In 1966 I was trained with the M-14. I was taught

[upaloopa]

what the proper sight pattern was. I was taught where to aim depending on the distance to the target. I was taught sight adjustment or windage so many clicks to the right or left.
Nobody paid much attention to all that in Vietnam. You just fired changed magzines and fired again. Then came the M-16 and the same thing.
When I got home I was glad to put all that behind me and get on with life.
Some years later I saw people who fought paint ball battles. They even set up little villages and had rank and chain of command and uniforms and face paint. I thought they were fucking nuts. Why do you want to play games that replicate man at his most evil worst?
Then came the AR-15 type guns. I was shocked when I walked into a gun store many years ago and saw all the M-16 look alikes on the wall. I was even more shocked to see the guys who wanted to play with them. They seemed a little crazy to me. Why the hell do you want a war type weapon? Do you think fighting war is fun? In war they fucking shoot back!
I thought what the hell is wrong with our society? Do we not understand what war is? Do we think it is sorta like the Super Bowl ?
I haven't lost any of those feelings or questions.
We don't need or want these weapons on our streets or in our schools.
I don't care how legal they are. You are fucking nuts to want to own one and society doesn't have to cater to you.

[Sherman A1]

1. K&R

Well Said!

[The Magistrate]

2. Hear Hear, Sir

Fantasies and fetishism are poor grounds for public policy and law regarding lethal force.

[NNN0LHI]

28. Recommended

[loyalsister]

68. + 1000

n\t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. Recommended, and thank you.

.

[Ernesto]

4. BIG K&R

I swear that most gun nuts have never "enjoyed" a real war!

[hedgehog]

5. Bill Mauldin said it best:

"That can't be no combat man - he's lookin' fer a fight!"

[libinnyandia]

70. As a history buff and nephew of 2 wwII vets, I loved Bill Mauldin's books. It made me

sick to read about how wwII vets were treated when they came home.

[maddiemom]

87. I don't follow you. As the daughter of a WWII vet and a niece of others,

I thought WWII vets were treated well: the GI Bill and so on. Perhaps you're thinking of the Viet Nam vets of MY generation?

[libinnyandia]

89. Bill Mauldin wrote about WWII weren't always treated well when they returned home.

[sweetloukillbot]

94. Watch the movie "The Best Years of Our Lives"

Released in 1946 it is one of the harshest indictments of our country's treatment of veterans that I have ever seen. Everything we talk about now, or 40 years ago after Vietnam, its all in that movie.

[Squaredeal]

151. I didn't see it that way

The ex-Navy man got his government-backed loan to buy a farm. The disabled seaman got medical care and and a check every month. The readjustment back to civilian life that all the men went through affects just about everyone who served in every war. It's somewhat like you were fired from a job because they didn't need you any longer. Your contribution no longer was important. The GI Bill made up for that.
I knew WWII vets in my community and relatives who used the GI Bill to go to the college of their choice. Tuition, room and books were paid for, plus they received a monthly stipend. They all became well-off. I know many who purchased their first home with the help of the GI Bill.
For me, a Vietnam vet, we were not treated anywhere near as well by the government. All we got was a stipend that was not nearly enough to go to school. I had to pay my own tuition, room and board in college. That meant going to a state school because I couldn't afford a private one. That meant taking out a student loan that took me ten years to pay off after I graduated. That meant working two days a week while I was in class. That meant driving a beat up car and wearing worn out clothes, the kind that had holes in them, and having one pair of shoes.
The GI Bill guarantee for home buyers was a joke. No seller wanted to deal with it so I took out a conventional loan for my first home. Agent Orange poisoned me and my child, yet the government provides no recourse.

[sweetloukillbot]

176. The movie did eventually have a happy ending...

After the war hero was fired from his job as a soda jerk and was going to commit suicide in the nose of a decommissioned plane. And after the sergeant became a drunk almost wrecking his marriage and almost losing his job for standing up to his banker boss who wouldn't provide loans to the returning vets. And the disabled seaman was disrespected by civilians in the drug store, leading to the war hero's firing. Their government didn't care enough to get them home, leaving them stranded in the airport in LA or Frisco while rich travelers pushed them aside to complain about their flights.

If you thought that movie was about how well we rewarded our homecoming veterans, you really missed the point of the film.

[Jackpine Radical]

102. When I got back into college after VN in 1969, I got $130/month on the GI Bill--

the same amount the WWII vets got in 1946. That was to cover tuition, books & living expenses. Even in '69, that amount didn't go a long way.

[Mopar151]

93. My Dad's favorite "Willie and Joe"

Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Disabled Veteran. "BAR man", 100th division

[uponit7771]

137. +1

[Speck Tater]

6. "Sort of like the Super Bowl" really nails it.

I remember watching TV with some guys at work as U.S. tanks rolled into Baghdad. They were reacting exactly like fans at a football game as that statue was pulled down. I remember just standing back and watching my co-workers and thinking exactly that thought. "They think this is the Super Bowl."

[Fumesucker]

8. Same way during Gulf War I

I remember being really put off by all the cheering and hollering.

[pasto76]

58. Ditto OIF 2003-2004

[upaloopa]

12. I had the same experience many times.

I just shake my head and walk away. My neighbor's son died from an IED in Iraq.
There was a memorial and most of the people there were pro Iraq war at first. This was a very rural area. The memorial was like throwing cold water in their faces. Here was a kid that they knew and watched grow up and was dead and for what?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. I've often wondered about sports fandom and war cheering and whether they're related.

I don't watch much in the way of sports. My dad is an overbearing sports-watcher, and I think he permanently cured me of it when I was growing up by screaming at anyone in front of the television, berating coaches, players, officials, and (my favorite) throwing an earthenware coffee mug from across the room into the fireplace during one New Year's Day bowl game. Anyway, he's the kind of guy who can identify with a sports team and make them "us" in just minutes. This was really evident a few years ago when he mentioned something about a US women's (volleyball?) team competing internationally. This wasn't the Olympics, and I think this team had been in the media spotlight for about a week or so (as in, no one had heard of them before that), but it didn't take my dad an hour of watching before he was using the pronoun "we" for everything regarding this team. And by the way, more power to this team, whoever they were, not my point here.

So that situation, and several other similar ones made me start to wonder about team identification in sports compared with national identification in war. I'm not trained in this area, but it seems to me these things may come from the same place, maybe the part of a person that wants to belong to the group, to the pack, to the team. I think this may have contributed to changes in my own life. Back when the first Gulf War started, I talked about Iraq in terms of Us v. Them. I was excited about the hits "we" scored on live green-screen television. I identified with the military (full disclosure: I was in the Navy, in Orlando at the time, maybe in the most non-military portion of the armed forces. So although I was part of "we", that's not where the feeling of belonging came from, or at least I don't think it is).

Nowdays, when I talk about how "we" killed someone with a drone or whatever, it's not so that I can feel a sense of belonging, but so that, as a taxpayer, I make sure to not let myself off the hook when it comes to murder committed in my name and with my money. I don't identify with a killing force that can beat the other side. I know we have it, and I know they'd win any head-to-head fight, but I don't find any glory in this, any sense of belonging, or any reason to celebrate it.

Is there a link between identification with group sports teams and warfare? I don't know the answer, but I suspect it's yes. Thank you.

[pangaia]

74. Very well said.

And yes, I believe there are certain core similarities. I'm a baseball fan..minor league mostly..The Batavia Muckdogs, How could you NOT like a team with a name like that? I love the skill, control, the physical as well as the mental part of the game. BUT, it is always that.. a game, a challenge, and a wonderful one. But I am NOT attached to it. I think this is the problem--attachment to beating someone else at something..whether football or......war. It comes from a very base part of the human psyche.

That's just part of my thoughts.....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

77. ok, so here's a strange thing

I've never counted baseball as one of the war-like team sports. I guess I was mostly referring to football. Baseball seems more like a game a statistician could love than a violent brawl, which is what football sometimes seems like. Thank you for the reply. And yes, who could not root for The Batavia Muckdogs?

[SwankyXomb]

120. Probably has to do with the pace of the game. n/t

[pangaia]

192. I agree again.

And the George Carlin stick below is a classic.

[The Magistrate]

130. Mr. Carlin Agrees, Sir....

[pangaia]

173. yes, that one is a classic.

I first saw it a number of years ago..almost mentioned it in my reply, but...

[druidity33]

92. Hey...

thanks for this thoughtful and articulate post. This is why i like DU.

[The Wizard]

99. Ask you dad

how much "we" charges him for a ticket to get into the game. People often identify with a team, but never realize the team never identifies with them.

[msedano]

172. wonderful satire, billy lynn's long halftime walk

http://labloga.blogspot.com/2012/07/reviews-billy-in-wartime-banned-books.html

“That’s not it at all! We like violence, we like going lethal! I mean, isn’t that what you’re paying us for? . . . . I love every one of these mutts like a brother, I bet I love them more than their mommas even, but I’ll tell you frankly, and they know how I feel so I can say this right in front of them, but just for the record, this is the most murdering bunch of psychopaths you’ll ever see. I don’t know how they were before the Army got them, but you give them a weapons system and a couple of Ripped Fuels and they’ll blast the hell out of anything that moves. Isn’t that right, Bravo? . . . . So if your family’s oil company wants to frack the living shit out of the Barnett Shale, that’s fine, sir, that’s absolutely your prerogative, but don’t be doing it on our account. You’ve got your business and we’ve got ours, so you just keep on drilling, sir, and we’ll keep on killing.” (66)

[Waiting For Everyman]

7. K&R

[LiberalLoner]

9. I never bought a weapon and don't plan on ever owning one but...

I would gravitate to the AR-15 because the only weapons training I've had in my life was in the Army. It is the only weapon I would immediately feel comfortable with and not be scared of. Maybe there are others who are like me in that way.

[upaloopa]

14. Well I think you are nuts then. Comfortable with?

I don't feel you should be able to own one. Our community over rules you I think.

[LiberalLoner]

32. I agree, that's why I don't own one. But it's the only weapon

Available for purchase I have ever been trained on. Only one I've ever fired.

[southshore]

168. Pretty damned harsh, dontcha think???

Nuts?

Sorry that you have zero idea about guns, but apparently are an internationally recognized expert in psychiatric diagnosis.

I was also trained on the M-16, and would feel completely comfortable handing same.

As far as the community overruling the individual, please familiarize yourself with the Constitution, which was designed specifically to defend the individual from the mob.

That being said, IMHO, a gun is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. At present, I have no use for a tool with a cyclic rate of fire that high. Pretty sure that most folks don't. I'm pretty comfy with a youth shotgun, a cell phone, a very strong bedroom door, and an alarm system for home defense. Lock the door, call 911, and wait for the cavalry with the option that whatever comes through that bedroom door that isn't wearing a uniform (or someone known to me) is going to meet God momentarily.

Been this way for 25 years now. Except for a semi annual cleaning and testing, that "tool" as never left it's storage place.

[Bandit]

47. Did you ever walk point on a patrol?

When I was in the Army in Vietnam an M-16 was certainly not the desired weapon for anyone walking point. Almost all carried a 12 gage shotgun and right behind them was a grenadier with a shot round loaded in their M-79...

[upaloopa]

56. I had both a sawed off Winchester model 12 and a M-79.

On edit, during Tet I got 30 minutes training with a M-60.

[Victor_c3]

149. Different time, different war, and a different way of doing things

I was in Iraq 2004-2005. The majority of patrols that my unit conducted were mounted patrols through urban/semi urban areas. I occasionally conducted dismounted patrols, but that was the exception. We all had the M-4 carbine version of the M-16. The M-79 was replaced with an M-203 mounted to the bottom of an M-4/M-16 so that your grenadier didn't have to juggle two different weapons. The shotguns we had issued to us almost always stayed in our vehicles.

I was a PL in Iraq of a mechanized Infantry platoon and my vehicle was equipped with a nifty computer that fed us our exact location courtesy of a GPS and I was able to get google-earth like imagery of everything on this computer. It was a great piece of equipment. I would get a radio transmission while I was on patrol that I needed to conduct a hasty raid on a position at ________. I could just punch that into my computer, get a rough idea for the lay of the land and even get a good guess of where the doors and windows were, and conduct a very quick and well planned raid as a result. Calling for artillery fire or medevac couldn't be easier either. All you had to do was right click somewhere on the screen and punch in the required information and you had exactly what you called for. You could still call for artillery fire or medevac the old way (and I did that a few times), but that computer made it sooo easy. The old addage "you can't spell lost without LT" didn't apply to me.

Anyways, My vehicle and my Platoon Sergeant's vehicle both had those computers. Also, the lead and trail vehicle were the most likely to be hit by an IED. With that in mind, I always took point and my Platoon Sergeant always took the rear.

[Bandit]

177. Things have definitely gotten better for our troops.

When we called in fire, it was all hit and miss. We would ask them to fire a couple of rounds and if we could spot the rounds we could talk them into the right location which often was right on top of ours.. We operated almost entirely in triple canopy jungle in very rugged mountains. No vehicles (except helicopters and jets) anywhere near us..and when we made contact, which was pretty much daily, we were within meters of the enemy, which by the way was no rag tag civilian force. We were engaged at the time with the third largest standing army in the world. They all wore uniforms and carried modern weapons.

[Victor_c3]

178. don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not envious at all

Even when I deployed in Iraq in 2004 we always remarked to each other how "at least we weren't in Vietnam". We drastically outclassed our enemy in every aspect. The groups that I was fighting against were often either smaller isolated groups of local thugs peppered in with the occasional fight with a (briefly) organized enemy. The enemy would be able to mass maybe 200 fighters at a given fight and keep up the fight for a day or two, but that was it. Enemy artillery fire was limited to 60 mm mortars and their fire wasn't coordinated in any fashion with an assault.

You could tell the difference between the caliber of enemy combatant between the local homegrown insurgents and the large groups of the Mahdi Militia and the group Al Zarquai (however you spell that guys name) led. For the most part, the enemy removed the butt-stocks from their rifles and they rarely fired well-aimed shots. RPGs were often fired from positions further from max effective range, and the enemy mostly had little to no idea what they were doing.

After experiencing what Iraq had to offer, I couldn't imagine what you Vietnam guys faced. Anyways, I absolutely respect the experiences that you guys had in that war. The reason I'm treated as well as I am today and I have the benefits I have today (not to mention a top-rate VA system) is because of guys from your generation and your struggles.

[Ikonoklast]

10. Dad told me no one that ever had to wipe the brains of his fellow Marine off his face would ever

want to 'play' at War, let alone ever be in one ever again.

[Erose999]

159. My dad was a helicopter mechanic and door gunner in Vietnam. Turned down some lucrative

job offers because he said he couldn't even look at a helicopter without being reminded of the gore.

[ellisonz]

11. Absoutely.

"You are fucking nuts to want to own one and society doesn't have to cater to you."

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. The comforting news is that they (assault-type rifles) account for a tiny fraction of gun-homicide.

Rifles altogether account for less than about 3.7%. Nor are they the most common type of firearm used in mass shootings (only about 1 in 4 events).

One other minor quibble about the chronological order of your little rant; the AR-10 and AR-15 came BEFORE the M-16. For some reason you have the AR15 occurring after the M16 and "paintball".

[upaloopa]

17. Is all you can do is post stats? Isn't 20 kids dead in

CT enough to make you quit with the defense?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. Posting stats and facts... as opposed to Logical fallacies?

I am not opposed to gun control. Only stupid gun control.

Registration schemes, safe keeping laws, universal background checks (aka "gunshow loophole&quot , even some magazine limit laws... given that these laws are drafted intelligently, all of these are common sense and help restrict access of firearms to prohibited persons. I support these.

Assault weapons bans? Pretty pointless, extremely divisive, and a big political looser at the polls. This is stupid gun control.

[upaloopa]

26. Your about a week behind the times. Society is

passing you by.

[LAGC]

152. Don't count on it.

One year from now there will be no new significant gun controls.

And you'll still be whining about them.

[southshore]

169. Passing by too fast..

and fast is seldom safe.

When the hysteria has died down, and everyone can talk intelligently, than we can begin a policy discussion.

The last set of broad, society changing laws the US passed in a fools rush gave us the Patriot Act.

[BainsBane]

95. first of all the fact those things exist

and are sold to civilians is demonstrative of a twisted, sick culture. The OP is right. People use that stuff in war, and if you're so keen on playing soldier you should go find out what it's like for real.

There is a point to getting rid of those weapons, just like there is a point to decreasing nuclear armaments. They are tools of mass slaughter, but if you are so determined to quibble about terminology, we can agree you with you that it makes no difference and take away all of your murder machines.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

104. I think you've replied to the wrong subthread.

Nobody is quibbling about terminology here. Bringing up a firearm's historical usage in homicide is germane to a discussion aimed at decreasing homicide. I'm merely pointing out that someone aimed at significantly decreasing gun homicides who has set their sights on assault-style rifles is acting counter productively.

Pretty much every type of gun was originally designed for use in war. Muskets, Lever actions, mag-fed bolt actions, semi-autos... spears, bows,, blades, clubs... they were all modern weapons of war at some point of history. So the real quation is who gets to be the self-proclaimed righteous arbiter of which weapons demostrate a sick twisted culture. I'm guessing you're applying to the open position for moral arbiter of allowable weapons?

A number of people who have (and are currently) experiencing war firsthand support the ownership of these assault-style rifles (when they return home, of course). Do these people who have "found out what it's like for real" get to keep them?

[BainsBane]

115. so then you're advocating for prohibiting hand guns?

that works for me.

Your historical origins argument is absurd. The point is capacity to gill dozens of people at once. Nothing in the constitution says you must be allowed to have the capacity to be a mass murderer.

I'm not applying to be moral arbiter of anything. The morality of the issue is obvious.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

119. That would appear to be the logical solutions to taking a real bite out of homicides. nt

[BainsBane]

131. you'll get no argument from me

I don't see why anyone who isn't in law enforcement needs anything but a simple shotgun for hunting. But that would take a huge bite out of gun sales, and like everything in America, this issue is all about the financial interests of the a multi-billion dollar corporate industry.

[BobbyBoring]

186. We do have a sick culture

But remember, our country was founded with violence and guns. We fought the Revolutionary War to get away from Georges rule and fought several wars after that. We also murdered or enslaved the original inhabitants of this great land mass, and then, we had the wild wild west.

Unless some drastic changes are made, it's going to get uglier than it is now as there are far too many that would like to see us return to the old days of 6 shooters in the streets~

[LanternWaste]

100. "1 death is a tragedy. One millions deaths is simply a statistic."

"Posting stats and facts..."

"1 death is a tragedy. One millions deaths is simply a statistic." Joseph Stalin

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

108. And we live in a nation where laws govern hundres of millions of people.

Ergo laws should be backed by logic based in statistics and real world tendencies. Legislating policies based upon outlier events while emotions are running high is simply poor governance.

Yes, events can be tragic. And such events can motivate many through fear/anger/pain... there is, however, no reason to waste this motivation on bullshit feel-good laws. We need to use this motivation to enact meaningful restrictions and take effective action in order to yield significant results.

[jpak]

18. Then banning them will not be a problem....

yup

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. And nor will it solve anything.

It will definitely, however, create turmoil at the polls and prove to be extremely divisive.
yup

[jpak]

31. Yes it will - gun massacre nuts will not be able to use them

yup

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. Most "gun massacre nuts" are already not using them.

Banning something that most mass shooters AREN'T using: winning strategy?
yup... er, umm... I mean nope?

[uponit7771]

139. well ban them, take the off the streets and they'll be using them even less win win

[HooptieWagon]

143. How does banning something seldom used accomplish anything??

Given the political price, I fail to see the benefit in banning a seldom used weapon. We can kiss off Hillary winning the WH, majorities in House and Senate, and nominating Justices to replace the 2 elderly liberals. RvW gets over-turned. Now paying that price could be worth it if a serious reduction in gun deaths can be made. But AWB2 is not going to accomplish that.

[sir pball]

181. And then you'll have spent all your political capital

And not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing any more gun control legislation for years - in the meantime, ~7,000 people a year will be killed with handguns...but you'll have saved ~350 a year from those awful terrible rifles!

What's easy isn't always right and what's right isn't always easy.

[AllyCat]

183. Oh no! If we try to keep people from dying, Dems will lose!!!!

Gosh, we want to be in power more than we want to save lives of innocent people. So lets just let the peaceful little things fly off the shelves with as much ammo as we can buy!

[upaloopa]

19. Well you again have to attack my timing of events

That's the timing they entered my awareness and it doesn't fucking detract from what I said.
It isn't important that I know what you know about guns. I am not a gunner and don't need to be.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

29. Correct, your chronological awareness doesn't "fucking detract from what you said".

I also noticed you didn't address the fact that I pointed out which can be summed up as, 'Guns like the AR15 aren't a crime problem in America'. One does not need to be a gunner to acknowledge this point... only cognizant of the facts and stats.

[upaloopa]

35. Listen, Americans are tired of the killing

Your stats don't mean a thing when someone open fires in a school or theater. You constantly posting stats is just so much pissing in the wind. It's pointless nobody cares anymore. They see the killing and the weapon and want them both gone.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. If they're tired of killings, why not support laws that can ACTUALLY put a dent in them?

Your OP attacks a style of gun that is literally responsible for probably less than 2% of gun homicides. And using FBI statistics, we know that they cant be responsible for more than about 3.5%.

If you could somehow draft legislation so effective that it removes ALL assault-style rifles from America while still being constitutional... it physically could not reduce homicides more than the paltry 2% or so that they are responsible for. And even that assumes that substitute weapons would not be used in lieu of the contraband assault-style rifles. People need to critically THINK about this issue and realize that no matter how effective they are at banning these scary looking rifles, the measure cannot be significantly effective at reducing gun homicide. The measure is literary a failure before it's even implemented - DOA. It's a feel-good measure, nothing more.

I would think that people REALLY tired of all the gun deaths would want REAL results. That is why I support support laws that actually have a chance at making a difference.

[upaloopa]

55. It doesn't matter how few or how many. This year they were

Used three times in as many months in highly reported events. There will be more soon. Peole don't want that to happen. They don't want the guns available. They are calling for a ban. Too late in my way of seeing it.

[BlueNoteSpecial]

43. I'll address it, 1/10-O'-1,

In 2010, 6009 deaths were due to pistols, including suicides. 358 were due to rifles, (data from U.N. Office on drugs & crime.), if this is not enough for you, perhaps you should listen to Us, you know, the 1/10th of 99%. If that is not enough to sway you from your' hair splitting, well........tough shit, Huckleberry, go ahead and swing in the breeze, along with the rest of 'em.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

59. Protip: It's easier just to type "0.1%" nt

[BlueNoteSpecial]

158. @

[ellisonz]

48. 3.7% of all rifles vs. 1 in 4 assault rifles = massively disproportionate representation.

Assault rifles are clearly a weapon of choice for mass shooters by your own metric!

[Bandit]

50. Not how I remember things

The Army issued M-16 rifles to regular grunts but Officers were given the CAR-15 which at that time stood for Colt Automatic rifle. It was basically an M-16 with a buffer for a stock and a shortened barrel..I had never heard of any AR-15 or any AR-10. This was in the sixties.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

69. Armalite developed the AR10 in '57

Armalite's model numbers are sequential. "AR" stands for Armalite Rifle, not 'assault rifle' and there are a number of non-semiauto rifles with the AR-# designations (AR-7, AR-24, etc). They developed the AR10 (1956) as a .308 gas rotating bolt semiautomatic rifle. When the Army requested trials for a smaller intermediate caliber weapon instead, the design was simply scaled down and named the AR15 (1957). The difference between the AR10 and AR15 is similar to the difference of the long and short actions seen in the Remington 700 bolt rifles.

Colt Purchased the rights to the AR0 and AR15 in 1959. Colt continued to produce rifles with the AR15 nomenclature in addition to the CAR-15 models. Subsequently, the AR15 ws adopted by the military with select fire capabilities and designated the M16. The trademark "AR15" or "AR-15" remains registered to Colt Industries, although ther AR-15 manufacturers make "AR-15 clones" marketed under separate designations, although colloquially these are sometimes referred to by the term AR-15.

[jpak]

15. Bravo - that is why they are known as "gun nuts".

yup

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. Then banning them is pointless.

Except it will make some people feel better...

[jpak]

33. Banning them will take them away from gun nut massacre types

yup

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. Perhaps.

But only if banning them removes the millions already extant, somehow prohibits illegal importation, etc...

[jmg257]

81. Sounds like a plan! Nt

[jpak]

107. It should be a felony to own them

and if convicted - the felons would have their guns confiscated and they would not be allowed to own or possess any more guns.

A fate worse than death for a true gun nut.

yup

[Lizzie Poppet]

112. *shrug*

If you think that's a politically attainable goal, then my all means, go for it.

[frylock]

61. keeping them is also pointless..

except to make some people feel better.

[Lizzie Poppet]

78. True...which then makes the question one of approach.

When a thing is not needful, when it is merely something someone wants, what are the rightful criteria for its prohibition? That it might cause harm (however high the probability against such an occurrence)? Or should these decisions be made on a "path of least harm" basis?

[thucythucy]

90. "That it might cause harm...."

I think in the case of Newtown it was pretty clearly demonstrated that this type of weapon DID cause harm, CAN cause harm, and unfortunately I think there is little doubt it WILL cause harm again.

If a model of washing machine was shown to cause the deaths of twenty children at a time, I can guarantee that washing machine would be taken off the market immediately, regardless of how many had already been sold. We recall hundreds of thousands of defective automobiles at a time, and no one rants about it. "But I WANT my car! Don't you understand, the odds of MY car's gas tank exploding are absolutely miniscule? We need to pursue the path of least harm..." You never hear it.

But somehow, when it comes to guns, it's like we're treading sacred ground even to consider a ban or recall.

The OP is exactly right, this society is fucking nuts.

[Lizzie Poppet]

111. Sure...but there's the matter of proportion.

So-called "assault weapons" cause a LOT less harm than handguns...we're talking an order of magnitude difference (and probably more than one order). Why isn't the discussion about them, particularly when not only do they figure in more harm on an outright basis, but are far, far more proportionally involved in homicide and other violent crime (given that handguns are the overwhelming choice of most gun-armed habitual criminals)?

Is it because after an atrocity like Newtown, these weapons are considered "low hanging fruit?" If handguns are an unrealistic target, aim for something that the level of emotion, etc., will make vulnerable? I suppose that makes sense if one's goal is simply any increased level of gun control...but it makes little sense if the goal is to make a genuine, significant dent in gun-related violence. Banning assault weapons (even an outright ban, not just prohibiting new sales, which is almost certainly the only even slightly attainable goal) won't even make a blip.

But like I said upthread, it'll make some people feel good...

[thucythucy]

133. Seems to me, with the proposals I've seen

to register and do background checks on the sale or exchange of ALL firearms, that we are indeed talking about hand guns as well as assault weapons. Not that the NRA will approve any of it.

As for "low hanging fruit" if an assault weapons ban will prevent one more Newtown, just one more atrocity, it will be worth it. If the Newtown shooter's mother hadn't had that particular brand of weapon, there is at least a chance he might not have been able to slaughter so many children. And that alone, right there, would justify a ban.

Or don't you think so?

[sellitman]

145. If they were banned long ago

It probably would of made all or most of the 20 dead CHILDREN feel pretty good.

[Skittles]

63. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

do you still not get it? WE ARE NOT LISTENING TO YOU ANY MORE. You had your run with the inevitable results. HASTA LA VISTA BABY!!!

[LanternWaste]

73. Bravo, Skittles! Bravo!

Bravo, Skittles! Bravo!

[Lizzie Poppet]

79. For someone "not listening," you seem oddly driven to respond.

But hey, screeching in ALL CAPS makes it more true! I heard that on the interwebz...

[Skittles]

191. LOLOL

you poor baby!!!! Massacres are just collateral damage but NO NAME-CALLING and NO CAPS!!!!!!

[Lizzie Poppet]

193. Nice strawman.

Does it keep the crows away from your garden?

[Skittles]

194. trotting out the STRAWMAN

you are boring me now

[Lizzie Poppet]

195. If you don't like your comedy-tier errors pointed out...

...don't make them. Derp.

[Squinch]

16. K &R

[UnrepentantLiberal]

20. Truely great OP.

[99Forever]

21. Yessir.

I would venture to guess that most of the most vocal of the "I'm gonna hold off teh evil gub'mint, with my private arsenal" types, have never been in a real world fire fight and would crap their pants if they were. Talking tough on Youtube and gunning down paper "bad guys" that NEVER shoot back is the stuff real life cowards are made of.

[pscot]

22. Did you get " The Theory of the Bayonet"?

I went through Knox in '62.

[upaloopa]

34. Yeah, I had to stab some target and yell something.

I was at Fort Knox also. Do you remember Agony and Misery hills?

[The Wizard]

105. What is the spirit of the bayonet?

Kill Kill Kill. Fort Campbell Ky, July-August, 1966.

[pscot]

125. Spirit? That sounds really New Age

Your DI was obviously a child of Aquarius. They were still pretty old-fashioned when I went through.

[The Wizard]

135. New Age?

Not even close. Airborne Ranger, the kind of guy who would and could rip out an enemy's heart with his bare hands. The other drill sergeants feared offending him and wouldn't even joke with him. Made the guy in Full Metal Jacket look like a boy scout. The most frightening man I ever encountered. I still have visions of his snarling face 3 inches from mine at 4 in the morning. He once jumped out the 2nd floor window to demonstrate the fastest way to get on the Company street for a formation. And he's a good part of the reason I and many others survived Vietnam.

[upaloopa]

126. That also was the spirit of the hand to hand fighter. We had to yell kill kill kill also.

[freshwest]

27. +1,000

[MrScorpio]

30. Preach It!!! nt

[actslikeacarrot]

36. i agree with you about the...

...glorification of war. Back in the mid 1990s my friends and I went paintballing a few times but it was a bunch of idiots running around some woods covering each other with paint haha. Now I see the airsoft leagues with rank and battleplans and uniforms for christs sake and it blows my mind. Too much watching of glorified war films is my guess. Watching a buddy bleed out and being able to do nothing takes all the "glory" out of it.

[mailman82]

37. I feel the same way!

I own 2 handguns and a shot gun. I have no desire to own an AR whatever! All this screaming and hand ringing about a ban,makes me laugh! I am 64 years old! For 50 years I have been hearing the libs want to take away you guns. Has not happened in all that time! And won't in my lifetime!

[upaloopa]

45. People don't have a problem with hunting type guns

or home self defense or gun collecting or sport target shooting except for those semi autos which fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wants to take away most guns.

[Recursion]

62. Semi-automatics with detachable magazines is "most guns"

And, yes, plenty of people want to take away that. Hell, even I'm willing to do that if the party is behind it, but I think it would be a political disaster.

I suppose the one saving grace of the AWB was that its supporters thought it did that, so it made them feel better without actually going through the mess of doing it.

[ReRe]

39. K&R, one gazillion times!

upaloopa (love that name), you are exactly right. I can't add anything to it. You said it all!

[Chorophyll]

40. K&R.

Thank you for your service and thank you for this post!

[janx]

41. It's sort of like the mentality of people

who love to declare another upcoming civil war, as if they want such a thing. If they knew anything about the Civil War, they'd never say such a thing.


Spoiled, spoiled, spoiled.

Thanks for your post.

[doc03]

44. I too was trained on the M-14 and M-16 in 1966

I was fortunate I was sent to Germany instead of Vietnam. I agree 100%. I still have few handguns and a shotgun. I owned several rifles over the years for hunting and never had a desire or a reason to own an AR-15. I suggest if these guys want to kill someone with a military style weapon they should enlist in the Marines or Army.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. Welcome home

Great post!

[GoneOffShore]

49. NRA talking drones in 3...2....1.....

Thanks for your post.

[tabasco]

52. Infantry combat vet here.

I love your post and feel exactly the same.

[Bigmack]

53. What you said... only more so. Semper Fi. nt

[Major Nikon]

54. War is glorified in our society

It shouldn't be surprising that the tools of war would also be glorified.

[In_The_Wind]

57. War is never fun.

I don't want to see any individual owning an assault weapon.
Paint-ball nuts are nuts.


Thank you for serving in Vietnam.

[Recursion]

60. I doubt I would ever buy a rifle, but if I did it would probably be an AR

1. I trained on the M16 (thanks, taxpayers!) so I already know the weapon for the most part
2. It's low power, and the only thing I could see using a rifle for is coyotes and varmints if I inherit my grandfather's farm (hopefully many years down the road), so it's the right kind of gun for that, and the ammo is cheap except during mutual moral panics
3. It's durable and the parts are standard and easy to find
4. It's design is much safer and provides better control than a traditional rifle

I don't hunt, so I don't think I'd ever need something as powerful as a hunting rifle; a low-power carbine like the AR-15 sounds better. Why would you want me to have a more powerful gun than that?

[jaysunb]

64. I've been screaming the same thing for years !

Our training on the M-14 was intense and weapons were checked in and out for that training. Shell casings were policed and accounted for at all times. NOBODY was permitted to walk around base w/ a weapon (MP's excluded) so why the fuck should some idiot w/ NO training and no accountability be permitted to have an assult weapon in my neighborhood ?

I was issued a .45 when I got to Nam, and the bigger stuff --as well as ordinance-- was locked and guarded at all times. There were good reasons for that then and there and even better reasons here and now.

7th Surgical MASH
Chu Chi Vietnam 1966-67

[FarCenter]

65. Since 9/11, we've trained another 5 million people on the M-16 or equivalent

Wonder what their attitudes are towards gun control?

I think that a lot of veterans who either haven't been in combat or haven't seen their buddies killed are pretty gung-ho about guns.

[mozan]

66. war games

To many people do not understand the death and loss of true war.
They like to play the game but not pay the price of this blood.
I still think only people who have been in combat should be able to order us to war.
I served 4 years USAF and didn't see live fire, but known many that did.
We don't need Ar-15's ot the like on the streets of this country, one shot one kill is all you need for home
protection, get a shot gun if you can't learn to aim a hand gun.

[dorkulon]

67. K&R, but paintball is kinda fun.

Just a game, fought by privileged people who never had to go to war for the most part. But just a game nonetheless.

[Blue_Tires]

174. I dunno...The one time I went, almost half in the group were kids

I was a college student then, and thought I could easily outsmart them, but those kids were small, agile and could escape though or hide in terrain that just wasn't possible for my 6'2, 220lb frame (I also found out the hard way what a nice, oversized, lumbering target I was for them)

I'm also a longtime video gamer, and there's something not quite right when I read the OP and was almost tempted to say "M-14? I've used it before, and that thing is flippin' SWEET!" When all I've ever done is fire a virtual one

[Aristus]

71. I agree 100%. I'm a Gulf War vet, although I have no doubt my experiences were as nothing compared

yours in Vietnam.

I got all the weapon-firing experience I could ask for in the Army, properly trained and supervised. Never felt the need for a gun once I was out of the Army. Seems kinds ridiculous to own military weaponry as a private citizen, anyway.

I share your dismay that many Americans view war as akin to the Super Bowl, or to a video game, which causes no casualties, and has a reset button. I wonder if universal military service might not take care of some of that?

I used to be a war-war-war, rah-rah-rah kind of guy. It's one of the reasons I enlisted as a tanker in the first place. But all it took was a single Scud-missile attack to change my perception of war. Nothing creates a pacifist quite as effectively as war...

Anyway, well-said. Bravo.

[upaloopa]

85. After 6 months in Vietnam I turned against the

war and volunteered to do permanent duty building a fence around Long Bihn.
When Tet happened all that ended.

[nikto]

147. "Nothing creates a pacifist quite as effectively as war... "

That's why the war profiteers and pols push the vets aside as quickly as possible
in favor of innocent, NEW blood.

[erinlough]

179. Thank you for your service and this post.

My father carried a machine gun in WWII with Patton's army. The war defined his life. He was active in his local American Legion and VFW. we talked a lot about war and he was a pacifist even going to the extent of talking to each of his grandsons about thinking long and hard before joining up. I asked him at the end of his life why so many of the men in his American Legion group we're so pro war and he was so against war. His take on it was that the ones who were the biggest hawks never saw combat in WWII but had desk jobs.

I have all of his letters to my mother during the war. He saw things that shaped his life, and for that matter all of ours.

[TahitiNut]

72. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=87699

[tavalon]

76. Thank you

My thoughts exactly.

[LittleGirl]

80. You bring up a good point.

I wonder how many gun deaths there were during the years of the draft and now that that's behind us, volunteer army, how many guns deaths there are in comparison? I would imagine that during the years of wars, and the draft, men didn't want to touch guns after serving. I could be wrong just thinking outloud.

[ismnotwasm]

82. Thank you

[backscatter712]

83. The M-14 itself is a powerful weapon.

Granted, I've never served in the armed forces or had to use a firearm against another human being.

I have shot my brother-in-law's M-14 a few times.

But, the M-14 is a semi-automatic rifle. Some military versions could fire full-auto. It fires 7.62mm cartridges, the same as the AK-47, and bigger than the 5.56mm cartridges used in the AR-15.

(My understanding is that the military made the switch to 5.56mm because they found in studies of firefights that combatants got closer to each other than they previously thought - a hundred yards, IIRC, meaning they hardly used the longer range of a 7.62mm rifle. They also found that because soldiers tended to use a lot of suppressive fire (not necessarily targeting anything, just intended to get the enemy to keep their heads down) which persuaded them to switch to a lighter caliber, 5.56, which enables troops to carry many more rounds of ammo.)

While the M-14 usually has a wooden stock, and traditionally does not have a pistol grip, making it look more like Grandpa's deer rifle than a baby-killing Bushmaster AR-15, it's a powerful and deadly weapon of war.

Don't let looks deceive.

[The Wizard]

109. An M-14 standard round

can penetrate the wall of an armored personnel carrier. The 5.56 (.223) M-16 not so much. I was more accurate with the 14, but preferred the 16 because it's lighter and so is the ammo.
No one needs a weapon that can effectively hit targets from 300 + meters for self defense. They're made for warfare. And the purpose of a 20 to 100 round magazine is to kill many people without reloading, nothing else.
I put down my M-16 45 years ago and was happy to do so. War is not a spectator sport nor is it a video game, and it is not a drive by shooting. It's dirty, gruesome, unrelenting and unforgiving. No one exits combat unchanged.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

117. "the M-14 ... fires 7.62mm cartridges, the same as the AK-47 ..."

Respectfully, the cartridges are different although both have nominal diameters of 7.62mm. (7.62 actually refers to internal diameter of the barrel at the lands, not the diameter of the bullets.)

The 7.62 catridges are different in that the length of an M-14 cartridge is 51mm while the length of an AK-47 cartridge is 39mm.

[msedano]

84. combat training was designed to make us want to run toward the muzzle flash...

the entire company exploded in cheers when the mountainside disappeared in a cloud of dust.

http://readraza.com/jnwynmo.htm

these gun nuts have no idea what that means.

[upaloopa]

88. We had to crawl under machine gun fire in basic

The m-60 barrels were in a box made of two by fours so they could not hit us.

[4Q2u2]

86. Loved

My M-4 and was very good with it. Fired all weapons from the 16, the 60 and the 240B. Did a tour in Iraq, but own no guns at all. Just a little shy about heading down slippery slopes on rights, someone else trying to define my or your America is a can of worms that will be abused by politicians. Besides if I ever need a weapon for the revolution. I would just go and find some amateur and pry it from his cold dead hands. He will more than likely not need it anymore.

[BeyondGeography]

153. It's going to take more than a band of old fat asses with cool rifles for the "revolution"

"Protection against tyranny" has got to be the lamest argument out there for unrestrained gun rights. Talk about your slippery slopes. How is it that none of these gunners who care so much about tyranny typically have nothing to say about our $700 billion-plus offense-masquerading-as-defense budget?

[Erose999]

162. Aww man, and I just maxed out my credit card at Guns-N-Ammo.com too

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lPOV8FZAOCI/S7RUyzgd_sI/AAAAAAAABhw/3V6ryw7IxNE/s1600/guns+paul+fat+1.jpg

[BeyondGeography]

167. Thanks...talk about central casting

[4Q2u2]

165. You Missed

my point of sarcasm. Most of the people who state that they will use their weapons against tyranny are amatuers and will die almost instantly. I thought you would get it by my use of the cold dead hands line. Most of the Vets probably got it, they also probably notice what type of weapons I fired, telling them that I have over 20yrs in the service. I was a pro and very good at it, that is what these amatuers will be up against.

To your second point, tactics and dedication go along way. You have just walked into a losing argument when stating the type of person who could overcome an American Military operation. If it was that easy, why are we still in Afghanistan, Vietnam we never lost a battle but American will lost the War. Both situations we were not up against superior fire power, or more advanced weapons. It was people fighting for their homeland, while the individual soldier had their hands tied behind their back. For the Government to prevail in an American Civil War, it would have to be even more brutal in that War than the 2 I listed.

For defense cuts, Vets are ones that call attention to the waste, fraud and abuse. We also know that it will be the service member that will suffer more than the weapons systems. The American public does not have the stomach for casulties, so the super sexy war toys will stay funded. If you go after the big ticket items, now you are not making nice with California, Mass, Virginia and as well as Red States. So the budget will be balanced on the backs of the troops, causing more casulties.

[BeyondGeography]

170. So the American citizens, as presently armed, constitute a real threat to the military?

And any attempt to take away their assault rifles will lessen their competitive position?

The better question is what on earth are these ragtag stockpilers afraid of and how would they ever assemble themselves into a meaningful fighting force? Afghanistan and Vietnam built their fighting tradition over centuries on a history of vulnerable geography, ethnic factionalism and the exploitation of both by powerful and distant imperial outsiders who could be counted on to leave eventually, all of which could keep a coherent resistance intact in the face of prolonged suffering. Do you really see anything remotely comparable here? Talk about walking into a losing argument.

[4Q2u2]

180. We are now

on a parallel course. My statement is that most of them are fooling themselves that they will be able to prevail. As to the view of an Imperial power, it is not up to your or my eyes but their eyes. That is where the perception is coming from. A lot of people in Fly Over country think that DC is becoming to insular and in the pocket of special interest, there is their Imperial Power coming to take my gun, so then they can take my money and land. Yes I know, more of that is done with a pen than a rifle. In all cases it would be home grown people fighting for their land, it would just happen to be both sides. That is one of the reasons the Civil War was so bloody.


As to a meaningful fighting force, Americans are very good at that. There are more than enough Vets that know how to hold out and form into cohesive fighting units if the need ever arise. They could be formed into a well regulated militia in short notice. What that outcome will be? I hope we never have to find out.

My main point to all if this is, that if you are a Gun owner rights person, stop making excuses. Stand on your principle of it being a right and go from there. It looks lame and ham handed when use specious arguments. If you are the experts on the issue then, what solutions do you offer your fellow Americans, their concerns should be at least heard. If you are person seeking more gun control, then remember that these are fellow Americans that are law abiding citizens and should not be vilified. Work within our system of checks and balances to effect legal change if it is possible. It is not the Governments job to turn it's citizens into criminals. If you are a person who does not think it is a right and want a total ban, be careful treading down that path, defining other peoples rights in this country is something we should think more than twice about. How many times has it been said that Civil, Gay, and Reproductive rights are not to determined by popular vote.

[madokie]

91. Same here

[1-Old-Man]

98. It was 1966 that our Army switched over from the M14 to the M16

I was trained on an M14 myself, but as soon as I got to Viet Nam they handed me and M16 - a defective one at that.

[upaloopa]

123. They jammed a lot especially if you get into any moisture or dirt.

[1-Old-Man]

155. The one they issued to me had a machining error, the bullets would not load

There was a flat spot milled just below the loading ramp leading to the chamber. So the first round could be jacked into the gun but when it was fired the second round would not chamber, its tip would hit the flat spot and not tip upwards to load. So in effect I had a single shot M-16.

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. Hey that machining error

Could be a solution...to the issue we have. It was greatly reduced in ROF, putting your life at risk in a combat zone. But it could be a way to reduce ROF in all those "scary looking riffles."

[upaloopa]

124. I think you are saying I killed innocent people. Maybe I did, I'm not sure. My draft notice

stated that "my friends and neighbors have selected me to represent them" in the armed forces. So I guess you put me in that position. I had to defend my life because of ass holes like you. Where were you? Hiding in your mom's basement jacking off with your gun in your hand?

[Selatius]

138. Whoa, he was drafted. What reason did he have to doubt his government was lying to him?

I thought this line of attack died in the 1960s. A lot of people got drafted and didn't know what the hell that meant. They were fucking 18 for god's sake. Just because he did serve in Viet Nam does not necessarily follow he shot civilians and children.

[Taitertots]

140. Post removed because I accidentally hit post before I completed my post

I will response later because I have to go to sleep. I'm already up too late for a week day night.

[Selatius]

141. I never defended involvement in Viet Nam. My family suffered that war personally. nt

[Taitertots]

142. My previous post was edited...

I'll gladly discuss this tomorrow, but I need to go to sleep.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

97. K&R

Well said. I hope you repost it often.

[Mopar151]

101. What about making "tactical weapons" an elite class, with a license/registration/security deal?

If "Gunner" is found with tactical weapons, big magazines, etc. unsecured, and not under personal care and control, the compost hits the wind turbine.....

[leanforward]

103. In 1966"

What you said goes for me. I was lucky in my time over there. I felt for the troops that had to "play" in the jungle everyday. I don't understand the lack of foresight some people have with these weapons be it a handgun, pump, lever, bolt, semi- or full auto.

I didn't trust military weapons handling then and I really don't trust civilian weapons handling now.

After RVN, I was happy to not to be targeted. Now, we have a bunch of "armchair commandos" thinking they will get the drop on the "bad guys". I don't trust the "do gooders" and being caught in a crossfire and drive-bys are the same as snipers.

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for most of us is endangered by these gun handlers and subsequent gun violence. Now is the time to quote Mark Twain "never pass up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut".

[hack89]

106. Did WWI vets think the same about bolt action rifles?

did they go into arm flapping freakouts when when they saw surplus 1903 Springfields flooding the civilian market?

The simple fact of the matter is military grade weapons have always been available to Americans. Always - from Henry rifles to Springfields to M-1 carbines.

[upaloopa]

121. That's clearly not the point. This is 2013. Last year there were several mass shootings where the

shooter used a weapon designed to kill a large number of people in a short period of time. These guns are available because some people have a fetish for them. That puts society at a risk it isn't willing to accept.
Your post is like most gunner posts. Designed to put up a smoke screen and create a diversion. It isn't going to work. The people are moving faster than you can come up with your diversions. Joe Biden reports he will have his recommendations next Tuesday. The pro gun lobby is a paper tiger. The NRA lost just about every election it supported with it's millions.

And fuck you and your "arm flapping freak out" bull shit!

[hack89]

134. And the fixation on rifles obscures a much bigger point

handguns are the weapon of choice for mass killers. The most deadly mass killing in recent history was done with two handguns (the Va Tech shooting). Rifles and shotguns together account for 3% of all murders.

So an AWB does not make us safer. Magically removing every semiautomatic rifle in America will not prevent another Newtown. Or Va Tech. Or Aurora. Which is why your story, while heartfelt, is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Handguns are the issue and will always be the issue if you want to significantly reduce gun deaths. And you completely ignore it.

Joe Biden is very limited in what he can do - I suggest you review the limits of executive orders. He will recommend universal background checks - which I support. He will recommend that all federal and state agencies are funded such that they can provide the necessary data into the NICS databases - which I support. But he can't do too much more without legislation.

Congress will attempt an AWB - the chances of passage are slim. Lets remember who the speaker of the House is.

[upaloopa]

164. I'm willing to bet that the AWB will be renewed this year and soon. The NRA the right the gun lobby

is growing more impotent by the day. The NRA lost just about every race they put money into in 2012. The repubs are split. The public approves of the AWB.

The thing that you don't get is that there will be another mass killing soon by someone with an AR-15 and another and an other. Each time that happens your side gets weaker. Will we prevent the killings? Not all of them but to do nothing is not palatable to Americans.

[hack89]

175. What if the next mass shooting is a repeat of Va Tech?

then what? What laws will you then propose? Handguns are the threat - why do you refuse to acknowledge that basic fact? Newtown would have been just as deadly if the shooter had handguns instead of an AR-15.

You do realize that the AWB is not retroactive and does not actually confiscate guns already in circulation? There will tens of millions of AR-15s in the hands of the public even if an AWB is passed. So again, explain to me how that will prevent mass shootings?


This is the most honest thing you have said - "to do nothing is not palatable". You don't care if it works or not, you just want to "do something". That is the kind of thinking that gave us the Patriot Act.

[SCVDem]

110. Re: The OP

Been there, done that!

I agree with you.

If I hold a hunting rifle, I am thinking of game.

If I hold an assault rifle, the game turns into people.

I turned my M-16 in to the armory.

Why haven't the rest of you?

USMC Vet

[Bay Boy]

171. Wow! Powerful stuff!

I didn't know guns had such power over people's minds.

For me, sometimes when I'm holding a hunting rifle I'm admiring the artwork of the checkering and engraving.
Sometimes I'm thinking, I need to clean this and put it in my safe,

When I hold an AR-16 I'm often thinking about shooting paper targets so I can improve my score.

I've never thought about shooting a person with either one.

[MannyGoldstein]

113. Perfect. Thank you!

Said with the authority that only a person has who's seen war.

God bless you!

[ileus]

114. That's why I stick with civilian sporting rifles like my AR's

I don't have a much use for a military firearm, beyond collecting.

[Paladin]

116. K&R. We're In An Era Where A Lot Of Firearms Aren't Designed For Grown-ups. (nt)

[peace13]

118. Thank you for this...

And thank you for your service.

[krispos42]

122. Yeah, because civilians shouldn't enjoy the benefits of incremental improvements in gun technology!

No ergonomic pistol grips! No weatherproof plastics! No increases in reliability! No increases in accuracy! No places to mount a flashlight! No place to mount a scope! No durable finishes! No quick-adjustable buttstocks!

[Hoyt]

127. I feel your pain. Poor thing. Hugs.

[krispos42]

128. I know, I have such unreasonable expectations.

Hold me, Hoyt.

[upaloopa]

129. 6 yr old citizens should have the right to grow up not be murdered in school. If that means you

don't get your modern technology gun, so be it.

[krispos42]

132. Go shovel your false equivalency someplace else.

Do you have the guts to admit that warrantless wiretapping is a good idea? After all, 6-year-old citizens have the right grow up, not be murdered in school. And if that means you don't get your modern electronic privacy, then so be it.

[DanTex]

157. But privacy is actually important.

The real false equivalency is equating privacy with unfettered access to guns.

[Heidi]

160. With all due respect, you're not the king of DU. The OP is as welcome as you to share his views

here.

[krispos42]

190. And I'm sharing my opinion of where his false-equivalency arguments should be

Someplace else. Back in the Bush/Cheney terror terror terror era, preferably.

[riqster]

144. I wouldn't mind an M1A because it fits me well

But I have to admit, except for range shooting, it's right up there with bullfrog tits for sheer uselessness. I have better uses for $1500.00.

[Kablooie]

146. Cowboys and Indians. It's all pretend horror just like in books and movies.

People enjoy experiencing extremely horrible things as long as it's not real.
That's why stories are popular. People like feeling stress and danger as long as it's not real.
Probably similar to a roller coaster. You may feel scared but know that there is no real danger.

If you've been through war I'm sure the actual horror digs in and you never want to experience anything near to that again.

I'm saying all this from a purely intellectual standpoint, I've never been in the military myself, my draft number was 352 so I was never called.

[judesedit]

148. Very well put

[Buzz Clik]

150. "In war they fucking shoot back!" It is all captured there, isn't it?

[1-Old-Man]

156. And that, in a nutshell, is why the use of drones is murder, not an act of war.

[Buzz Clik]

163. Well, okay. Is that relevant?

[Dash87]

154. The Anerican public thinks of war like a football game.

They've never experienced it first hand. That would explain the gung-ho nature of our society, and the lack of empathy for veterans ("just get over it" - really? What kind of monster has that attitude?)

[sinkingfeeling]

161. I agree 100%. We should be preaching to our children that there is nothing

more evil than weaponry, the instruments of death and destruction. I associate every gun with death and the devil.

[randr]

166. War is the greatest sin mankind commits

Playing war should be seen akin to playing at rape or child abuse.

[lumberjack_jeff]

182. I get the appeal of playing army when you are 11.

I don't get it at 51, when you know what the point of "army" is.

[ip5683]

184. I was trained

with the M1911A, the M-16, also bombs, rockets, mines, torpedoes, depth charges, SUS, smokes, and a lot of other stuff. It was what we used in the service. War is horrible, but lack of self-defense is worse. I don't understand ranting about "scary-looking guns." Weren't you ever a kid? We played war all the time with toy guns, and lacking that, sticks. We threw stuff at each other and sometimes got split lips and lacerations. Not a one of us ever grew-up to be a shooter terrorist or murderer. Condemning people who want to play war is moronic. At my grandson's birthday about 80 people played laser tag which, by your reason, is vicious, mindless, psychotic, and child abuse.

Get a life. Then you won't be as anxious to run the lives of others.

p.s. I did two tours in Vietnam

[upaloopa]

185. We're not talking about kids playing war.

We have adults shooting kids in school and people in movie theaters. If you think we should just accept that as normal I suggest you examine your priorities.
There are other people sharing this world with you and like me have a life and want to live it in peace.
I don't give a shit if you spent 100 years in Vietnam. Most of us learned that war and arming ourselves isn't the way we should have to live our lives.
I'll let the law makers tell you how to run your life when it comes to guns like assault weapons. That's called democracy something we both were fighting for right?

[digonswine]

188. I've not been to war-

A guy I worked with, a Wisconsin hunter and hard worker, said that he wished, just once, that he could be in combat.
Even w/o the experience I know this is an insane thing to say.
I played paintball once. It was sweat and confusion. I can't imagine adding into it a fear of death.

[toby jo]

189. All class upaloopa

There's this training vid on marine special forces - 4 minutes in & even I wanted to go join up. But it's right there in what's not being said: no blood, no body parts, no reality check. I showed it to a friend who was there & he said the same thing - they don't show you what it's like when the buddy you sat next to on a chopper going out is splattered all over the field 30 seconds after landing. He has no use for weapons.

Like candy to a baby, those training vids.