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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Practically zero vets I know are in favor of more gun control.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.


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.
Click to expand...
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...)
 
Last edited:
Then there's this from the original link:

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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
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.
 
MTT TL said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's not what she said.

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top