I'm a Vet and I Hate Guns...

[armoredman]

If all the Navy vets I met who claimed to be SEALs actually were...the Navy would be almost all SEALS...I was a lowly Gunners Mate SN on an ammo ship, never anything special, and will never, ever claim to be.

[PoiDog]

I've met one Army veteran, his background not known to me, that comes unglued at the thought of civilians owning AR-15 rifles.

His take on it is if you want one of them, join the Armed Forces. This guy was literally spitting mad at the idea of people owning them.

I just treated him as a flier, like at the range.

[pkevinb]

I'm a Navy vet from the aviation community, Aviation Ordnance man . The closest I ever came to a firearm was in boot camp when I got to hold a .45. Didn't get to fire it, but hold it. I own an AR15 and think every able bodied man in the U.S. should own one.

[Unconventional]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Special Forces includes all the "sharp end" guys we normally think of, Green Berets, Delta Force, Rangers, and Chuck Norris...

It's a small matter, but Rangers are not Special Forces. The Green Berets and Delta are the only Special Forces in the US military. Rangers fall under Special Operations. (Therefore, Special Forces are a type of Special operations unit)

Special Forces = unit/qualification/mission set
Special Operations = type of operation conducted by various units

That said, you won't find many men in Special Forces that are anti-gun. SF has the ability to police/purge thier own and those who are would likely not last very long on an ODA.

[mehavey]

Special Forces ≠ Special OPs
We Love You ≠ We Kill You
(oversimplified to be sure , but then again...)

[ROCK6]

Actually in my first hitch I was in the Signal Corps as well. Not too far from the time frame she served and also at Ft. Bragg for some of that time... at gasp... a Special Operations unit.

I'm in the same boat as MTT TL, and CPT "Shill" was there at the same time I was (I never knew her personally). I was coming in from Korea and thought I was going to the 112th, but they diverted me over the 4th "POGue" (actually POG=Psychological Operations Group), which was much worse for a "Special Operations Unit"

They had two battalions providing SOCOM units direct support. One was that Signal Battalion, another was a Logistics Support Battalion. There was nothing "special" about them other than their equipment, better funding, more missions, and who they supported.

This "shill" likely was selected to command one of two "line-companies" in the battalion and probably was allowed to command the HHC (staff/support) company...her "two" Special Operations" companies. Truly, nothing special other than they got cool commo toys and a bigger budget.

After the PSYOP lunacy, I was able to get the SIGO job in the 7th SFG(A); a very entertaining part of my career. There is a lot of resume padding going on with service members unfortunately. If they're talking about their "special" careers, they're likely embellishing a tad (or simply lying a lot). Of the dozen or so I know and keep in touch with who were actually in/apart of that community, you would never know they were even in the military let alone on an ODA/ODB.

This shill is nothing more than a black mark on the military. Sure, she served, she got her free West Point education, but I really doubt she understood the oath she took. It's sad, but there are plenty that were and are in the ranks that don't reflect well on their oath to actually "support and defend the Constitution"...she's just another self-serving, narcissistic individual who wore a uniform, but never understood its importance.

ROCK6

[lefteye]

"As a veteran, I’m intimately familiar with the destructive power of firearms."

I found this statement in her article in The Lily. The statement is, at a minimum, extremely deceptive. However, I believe it is an outright lie!

Serving in a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces does not make any person "intimately familiar with the destructive power of firearms." I served in the U.S. Army for 2 1/2 years, including a year in Vietnam (Oct. 1969 - Oct. 1970.) I was a Area Intelligence Specialist but did not have a Specialist grade on a uniform. I was a Corporal in Vietnam and wore civilian clothing nearly 100% of the time. I was stationed in a small office in Saigon and drove a blue and white Jeep. I heard gun-fire nearly every day. I traveled into the Rung Sat Special Zone south of Saigon and to the base of Black Virgin Mountain.

I also wore civilian clothing during my last year in the Army while stationed in an office in a shopping mall in Alexandria, VA. I was a Sergeant at that time I was discharged.

I have more than 60 years experience with firearms beginning with paper targets and a single shot .22. My firearm collection is not great, but it does include inherited long guns, modern rifles, modern shotguns, and a few handguns. I've hunted rabbits and squirrels with .22 and a .410, waterfowl and upland birds with a variety of shotguns, coyotes with a .243, Whitetail Deer, Mule Deer, Pronghorn Antelope, Black Bear and Elk with rifles including .243, .270, and .300 Win Mag.

Honest and honorable hunters, regardless of sex or age, respect their living targets and do not intentionally make their living targets suffer a slow, agonizing death.

[44 AMP]

"As a veteran, I’m intimately familiar with the destructive power of firearms."

I found this statement in her article in The Lily. The statement is, at a minimum, extremely deceptive. However, I believe it is an outright lie!

Deceptive, yes, being a veteran is not in any way a prerequisite to being "intimately familiar with the destructive power of a firearm".

If you stretch things enough, anyone who has ever seen a bullet put a hole in something is "intimately familiar with the destructive power of a firearm".

So, in that regard, its not quite a lie.....I think...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Deceptive, yes, being a veteran is not in any way a prerequisite to being "intimately familiar with the destructive power of a firearm".

If you stretch things enough, anyone who has ever seen a bullet put a hole in something is "intimately familiar with the destructive power of a firearm".

So, in that regard, its not quite a lie.....I think...

I suppose it depends on how one defines "intimately." It could be argued that one cannot be "intimately" familiar with the destructive firepower of a firearm unless one has been shot with one, or unless one is an emergency room doctor in a trauma center.

[rickyrick]

Well you see, if they will lie and deceive on this one little topic, then they must be lying about the entire agenda. Guns aren’t even the hot button issue at the moment, what about the topics that they are really hopping about now...
Never trust a politician or someone who has a political ax to grind. Never never ever trust anyone with a political foundation.

Never never never ever ever ever trust a person uses their public service as a tool to deprive you of a constitutional right.

[44 AMP]

Never trust a woman, or a government!" - Yellowbeard

When both are together...well, I'll let you judge, but judge each on their individual merits or lack of same...

I've judged this veteran, and found credibility wanting...

[davidsog]

As it turns out she was a Signal Officer in charge of a signal company in the 112th Special Operations Signal Battalion.

Wow, she is milking it hard and playing on people's ignorance.

The 112th Signal is a theater support level communications unit. She has as much weapons knowledge as any other REMF Mess Kit repair BN vet.

She is a Fobbit to the Fobbits.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Wow, she is milking it hard and playing on people's ignorance.

That's pretty much the point. She didn't outright lie (exactly), but she also didn't exactly tell the truth. As you wrote, she is milking it hard and playing on people's ignorance.

[MTT TL]

It's pretty annoying.

I think if a Carlos Hathcock or Roy Benavidez type person came out in favor of gun control I'd hate it but respect their position anyway out of respect to the person. I'd simply respectfully disagree. This woman is clearly trying to mislead people about her bona fides and therefore I find her unworthy of respect due to the deceptive nature of her opinion piece.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

This woman is clearly trying to mislead people about her bona fides and therefore I find her unworthy of respect due to the deceptive nature of her opinion piece.

That's why I liken her article to stolen valor. Her claims aren't much different (if at all) from the cook who never went beyond Spec4 and never deployed claiming to be jump qualified, Combat Infantry Badge, and Ranger qualified. Yes, she served. But she wasn't what she has put herself forward as having been.

[MTT TL]

Claiming CIB is actually illegal. Claiming jump and Ranger school without going would be a lie. Like you noted she didn't actually lie about her service (although I would question certain less important details) but there is an attempt to mislead.

[davidsog]

Claiming jump and Ranger school without going would be a lie.

That is illegal too. It is all stolen valor if you lie or misrepresent your service record.

We had a chaplin show up to the unit with a Ranger Tab and MFF wings. Turned out he did not attend either school but made himself PX qualified. His excuse was he thought the unit members would not respect him.

He was arrested. The charges were dropped in exchange for his resignation from the Army and acceptance of an other than honorable characterization of service.

[davidsog]

That's why I liken her article to stolen valor.

Definitely it blurs the lines of acceptable claims and attempts to bolster her expertise by preying upon the ignorance of the military in her audience.

[MTT TL]

That is illegal too. It is all stolen valor if you lie or misrepresent your service record.

We had a chaplin show up to the unit with a Ranger Tab and MFF wings. Turned out he did not attend either school but made himself PX qualified. His excuse was he thought the unit members would not respect him.

He was arrested. The charges were dropped in exchange for his resignation from the Army and acceptance of an other than honorable characterization of service.

It is illegal if you are in the military. If you are not in the military the list of prohibited claims is limited. Most claims of combat skill badges and most valorous medals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2013

[rickyrick]

It falls under free speech.
Most serious combat vets, including special forces are generally silent about their experiences.
All military jobs are important to the mission, most of us are satisfied with that, some need to show some valor in order to be legitimized. But, some support troops do experience combat, so mos isn’t always a teller of wartime experiences.

[MTT TL]

Most serious combat vets, including special forces are generally silent about their experiences.
All military jobs are important to the mission, most of us are satisfied with that, some need to show some valor in order to be legitimized. But, some support troops do experience combat, so mos isn’t always a teller of wartime experiences.

I don't know about all that. There are a gazillion books on Amazon written by SF, SEAL and other combat vets about their experiences. Some people are going to talk and some are not.

In Iraq there were about 42K CIB's (Infantry/ SF) awarded. There were about 66K CABs and CMB's (Medics, SF Medics and everyone else in the Army) awarded. This is out of a total of 1.5M deployed. This works out to less than 8% of the total ever deployed with the majority being awarded to non infantry and SF MOSs. I will say the averages in infantry and SF are going to much higher than just about every other MOS, but most people who saw combat at least once were not infantry or SF. The SF and Infantry soldiers who did see combat likely saw it more than once, the rest were less likely. There were also about 36K Purple Hearts awarded in Iraq. If you know a vet that actually served in Iraq it is only 8% likely he or she saw combat. The numbers are a little higher for Afghanistan but not much.

What is fascinating about these numbers is that 11-20% of vets claim PTSD in a year. This can be more than double the number who actually saw combat. A combat badge is practically automatic with a PH so those numbers don't add anything. So yeah, there are likely tons of fakers out there.

I don't really talk much about my combat experiences with non-vets. There really isn't much point. Kind of the same way electrical engineers don't discuss what they do with people outside the field. You might think it would be more relatable but it isn't.

This woman isn't claiming combat though, just cool guy status.

[davidsog]

This woman isn't claiming combat though, just cool guy status.

Exactly. Which is so common it is sickening. It seems everybody claims to be "with special ops" today.

What is fascinating about these numbers is that 11-20% of vets claim PTSD in a year.

You get asked a million times if you feel you have it on the way out of service.

PTSD has a stigma about it because of the sensitivity of the public.

War is traumatizing. PTSD is the abnormal ability to process trauma. Often times the normal steps our brain takes to process trauma are confused with PTSD.

Of that 11-20% only a few actually have PTSD. However that claim starts the steps required to actually diagnosis real PTSD.

I don't really talk much about my combat experiences with non-vets. There really isn't much point. Kind of the same way electrical engineers don't discuss what they do with people outside the field. You might think it would be more relatable but it isn't.

Yep. Again, there is ton of ignorance out there and in today's world of the easily offended you simply do not how people will take an honest answer. Better to smile and say nothing in many cases.

I tend to talk about what I can it if asked. For one thing there is way too much ignorance in the civilian world about what soldiers go through and I have found my civilian co-workers (there is life after retirement) to be very curious and want to be supportive of servicemembers. It is a great opportunity too to pass on some of knowledge of the giants I had the privilege to stand beside and know. Especially the ones who did give up all of their tomorrows so that "Miss Special Ops can have the opportunity to bask in their glory".

Look at the Hollywood films coming out. I about threw up when I saw the "Hurt Locker". The whole premise was the guy was addicted to adrenaline. Stupid movie and the fact it won so many awards was telling IMHO.

There is a tendency for many to not want to believe normal people could take personal responsibility for the protection of our society volunteering to exist in such abnormal circumstances as war.

The "ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances" narrative seems to disrupt their own self image so they must turn us into something more palatable to their own psyche.

If you are not in the military the list of prohibited claims is limited.

Ok. That explains why the unit did not put him in jail but just processed him out of the service.

The SF and Infantry soldiers who did see combat likely saw it more than once, the rest were less likely. There were also about 36K Purple Hearts awarded in Iraq. If you know a vet that actually served in Iraq it is only 8% likely he or she saw combat. The numbers are a little higher for Afghanistan but not much.

There is a lot of folks riding on the backs of a few.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

What is fascinating about these numbers is that 11-20% of vets claim PTSD in a year. This can be more than double the number who actually saw combat.

I was involved in a case where the person did not even finish their follow-on training. This person never left the United States and never served in a non-training unit before they were discharged for medical reasons (a common physical injury not related to any kind of attack or trauma). This person ended up receiving disability, inlcuding a certain percentage for PTSD. The circumstances of how I came across them suggest a high probability the PTSD and medical disability were both unjustified.

The sad thing is people like that play a huge role in creating the stigma around PTSD and seeking help that stops people who actually need help from reaching out and seeking it. And there are some sad stories on that end of the table as well.

Originally Posted by davidsog

The "ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances" narrative seems to disrupt their own self image so they must turn us into something more palatable to their own psyche.

To bring this full circle, I personally believe that describes a lot of anti-Second Amendment feeling as well. Some people are so terrified at the thought of having to be personally responsible for their own security, they’d do anything to relieve themselves of those feelings of inadequacy. Which of course means, you can’t demonstrate any personal responsibility either or that just reflects poorly on them and continues their feelings of inadequacy.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

This woman isn't claiming combat though, just cool guy status.

I disagree. But this is where we get into the "She didn't exactly lie, but she didn't exactly tell the truth, either." Here's what she wrote:

Originally Posted by Margiotta

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.

She didn't outright state that she saw combat, but by saying that she commanded "small forces structured to complete the most physically and politically challenging missions" she certainly bent over backwards to convey that impression to those of her readers who haven't served in the Army and won't know that in the 1990s there were no female officers commanding real "tip of the spear" type companies. I respectfully submit that she IS claiming combat, but in a way that doesn't come right out and say it, so she can't be accused of actually lying.

But, as we know, there are lies of commission, and there are lies of omission.

[davidsog]

Multiple times a year, year after year, we underwent recertification on the weapons that were most central to our mission.

Ok. She fired ~ 98 rounds of 5.56mm per year qualifying every six months to stay current. If she qualified on her M9 then you can add ~100 rounds of 9mm. Maybe 100 rounds of 7.62mm from a M240 if she did familiarization every year.

Balance that with the fact an ODA's ammunition allocation is equal to a Regular Army Infantry Battalions ammunition allocation for the year.

Some get more ammo a quarter than that an Infantry Battalion does for the entire year.

Going to the range was treated with the utmost of gravity and military discipline.

Yes because your average support trooper is not very well trained and that level of gravity and discipline must be reinforced heavily during their limited exposure to weaponry for safety. Magazine loading is tightly controlled, no loaded magazines are allowed off the range, and every action is commanded while on the firing line. Negligent discharges are the result if the range is not tightly controlled.

Other units treat weapon safety with the same seriousness but as a continuous process such that ranges appear much more relaxed because that same safety is culture. Having ammunition and loaded weapons is part of being at work and not some special occasion.