Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Translation: I lied about a non-qualifying medical condition to enlist, then when it was found I, I was discharged. It's all the Right Wing's fault, I bear no responsibility at all.Let's clear my service record up.
I enlisted without disclosing a preexisting medical condition. I did so because I was only 18 at the time, an still brainwashed by right wing propaganda in which all soldiers were "heroes." I wanted to be a "hero," badly, and even went so far as to downplay my condition to the recruiter.
I served for MORE than 180 days. I mention serving for MORE than 180 days since 180 days is the cutoff for most veteran's benefits in this country.
I successfully passed 12B OSUT and Airborne school. I was awarded airborne school for my fantastic performance at OSUT, including having a 286 APFT and passing every single written exam with zero wrong answers. I also earned a meritorious promotion from Private to PV2.
After airborne school, I was stationed at Fort Bragg as part of the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the 82nd Airborne Division. During an FTX, my preexisting medical condition suddenly started flaring up again, out of nowhere. To make a long story short, my chain of command had no choice but to chapter me out with a Chapter 5-11 and a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge.
You're also for shredding the Constitution and rewriting it as a Socialist Manifesto.If by "anti-american," you mean pro-worker's rights, anti-racism, feminist, and supportive of equality for all citizens, then yes, I am "anti american," and proud of it.
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.
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 timeSo 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.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
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.
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
You're also for shredding the Constitution and rewriting it as a Socialist Manifesto.
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
No, there is no collective right. You don't understand what you're reading.
The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times.
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
No, there is no collective right. You don't understand what you're reading.
The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times.
Okay, No Justice Bryer quotes allowed, but please post a quote from the constitution where in spicifically says only organized Milita can have guns?
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice there is nothing about only state milita's being allowd, but also indeviduals.
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
No, there is no collective right. You don't understand what you're reading.
The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times.
Okay, No Justice Bryer quotes allowed, but please post a quote from the constitution where in spicifically says only organized Milita can have guns?
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice there is nothing about only state milita's being allowd, but also indeviduals.
What? I didn't say only organized militias could have guns.
I think you need to go read what I wrote.
At best, it says milita and individuals are covred.
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
No, there is no collective right. You don't understand what you're reading.
The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times.
Okay, No Justice Bryer quotes allowed, but please post a quote from the constitution where in spicifically says only organized Milita can have guns?
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice there is nothing about only state milita's being allowd, but also indeviduals.
What? I didn't say only organized militias could have guns.
I think you need to go read what I wrote.
Did. You said there was no mention of an individual's right to have guns, and opinion that gets tossed out there by ieftists even since the news said Justice Bryer put it in his descent when the court opinion came down in favor of the 2nd and in devi duel rights to own guns. You need to go back and read what you said because you implied that only organized militaso are allowed to have guns, when nothing of the sort is in the 2nd. At best, it says milita and individuals are covered. You implied there is no individual right to own fire arms.
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.
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.
Well, its obvious that you dont join the military to learn.
I was in the USMC and did the same as OP did but the OP is full of shit and just doesnt get it. We need firearms to protect us from the gov. Someday soon we are going to have to take our country back. We need weapons. We are going to have a revolt. Its coming. You cant fuck over people and not expect to have a revolt and the gov knows this. Its bad enough that the gov wants our guns and now we have YOU helping them take my rights away. Listen you unbelievable moron...IF YOU DONT WANT TO OWN A FIREARM...DONT BUY ONE BUT DONT FUCKING COME AFTER MY RIGHTS GOD DAMIT!
Back when the constitution was written, the vast majority of voters rejected the idea of a standing army. However, the founding fathers thought that it was important for the country to have a standing military in case of emergencies.oh bullshitDidn'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
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
You leftist totalitarians are ALWAYS trying to "interpret" basic sayings. Its pathetic. Try honesty. Or at least try to think.
Therefore, they wrote the second amendment in order to grant the "people" (not individuals, but the people as a whole) to form and maintain a military in spite of the public opposition to a standing army.
"The well regulated militia" refers to a group of volunteer citizenry who are trained and drilled in the use of arms to defend their homes. Aka the U.S military. I was a part of the "well regulated militia." A gun nut who owns 80 assault rifles in his basement is not.
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
No, there is no collective right. You don't understand what you're reading.
The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times.
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
No, there is no collective right. You don't understand what you're reading.
The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times.
Except you are dropping the part that says (the right of the people to keep and bear arms) which was added on by the States (the people) and reinforced the individuals right.
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.
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
No, there is no collective right. You don't understand what you're reading.
The right to bear arms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to be in the militia. It's simple, the founding fathers said it loads of times and the right and left have ignored millions of times.
Except you are dropping the part that says (the right of the people to keep and bear arms) which was added on by the States (the people) and reinforced the individuals right.
What are you going on about? I didn't drop anything. We're talking about ONE PART of the Amendment. Christ.
