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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bartholomew Roberts said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
Don Dayacetah said:
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...
Click to expand...

......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.
 
buck460XVR said:
......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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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/chain-of-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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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...
 
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.
 
The most important lesson was however lost on her. If the enemy is armed you better damn well be armed also. There is no law that will take guns from from criminals, only enforcement of current laws will do that. Why enact another law that will make 50 million American citizens criminals? Besides if you believe the Constitution taking guns from the citizens requires taking the arms from the standing armies. ie the army and police forces and all armed government agents.
 
She's a darn good entrepreneur though. Her Billions Institute gets $3500.00 for a 4 day training program, that apparently teaches graduates to go out and change the world.

I think I picked up on her mindset reading of her military career. She writes of the 5.56 being designed to tumble in the "victims". I'm a veteran too, but never thought of our enemies as "victims".......ymmv
 
???

I find the spin that somehow veterans are automatically pro gun amusing. I served my country, guns had not a darn thing to do with my service.

Am I expected to be pro nuke because I was in SAC in the USAF?

It's spin, pure and simple. By the best spin doctors money can buy.
 
Eh, military servicemembers represent a diverse slice of America and so veterans do also. They aren’t going to be unanimous on anything. There might be certain observable demographic trends though. ;)
 
Gosh, so is Frank Brownell, Gary Anderson and Chuck Norris.. And so were Charlton Heston, Milton Reckord, Floyd Parks, Maxwell Rich and Franklin Orth.

But not Warren Cassidy. Wayne LaPierre has been described by the left as a draft dodger; but that seems an unfair assessment to me.

Strange all that. Although other than LaPierre, Norris and one or two others it is doubtful most know who any of those people are. Which is a real shame especially with Anderson.
 
draft dodger
Click to expand...
I used to despise draft dodgers. But life has taught me that going to war should be voluntary. This is the 21st century, we don’t need soldiers that are conscripts. Service should be voluntary and professional.
 
Being a vet does not give one any special powers of persuasion or insight to the gun control issues. The majority of vets other than USMC or Army, probably spent less time with a firearm than most recreational shooter and are not exactly subject matter experts.

The anti-gun groups love to use a misinformed vet as a poster child. For us vets that actually spent time with a weapon in hand clearly understand that its just a tool. A gun is only as good or bad as the person holding it. However, we all know what opinions are like...... everyone has one.:)
 
I saw an editorial in the local paper last week where a former "employee at Commanche Peak Norad facility" was advocating for more control. It seems an easy path to "expert" to have some (tenuous or not) connection to the military.

I don't know whether the writer of this article was all she claims to have been, but one would wonder whether the commander of two special ops groups doing (paraphrase) 'the most physically demanding and politically sensitive missions,' would be involved with any of our allies / enemies in a government versus citizens situation. Surely, someone who attended West Point would be able to see how an armed citizenry makes for a sticky wicket for an authoritarian government. Anyone with that sort of real world experience should be able to translate that same power dynamic to our own nation.

Or maybe at West Point they teach that our nation is unique and special and there is nothing to be learned from any battles or strategies ever employed by non-Americans....
I somehow doubt the latter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top