A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[Divine Wind]

No, I know that there is marksman, sharpshooter, and expert. I shot marksman most of the time because I knew the basics with my weapon, but wasn't really interested in spending hours at the range just to get a bit more decoration on my marksmanship badge

It's more about ability than practice since we all have the same amount of training on the range.

First off, I know that marksman is the lowest of three qualifications. It still means that I am trained in the use and care of firearms. And if nobody believes me about my military service, then why are there TEN or so users on this forum who gave my original post a thumbs up?

Probably because they love anti-gun rants by alleged members of the military because the far left has so few ex-military personnel supporting their causes.

The military is indeed overwhelmingly reactionary and bigoted, but there are still a decent amount of people with common sense who are either serving or have served.

For example look at this book by Michael Moore. Will They Ever Trust Us Again? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is nothing less than a collection of HUNDREDS of letters from soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan talking about how stupid the war is and how terrible of a president Bush was

Nice derail on your anti-gun rant but thanks for confirming you're an anti-gun liberal just like Michael Moore.

 

[westwall]

Yep. Bullshitters all. And what's funny is they think they are actually fooling people. Pathetic.

First off, I know that marksman is the lowest of three qualifications. It still means that I am trained in the use and care of firearms. And if nobody believes me about my military service, then why are there TEN or so users on this forum who gave my original post a thumbs up?

Oh, I doubt you know diddly about weapons in general. I don't know of a single 82nd soldier who qualified as low as Marksman. I suppose it's possible, but they tend to be pretty damned good soldiers. What is the soldiers term for a particularly good soldier?

"Tight?"

Nope.

Hmm you've got me wondering about this myself. Is this an Army thing? In the Marines a guy would say that a soldier has got his shit "tight."

I'm waiting for our faux paratrooper to answer. This will be an instant test of his story.

 

[Lewdog]

First off, I know that marksman is the lowest of three qualifications. It still means that I am trained in the use and care of firearms. And if nobody believes me about my military service, then why are there TEN or so users on this forum who gave my original post a thumbs up?

Oh, I doubt you know diddly about weapons in general. I don't know of a single 82nd soldier who qualified as low as Marksman. I suppose it's possible, but they tend to be pretty damned good soldiers. What is the soldiers term for a particularly good soldier?

"Tight?"

Nope.

Hmm you've got me wondering about this myself. Is this an Army thing? In the Marines a guy would say that a soldier has got his shit "tight."

I'm waiting for our faux paratrooper to answer. This will be an instant test of his story.

Ok, quick question...at Marine boot camp they called tennis shoes "Go fasters." Do they do that in any of the other boot camps?

 

[westwall]

Oh, I doubt you know diddly about weapons in general. I don't know of a single 82nd soldier who qualified as low as Marksman. I suppose it's possible, but they tend to be pretty damned good soldiers. What is the soldiers term for a particularly good soldier?

"Tight?"

Nope.

Hmm you've got me wondering about this myself. Is this an Army thing? In the Marines a guy would say that a soldier has got his shit "tight."

I'm waiting for our faux paratrooper to answer. This will be an instant test of his story.

Ok, quick question...at Marine boot camp they called tennis shoes "Go fasters." Do they do that in any of the other boot camps?

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

...

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous

What if you're defending yourself from someone with an AR 15?

Here's what's wrong with your argument. Criminals don't have any problem getting illegal guns. Here's the insight, they are criminals, they are willing to break the law. Wow, who saw that coming, huh?

Tell me why in China, where guns are illegal, there is zero gun crime.

zero gun crime? Care to back that up, mao?
Did you know the top two reasons for gun crime her\e is suicide and gangs? How many gang members do you think have guns legally?

That's a lie. Most gun violence is committed by legal gun owners

Humor us.

 

[Lewdog]

 

[Lewdog]

"Tight?"

Nope.

Hmm you've got me wondering about this myself. Is this an Army thing? In the Marines a guy would say that a soldier has got his shit "tight."

I'm waiting for our faux paratrooper to answer. This will be an instant test of his story.

Ok, quick question...at Marine boot camp they called tennis shoes "Go fasters." Do they do that in any of the other boot camps?

Not that I'm aware of.

Come on man...I wanna hear what you are thinking of.

 

[kaz]

I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

...

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous

What if you're defending yourself from someone with an AR 15?

Here's what's wrong with your argument. Criminals don't have any problem getting illegal guns. Here's the insight, they are criminals, they are willing to break the law. Wow, who saw that coming, huh?

Tell me why in China, where guns are illegal, there is zero gun crime.

zero gun crime? Care to back that up, mao?
Did you know the top two reasons for gun crime her\e is suicide and gangs? How many gang members do you think have guns legally?

That's a lie. Most gun violence is committed by legal gun owners

Humor us.

Chairman Mao, wait for it, lied ...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

The SC doesn't "now say". They merely acknowledged what every intelligent person in the country already knew, and which the progressives had been trying to rewrite for decades. The Bill of Rights are ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A moron can figure that one out. The progressives have been trying to revise the English language, Law, and historical fact for decades. The Heller ruling merely stated that they were lying.

Okay zippy the SC ruled and further clarified........doesn't change the fact that imo the language of the 2nd is now too broad and needs to be clarified before any effective measures can be taken to stop gun violence.

The only pinhead is you , sport. The language was MEANT to be broad. The Founders were far more intelligent than you or I and wanted to make sure that the PEOPLE would be unencumbered by a oppressive government for as long as possible. Nitwits like you are the reason we are seeing the death of this Constitutional Republic. You are happy to watch it die by a thousand cuts.

Sorry Skippy, there is no way they could have imagined the type of firepower we now have. The amendment is is to broad and we need to amendment the Constitution to clearly define the peoples gun rights for personal protection.

Sword vs a sword, musket vs a musket , machine gun vs a machine gun


What's the difference?


With your logic the 1st amendment don't cover radio, television. Internet because they didn't exists 1776


.

 

[Yarddog]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

So they got it wrong for the last 240 years and we needed post modern socialists to enlighten us? It says"the people" odd term for an army.

ARs are great defensive weapons, you obviously are full of shit and never shot one. The founders wanted an armed population, and expressed their thoughts on the subject, we don't need to to tell us what they thought. An armed population is made of citizens. Unarmed populations are subjects.

I've shot the M4 carbine and the M16 rifle, both of which are exactly the same as the AR15, with an additional burst mode which we never used once in the military, sicne the semi automatic mode was even MORE effective at killing large numbers of people in a short period of time

great, if you have a home invasion, you can shoot all five of them AND put the garbage out on the curb without burning your toast.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

Big deal. Marksman is the lowest qualification you can get. I have never failed to qualify Expert in the 60 years I've been actively shooting.

Agreed.

Odd, isn't it, that only those who never served think "marksman" is a top rank for shooting qualifications?

Yep. Bullshitters all. And what's funny is they think they are actually fooling people. Pathetic.

First off, I know that marksman is the lowest of three qualifications. It still means that I am trained in the use and care of firearms. And if nobody believes me about my military service, then why are there TEN or so users on this forum who gave my original post a thumbs up?

Oh, I doubt you know diddly about weapons in general. I don't know of a single 82nd soldier who qualified as low as Marksman. I suppose it's possible, but they tend to be pretty damned good soldiers. What is the soldiers term for a particularly good soldier?

High speed.

I've also heard "high speed low drag"

 

[westwall]

Big deal. Marksman is the lowest qualification you can get. I have never failed to qualify Expert in the 60 years I've been actively shooting.

Agreed.

Odd, isn't it, that only those who never served think "marksman" is a top rank for shooting qualifications?

Yep. Bullshitters all. And what's funny is they think they are actually fooling people. Pathetic.

First off, I know that marksman is the lowest of three qualifications. It still means that I am trained in the use and care of firearms. And if nobody believes me about my military service, then why are there TEN or so users on this forum who gave my original post a thumbs up?

Oh, I doubt you know diddly about weapons in general. I don't know of a single 82nd soldier who qualified as low as Marksman. I suppose it's possible, but they tend to be pretty damned good soldiers. What is the soldiers term for a particularly good soldier?

High speed.

I've also heard "high speed low drag"

BZZZZZZZT. The term is "Strack". "High speed, low drag, super ninja warrior" is reserved for DELTA and other extremely highly trained operators.

 

[Lewdog]

Agreed.

Odd, isn't it, that only those who never served think "marksman" is a top rank for shooting qualifications?

Yep. Bullshitters all. And what's funny is they think they are actually fooling people. Pathetic.

First off, I know that marksman is the lowest of three qualifications. It still means that I am trained in the use and care of firearms. And if nobody believes me about my military service, then why are there TEN or so users on this forum who gave my original post a thumbs up?

Oh, I doubt you know diddly about weapons in general. I don't know of a single 82nd soldier who qualified as low as Marksman. I suppose it's possible, but they tend to be pretty damned good soldiers. What is the soldiers term for a particularly good soldier?

High speed.

I've also heard "high speed low drag"

BZZZZZZZT. The term is Strack. "High speed, low drag, super ninja warrior" is reserved for DELTA and other extremely highly trained operators.

Definitely must be an Army thing. I've never heard that term.

 

[westwall]

Yep. Bullshitters all. And what's funny is they think they are actually fooling people. Pathetic.

First off, I know that marksman is the lowest of three qualifications. It still means that I am trained in the use and care of firearms. And if nobody believes me about my military service, then why are there TEN or so users on this forum who gave my original post a thumbs up?

Oh, I doubt you know diddly about weapons in general. I don't know of a single 82nd soldier who qualified as low as Marksman. I suppose it's possible, but they tend to be pretty damned good soldiers. What is the soldiers term for a particularly good soldier?

High speed.

I've also heard "high speed low drag"

BZZZZZZZT. The term is Strack. "High speed, low drag, super ninja warrior" is reserved for DELTA and other extremely highly trained operators.

Definitely must be an Army thing. I've never heard that term.

Almost 100% an airborne term.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

The SC doesn't "now say". They merely acknowledged what every intelligent person in the country already knew, and which the progressives had been trying to rewrite for decades. The Bill of Rights are ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A moron can figure that one out. The progressives have been trying to revise the English language, Law, and historical fact for decades. The Heller ruling merely stated that they were lying.

Okay zippy the SC ruled and further clarified........doesn't change the fact that imo the language of the 2nd is now too broad and needs to be clarified before any effective measures can be taken to stop gun violence.

The only pinhead is you , sport. The language was MEANT to be broad. The Founders were far more intelligent than you or I and wanted to make sure that the PEOPLE would be unencumbered by a oppressive government for as long as possible. Nitwits like you are the reason we are seeing the death of this Constitutional Republic. You are happy to watch it die by a thousand cuts.

Sorry Skippy, there is no way they could have imagined the type of firepower we now have. The amendment is is to broad and we need to amendment the Constitution to clearly define the peoples gun rights for personal protection.

Sword vs a sword, musket vs a musket , machine gun vs a machine gun


What's the difference?


With your logic the 1st amendment don't cover radio, television. Internet because they didn't exists 1776


.

Ya know thinking about this I should of added:

Lazer pistol vs Lazer pistol, light saber vs light saber..it's all the same with the 2nd amendment

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Racist and nonsensical

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Racist and nonsensical

Racist ??????


Try the truth...

 

[westwall]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Racist and nonsensical

Racist? The Democrat Party is a race? Since when?

 

[Divine Wind]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Racist and nonsensical

Why are you calling Edward Cage racist and nonsensical? Just because you're a socialist and hate all conservatives and capitalists?