn that were more important than turning them all into Carlos Hathcock wannabees.

Quote:
Following graduation from West Point, I commanded two Special Operations companies – small forces structured to complete the most physically and politically challenging missions. Multiple times a year, year after year, we underwent recertification on the weapons that were most central to our mission. Going to the range was treated with the utmost of gravity and military discipline. There was no joking around on the range. Every single round of ammunition was accounted for every single time.
Did anyone here serve in the infantry during the 1990s? How often did you requalify with your issue weaponry? Is was in Vietnam. When in CONUS, we requalified once a year. When I arrived in Vietnam in early 1968, I had never seen an M16, so I had to qualify with it before they would issue me one. That was the last time I went to an Army firing range. Everything after that was firing at live enemies (or whatever set off the trip flares in the perimeter).
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 05:21 PM   #15
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,169
Special Operations also includes Civil Affairs and Psyops. These aren't really trigger pulling war fighters but do fall under the umbrella; so I guess it is possible.

Weapons qualification is now twice a year has been since at least the 90s. So yes "multiple times" if you count two as multiple.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 05:24 PM   #16
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT TL
Special Operations also includes Civil Affairs and Psyops. These aren't really trigger pulling war fighters but do fall under the umbrella; so I guess it is possible.
Yeah, but that's not what she said.

Quote:
Following graduation from West Point, I commanded two Special Operations companies – small forces structured to complete the most physically and politically challenging missions. Multiple times a year, year after year, we underwent recertification on the weapons that were most central to our mission.
There's nothing particularly physically challenging about Civil Affairs or PsyOps, and CA and PsyOps personnel certainly don't have to requalify multiple times every year.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 05:37 PM   #17
UncleEd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2013
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,048
I think some pontificating is going on here.

It is entertaining.
UncleEd is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 05:45 PM   #18
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,169
As it turns out she was a Signal Officer in charge of a signal company in the 112th Special Operations Signal Battalion.

That would be like claiming to be a in charge of a race car team as a mechanic. In regard to her knowledge of firearms even less so.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

Last edited by MTT TL; June 7, 2018 at 05:56 PM.
MTT TL is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 05:50 PM   #19
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 9,222
Being in the military doesn't make someone an expert on firearms. Granted there are lots of veterans who are very knowledgeable, but certainly not all. And even some who are knowledgeable about military weapons have no clue about common sporting arms.

There is a disconnect among these people who seem to think that if "assault" rifles were suddenly banned and confiscated that a mass shooter would suddenly be impotent. The fact is that an "assault" rifle levels the field if someone is defending themselves against superior numbers of attackers. It is of no advantage at all in MOST situations where you are shooting at defenseless people in a crowded room. Most common hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns could be just as effective in that role. And would become the weapons of choice if "assault" rifles were banned.

The only mass shooting that couldn't have been carried without "assault" rifles was the Las Vegas shooting by Stephen Paddock. But even as bad as that was using firearms is an ineffective way to commit mass murder. Paddock owned an airplane and could fly. If he couldn't get guns, he could have crashed his plane loaded with fuel into the crowd and had a death toll rivaling 9-11. Using vehicles to run down and kill pedestrians is becoming more and more common in places where guns are already banned.
__________________
"If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong"

Winston Churchill
jmr40 is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 06:01 PM   #20
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,829
I was in the army for the entire 90s. The only people that went multiple times to the range a year, were the ones that had to go back to retry qualifying. We would sometimes train up before deployments and qualify before we went wheels up.
I have first hand knowledge of Civil Affairs, I deployed with Civil Affairs twice as a fill in... meaning, I replaced someone that wasn’t deployable. They do have a stronger set of standards as opposed to a traditional army unit. Not a lot higher, but higher because of the special ops umbrella. Not anything to brag about, just a slightly raised bar to weed out the bottom soldiers. CA is not a combat unit, but they are right there with them.

I don’t discount anyone’s service, but just because you served doesn’t make you a firearms expert. It usually just means that you can hit some relatively easy targets at least to a minimum standard.
rickyrick is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 06:15 PM   #21
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 360
I'm a 'Nam veteran who did serve in a spec ops group, and when I came home and was discharged, I returned to work for an Air Shipment company and spent a year in Thailand and a few other SE countries.

I then went to college and went back to work for Uncle Sam and carried a gun in many different countries, including the USA and worked out of the states of TN, NY, FL, MI and surrounding states, then semi-retired to UT. Now fully retired somewhere on a mountain in ID.

I do not believe in any stricter gun laws; other than, mental records to be added to the checks if they are verifiable and subject to some very strict regulations.

We have enough gun laws in this country now; approx. 20,000. However, they are not enforced so why add more.

I personally know of NO veterans, from any war or police action who want stricter gun laws, and all the retired Feds I know pretty much agree, more gun laws are worthless until the ones we have are enforced. Too many times over my career I have seen people brought up on gun charges just to have them disappear, or plea bargained down to nothing more than a misdemeanor, which was a true insult to those who worked and took the risks to bring these people to justice.

As for this anti-gun vet. It is her right to join an organization that wants to take away guns from everyone. After all it is a Bloomberg organization and so long as he has his private army of security guards, he could are less if anyone else can defend themselves from those gun totting criminals or nut cases running the streets. But I really wonder how many vets are engaged with Everytown for Gun Safety?

I am often asked why a person living in ID needs to carry a gun into the city when shopping. They say nothing will ever happen. My reply is, "the people who went to a nightclub in Orlando thought it would be a great and safe night out," "the people in the luncheon in San Bernardino thought it would be a great time to sit and talk," "the soldiers in Fort Hood thought it was another nice day in TX." We never know, and besides, I have worn a gun on my side for 40 years, why change my habits now.

So to sum it up, WE DO NOT NEED ANYMORE GUN LAWS. In fact, we might look to consolidating what we currently have so that they can be managed.
__________________
You ask a question, I will answer with my opinion; don't like it, don't use it. I won't care!
RETG is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 06:27 PM   #22
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,829
I’m surprised in these vets actually.
It’s their right to have whatever opinion, or say whatever they want. What I have trouble with is this: many vets have traveled to all these places, seen what human suffering dictators and despots have caused. They have seen what can happen to an unarmed populace. Some of my most disturbing visions and memories are not from direct combat, but witnessing the the plight and seeing the harm caused by not living in a free country.

We have our issues, but gosh dang, first world problems can’t even compare to the lives of people in some other places.

They have clearly stated that this is not to keep AR15s away from criminals, this is all to keep guns out of the hands of civilians.

Last edited by rickyrick; June 7, 2018 at 06:29 PM. Reason: Wording
rickyrick is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 07:27 PM   #23
Rob228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Okinawa JP
Posts: 957
She begins in a very misleading manner and continues it throughout the article. No, she did not spent countless hours learning marksmanship at Westpoint, she spent maybe two weeks on an annual qual if anything. No, she did not command two Special Operations units in the 90's.
Rob228 is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 08:23 PM   #24
dontcatchmany
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2010
Posts: 304
OP,

I grew up hunting and was pretty good with rifles and shotguns. Deer, Geese, Ducks, Bear, Hogs and a host of other critters. Doves and quail laughed at me because I could not hit them unless they were on a fence or sitting still.

In 1967 I volunteered for the military. In 1968 I finally got to go to Vietnam after months of begging to be sent.

I saw and participated in horror beyond horror. When I got home due to the grace of God, I could not stand the sight of a gun. I got sick to my stomach when I saw one.

I stayed away from guns for over 30 years.

I had places of residence broken into. Cars vandalized and broken into. A truck stolen.

But in the late 1990s, when I was coming home from work (computer systems) around 3 a.m. I stopped at a red light in a not so good part of town. Two idiots came to each of my SUV doors and tried to car jack me. I ran the red light and got away. Thankfully the doors had locked.

The next day after no sleep and a lot of soul searching I went to the county sheriffs office and got a pistol permit for three guns. I had realized that I could shoot another human again. Humans (barely) who had/have less honor and integrity than the VC whom we were killing and were killing us.

Now I have many weapons and I will use them if I am forced to. I will shoot a two legged creature if I am forced to by their miscreant activities.

Anti gun idiots are ... low life. Study the history of mankind's struggle to have control of his own destiny over several thousand years. In this country we have something called Liberty. The 2nd amendment is a safeguard that our progeny will live as we have.

Liberty is worth more than life and we should always be prepared to defend it with our lives.

Last edited by Evan Thomas; June 7, 2018 at 08:48 PM. Reason: language.
dontcatchmany is offline  
Old June 7, 2018, 08:40 PM   #25
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT TL
As it turns out she was a Signal Officer in charge of a signal company in the 112th Special Operations Signal Battalion.

That would be like claiming to be a in charge of a race car team as a mechanic. In regard to her knowledge of firearms even less so.
More proof that my old boss was right. He used to say, "Everything you read in the media is true -- unless you have first-hand knowledge of the facts."

My father was a captain who commanded a signal company during WW2. He didn't come out hating guns. He also never claimed to be an expert on firearms, and he certainly never tried to portray his signal company as anything liked a spec ops unit. That's skirting awfully close to stolen valor IMHO.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; June 7, 2018 at 09:06 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10024 seconds with 8 queries