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

[Don Dayacetah]

Yes, let's have a look at another "vet" shall we? Say, how about that "general", who
appeared to be all of 38 years old, weighed about 39 lbs soaking wet, and held an AR15
like it was a wet daisy as he was thrashing about, firing it in FULLY SEMI-Automatic MODE?

[cw308]

I'm a Vietnam Combat Vet , why even take the bait , Just let it die.

[MTT TL]

To us it is bait.

To the undecided it is someone possibly speaking from authority, false as it is.

[Hal]

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.

Yep - I agree w/that 100%.
People on both sides of the gun issue seem to equate vet = gun.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

To us it is bait.

To the undecided it is someone possibly speaking from authority, false as it is.

Therein lies the problem. Most of us easily spot the lies and dismiss her as another shill. The majority of the unwashed masses read that and think "Army officer, combat veteran, she knows what she's talking about."

[Ricklin]

Would it not be marvelous if garbage like this was subject to "peer review" prior to publication?

Twas said by a very wise man a long time ago. Freedom of the press requires owning a press.

Nowadays everyone "owns" a press. That "press" (printing press) is of course the world wide web.

Let's see footnotes for instance. Listing your references separates those that talk the talk, from those that walk the walk.

This emperor has no clothes.

[SIGSHR]

Another poseur.

[rickyrick]

Heck, I was a soldier for 15 years. I walked some of the same halls as some of these “experts” yet I didn’t consider myself a firearms “expert” when I got out. I was proficient in operating M2, M4, M9, M16... and so on. I definitely wasn’t an expert in civilian ownership of firearms. My real firearms knowledge came from my father and other great people like on this forum.

[Scorch]

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

Cool! That means that 4 out of every 3 people have an opinion about gun control!

And you are right, just being a veteran does not make you an expert on anything except finding your way to the chow hall.

This backs up some research I read about many years ago, that most of the people who respond to polls have an axe to grind, and as such do not represent an unbiased sample of the population.

[ThomasT]

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.

How do you design a bullet to "slow down on impact so it can tumble"? All bullets it will lose speed on impact but this is spoken by someone who has no knowledge of ballistics and how bullets work. And yes early 556 bullets did tumble but the faster they are going while doing so the more destructive they are.

I left the Army after completing nine years of service. Right around that time, the shooting at Columbine High School happened. I was heartbroken and horrified to hear how the weapons I had trained to use so carefully – including weapons that don’t belong in civilian hands – had been used in a school to end the lives of 13 innocent children and educators.

Those goof balls at Columbine used a Hi-Point 9mm rifle, a Tec-9 and a couple of shotguns. No M-16s were used. Again incorrect data. I doubt any army anywhere stocks Tec-9s or Hi-Point carbines. Not even North Korea.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ratshooter

Those goof balls at Columbine used a Hi-Point 9mm rifle, a Tec-9 and a couple of shotguns. No M-16s were used. Again incorrect data. I doubt any army anywhere stocks Tec-9s or Hi-Point carbines. Not even North Korea.

But she commanded a special operations company. You know those spec ops guys (and gals, apparently) get to choose weapons not available to ordinary mortals.



Personally, I regard her claims to have commanded two "special operations" companies as examples of stolen valor. She's holding herself out to be a bad-ass combat soldier, when in reality she was a signal officer in a signal company in a signal battalion. In other words, a REMF.

[armoredman]

To those who served, and especially the 'Nam vets who never really got that welcome home they deserved, thank you for your service.
I grew up with a grandfather who served with the AEF in France in 1918. He joked the only time his engineering company was issued live ammo for their rifles was after the war ended - the celebrations were WAY out of control! I never saw him with any firearms - he was a carpenter of much skill and that was what he did. almost up to the day he passed away.
My stepfather was with the Troop Transport Command and manned the radio on a C-47 during the Normandy invasion. He had two firearms, never used.
My father was Air Force during Korea. He had several firearms, and took us shooting quite often, gave me my love for shooting.
I was Navy, and got my hero button for that one day war with Iran where we sank 3/4 of their fleet in 24 hours. Good day, that was. We had M14s, Remington 870s and 1911s on board ship, shot them when we qualified. Also had four Ruger Service Six 38 Specials, never did find out why. As a Gunners' Mate I spent a lot more time around small arms than most sailors, but still nowhere near any of the ground troops, not even close. I think 90% of my time was spent painting of needle gunning paint away to BE painted! I left the service with some knowledge, but the rest I gained on my own.
I know many vets, and the ones I call friends are 100% pro firearms rights. I live in AZ and am totally comfortable with everything we do here, Constitutional Carry and all.

[Evan Thomas]

I've edited or deleted some posts. The appearance and personal life of the author are off-topic here.

[MTT TL]

I doubt any army anywhere stocks Tec-9s or Hi-Point carbines.

The TEC-9 is the civilian version of the Interdynamic MP-9 (full auto/open bolt). It was designed for the military but sales were an abysmal failure and nobody uses it anymore that I know of. For such a terrible gun it led the charge in evilness back in the day for the anti-gun crowd.

The old saw of "accurate fire from the hip" and barrel shrouds being an evil feature were likely based upon videos from Miami Vice of Jim Zubiena using his off hand on the barrel shroud to try to control a MP9.

Some gun control measures can be directly linked to the gun such as the ATF demanding an install of a metal serial number plate on polymer lowers and being an early gun banned by name in California.

In addition to Columbine it has been used in a number of other mass shooting events, but never by any military. So why she would be an expert on it or have these strange ideas is yet another mystery.

[Don Fischer]

Interesting. Out vet that went to West Point claim's the bullet from the 5.56 is intentionally designed to slow down on impact to make it tumble. New one on me! Last I'd heard was that the bullet was intentionally made off center so it would tumble on impact. Before that I heard that if you got shot in the arm at 500yds with the 5.56 it would break every bone in your arm?

Every bullet slows down on impact! A bullet built out of balance probably couldn't hit the target! Break every bone in the arm at 500yds? I don't think a 30-06 could do that!

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

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

It's identity politics as a rhetorical weapon. She also works in the ever-popular preamble, "as a mother..." The mention of shooting with dad at an early age is another marker.

When Michael Bloomberg decided to throw his hat (and his money) in the gun-control arena, he went to marketing and focus groups to make sure people were using the most effective rhetoric. It's why we hear them using "gun safety" instead of "gun control." It's where the appeals to authority ("As a vet/mother/teacher/doctor...") come from, and it's why we keep hearing phrases like, "I support the 2nd Amendment, but..."

It's all craven emotional manipulation, and they've honed it to a sharp point. It's also a clear indicator that they can't win the argument with any degree of intellectual honesty.

Heck, at least she didn't go full semiauto.

[Don Dayacetah]

I find it interesting that the media generally regards Vets as poorly as raw sewage;
but then one of them takes a stance against guns, and they want to treat him like
he's General Eisenhower...

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by Don Dayacetah

I find it interesting that the media generally regards Vets as poorly as raw sewage;
but then one of them takes a stance against guns, and they want to treat him like
he's General Eisenhower...

......and then folks here treat them like raw sewage. Regardless of their opinions, they are still vets and should be recognized for their service. Vets, like LEOs, even tho their primary tool of trade is a weapon, are not always gun experts, and as such, should not always be recognized as such. Ain't really their fault if those too naive to know better, think otherwise.

I have many friends that served in 'Nam and in other various conflicts. Some are heavily pro-gun, some are heavily anti-gun, some are fairly neutral. Doesn't change the fact they all served. Some saw things young men should never see, others only saw the inside of the building they worked in. Seems those that saw what bullets did to folks have more of a hesitation to arming civilians like the military, even if they are pro-gun. While I respect those folks and their opinions......I don't always agree. Don't make either of us wrong.

Vets, like all of us here in the U.S., have a right to their opinion and a right to express it. Just cause a vet says it, don't make it Gospel, whether it's pro-gun or anti.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

......and then folks here treat them like raw sewage. Regardless of their opinions, they are still vets and should be recognized for their service. Vets, like LEOs, even tho their primary tool of trade is a weapon, are not always gun experts, and as such, should not always be recognized as such. Ain't really their fault if those too naive to know better, think otherwise.

I am quite willing to recognize Ms. Margiotta for her service, but not for anything more than her service. When she undertakes to intentionally misrepresent the nature and character of her service in furtherance of an agenda that's contrary to the oath she swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, she loses much of her right to expect to be respected for her [prior] service.

She is, today, a civilian. She left after nine years, which means that she isn't a retired Captain, and she isn't an officer in the Army Reserve. She's a civilian. She is also a liar. She did NOT spend "countless days" on the range at West Point, "honing [her] skills." She did NOT learn that the 5.56x45 bullet was designed to slow down upon striking a target so as to tumble and to inflict maximum personal damage to the target. She did NOT command two special operations companies -- not in the context that any reader would interpret the term "special operations." And she did NOT learn that the weapons she had learned to use in the Army were used to kill students at Columbine -- because the killers didn't use M16s, or M79 or M203 grenade launchers, or M9 pistols.

So she's a veteran. How much respect should we be giving her when she deliberately uses that status to pretend to be something more than she is (was), and to abuse that status to attack the Constitution?

She has a right to be anti-gun. She doesn't have a right to tell lies and claim her status as a veteran as authority for the purported accuracy of her lies.

[Aguila Blanca]

Hmmm ...

Unrelated to the discussion of Ms. Margiotta, I went surfing to see if I could verify my recollection of how the chain of command works. And I came across this:

https://www.part-time-commander.com/...-command-army/

What jumped out at me was the following:

In addition, within combat units line officers are in the chain of command, but officers in specialist fields (such as medical, dental, legal, supply and chaplain) are not, except within their own specialty.

For example, a signal officer in an infantry battalion would be responsible for the signal personnel in that unit, but would not be eligible to command the battalion or any of its subordinate units.

In other words, there's no way Ms. Margiotta was in command of any real special operations combat type soldiers. She was a paper pusher, overseeing radio and telephone operators.

[MTT TL]

Commanding in the military is no simple thing no matter the unit.

But yes there would have been no SF or infantry soldiers under her command with the possible exception of certain leadership billets. For example I have seen a Special Forces Communication Sergeant as a First Sergeant in an attached signal unit that was composed of all signal support soldiers. This gives him leadership time and the unit is likely more responsive to the supported unit needs.

If you wonder about the capabilities of a Special Forces Communications Team Sergeant I can tell you they pretty much go through all the same initial training and follow on training as the other members and are highly competent on much more than radios. I'd certainly take the word of one on guns over anything this woman has to say.

[rickyrick]

I’m a veteran and I think free speech should be limited.
I’m a former military officer and I think we should not allow certain religions.
I’m a vet I think you should be forced to house soldiers in your home.
I commanded two special forces companies and I believe that your home can be searched by police and military at any time without warrants.
I attended West Point military academy and I believe in voter suppression.

The above phrases should be alarming to anyone. why is “I’m a vet and I think you shouldn’t be allowed to own guns” less alarming?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is interesting that given the founders fear of standing armies, they’d use a former officer of the standing army to argue you shouldn’t be allowed to own rifles similar to what the military uses. Kind of “on the nose” if you ask me...

[SIGSHR]

The only vets I ever knew who disliked guns were the ones who were duds and troublemakers and probably received an OTH discharge. Or just ticket punching careerists. In years gone by requiring a disciplinary problem to clean the company weapons on a night or weekend or after a range session probably soured a lot of people.

[spacemanspiff]

Thankfully its not unlawful to hold a wrong opinion, right?