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

Status
Not open for further replies.
doofus47 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it William Westmorland (a West Point graduate) who famously said about guns that if people want to shoot guns they should join the military? If it wasn't Westmorland, it might have been Alexander Haig (also a West Point graduate).

Another choice quote, this one definitely from Westmorland: "Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind." (It should be noted that Westmorland was accused of fudging intelligence reports on enemy strength in Vietnam in order to bolster support for the war.) In other words, "The people are too dumb to be allowed to think for themselves. We have to control how they think."

Another of his quotes: "I don't think I have been loved by my troops, but I think I have been respected." Classic self-deception. Some of his field grade officers may have respected him, but in the course of my tour in Vietnam I don't think I met a single soldier who respected Westmorland. Granted, out of all the thousands of soldiers we had over there, I was basically only exposed to the guys in my company, so that's hardly a majority. But, within my unit, I don't recall one single, solitary man who respected Westmorland.
 
Last edited:
The gun quote is untrue about Westmoreland or Haig... That is exactly how this stuff gets started.

You are likely thinking of Wesley Clark who said:

"I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them."
Click to expand...

Sounds true.

The Westmoreland quote was taken out of context and you added some spin to it. In 1982, nearly ten years after the war he said:

“Vietnam was the first war ever fought without censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.”
Click to expand...

He was drawing a contrast to how much easier a time the military had it in the press in previous wars. More specifically he was talking about the false reporting following the Tet Offensive used by news services to garner ratings. Not that it is particularly relevant.

The false reporting turned US opinion against the war. A censor would like have disallowed it. News services have very little obligation to the truth unless they are dealing with an individual. You should know that by now.
 
Westmoreland, in reply tp Walter Cronkite

I told the few reporters at the press conference in Colorado that Vietnam was the first war we had fought with no censorship, and I said: ''Without censorship (in war), things can get terribly confused in the public mind, and when you add that to another first for Vietnam - television - you have an instrument that can paralyze this country, absolutely paralyze it to where the president is unable to do what he thinks is in the national interest.''

Actually, I said that I doubted that it would be possible to impose censorship again in time of war, but I added, ''When we put men's lives on the line . . . it seems to me to be a time when the devil's advocate role (of the media) should be softened.''

I little learning -- or lifts out of context -- can be a dangerous thing.

Read the whole thing here:
https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0607/060730.html
 
MTT TL said:
The gun quote is untrue about Westmoreland or Haig... That is exactly how this stuff gets started.

You are likely thinking of Wesley Clark who said: ...
Click to expand...
The quote is not untrue, but I concede that I had the wrong general. But who said it isn't the point. I was responding to the comment that "Surely, someone who attended West Point would be able to see how an armed citizenry makes for a sticky wicket for an authoritarian government."

Wesley Clark was another American general, and he, too, graduated from West Point. But he obviously didn't seem to put much value in his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Of course, it could be argued that he did understand that an armed populace is a sticky wicket for an authoritarian government. If he favors authoritarianism, then it would be easy to understand why he would not want the populace to be armed.
 
Some generals are basically unelected politicians. Some are political hacks. Some are just there to serve their country.

Once a general decides to sell their words to the highest bidder, they loose credibility to me; and it doesn’t matter to me which political viewpoint is being propped up by the general, I tend to discount the message.
 
Generals who would be happier if the Constitution did not exist are not a new thing. Our famous heroes from WW1 and WW2, MacArthur and Patton, led the cavalry and infantry charge on the Bonus Army's WW1 veterans in 1933. Sure, you cannot use the Army against civilians. Sure, citizens have the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances. Just not while self-important officers are around. So things haven't changed that much. West Point grads think they are better than the citizens, that's all.
 
Generals are veterans. Few veterans are generals. People who have spent large portions of their lives serving and the leading collectivist organizations are probably inclined to believe that society is better off when their benevolent wisdom is imposed on others.

I can pretty well tell you though, that for every general who thinks he knows what his best for his troops, there are at least a few hundred troops who learn to hate collectvism in all its forms.
 
The only time

The one and only time I handled an M-16 was in USAF basic training. It was one day of that little 6 week San Antonio adventure.

Did not do so much as touch another gun during my 6 year commitment. In fact the only time I would even see guns were coming through the front gate on my way to the clinic.

Edit: Am speaking of guns owned by uncle, I had my own and shot regularly when I was in.

Associating guns with veterans is just more horse puckey from the gun grabbers.
 
This subject intrigued me because it was 20 years after serving in combat that I bought my own AR Style rifle. Why so long, pretty simple, I didn't need or want one.

After reading the blog, I realized that there was a major flaw in her beliefs. She never once mentioned that while other countries are dealing with gun control differently, the United States has never successfully been invaded. That's not exactly why we have the Second Amendment but I'm confident that the second amendment is why we still have a democracy. Are Assault Rifles necessary? If I'm putting meat on the table I want a hunting rifle but if I'm a citizen defending my country I need to have a weapon that is at least on a par with that of the adversary that I'm facing. The mere fact that we can and do own these weapons is what keeps other hostile factions from invading us. They will still use terrorism to attack us but they will never invade. It's important to remember that the Military is only about 1 pct of the population, we the people are the largest defense force in the world.
 
Last edited:
MTT TL said:
You may be missing the forest through the trees. The military is the populace.
Click to expand...
No. The military is drawn from the populace but, especially now that we have an all-volunteer military, the percentage of the populace who ever serve is shockingly small.

You may be thinking of the militia acts, but even that doesn't encompass all of the populace.

10 U.S.C. § 311 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 10. Armed Forces § 311. Militia:  composition and classes



(a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)  The classes of the militia are--

(1)  the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

(2)  the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Click to expand...
The referenced section 313 of title 32 says that males with prior service may enlist in the National Guard up to age 64. So it is possible to be part of the organized militia past the age of 45. Otherwise, males are cut off at age 45.
 
Last edited:
No. The military is drawn from the populace but, especially now that we have an all-volunteer military, the percentage of the populace who ever serve is shockingly small.
Click to expand...

Yep, forest through the trees. Still the populace.

Definition of populace:
1 : the common people
Click to expand...

Never said it was ALL of the populace. I think I prefaced it. A shockingly small percentage of people are physically, mentally and morally qualified to serve.
 
Again, the Army I served in was ungun. No rifle or pistol teams, no marksmanship competitions, recreational shooting opportunities for a single EM living in the barracks were non-existent. The crack shot, the gun aficonado was derided as a nut, a kook. Small arms were seen as at best necessary evil, and an annoyance and a nuisance. A source of endless gigs at inspection time, a PITB to inventory, the loss of a small arm was a greater offense than losing classified information or a multi-million dollar aircraft.
 
As a combat veteran you see what good human beings are capable of doing to each other . That has never left me. Giving up the right of protect yourself & loved ones will never happen to this guy. Like others have said we are a small group , I will never give up that right . Great word RIGHT.
P S As a city boy ( NY ) state side in the military was spent down south . Got into that
country -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- kicken music , always reminds me of my time in the service . Serving
with the backbone of this country

Sorry for the censored.
 
Last edited:
I did see post 18. It defines her rank and what she was trained as. But she was very specific claiming command of two special forces companies. I wasn’t in the military and don’t know what is possible or exactly what a special forces company is. Other than what others have said in this post about what she could have done in her position. it seems that there would have to be some shred of truth in what she claimed. Or the risk of being outed as a fraud would be too great.

Hope I didn’t offend any who responded. It sounds like I’m challenging. And I guess I am.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top