Another anti-gun letter claiming military expertise

OK, I can’t call the writer a liar, but does his terminology ring true for someone with infantry experience to those here who have it?

11 thoughts on “Another anti-gun letter claiming military expertise

  1. He says “two years” military experience. It could have been 3o years or more ago. Easy to forget the lexicon/jargon, especially if he may have wanted to.

    But it does bring up an interesting point. Gun collectors do appear to be a somewhat stable group. I mean some do own registered machine guns and yet not one has used one for anything other than a collection piece, a trade commodity among other collectors, or for fun on a range… Well, to date and/or that we know of.

    BTW, there’s a video on the net someplace of a wingnut with a 350 round 22 caliber homemade machine gun that he empties at a target in less than a minute. Wow, that would be fun in the biathlon.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I get that you do not share his opinions but insinuating that he is a liar about those two years of military service is pretty scummy. IMHO.

    Here is a complete list of the “terminology” in the letter . . .

    Bump stock-equipped guns
    12-gauge sawed-off pump shotgun

    Which of this “terminology” is NOT just an ordinary way to denote the objects in question?
    What “terminology” in his letter causes you to go this low?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I am referring to terms like “high-capacity killing guns” which is not a term I have ever heard a military veteran use. It sounds more like something a person with no experience with firearms would say.

      Also, the differentiation between offensive and defensive weapons does not make sense.

      It just sounds more like someone whose firearms knowledge comes from Bloomberg than someone with infantry service.

      Also, because the magazine is tubular and attached to the barrel, pump shotguns are not generally sawed off to 18 inches as the magazine is longer than that.

      Anyway, I can’t say for sure, which is why I called on those with pertinent experience to comment.


      1. Awkward phrasing, yeah, typically weapons not “guns”, differentiation between offensive/defensive IS a thing, and FWIW I have an old 1950s Winchester 12 cut down to 18”.

        However, I think I agree with his general point, which, regardless of a supposed 2 yrs of Army service is really the pertinent issue…

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Not all military veterans would agree with you on things either. Just because you don’t like his choice of words is your reason to discount anything he says. It sounded to me like a personal term for description of the weapons in question.

        …”the differentiation between offensive and defensive weapons does not make sense.” Perhaps to the writer it does.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Your explanation is almost as lame as calling him a liar in the first place.

        Boils down to you do not like the way he phrased his very clear thoughts. And that you disagree with the very understandable distinction he made between offensive and defensive weapons. Here is a hint . . . our military does not go into battle with sawed off shotguns.

        “I can’t say for sure . . .” is about the same kind of wiggle room sophist phrasing that Trump uses when HE uncivilly attacks someone’s character or spreads a lie as in “Some people say . . .”

        Liked by 2 people

      4. RE: “It sounds more like something a person with no experience with firearms would say.”

        I had the same impression, if only because lots of LTEs make “trust me” type claims to give weight to their opinions. A typical example goes, “I used to be a Republican, but…”

        You never know whether to believe it or not, but it doesn’t really matter, in any case, except for curiosity. An opinion can usually be judged on its own merits, without regard to the bona fides of the speaker.

        Unfortunately, many people who speak out in public, maybe for the first time, don’t know this.


      1. “Any anti-gun letter gets this treatment . . ”

        Yes, it does. Sort of like my use of the word “we” in a post a few days ago.

        Anyone with 1/2 a memory of how the MAJORITY of Americans felt, reacted, spoke and expressed their opinions right after the Sandy Hook slaughter know why I used the (offensive, evidently) word, WE.

        The posters complaining about ‘we’ onviously were of the opinion that EVEN 20 first graders deserved to die as long as EVERYONE in the USA gets to have any/all types of weapons their little hearts (?) can imagine. Just sayin’ …

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I had to go back and look, but the criticism of the “we” references was not in response to your comment (which I agreed with). It was in a response on a different string to Don Tabor.

          “How many times are we supposed to be lied to before we stop trusting?”

          Was his comment that led to my “we” rant…

          Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s