You asked me about John S. Butler
Some of you folks sent me a link to an article written by John S. Butler in The State entitled “I know assault weapons – and you shouldn’t have one“. Butler claimed to be a Vietnam veteran who had experience with “assault weapons”, whatever an assault weapon is these days.
I am calling on veterans who have served in active combat – lived and almost died depending on the assault weapon strapped to your body – to speak out. We are the people who have true insight on this issue. Without wealth and connections to keep a deferment, I was drafted and in active combat for a year in Vietnam from Nov. 1967 to Nov. 1968. During the Tet offensive in Jan. ’68, some of the worst fighting in the war, I was frequently in first-hand combat along the Mekong River and through the rice paddies in the delta radioing coordinates for artillery firepower.
Well, I’m happy to report that Butler is who he says he is. He was in Vietnam from November 1967 – November 1968 and he served with the 3/34 FA which provided indirect fire support to the brown water Riverines in the Mekong Delta region, according to one unit historian.
Now that we’ve established his truthfulness, which I’m embarrassed that we had to do, let’s look at his words;
Assault weapons are just that: for assault. They are not for the general public to play at target practice or use for sport. They are too dangerous. The general public is not trained sufficiently nor mentally strategic enough to understand their raw power. They should be in the hands of only the military and tactical, highly trained law enforcement.
Disagree with me? If you’re a veteran and served in active combat with an assault weapon, I value your opinion – even if it differs from mine. If you’re simply a gun enthusiast who believes it’s your inalienable right to play with assault weapons, I don’t value it because you really don’t understand the consequences – you haven’t witnessed them. If that’s who you are and what you want, join the military and be useful with that.
I believe in the Second Amendment. I own a gun. I have a concealed carry permit just in case I need it – not to carry routinely. What’s the old saying … if you carry around a hammer, you’re always looking for a nail?
The term “assault weapons” is just a word that people use to scare other people with. I own modern sporting rifles that have the accoutrements that have been determined by politicians to be features of “assault weapons”. I also have bolt-action rifles with the same accoutrements, that were assault rifles in their day, but are no longer considered such. I have a rifle which is bolt action that has a muzzle brake and a box magazine which will punch a fist-sized hole in your chest at more than 1500 meters. At ranges under a thousand meters, it will penetrate body armor. I’d consider that to be much more dangerous than anything anyone else would call an “assault rifle”. Needless to say, it’s fun to shoot, too.
In the hammer/nail comment above – I, too, have a concealed weapon permit, I use it everyday where it’s legal. I’ve never found a nail upon which to use my hammer, though.
I am an infantry combat veteran with two decades of carrying an M16 nearly every day, but I don’t think that my opinion on the issue of the Second Amendment has any more weight than anyone else. We’re all American citizens. People who have no experience with firearms have no place in the discussion, and they prove their unworthiness in that regard everyday in the media, but there are people with much more experience than me who never served a day in the military – their opinion is valid, too.
While I agree that untrained people probably shouldn’t own modern sporting rifles, untrained drivers shouldn’t drive high-performance automobiles on the Autobahn, either, but it happens every day. Who am I to force my common sense on the inexperienced?
By the way, my M16 had a “full auto” feature, and that made it an “assault rifle”. The weapons that Mr Butler is talking about don’t have the “full auto” select, so they’re not really the same weapon he carried in Vietnam, or the one that I carried for two decades. They only look alike.
Category: Guns
I am a veteran who has served in active combat. I will speak out:
MOLON LABE!!!
That concludes my speaking out.
Molon Labe indeed
Well, I do have both hammers and nails. The nails are brass nails and vinyl-coated nails, a couple of boxes of them, which I can use for various purposes.
I also have two hammers. One has a chromed steel post with a cushioned handle. The other is covered with flowers on a blue background. I also have a rubber mallet and some pumpkin carving tools.
I also have screwdrivers galore and a left-handed monkeywrench, plus a couple of cordless power drills that I enjoy using on various things.
None of this means that I go around looking for things to pound with a hammer or a rubber mallet, or spend my time doing unnecessary and unwanted carving on vegetables.
If this individual’s presentation needs an evaluation, I’d say he’s just an attention whore looking for office. And he can go pound sand up his backside, and his opinion with it.
Oh. Was I too – well, aggressive about what I said?
“None of this means that I go around looking for things to pound with a hammer or a rubber mallet, or spend my time doing unnecessary and unwanted carving on vegetables.”
Wait, so you’re not Gallagher?
Ex…..just to be on the safe side, remind me to bring and wear a poncho if we ever meet.
No, not yet.
Add a little more sledgehammer to your recipes.
Meathammer with the pointy things on one side!
She said Meathammer. heh heh mheh heh….
/Beavis and Butthead
No matter his back ground…..he is NOT one of us.
I don’t give a shyt whether he was in Vietnam or not…who in hell wasn’t? That doesn’t excuse the son of a bitch from being as full of shyt as a thanksgiving turkey!!!!
Why don’t we see people like this making the simple assertion that criminals need to be held accountable for their actions including the illegal possession and use of the weapons they employ?
Why do they ignore the 2d amendment and the fact that the vast majority of citizens that own weapons do not commit crimes with them?
Well…what MSM outlet would give them voice anyway?
I think the Red-Leg needs to stick to weapon systems he understands.
Big gun go boom….
The term, “assault weapon” is a creation of the MSM. It derives from, “assault rifle”, which is the English translation of the German word, “sturmgewehr”. Until the Germans created the “Sturmgeweher (StG) 44”, assault rifles did not exist.
The AR-15 may look like an assault rifle (M16), but it has more in common with the M1 Garand than it has with the M16.
FWIW, I carried an M16A1 throughout 21 1/2 years in the CA-ARNG. My AD duty weapon was the M1911A1.
I would suggest it is more like the M1 Carbine than the Garand. But otherwise true.
“I may not have gotten a college degree because I was fighting a war, but I’m smart enough to figure that out.” I guess this Veteran never heard of the GI Bill. And I take great exception to the notion that only those who have seen the destructive power of certain weapons are qualified to have a valid opinion of whether they ought to be permitted to be possessed by civilians. First, his is a one-way street. If your opinion gibes with his and you oppose private possession of certain firearms, do you think he will dismiss your opinion as invalid? If so, Bridge. Brooklyn. Yada-yada-yada. Second, the position he takes that one can know something or opine about something validly absent first-hand experience with it is ludicrous. If that were true, relatively few opinions about anything would be valid. Think about it. For some reason, personal firearms are different from everything else under the sun. Got an opinion about tactical nukes? Invalid. How about professional sports? Invalid. Well, they are invalid unless you have first-hand experience with tactical nukes or you are a current or former member of the NFL, NBA, or MLB. Use your own examples of anything applying his prerequisite and you will see how illogical that approach is.
All of that said, he is attempting to sway opinion. He is welcome to do so. But the notion that he has special qualifications to opine about the 2nd Amendment and reasonable restrictions on the right provided by it is mistaken.
“Second, the position he takes that one cannot know something or opine about something validly absent first-hand experience with it is ludicrous.”
Can to cannot
Dear Mr. Butler, as one veteran to another: Thank you for your service. Now go f*ck yourself.
AMEN!
You forgot…
With a ripe pineapple, fronds first…
“if you carry around a hammer, you’re always looking for a nail?”
Funny, never had that inclination either, Jonn. It’s for personal protection. I sure as hell don’t go out looking for trouble or to play “Shoot-em-up”.
Dude is an assclown.
This bozo reminds me of that Major General in the Hillary Clinton promoting add telling us how much of a military/patriot guy he is and how dangerous Trump would be as President.
Bootlicker.
Benghazi, CLOWN!
For the record, the term ‘assault’ is abused far too widely now.
Tomatoes can be and have been used as assault weapons. I believe they used to be thrown at people who were being punished in the public stocks.
#Bantheword-ASSAULT!!!
Hmm. After taking a look at his record of assignments, Jonn, I’m not sure we’ve established this guy’s “truthfulness” at all.
He claims to have been “frequently in first-hand combat along the Mekong River and through the rice paddies in the delta radioing coordinates for artillery firepower.” However, according to his record of assignments, his duty position in Vietnam was as a “FA Oper & Intell Asst”. Not positive since I wasn’t in Vietnam – but that duty description doesn’t exactly sound like being assigned duties as a Forward Observer (FO) to me. Rather, it sounds like someone who worked at the Bn HQ in the Bn S2/3 section. If he’d been a FO detailed to support a maneuver unit as he claims in his article, I’m thinking his duty position would say exactly that – e.g., “Forward Observer”. But I could be wrong about that.
.
If correct, that means in current parlance he’d would have been a Vietnam “TOC Roach”. And if that’s correct, I’m thinking his experience in “carrying an assault weapon daily” would consist primarily – if not solely – of carrying his M16 to and from his hooch to the Bn TOC, latrine, and mess hall vice through the jungles of Vietnam during ground combat
I’d be VERY interested in hearing what a few Vietnam FA vets have to say about this – preferably those who were in his unit.
I am thinking “Field Artillery” vice “Forward Observer”, which would make him an enlisted assistant to the S-2, no? No idea how flexible that could be, especially in a combat zone, but apparently he did not indulge in any heroics given a GCM is his highest decoration – again, some units just didn’t do much in the way of awards. Not my place to criticize what he did or didn’t do, but in general he sounds like a lot of folks I knew in the ’70s – most of those who had been there and done that were willing to make reasonable conversation about the war, but generally the ones who just clammed up and “I don’t want to talk about it” were folks who had never left Saigon. Too, most the folks I knew were SF reservists or Marines in the KC area, and maybe they were just more extroverted. YMMV
Actually, I agree with you, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt since I wasn’t there and didn’t see what he did (or didn’t do) in Vietnam. Mostly, I was just pleased that I found a real Vietnam veteran in the media for a change, instead of a Ward Reilly.
I THINK FO’s were officers, usually LTs. Maybe some were NCO’s but doubt a Speedy 5. I could be wrong but I was at BDE/BN level in VN. Arty guys (except for FO’s) didn’t go humping the bush. They did live in shitty conditions on Fire Bases and they sometimes got into fire fights during attacks on the FB.
Although FO can be an officer position for LT’s, I am unaware of any in the field with a rifle company. I accompanied one once but he was also flying the O-1 birddog we in (he was an aerial FO). I never heard of and FO being a spec 5. In my army spec 5’s were truly specialists, like parachute riggers. Every FO I had in the field was an E-4 corporal or and E-5 buck sgt.
Thanks for the correction. I would have sworn that LTs were FO’s and they had a short life expectancy in VN. I obviously remember wrong. That ain’t the only thing I can’t remember well anymore.
Wiki has a good write up on this and Rgr769 is 100% correct. Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_observers_in_the_U.S._military. ANother good story here: http://1-22infantry.org/history/eckl.htm
I learned something today.
Great article by an FO with Co.C/1st Bn/22nd Inf. It accurately describes what an FO in the field did. During my time most arty batteries were understrength on officers, so even if the TOE called for officers for FO’s, there were none. Footnote: When the 4th ID stood down in Dec. 1970, the 1/22nd was detached and sent to secure an airbase and the rest of the division deactivated and men were reassigned to other units. I went to the Americal Division.
sj, here’s hoping you’re on the site as I want to Thank You for linking up that 1/22 Infantry site.
It was indeed a pleasure to find pictures of my brother during the first part of his tour in the *photos* section.
If some of our younger members of TAH and those of the sister services want to see what we older fellers are talking about when we say “rifle infantry”, all they have to do is go looking into the Vietnam pictures posted there to see the men who have real legitimate CIBs/CMBs.
Again, Thanks. “Regulars, By God.”
Claw…I had no idea that your Bro was in that link. I was just trying to educate myself. It was clear that rgr769 knew his stuff and my feeble mind had it all wrong about FO’s. I stumbled across that link and was impressed. But, glad to be of service, even if by accident.
Hugs to your bride and Scooby.
Yep, my older brother was a 91A/B medic assigned to C,1/22 from August 71 to January 72 before finishing out his tour with a Field Artillery outfit of the 1st CAV.
We spent our tours at the same time over there. I was up north and they kept him down south (that lucky bastard/ha-ha).
Hugs right back at ya.
Since today seems to be a slow post day, I thought if any of you were interested in what my older brother looked like, I could walk you through the identification process.
Link onto that 1/22 Infantry site.
Scroll to bottom to Photos.
Scroll down to the 1st Battalion Yearbook 1971 page.
Go to page 7 – Charlie Company.
Go down through the pictures. When you come to the picture of a soldier lying back against his ruck with the caption “Wake me when its over”, that him.
A little further down is a picture of five guys sitting on a double bunk captioned “Hurry up, man, the beers getting hot.”, he’s the man sitting in the back row (middle, only man with glasses) of the bottom bunk.
Yep, that’s my brother Danny at age 27.
Good old country doctor field medic from the sticks of rural Indiana.
Thank you for your interest.
We had LTs as FOs in my Infantry Battalion. They stayed close to the company CO all the time. We also had an arty CPT who stayed close to the BN CO or the BN S3, normally in a helo overseeing the operation.
Could you be confusing the terms FO (Forward Observer) with FSO (Fire Support Officer?) I believe FSOs were artillery officers who were assigned to infantry units to help coordinate indirect fire.
My last DMOS was 13F (Forward Observer) although we deployed before I could complete my MOS certification.
I served in three infantry rifle companies from 7/70 to 10/71, deployed in the field in two different infantry divisions. As I was a company commander I usually had an artillery FO team with my company command team (me, 2 RTO’s and company medic). Although I frequently adjusted my own pre-selected and fired defensive arty targets, I am no redleg. But the FO’s I had were E-4 corporals or E-5 sgts, and they were usually accompanied by an arty RTO (MOS 05C). My recollection is they were assigned to and sent from the supporting artillery battery on our Bn fire base, not the artillery bn headquarters and support battery (company in redleg parlance). Anyway, the fact that his Form 20 says his primary duty assignment was as a field artillery “operations and intell asst” shows he was far away from any “first hand combat.” Moreover, even IF he was an FO’s RTO, he would have been back with the line company CO squeezing a push-to-talk switch on a radio handset, not the trigger of an “assault rifle.” Also, if he was a TOC “roach,” his TOC would likely have been at the 9th Division ARTY base camp, not on some remote fire support base in the Mekong.
He may have worked in the Fire Direction Center which is co-located with the battery HQ inside a defense perimeter protected by an infantry battalion.
Following his “logic,” should only people in the military have access to automobiles? After all, when used to assault people, they become so called assault weapons. And, they actually do kill people every day in every community in the country at a much greater rate than do those pesky “assault weapons,” whatever they are.
How many folks here have driven your car on a public road as fast as the highest indicator on your speedometer? One? None? That your car is capable of 120 mph, 140 mph, or higher does not mean that you will drive it that fast. It means only that it is capable of traveling that fast. A criminal fleeing police who are in hot pursuit of him may push his vehicle to its top speed, endangering lives and property.
Firearms are made to put holes in things. Some firearms are capable of putting bigger holes in things than other firearms are. Some firearms are capable of putting more holes in things in less time than other firearms can. And some firearms, obtained illegally or from the FBI by a criminal, may be used to kill people. So, we ought to ban them. Huh?
That is the opinion of some folks, for sure. Makes just as much sense as making all private ownership of automobiles illegal because idiots continue to drive drunk and kill people when they do.
Well, on the PA Turnpike I will get up to 100plus because everyone else is going that speed. So, I’ve gotten up there, but I’m going with the flow of traffic. 😛
It never ceases to amaze me that so many Americans like this guy never seem to grasp that the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting but about maintaining an armed citizenry to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government.
Either he’s naive or he’s a Democrat because you can damned well bet they know the true purpose of that amendment which is why they try so hard to overcome it. The leftists who have seized control of the Democrat party want a citizenry that, if not completely disarmed, then is at least badly outgunned by a strong central government.
This clown misses that point entirely.
Or, he’s a Democrat…
The 2nd amendment is as much about hunting as the 1st is about playing Scrabble.
Butler who?
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
John S. Butler claims to support the second amendment, but misses the point behind it. Defending ourselves is a law of nature, its a right that no government could take away from us, or infringe upon. The exceptions are few. The laws of nature allow us to decide, to what extent, we’re going to defend ourselves.
However, to effectively defend ourselves, we have to have the right to effectively deal with the threat. We won’t be able to do that by responding to a gun threat with a knife, or to a rifle threat with a handgun. We can, hoping that the chances of us overcoming the threat posed by more dangerous weapons could come to play. But, that’s a gambit that not many would be able to, or want to, take.
The need for a militia ties in to our right to defend ourselves. Defending in groups, or single handedly, exists out in nature, and is a natural right. However, in order to do that effectively, we have to come close as we can to fight fire with fire, or fight with overwhelming fire that defeats the threat.
Civilians have as much right to those “scary weapons” as those who are veterans. John S. Butler is wrong with his insinuations that we’d [veterans/war veterans] agree with him, and he’s wrong with his insinuations that certain groups of people should have access to certain types of weapons. Our natural rights transcends our backgrounds.
I say this as an Iraq Veteran, Somalia Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Veteran, bar hopping veteran, pre internet library patron veteran, rotary phone user veteran, Atari gamer veteran, etc.
” I have a concealed carry permit just in case I need it – not to carry routinely.”
Would he be so insightful that he would know before leaving home in the morning whether he would need to carry his weapon? I have a Conceal Carry Permit, just in case I need it, so I carry routinely. I wish that I could know at the start of the day if I would need my weapon.
“Assault weapons are just that: for assault. They are not for the general public to play at target practice or use for sport.”
I don’t “play at target practice”. I am dead serious about it, and use target practice to maintain proficiency. That is how we are good at things, stay, well, uh, “good at things”.
I have no interest in conversing with him. He sounds like a politician, and one with a “D” in front of his name.
Looks to me like if you can tell early in the day that you will need it later that it would be easier to just avoid going where you’d planned to go where you expected to need the %&#$ thing.
Avoiding situations where the need to defend oneself is likely is how most of us have never had to use deadly force. That alone is no guarantee that a defensive posture will not be needed some day in the future.
What exactly is “first-hand combat?” Is that combat that you actually saw, as opposed to combat you heard about? Is it combat you participated in? Is it like “hand-to-hand combat,” except that you threw the first punch? Never mind the definition of “assault weapons,” I want to know what “first-hand combat” is.
OT, my assessment is that it’s a term he coined to imply (without stating outright) that he’d personally participated in direct-fire ground combat. He wants people to think that he’s experienced combat “infantry-style”, spending his time in Vietnam humping a rifle through the jungles and rice paddies of the Mekong Delta.
Based on his duty assignment in Vietnam, I’m guessing the only “humping” he did was if/when his unit moved from one firebase to another – plus to/from the TOC, chow hall, and latrine to his hooch. I’m also guessing that the only time he used his rifle was if/when his firebase got hit (and maybe not even then). But I can’t be sure about either.
I believe your assessment is correct. If he was an arty bn S-2/S-3 enlisted assistant, as his official personnel record says, he would have been in the TOC helping his staff officers figure out how not to get over-run like Firebase MaryAnn was when I was in the 196th LIB.
Perhaps he pulled the stringy thing once and made the big gun go boom.
I don’t care if he is a Vet or not – he has no right to tell me or others what we need or don’t need.
So he carried an assault rifle and never ever fired it at the enemy. No CIB, I guess my 6 years of carrying one around and never firing it at an enemy makes my opinion matter also. Fuck him.
Not denying his 2 years of service, but after spending 30 years wearing more than one uniform, I get really pissed when people like this start spouting off about all their insight. While you may have seen some things, I don’t think you hold a candle to some of the guys and gals that I served with that were in for the long haul, not just a 2 year wonder. I worked along side people that did multiple tours in Vietnam as well as many other places, and honestly, I haven’t heard ONE of them spout crap like these morons do. BTW, I have an old WWII surplus bolt action rifle that is capable of doing far more damage than your imaginary “assault” rifle can – and I have one of those too since it’s an absolute kick to to target shooting with!
After 22 years, I’m on my 6th uniform but just in the Army.
The explicitly-stated purpose of the Second Amendment is for the Militia of the United States (which is sometimes referred to as the “Unorganized Militia” and is very clearly defined under Federal law and is NOT the National Guard) to be equipped for “common defense” against foreign aggression and domestic tyranny. It therefore follows that every member of the Militia of the United States, i.e. every able-bodied male (and females too, in the interest of fairness) citizen without a criminal record who is capable of bearing arms, should have the ability to acquire and maintain at least the basic firepower of a light infantryman. It does not mean the National Guard hands out M16s in an emergency (what could possibly go wrong there? /sarc). It means that we have our own weapons and ammo (though we would appreciate the Army resupplying the latter should the need arise), and we are proficient in the use thereof. You see, the contextual meaning of “well-regulated” is “well-equipped and proficient.” Yes, we should have our AR-15s. No, they are not the M16s this guy saw in Vietnam. They are related, but not the same, and no amount of hand-wringing or hysterics will change that. We do, in fact, NEED them. Why? See the paragraph above. No, we need not and will not adopt the Swiss model, so don’t try bringing that up. In accordance with the American Way, every American is guaranteed the right to own and use as many or as few weapons as we like. I personally lean towards “as many.” Other’s don’t, and that’s fine. I am a member of the Militia of the United States, just like everyone else, even if some don’t realize it. I am also Oathsworn to defend the Constitution. I am not “paranoid prepper” or “right-wing fanatic,” nor am I a racist or anti-government nutjob. I am also not one of those internet tough guys who thinks his $17,000 worth of tacticool somehow makes him an “operator.” I collect guns because I enjoy hunting and recreational shooting, and because I choose to exercise my right to protect… Read more »
U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are– (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 The National Guard is one class of militia. The unorganized militia of the United States consists of able bodied males from 17 to 44. There are exceptions to this, to include active duty members of the military. There’s an understanding that the reserve components of the military would be activated and incorporated into the regular military by the time the militia must be stood up. The Constitution identifies a military population group and a militia population group. Each state and territory has their state/territorial equivalent to this law, and sometimes have different categories of people. For example, the Virginia militia law lists both men and women, 16/17 to 56, as members of the unorganized state militia. States with a state defense force would augment these state militias should they activate additional citizens into militia duty. Federal law prohibits members of the ready reserve from participating in these militias, so military reservists are generally exempt from state level militia liability. There are additional exemptions from this service, like being an elected member of government, being an officer of the court, etc. From a general standpoint, these would be ran at the state level, and militias from different states could be joined if necessary to serve as a federal militia should the federal government need to stand additional militia units up. Chances are that if you’re called forward to perform active… Read more »
What the hell is first hand combat?
Hmmm…maybe it’s combat that requires only one hand, as opposed to “hand-to-hand” combat which requires at least two.
See my comment above. I personally think it’s a term he invented to imply, without directly saying it, that he’d personally participated in direct-fire ground combat as a Forward Observer.
I also don’t believe he actually did that, except on those rare occasions when his fire base might have been attacked. Given his duty assignment (FA Oper & Intell Asst), I’d guess most of his tour was spent on-base at a firebase working in the Bn TOC.
Thanks, I reread the earlier comments. My bad.
Or it may be pluperfect singular…
I used to read a defense contractor magazine that had a monthly column called “First Person Singular”. The contributions were from active duty and retired pilots that recounted some pretty hairy stuff. This tool is playing games with his words which tells me he is probably doing the same with his record.
“First Hand Combat”, to me would be that combat which the infantryman sees, looking down the sights at a direct fire target, as opposed to someone on the other side of the hill, lobbing 105,155, etc over the hill at the enemy. Among those in “First Hand Combat, besides the rifleman, would be the Combat medic, the Combat controller, the FO, etc. I didn’t see any of that in the descriptions of this guy.
My guess is that’s exactly what he wants everyone to belive, FC – and why he phrased it that way.
I also don’t believe that impression is accurate about most if not all of his time in Vietnam.
I’m not knowledgeable about the Army at all, but as someone else pointed out if he had all that “combat” experience that he’s bragging on and that makes his opinion so much more valuable than mine, where’s his CIB?
And another thing, I bet I’ve seen as much shit as he’s claiming in 22 years of police work in one of the most dangerous cities in America.
So, do I get a gold star now too?
Non-infantry MOS and unit, therefore by regulation not eligible for award of CIB – regardless of whether or not he ever saw actual ground combat.
If you want to get sticky about it; and I DO, I carried the same weapon as this mook. It was a M-16A1. That is not really the same weapon as the ones they have now. There have been some vast improvements over the years.
Yes; it basically has the same features, and action, and I would be able to use one, and take one apart and put it back together. But the alloys, and calibers, and sighting systems, and attachment systems—fuck; the built in RADIOS they have now—are not the same as the M-16A1.
Like I said; I was gonna be sticky about it, and nit pick, and split hairs, just to be a pain in the ass.
So, there.
A good reminder that simply having served, whether in peace or in war, is no carte-blanche.
A domestic enemy of the constitution is a domestic enemy of the constitution and gun grabbers are, one and all, without exception.
No excuses. No rationalizations. No justifications.
Enemy is enemy.
IMHO this is just another asshole sticking his foot in political waters to decide if his bullshit would represent that of enough voters to run for office. Seen it before, will likely see it again. Those who seek political office as newcomers normally follow this route before investing a bunch of money and time. If you look close, they have it written all over their face. Letters to the Editor where he lives will reflect his chances. Look for him to become more and more outspoken shortly with the backing of other politicians if they think he’s one of them. If no public support, he won’t waste the time running. Shallow people have a shallow puddle of thoughts……ready for the gullible to step into.
John S. Buttfuckler.
Nice ring to it.
I was thinking “Bootlicker” or “Buttkisser”, GT. Because that’s precisely what he did to the gun-control advocates when he wrote the ignorant article Jonn quoted above.
Very well stated/written article, Jonn. (Yeah, ok..my old eyes finally focused enough to see there is no H.)
I think this guy still has a hard-on about hitting the lottery in 1967, and that fuels much of his malcontent.
Just because the modern day AR-15 bears some resemblance to the M-16, it is far from an ‘assault weapon’. Selecting “Rock `n Roll” on the M-16 was a different story.
Probably safe to say that a high-end modern AR-15 has about the same relationship to a Vietnam M16 as a Model 98 Mauser
has to a modern benchrest rifle.
It sure is nice to come to this website and learn a ton of stuff every day.
Most of it is in the comments but Jonn and the rest of the crew only post accurate facts. That, in this day and age is something rare and is a great attribute to the overall tone of discourse these days.
This is how liberals make arguments. They lie. The trick is spotting the lie. In this case the lie is that of the assault weapon. The M16 he claims to have seen the gruesome results of was not an assault weapon. It is an assault rifle. US citizens are already restricted from owning fully automatic rifles due to several laws. So he is claiming to be against something that is already prohibited. What a false argument this is. Next he will be wanting to ban hand grenades and RPGs.