“I can think of a lot of good ways to celebrate liberty. Intimidating my neighbors with my guns isn’t one of them. A march of people brandishing weapons looks more like something that would happen in the Third World than in the world’s leading democracy.” – Novelist, journalist, Iraq and Afghanistan veteran, retired Air National Guard senior master sergeant Tom Young, Gun Extremists: Why Are You ‘Defending Liberty’ in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield? [via huffingtonpost.com]
I totally agree with this statement…open carry is ridiculous in my opinion.
Why is a Constitutional Right “ridiculous”? Please be specific.
Freedom is ridiculous. Get with the program! 😉 We can all talk about being free but actually being free is frowned upon.
i don’t remember reading anywhere in the constitution about the right to walk around with an ar15 strapped to your shoulder and acting like a fool in the middle of starbucks being protected
And you have documentaion of these events?
@dakiwi13:
A free man does have a right to be armed. He can act a fool and walk around all he wants if he doesn’t commit a crime while doing it.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In addition, the right to self defense is a natural right. If you don’t like the 2A then work to amend the Constitution. However, you will be unable to dispose of the natural right to defend oneself.
“keep and **bear** arms”
Well, maybe you can show us a law against it?
Because, remember, I don’t need something to tell me I can walk down the street, I don’t need something to tell me I can breathe oxygen, and I don’t need something to tell me I can act like a fool. I don’t need the constitution to tell me what I can do. If you want to tell me I can’t do something, then tell me what law prohibits it. In some places, open carry is illegal, and in some, open carry is legal – that’s the way it is, nothing you can do about it, whether you agree or not.
You seem to forget that there were no AR15’s or Starbucks back in the day that the constitution was created. Technology changes, our right to keep and bear arms doesn’t. Yes it irks the crap out of me that idiots run around with guns in their hands supposedly to promote open carry, they do more harm than good actually, but that doesn’t remove their right to carry. It merely shows their stupidity.
If openly carrying a rifle is no longer protected by the 2nd amendment then there is no longer a 2nd amendment. If there is no longer a 2nd amendment then there is no due process and summary executions can be done to any who Obama.
He’s not saying the right is ridiculous, he’s saying behavior is ridiculous. Just because something’s constitutionally protected doesn’t make it the smart or right thing to do. The inability of so many commenters here to make that simple distinction leads me to believe they are the constitutional scholars they claim to be.
Thank you. I caught hell I and I think my comment was deleted because I said OCers were douche bags.
I stand by my statement, OCers are douche bags. OCers are little boys with a bright red Corvette screaming LOOK AT ME!
The average dick wad going to McDs or the store to buy a gallon of milk does NOT need to have his Glock strapped to his hip like he’s Wyatt Earp. Put the damn thing in your pants and cover it with a shirt. Stealth and surprise are a person best defense and tactical offense.
@Mark Lloyd:
Name calling… check.
Claim of post being deleted… check.
Ridiculous emasculating reference… check.
Calling gun owners immature… check.
Claiming that gun owners seek attention… check.
Exercise of a right requires a need.. check.
Vivid emotional exaggeration… check.
Reference to the “Wild West”… check.
Penis reference… possibly.
Thank you. I caught hell I and I think my comment was deleted because I said
OCersgun fetishists were douche bags.I stand by my statement,
OCersgun fetishists are douche bags.OCersgun fetishists are little boys with a bright red Corvette screaming LOOK AT ME!The average dick wad going to McDs or the store to buy a gallon of milk does NOT need to have his Glock strapped to his hip like he’s Wyatt Earp. Put the damn
thingdeadly penis extension in your pants and cover it with a shirt.Stealth and surprisehiding and timidity are a person best defense and tactical offense.FIFY. Are your sure you’re in the right place?
I agree also. You are only turning folks against our cause by carrying a scary looking weapon down the street. Sure it’s legal, and Sure it’s our right, but why intimidate the masses? Just because it’s our right to carry an AK47 down Main street USA, with a bandolier of magazines, doesn’t mean it IS right. I’m not saying it’s wrong, just that it’s not a good way to get the fence sitters on our side.
If you want to get the message across, carry a big sign! If you want to carry a gun for self protection as I do, then get a concealed weapon permit, and carry it concealed! I can’t see that OC is going to accomplish anything but to get more stores to change their acceptance of concealed carry, to no carry at all!
Are you sure that target would allow people with signs in their store?
Sign:
I’m carrying this sign to inform everyone of their individual right to bear arms although I am not bearing arms but this sign instead. Still… really… no really… we can all bear arms because we are free. Except when we’re exercising our freedom of speech and then we carry signs because guns are bad. No wait, they aren’t bad but I’m carrying this sign because I want you to know that you can carry your gun.
In Ohio, if we were to carry just signs stating that we can all bear arms, I guarantee you that many would ask themselves, “Why are they carrying signs saying that if they could really do it?” Nothing says we have a right to bear arms like, well, bearing arms!
Most things have limits, It may be your right to drink alcohol, but that doesn’t mean you can drive a motor vehicle at the same time, You can’t shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater, although you have the right of free speech! “Infringed” does not mean there cannot be some restrictions on the carrying of firearms.
If you had an appointment with the president of the United States, do you think they would let you into his office with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder?
As I said in my post, it may be your right to carry an AK with a bandolier of ammo down Main street, but that doesn’t mean it IS right.
Why turn the fence sitters against us? I’m not saying you SHOULD carry a sign, just an alternative. Myself, I wouldn’t want to. Instead I carry a loaded firearm, CONCEALED!
Christopher Spencer carried his prototype rifle straight to Abe Lincoln at the White House and demonstrated it. The President was impressed and fired the gun himself. The Spencer was later ordered in large numbers and became one of the main cavalry arms of the Civil War. How quickly we forget history.
Gunr, you’re confusing limits with consequences. Just like the antis confuse regulation with infringement. Your rights allow you to do anything you desire in your own pursuit of happiness, but the consequences of your actions could put you away for a long time.
Your rights exist only as long as you have the power to enforce that. The second the other side has more gold, guns, WILL, than you do, you are BLEEPED. This is all 99.9% will and .1% action on the physical level.
Read Sun T’zu
Oh, you’re starting out with the “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” canard? Yes, you can and should yell it in a crowded theater if there is a fire. Besides that obvious point, are you familiar with where that anti-liberty meme comes from? Are you familiar with the case? If you want, I will provide you with a link or two, that after reading, you wouldn’t be wise to continue to use that to bolster your point. Just let me know. Now, on to the meat…
Driving a motor vehicle is considered a privilege these days. So, that’s a bogus comparison. Being under the influence and operating an automobile is under that privilege umbrella as well as the fact that a crime may or may not be committed. Someone with a firearm hasn’t committed a crime until they do. So, that other point you were making is gone. The right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state. Is shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (again, you wouldn’t use that if you knew the facts behind the argument) necessary to the security of a free state? Is drinking alcohol necessary to the security of a free state? Is driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated necessary to the security of a free state?
If you had an appointment with the president of the United States, do you think they would let you into his office with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder?
I wouldn’t expect a communist tyrant to allow me anywhere near him or her while I was armed. You kinda make my point with your question. 😉
Why turn the fence sitters against us?
You are assuming that I agree with the “fence sitter” theory. Frankly, I don’t believe there are enough fence sitters to make enough of a difference anymore. We have statists (left and right). We have Liberty minded people (left and right). We have lazy folk (willfully ignorant) who aren’t going to be worthwhile in a fight for Liberty. And, we may have a small group of fence sitters. I firmly believe that the hour is too late to worry much about that small group. My primary purposes for carrying long guns openly are: 1) Inform those who don’t already know that they can 2) Remind politicians that we are a free people. I personally do not do the whole retailer and restaurant long gun OC thing except when we are eating after/during a rally or I find myself stuck without adequate storage solutions in the moment (rare).
Myself, I wouldn’t want to. Instead I carry a loaded firearm, CONCEALED!
In my state, carrying concealed is a privilege. The only way to exercise the right to bear arms here is to do so openly. Have you read in comments how our concealing of firearms for decades actually caused more gun control law in Ohio? If not, the short version is that we carried concealed for years and many Ohioans lost sight of the fact that so many of us were armed. Instead of fixing a minor issue in law, we ended up with concealed carry licensing laws around 2005. Prior to that time, myself and many others exercised our right to bear arms by concealing our sidearms without license. Now, we must seek permission. By hiding our firearms, we lost some ground here.
Bill,
Maybe that is what I am trying to say? I feel that an over display of firearms in a public area, may be OK with the law, however it is not going to help our cause, only hinder it, especially when the bearers are dressed like some “punk rock” individuals. I was going to say punk rock artists, but I can’t see any artistic values on the way they present themselves.
Gunr, I will agree with you that some things can hurt in the court of public opinion. However, how much it matters in the scheme of Liberty today is debatable. I think that bashing our own and rushing to hide our firearms is more damaging to the cause of Liberty than a few people with good intentions but perhaps poor form.
John in Ohio you would not be able to walk into Ronald Reagan’s or Richard Nixon’s office with an AR slung over your shoulder. Both Republican and both anti gun.
The last REAL Amreican President we had or ever will have, was John F. Kennedy.
He was all too human and his faults many, but at least he tried.
He put himself in harm’s way several times: he could have gotten blasted by the Japanese, or turned into a shark chew toy, but he sailed on. He was cuit down by “them” in Dallas that long ago, sad day. May they pay the price in full measure for that soon.
@Adam Reizner: I am not a Republican so what is your point?
John in Ohio
Regarding your 14:07 post, your last sentence “poor form” That’s one of the things I’m talking about!
@Gunr: I don’t believe that we ever really disagreed on the “poor form” aspect. Where our POVs are at odds, IMHO, is if their occasional poor form is as detrimental to the overall cause of Liberty as opposed to the in-fighting and the push to hide our firearms. I assert that the true fence sitters are not key to regaining the many freedoms already under the thumb of government. If this relatively small group can really be swayed by simple things then they would be useless for the purposes at hand. The hour is too late for that. It is the name calling and hand wringing of the Liberty minded folks that is the real problem. People are people and they are going to act badly at times. That is the nitty-gritty of freedom.
Lol!
It’s not scary when the cops or military pack them around on the street, but it is when the so-called citizens who pay their salaries do?
Interesting viewpoint, straight out of post revolution Russia.
If you look at history, under the Tsar, most everyone was armed, it was only under the Bolos that changed much for the worse.
Would you agree that it is very unusual for cops to go around their daily patrols with ARs hanging from their shoulders? handguns, for the purposes of OC, are significantly less threatening than EBRs (except in California, where Airsoft are threatening and might get you killed).
Why would his neighbors be intimidated by his guns is my question.
Perhaps they know something about him that we don’t.
How did he go from open carry to brandishing? The two are very different.
Because the open carry groups (especially here in North Texas) do both. Fingers on trigger, rifles carried at the low ready with hand on trigger guard. List goes on. Confrontational, loud, rude, in your face. I observed 2 events by the Fort Worth group. Jerks.
This is my biggest problem with the long gun OC crowd.
Open carrying a handgun usually means never actually handling the gun – it stays secured in a proper holster on one’s hip. Many people don’t notice, and many that do notice don’t care. There’s generally no reason to ever touch the gun with one’s hand.
Open carrying a long gun, at best, means the gun is completely exposed, completely obvious, and slung around one’s back. But there are far too many folks who carry it on their side (meaning that it is kept in place by an arm and/or hand), or hanging on their front. Some, as you mentioned, have their finger very close to the trigger (those in or near a low-ready position).
I fully support open carry of handguns and do so myself. It’s basically the same as concealed carry without the “concealed” bit. In both cases you should be situationally aware, you should have a proper holster for your gun, etc.0
While I support the legal right to open carry a long gun, I think that in most cases it is not a good idea. As a political tactic for a push to legalize handgun OC, it is creating a lot of collateral damage (anti-gun statements from corporations and bad publicity).
I recall seeing a real nice video a few years ago: Israeli mom shopping in the local supermarket buying groceries. Her toddler son was in the shopping cart seat. She had a UZI SMG with the stock folded slung over her shoulder, she explianed in the interview how the gun made her feel so much safer at being able to protect herslf and her child as well as others if need be.
JK
Does that Israeli mom with the Uzi slung over her shoulder think that whoever might attack her is going to give her a 50 foot, or 5 second warning. It is a ridiculous statement for her to feel safe, just because she has her weapon over her shoulder.
I’d trust her a LONG time before I would you. She was smart, positive, and on point.
You aren’t.
She could likely take both of us off at the knees if we tried to attack her.
I wouldn’t mess with her.
To many Americans, they are the same thing. People don’t know the difference. And it’s not the law that they need to know. And to be honest, I personally don’t care what the difference is if some guy walks into a restaurant strapped and carrying 5 extra mags and sits down next to me to order a salad.
To me, a huge enemy of gun rights and gun rights “diplomacy” are these f##kheads who go around shooting folks in a mall. I don’t think I even need to explain why.
“A march of people brandishing weapons looks more like something that would happen in the Third World than in the world’s leading democracy.”
You would think a self described vet who has traveled the world would be smart enough to know the difference between a “Democracy” and a “Constitutional Republic”…. Though the lines have been intentionally blurred lately by the current occupiers of D.C., the U.S. is NOT a democracy!
Liberty, if not defended everywhere all the time will surely be usurped by those who desire nothing more than to rule.
AR-15’s in a coffee shop, while not my idea of sensible, practical, or expedient mean of defense, if it were not illegal to OC a handgun where these displays are taking place this would not be happening so frequently.
+1
-20
+22
– 50, your move.
(+67)!
+127.
Your move
Lamp!
Our constitutional republic is a form of democracy. Lighten up, Francis.
Yea except it is not. Straight democracy is tyranny by the majority. We are a constitutional republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy
In a constitutional republic there are rights that the majority cannot throw out.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
They must govern to existing constitution – key point here.
That’s why I said “form of democracy”. We aren’t a direct democracy, we’re a democratic republic or, if you prefer, a constitutional republic formed as a representative democracy. It’s perfectly correct to call the US a democracy.
Let’s call it what it is: a representative republic. Clearly the Constitution is ignored by said representatives (all braches included here) when it serves their means.
Calling the US a ‘democracy’ blurs the facts in too many minds. The distinctions between different forms of ‘democracy’ aren’t taught in schools these days, so when the US is constantly spoken of as a democracy it gives too many people the idea that majorities rule everything.
As it is important to educate people that guns aren’t inherently dangerous, it is at least as important, if not more important, to educate people concerning the facts about our government. And why being a ‘constitutional republic’ means more than merely being a democracy.
+1, it certainly is not…democracy allows 51% to tell the other 49% what to do 🙁
Crndl,
I think your on to something there.
He is a vet but not a soldier. And most importantly, not a grunt. Guy was Air National Guard. Pretty much American Airlines without customer service or the profit motive. Hard Duty is the Airport Hilton when they run out of extra towels. Guns were the thing suckers at the front gate carry while everyone else carries an umbrella..
And where and when did you serve?
Well, as an Army vet (Infantry, 4/2 SBCT, deployed to Iraq for 15 months starting summer 2007), I have to say he’s right. There are a very few jobs in the Air Force that involve actual, up close and personal combat. Usually, the guys who did those jobs are willing to tell you, because it’s definitely something to be proud of- they don’t let just anybody in.
This is not to say Air Force service is not worthy of respect, but unless he was one of those few, he has far less legitimacy talking about the carrying of loaded weapons than those veterans who actually carried loaded weapons as part of their job. Read his article, he had a hard time coming to grips with actual soldiers and airmen having guns.
Actually, he sounds like the lessons he took from his time in the military left him with less legitimacy talking about weapons and the Constitution than your average civilian.
Notable exceptions being the Security Forces (Formerly Security Police) and Pararescue.
And Stargate Command, of course.
You forgot FACs (or whatever they’re called now).
And flight crews. My brother carried an M9 aboard his C-130 during Gulf I.
+1000
Just because he is a vet doesn’t make him an expert on civil rights or guns, or does me being a guy make me an expert on penises?
You mean tough guys like CJ Grisham? Went to Iraq, Never saw a shot fired in anger gets sent home claiming PTSD. Now leads the Texas Open Carry crowd of loser goons.
Whatever you think of Grisham’s OC activism, your statement about his military service is quite incorrect. Grisham earned a Bronze Star with combat “V” during the opening months of OIF. A copy of his citation is attached below, along with a link to his NCOER that substantiates the award.
http://asp.militarygear.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Bronze_Star_V.jpg
http://thelibertyzone.com/2013/10/21/integrity-and-yon-two-words-that-shouldnt-be-mentioned-in-the-same-sentence/#comments
SMSGT Young is not an Army vet. He is an Air Force vet. The Air Force has been a separate service since 1947.
I both agree and disagree with SMSGT Young. If you are going shopping with an AR slung over your shoulder just because you can then I agree with him 100%. Needless to say it is tasteless to make and Independence Day statement by carrying a commie AK-47.
However, if as part of your Independence Day celebration you and your pro-Second Amendment friends choose to exercise your First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble by having an open carry event in public space then you are indeed engaging in an activity that properly celebrates the Country’s proclamation of Independence.
September 3rd is the real Independence Day. That is the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783. We may have proclaimed we were independent of the Crown on July 4th, but that didn’t make it so.
“Needless to say it is tasteless to make and Independence Day statement by carrying a commie AK-47.”
I bet those colonists who fought the British were real ashamed to have used British and French-made weapons. Tasteless indeed!
No sense of humor *sigh*
Besides we were officially still British until 1783 so using the Brown Bess was ok. We had to use French weapons because we didn’t win enough battles to get more of them as spoils of war. We now have a plethora of AR manufactures and Springfield Armory to boot so we don’t need to display commie weapons.
Tdiinva: Don’t you love it when people knit pick every little word of your post? While ignoring your main points??
Yeah, it is annoying. Much more satisfying to get flamed by LC. (That’s a compliment by the way.)
JPD, maybe I didn’t disagree with his other main points, so I only had to “knit” pick a small part of the post. Doesn’t mean I ignore the rest.
Besides, the truest reminder that we won the first cold war was that we get to keep the commies’ weapons in our safes now.
Guys, while we’re picking, in English it’s “nit pick.”
Happy Independence Day!
Im glad you can find it satisfying, tdiinva 😛
Some people cannot be rationalized with. Im one of them. I wish i could change my name to Daniel Plainview.
Think of the parable of the toad and the scorpion. “its in my nature”.
I note that in the Six Days War, the Israeli soldiers threw out their FALs and Lee-Enfields and picked up AK’s off the enemy dead. “This is the tiger of the desert” they proclaimed.
Led to the development and adoption of the Galil.
Why does the type of gun matter? Seriously.
OK. Would it matter if someone celebrated the 4th by dressing up as a British soldier. They were here too.
Someone has to “die” in reenactments. Perhaps a useful job for the illegals?
Yessir, I agree. Have an OC cookout, invite friends and neighbors (and strangers), and just have a good time. I’d even go so far as to say leave the Gadsden and Gonzales flags at home.
Be friendly and inviting, not intimidating and “rawr-rawr.”
Correct!
Interesting if he takes the strawman in the article headline or if it was a SnuffPo editor. Not all threats are external and need to be confronted on the battlefield. Some can be internal with a variety of techniques used to thwart either the liberty side or the totalitarian side. The “you never served so you can’t comment” meme is the strawman here. Just goes to show how prone to illogic humans can be. Here is a man reacting on his emotions because he doesn’t like or approve of another’s choice. That is the foundation for totalitarianism and the de-evolution of civilization.
It seems that some of the Founding Fathers were more concerned about internal government oppression than external government oppression. The Founding Fathers were also some what fearful of standing armies as well. Just because people were in some sort of military organization does not mean that they are libertarians, or even that they personally were fighting for freedom. General McCrystal was hot for gun control when the big push was on in the Senate, and he stated that the 5.56 mm round was too powerful for civilians. I do not think Tom Young was in combat and probably drove around Camp Cupcake. It seems Tom Young was and is a member of our mainstream liberal media and was a flight engineer on a C-5. At any rate, military organizations and the people in them, are not always pro-liberty, and quite often the reverse.
Yeah, his article was chock-full of irony. The part about swearing an oath to the Constitution “and not just the parts you like” made mr chuckle a bit.
Also saw a link to a story with the sarcastic headline, “Look at the crime-ridden hell-hole Colorado has become since pot was legalized.” Well, how bout Huffpo look at the crime-ridden hell-holes where open-carry is legal. Touche!
Absolutely. I think at this time in history we are under some physical threat from other countries and terrorist orgs, but the greatest threats to our liberties are from our own low info or control freak citizens who are manipulated into voting against our rights, plus the media who refuse to hold the government accountable.
People incorrectly using an apostrophe s for plural is driving me bananas. It is as if no one went to school.
+1
If poor grammar on the Internet is the worst thing you are forced to deal with consider yourself lucky.
Thank you, Robert.
I can see his point. I’m all in for open carrying holstered handguns. HOWEVER-does anyone see the extreme hypocrisy of( supposedly ) fighting for “Iraqi Freedom” and denying RIGHTS in America? Not to offend people but who’s freedom were we defending in Iraq or especially Afghanistan? Which battlefield since WW2 was a “good” war? I’m afraid our next “battlefields of Freedom” may be right here in the good ole’ USA. Happy 4th everybody!
It says a lot that you recognize that most of the wars our troops have died in over the past 60 years have had very little to do with our freedom. A hard one to swallow considering so many good young men were sent to fight and die. Better to recognize it though than to continue to send more to die for petty political motivations of pathetic men in Washington.
Agreed. But they died more and more for corporate profit than political motivation. Especially today, with the “oil wars.” Shameful.
Sadly, +1. Most vets I’ve talked to say they fought not for freedom, but for the guys standing to their left and right and thats it. Dang it; now I’m pissed off about the VA…
Sad but true. And a also mostly agree with the point of the MSGT, regardless of how “operator” he was, he wore the uniform, so he’s earned the right to say his piece.
His service is honorable. US citizens are born with the right to speak their piece.
But that does NOT allow it to be used to undermine and take away the other rights.
the idea of an air force reservist “fighting” for freedom is also amusing.
How exactly, did he fight? did he fight on his way to the green bean or dominoes? hahahaha.
(and if you are or were in the air force, and are offended, fvck you)
What sense does it make to risk life and limb on the battlefield if your friends, family and neighbors are just going to piss away their rights? Sometimes the most important battles are fought at home….
Exactly.
Perhaps retired Air National Guard senior master sergeant Tom Young should watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqZkTsmv4kw
The final battle for freedom will be fought here, not in the Middle East, not in Ukraine, but here on the soil of Amerika.
So why would a former government employee who helped kill brown people be an authority on how I should exercise the rights he claims to have defended?
Everyone knows that killing poor people in third world countries is the only way for us to be “free” here, Duh…
Sarc/
Because “Freedom” is going over to another sovereign country on the other side of the planet in attempts to install a government that follows our instructions and shooting and killing their freedom fighters in the process alongside their children and family as “collateral damage.” Then we get really upset when they fly airplanes into our buildings.
“freedom fighters” Who would that be, the Taliban? Freedom? Really?
Study history.
One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.
@JK, maybe you should study history. If you believe the Talban could be considered freedom fighters by any rational, thinking person, you need to put down the crack pipe pal.
You might try that yourself first comrade.The Taliban were the sons and grandsons of whom exactly?
Why Shazam! the same Muj that UNcle Sugar created, funded, and armed to fight the Soviets in the 1980’s.
Checkmate.
The Muj and the Taliban are not identical. The Northern Alliance also came from the Muj. And some of the Taliban came from groups that were not armed by the US (and they weren’t created by us either, The Afghanis have a history of fighting invaders, ask the Russians and the British Raj.)
Then too, the Muj weren’t necessarily fighting for freedom (as a philosophical concept) but just to keep from being a Soviet puppet.
@JK
That’s a stupid phrase. If it were true it would mean that there is no such thing as ‘freedom’ in the abstract. What are the Taliban fighting for? General freedom, or the ‘freedom’ to impose their views of Islam on their neighbors? When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan were their fellow Afghanis free to listen to music? Were girls free to go to school?
It’s an old phrase that goes back a long time. It is painful but true. Do the Communists control both China and Vietnam? Yes, so the USSA lost the wars against them and wasted all the $’s spent trying to promote our path there, correct?
Is the Taliban mostly in control in Afghanistan?
Yes.
The last person to actually “conquer” Afghanistan was Alexander the Great, and that was some 3000 years ago while he was on his way to India.
Afghanistan is well known as the land where empires go to die.
That’s it’s an old phrase doesn’t make it any less stupid.
It’s a propaganda phrase, that has actually nothing to do with freedom.
You implied that the Taliban are ‘freedom fighters’ so I again ask what freedoms, exactly, are they fighting for? Other than the freedom to oppress others, I mean. Do you think that the Taliban give a rat’s rear end about freedom?
The USA didn’t lose the war in Viet Nam militarily, we defeated the NVA, and effectively destroyed the VC in ’68, but, as is happening again, the leftists in control of the Congress in the ’70s, and in control of the White House and Senate today, give away what’s been won by our military.
The Taliban is mostly in control of Afghanistan because the same people that want to disarm us, gave it back to them.
Not sure why you brought China into the discussion, we supported the Nationalists, but didn’t really do much to help them.
Checkmate? WTF are you raving about? How does the fact that we assisted the mujahideen make the Taliban freedom fighters? By the way comrade big mouth, the Taliban were largely a creation of the Pakistani intelligence service. Does not make them freedom fighters, and you my friend are an idiot if you think otherwise.
Marvelously stupid response.
You missed clean comrade, try again.
You might actually try reading and comprehending what I wrote, you would find what I said is true.
I hit a nerve with what was said, most interesting…
Ball in your court comrade.
You imply that the Taliban are freedom fighters and my comment was stupid? You my friend are a douche. Your entire purpose on this thread is to troll, so have fun with that “comrade”
Probably said that because your comment really was stupid. The Taliban is a creation of UNcle Sugar and the Company, not the Pak intel who can’t pour urine out of a boot with the instructions pasted upsidedown on the heel.
And you “my friend” are a troll, nothing more.
Still trolling?
I see you are. You need to run your bait a LOT deeper and play it much better.
Would you happen to be a conspiracy theorist “comrade”? Or just a contrarian ass? I thought it was common knowledge that The Taliban was largely a creation of Pakistan, so for you to say they were created by the U.S. makes you look like an Oliver stone type jackass. And your comment about Bin Laden already being dead? You made that comment? Oh well, I will take up no more of your time, I am sure you have more research to do, getting close to proving that Bush was responsible for 9/11 I bet.
Ah, comrade you never learn! The name calling just makes you look all the more juvenile.UNcle has his fingers in so many pies.
The Company does it”s job quite well and has for many years, most of the Intel services on the planet are either subservient, or subverted by it.
Have a most wonderful day comrade, please brush up on your research yourself BTW.
You are a great deal of fun to spar with, but we are wasting bandwidth on someone else’s blog.
Air National Guard? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!
The girl scouts see more combat.
False statement. A substantial portion of our tactical airpower resides in the ANG.
a friend of mine was in AF security forces. in most of his photos I’ve seen, he’s asleep.
Jeff, if he was asleep on duty when these pictures were taken, what you have in your hand is called evidence, and the crime he committed is pretty serious. Is he still in the service? If so, you will want to report it to either the OSI or SFI. If you don’t report it, they could theoretically charge you as an accessory, but personally, I have never seen that happen. Are you sure he wasn’t BS’ing you, for SF’s tend to like playing pranks on each other?
he’s retired, and most of the photos are of him sleeping in humvees, APCs, etc. he was known for sleeping anywhere, everywhere. I don’t know how he did it, but it was a big joke to the guys in his section.
Easy Bob, he said the guy was sleeping, not selling secrets to the Soviets. Take your meds.
Jeff, it sounds like he wasn’t on a post or patrol at the time. Jerry, you sir, on the other hand, haven’t a clue what you are talking about. If I found any of the airmen that worked for me sleeping on post, I would have apprehended them, and I would have recommended no less than article 15. SF’s have an extremely serious job, and there is no excuse for sleeping on post, period. People can die if they do not do their job.
Yeah bobby, I served as well, just not in the cub scouts, oops, I meant Air Force. Unless the guy was sleeping on the flight line, pulling base or perimeter security in a combat zone, or assigned to an OP, not sure how “serious” the crime is for sleeping in a hummer. So like I said, take your meds and relax big man.
I know.
that branch is a joke. So is the AF.
their tiger stripe camo, green clown boots, stupid ball caps, and relaxed standards makes my blood boil. If i had it my way, i would smoke a group of them until they were all heat casualties.
Perhaps it’s because the threat to liberty today can be found in coffee shops and other mundane locales, not a battlefield.
Actually, I think you are correct. We face more dangers to our liberties with the domestic governments than ISIS. If ISIS tried to invade the USA, (excluding the military and police) they would not last too long with the armed populace based in America.
And let’s not limit that to ISIS. Good luck to ANY foreign interest, whether a country or other organization will ill intent, who would seek to invade, take and hold the U.S. It’s not just the guns, it’s the people who wield them…and the terrain, the sheer size, etc. 20,000 people responded within one day of Lexington and Concord (~3% of the population of the six New England colonies).
Exactly. Terrorists and even other nations are dangerous but defeatable if we don’t lose our cultural confidence.
Many of the people who are trying to hurt the middle class and centralize all power in the government graduated from Harvard Law.
Exactly.
The enemy is not thousands of miles away on some foreign battlefield, they are here, now in our land. Most occupy seats in goobernment, local, state, federal.
Exactly. The ISIS would live for minutes if they were dropped into any Inner City in America.
The authoritarian reactionary asswipes are the biggest at fault for the loss of liberty here in the states, not AQ or the Taliban. Those two are just another excuse to put the bill of rights on the chopping block. If it wasn’t islamic terrorists, it would be lone wolf terrorists. If not them, then Russian ultranationalists or any other scapegoat. etc. These assmunches couldn’t care less.
Im not defending islamic fundamentalist terrorists or even terrorists of all shapes and sizes (to include right wing terrorists that pro-gun ownership people get lumped in with), but that doesn’t undue the fact that lightning is a more liekly killer than terrorists and we are losing our freedom because of the overreactive, fear-based bullsh–t. and im sick of it.
On the one hand, the same arguments — don’t upset people — were used against the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1950s and 1960s.
On the other hand, rifle open carry with hands sooo cloooose to triggers is no more productive than if those lunch counter sit-inners had come straight from the fields — dusty, grimy, smelly.
Agreed. If you are open carrying – that rifle needs to be slung and pistols holstered. Back in the day when people carried swords if you looked at a guy and put your hand on your hilt or drew your weapon, he would feel threatened too I imagine. Just because you are carrying doesn’t mean you are threatening. It is important to keep the two separate. Posing with your AK in hand in public places is complete foolishness.
I get it. Because he is ex-military he feels he is in a superior standing on issues discussing and regarding liberty and freedom. Let’s bash the coffee shop guy because he didn’t “serve” like me. I’m a retired Air National Guard senior master sergeant – now listen to what I say.
People walking around with guns and no one making a fuss is an action that draws focus to the presence of freedom. Admiring control and regulation of other’s activities – does not.
Shooting sovereign people in lands not of our own is not a defense of liberty.
What a hypocrite. You really want to go there?
He is a hypocrite. I also feel about these people in the following way:
Sometimes in street gangs, you are required to kill someone to prove you are worthy to be in a particular gang. Since Tom Young wants to be a “Novelist, Journalist ” maybe he is required to vilify and demonize and act like a hypocrite to get into the of gang journalists he wants to be part of.
At least for me, it would kinda make sense.
I think he wants to promote his book and I wish him no luck with that. 😉
+1
Well stated.
Yes it does say a lot. I’m over 60 & spent a good part of my youth fretting over getting drafted and dying in Vietnam…the ultimate BS war. Glad it didn’t happen. I knew more than one guy who’s life was destroyed in SE Asia. My son served in the Army-spent time in the Middle east, shot guns and now works at DOD. And it was his CHOICE. ‘Nuff said.
Just what we need, another goon that can’t tell the difference between fighting (and maybe dying) for American ideals versus American interests.
>Gun Extremists: Why Are You ‘Defending Liberty’ in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield?
In case retired Air National Guard senior master sergeant Tom Young hasn’t been paying attention, the “battlefield” for liberty is right here at home.
Unless, that is, he buys into the whole “defending are freedumz” schtick.
Well, in a third world Country one might expect the Police to act like they run a Police State too. Much like America today. The Police take oath’s to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States which insures our right to keep and bear arms, and such right “shall not be infringed.”
Can anyone read the dictionary any longer? What does the word infringed mean?
We also have the right, under the 2nd amendment, again based on the definition the the words in that section, to rebel. Read the definition of the word militia…..
If the Government would stop infringement on the rights of the American People as contained in the Constitution, the people who support open carry would not have the need to display their rights!
Its time to stop dancing on the head of a pin and call it for what it is, TYRANNY. When the Police are exempt from laws, that violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, unless my memory fails, is the equal protection clause. Yet, the police are exempt.
Immunity laws. They are laws that are to protect public servants from being liable for honest mistakes. When a public servant takes an oath to protect and defend my rights as outlined in the Constitution, then intentionally acts in a manner to take away my rights, they have committed TREASON! The punishment for TREASON should be returned to being hung by the neck in a public place! That sir, would stop this over reaching of power in all areas.
Our Nation and they system of checks an balances is akin to a three legged stool. I learned that in Elementary school. I was also taught what happens when one leg of the three legged stool is shortened or lengthened. The stool falls over.
In 1960 before the United Nations a Russian Dictator said; The United States would fall without a single shot being fired.” That day has come and gone. Neither Republicans or Democrats keep their oaths any longer. Its all about POWER, MONEY, and CONTROL.
I am not an Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am an American and I will stand for my rights as a free person.
In closing, on this, the Forth of July, read the definition of the words; Liberty, Freedom, and Justice. Then tall us Mr. Robert Farago, which of those do we really have based on the definition in Webster’s Dictionary?
Unless you are in the Tribal areas in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan where the goobernment forces are afraid to go, in most 3rd world areas only the goobernment and the crooks (one and the same) have any guns, the rest of the population are used by them on one level or another.
Amen!
(But don’t confuse RF with the author of that tripe. Tom Young wrote it.)
Hey, we had a Bush in the Texas ANG! At least he never crashed his F-102 and they had to send a crew out to shovel his guts out of the woods, or scrape them off the highway.
Be grateful for small miracles!
For me, it’s not the fact that people are open carrying. I have absolutely NO problem with open carrying, when done correctly. The problem I have, and a lot of other less knowledgeable people on the subject have, is when uninformed people think that open carry has to be in the hands.
Now I don’t know what this guys problem is, but you aren’t brandishing them if they aren’t in your hands.
People that want to open carry, have first got to learn HOW to open carry!
That said, until the public in general get’s used to the open carry laws and get used to people doing it correctly, they will never feel safe among open carriers. DO IT RIGHT DAMNIT.
+1
I want to point out to you that it was common in the past to carry rifles in the hand as most civilian ones did not have slings. Look at old Winchesters of the period as an example- no slings, that was extra cost and special order.
Yes that may be true but lets not get into nit picking shall we. People have been able to attach slings to guns for a couple of centuries now and holsters too for that matter.
Excuse me, but is a lot longer time than that.
Go watch the old flick “The Sand Pebbles”. It was long considered a mark of cowardice and disrespect to a foe to sling arms in front of them.
Personally I don’t really care how long it’s been. The point is that it has been a capability to put slings on weapons for a very long time so use the damn thing. Rifles are to be carried on the back unless you are actively hunting or trying to kill someone.
To make it more simple, you don’t see police just wandering around with guns IN THEIR HANDS, unless they are actively chasing someone. So we open carriers shouldn’t either. Otherwise it’s called brandishing and it is illegal. Now stop busting my chops.
Crock of BLEEP. Means absolutely nothing. You studied history exactly where????
In exactly which third world country does the government allow it’s citizens the right to demonstrate while ‘brandishing’ firearms?
No such animal. They would be shot or chopped up with pangas or machetes for trying it.
He didn’t say anything about government sanctioned demonstrations…
Ah… so he’s saying that the citizens of this country are acting like third world governments and that’s bad because only dictators should have the right and the ability to intimidate their citizens, not the other way around. Got it.
“Intimidating” is frightening someone with the intent to get them to do what you want. The mere presence of a firearm is not intimidation, nor were anyone in that group of carriers trying to force anyone to do anything. Of course, this comes from a society where people are horrified when someone lights up a cigarette or drinks a 32 ounce soda. We are becoming a nation of wimps. If the writer will recall, in the past, the 4th of July was one of the occasions where the population celebrated by firing gun in the air and it was condoned by the local governments.
In some states even fireworks are illegal.
I think most of you are missing the point of his article. I don’t normally read this kind of stuff, especially from HuffPo which I find obnoxious, but as a vet myself, I appreciated his underlying message: “Why are you defending liberty in a stateside coffee shop instead of where it counts, in a combat zone?”
If I understand him correctly, he is annoyed with all of these “angry” gun owners who talk about protecting their freedoms and rights, yet many of these same people never volunteered to legitimately defend those freedoms overseas.
Except that the Senior Master Sergeant never legitimately defended freedom himself overseas.
For the most part, I don’t think long gun open carry events are good P.R. for our side. The shooting community seems to be inundated with newbies. That is great for us but many of them are full of the righteous enthusiasm of the converted. I expect that they will settle down in time.
Having said that, I read the article and don’t think I missed the point at all. Thank you for your service but our rights are not and should not be conditional on military service. In fact, in the USA, the military is subordinate to civilian authority so when a vet says something along the lines of “you never served so what right do you have to speak?”, he is getting it exactly backwards. This is really nothing but leftist identity politics dressed up in a patriotic veneer. The writer is using his group identity in an attempt to shut down debate. A veteran may gained specific expertise based on his experience but he has no more or less right to speak than anyone else.
As for defending freedom where it counts: Domestically, with the attempt to “fundamentally transform” America, we are seeing the greatest assault on our liberty in my middle aged lifetime. America traditionally defends freedom around the world but there is nobody else to defend American freedom. It counts right here.
John – get your logic and agree that some of the recent OC activity is a bit much, but the patronizing broad brush strokes in both the article and comments on the HuffPo page should give pause. Not everyone has the opportunity to serve, and serving does not afford one the moral high ground due to said service. If that is the premise of his perceived expertise and chosen morally superior position, then serve for life, and not just once a month or when called up.
When I was in college I wanted to join the corps of cadets, but the corps had just started admitting women, and I saw how shitty the women cadets were treated by the entire school. I decided not to join an institution that clearly didn’t want me.
Now I’m too old to enlist. Does this mean that I have no first amendment right to protest in support of my other rights?
I understand all too well. Thanks for your efforts though.
Sometimes you ‘defend liberty’ by exercising liberty, not by shooting someone.
If you have the freedom to do something, but you never actually do it because you might offend someone (whether a hoplophobe or another gun owner), do you really have the freedom? Freedom isn’t just limited by laws, it’s limited by custom and social pressures too.
Telling others not to exercise a freedom, just because you think it’s counterproductive, or are afraid that it will cause a backlash, is attempting to deny them their freedom.
Bulls–t john
Many of us did serve. in actual combat assignments as combat soldiers, not air force px rangers. I was stupid enough to be fervently nationalistic once, but my recent awakening hasn’t undone my service or undone the fact that im a combat veteran. this person *is not*.
And what freedom were we defending over there? the freedom for bankers and big corporate USA to flourish in US-friendly regimes, even if they aren’t free to begin with? hypocrisy.
Tom Young, tell me how fighting some bullshit corporate war defends liberty more than protesting in support of the 2nd Amendment?
What is most illuminating to me is that to the left, most veterans were (and sometimes still are) nothing but “baby killers” during the height of the Iraq/Afghan war years. Now that some service members are willing to lend their titles to leftist causes, they’re all stars and stripes and ready to fawn over them, so long as they keep talking the talk.
Apparently this idiot doesn’t even know the definitions of “intimidation” or “brandishing”. Nor does he know that he wasn’t defending defending our freedoms when he flew 11,000 miles to kill a bunch’a piss-poor schleps that had absolutely nothing with 9/11 and wanted no part of our “democracy”. And he should know better than to call our Republic a Democracy anyway.
I discovered this for myself when I was on the desert sands of Iraq. In Ramadi. Sad, but true.
Another vet who thinks they know better than the civilian populace just because they served. I do not begrudge people who did not serve. If is a choice we having in this country on whether we serve or not. The military is not for everyone. He should be glad that there are civilians who still fell strongly about defending our rights.
Short version: If you want to fight for freedom so badly, sign your fat ass up for the Army and do it for real. At least that’s what I got.
As if fighting in some war is the only “real” way to fight for your freedoms. Young should get the fuck over himself already. Seriously. Except that every single conflict after WW2 wasn’t a legal or legitimate war for us to be participating in to begin with (not even Korea). So, no, he wasn’t “defending” our freedoms and neither is anybody else fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The last time the US CONgress actually declared war was on December 8th, 1941. ALL military actions past that are “police actions”, just the same as those following WW-1 and prior to WW-2
And there’s the rub: even “police actions” are patently illegal, indirect violation of both our Constitution and a whole host of international laws to boot. We have no reason, no right, and most definitely no resources to be a global police force. Hence why I said — and only rightly so might I add — that we have only ever been completely in the wrong since after WW2. Full stop.
After our ship got hit by shore batteries in 1952 Korea, we said: “those shells are awfully big for “police” guns.
Unless you had a letter of marque and reprisal issued by CONgress, or were operating under a state of war declared by them, then you were in a police action.
IMO, the only “war” that actually threatened the US since WW II was the Cold War, in that missiles and bombers were ready to nuke US targets, and we were ready to reciprocate. And lest we forget, those same forces are in place and ready today.
I get sick at heart when I hear this country’s “leadership” talking about defending our “national interests.” I’m sorry, but Exxon/Mobile, Halliburton, GE and Blackwater can defend their own damned interests. Have THEIR execs pick up arms and fight overseas. Their interests are in no way our “national interests.”
Most all of that was complete illusion.
Until fairly recent times, neither the Russians or Chinese had nuclear strike capabiliity on the US mainland. Now they do, some of that via Slick Willie.
Sorry JK, you’re wrong. Fact.
This morning, when I awoke, my first thought was, “Today is the Fourth of July and I am so grateful I was born an American.” my second thought was, “But how can I save my Country from the internal and external evils that now want to destroy it?” No clear answer to that question came immediately to mind. Bummer! So, I am thinking about this while doing the morning chores, eventually got to the laptop and checked e-mail, then checked-in here at TTAG to read about this (expletive omitted) guy’s statement published by HuffPo…
So, I read his article. Basically, he’s arguing that, if you have not served in the Military, you have no basis for thinking of yourself as a “freedom fighter”, so if you want to be a “freedom fighter” man-up and join the Military,…aka serve the Government, otherwise you have no right to “play soldier” and squawk about how you are tyrannized and oppressed. He concludes his article by saying that if you become a “real” (in his book) “freedom fighter” and stop the charade “…you won’t get to intimidate other Americans; you might have to face real enemies.”
I am struggling with how to respond to this guy’s apparent belief that he can turn his voluntary choice to join the Military, go to a foreign country as ordered by the State, and help kill its People in a war that should never have happened, into some sort of Elitist Badge of “I am a better Man than you”. Then he uses it to condemn his fellow Americans, who are demonstrating to preserve their natural and Constitutionally protected rights to Keep and BEAR Arms, and transmogrifies their actions into “intimidate(ing) other Americans”.
I have strenuously criticized the California Open Carry Movement in previous TTAG comments, and I do believe there is a serious tactical flaw in going into coffee shops and other public places openly carrying long guns as a positive “statement” about what should be an obvious right to carry firearms in public for personal defense. I respect those who have served and continue to serve in the “voluntary” Military, honor those who died and revere the wounded Veterans, many of whom struggle daily with grievous injuries, as do their families. But what this guy is saying puts the trash on all that and drags it down to the lowest level of Government Goonism. I hope he sees the egregious error of his thinking, and I cannot, will not, “Thank” HIM for his “service” until he does. I can recognize “real enemies” to Americans’ Liberty and Freedom, and you, Sir, are one.
Happy Fourth of July to all TTAG Staff, Readers, Comment Contributors and all Freedom Loving Americans everywhere!
🙂
^ This!
word.
Galt’s Gulch, onward!
I was rather amused by it too.
Apparently you need to serve in uniform to have your rights and fight banker’s wars to understand what “despotism looks like”. Awfully militaristic beliefs for a Huffpro article too.
They can fvck off. His elitist, arrogant bulls–t is staggering. He thinks he has some big hairy balls because he served ONCE in the air national guard no less. Well i didn’t see him in Adhamiyah or Khost or Helmand on the ground with a carbine in hand.
“That’s why I said “form of democracy”. We aren’t a direct democracy, we’re a democratic republic or, if you prefer, a constitutional republic formed as a representative democracy. It’s perfectly correct to call the US a democracy.”
Oh, you mean like the Democratic Republic of Vietnam for example?
Wrong!
Right, because fighting wars for politicians and oil companies is fighting for freedom. How do people still believe this garbage?
Sounds like a former soldier who was in bed with the Nuremberg Defense, I wonder if he confiscated guns in New Orleans.
Main problem IMO with the OC crowd is those who carry their rifles in the low ready position.
Low ready means you are going to use it soon. Slung across the shoulder? No problem.
It says “Bear arms”, nothing about low ready or slung does it?
Happy Independence Day, one and all.
And to you, sir!
+1
Disagree that it looks like something “that would happen in the Third World.” I’ve spent plenty of time in Latin America, and citizens are not permitted to own weapons. If they were parading around openly with their weapons, it would be a coup. And it would be the military.
Intimidating my neighbors with my guns
A march of people brandishing weapons
He sets the tone for emotional false argument from the beginning.
Though they faced far more danger than anyone back home in the U.S., not one of them seemed as angry as some in the armed “patriot” movement.
This is yet another false assertion designed to illicit an emotional state. The only OC people that I’ve seen appearing “angry” were those four younger people walking through a Cincinnati neighborhood. In general, OCers tend to be upbeat and pleasant.
Some of these right-wing activists use words like
Ah, yes. Invoke the “right-wing” label. BTW, I’m not “right-wing” and I’m not “left-wing.” In fact, I have no wings at all.
When you see real tyranny, it’s unmistakable, and it looks nothing like the United States, the most free and prosperous nation on the planet.
Tyranny comes in all shapes and sizes. You are no expert.
There are those in the open carry movement who have spent time in the military, and I thank them for their service. But there are others who</
Wait… what?!?! Veterans who OC are okay but those others…
I see a subtle pass for veterans in his thinking. Many veterans who OC say stow this nonsense.
And you won’t get to intimidate other Americans
More of the same; smears and emotional imagery.
Tom Young, what you’ve written is misleading and insulting to your fellow citizens.
(Formatting in the last part was broken; probably my error.)
There are those in the open carry movement who have spent time in the military, and I thank them for their service. But there are others who
Wait… what?!?! Veterans who OC are okay but those others…
I see a subtle pass for veterans in his thinking. Many veterans who OC say stow this nonsense.
And you won’t get to intimidate other Americans
More of the same; smears and emotional imagery.
” in the world’s leading democracy.”?????
Seems like this author has bought into the media propaganda that the USA is a democracy. I guess in elementary school he skipped over the line in the pledge which states; “and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.”
Or perhaps he buys the fiction that republics and democracies are one and the same thing, in spite of the fact that they are not.
Why Are You ‘Defending Liberty’ in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield?
—————————————–
Because the Defense of Liberty is a battlefield, everywhere.
Aye!
Huffington Post tells you all you need to know about this piece…..Why does TTAG push agenda(anti 2A) driven articles like this? Trojan horse?
Interesting. Proof positive that patriots on either side of the debate can also be assh0les, whether they served or not.
That’s actually the beauty of America. Happy Independence Day!
It’s no proof of anything. The beauty of America is that we have actually managed to survive insane nonsense like this and keep on fighting.
Thanks for proving my point.
I didn’t.
“Belief is the enemy of the truth”.
Plato
Score one Internet for Ralph.
I’ll second that!
Worth almost as much as glass is…
Have fine Independence Day, Ralph, and try not to blow up anything important. 😀
+1 Excedrine… and if Saddam Hussein had used “weapons of mass destruction” we could’ve just nuked him. And the whole history of the world would change if Truman had the guts to use the Atomic bomb on the Chinese hoards in 1950. How many A-bombs did we have? 50? 100? How many Soviet bombs? 1? 2? And they stole the technology. I guess it’s better to slaughter Americans than offend the rest of the world…
I must disagree, as someone who served (with my family) almost a decade in a DGZ (Designated Ground Zero) and had custody of nuclear weapons. Truman (and those who followed) were absolutely right in not using atomic weapons again. Recall that WE are the ONLY country on the planet to have used a nuclear weapon in anger. Twice. This is what you’re advocating?
http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/11/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-H.jpeg
http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blyhn12.htm
http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blyhn16.htm
http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html
If we had “nuked” Saddam, there would be almost no oil in the world today, because the Middle East oil fields would be unfit for human habitation. Think Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima times 10. India and points East would suffer massive casualties and deaths due to fallout from the attack. We would definitely not bve living in the world we are in today.
Saddam was no threat to anyone, except the banksters.
All we had to do was keep Sadaam in check. Instead we made made Iran into a world power. And YES we should have nuked the Chinese. Fog of war? We could easily conquered the world in 1950. I did an internet search after I said 100 nukes-according to one source it was 300! But we’d rather kill Americans than win a war( we shouldn’t be in the first place). Sadaam had nothing to do with 911. I f anything it was the Saudi Wahabbis. and their $. Whatever guy…hope you’re ready for Armageddon. Oh yeah we have abundant oil and gas in America $ Canada. A tactical strike on Iraq would NOT destroy the worlds oil reserves…and what will we have in the coming months of ISISLAND???
“Besides, the truest reminder that we won the first cold war was that we get to keep the commies’ weapons in our safes now”.
Where exactly did we win that one?
I must have blinked and missed the signing of the surrender documents.
The last time I checked, both the Russians and Red Chinese are still in full possession of all their firepower (not to mention North Korea), plus they own enough of our debt to sink us without firing a shot. Not much of a victory.
The US is a battleground, it just happens to be a political one. Going over to Iraq is not defending our freedom, it is expanding the US empire. Fighting for our freedoms here is a noble and worthwhile cause.
You know the guy’s a fool when he states that we’re the greatest democracy in the world. He doesn’t even understand that democracy is mob rule and our country wasn’t set up to satisfy the mob, but allow each individual, no matter how far out their view, the freedom to live their life and pursue happiness so long as it doesn’t affect the rights of others.
Unfortunately, the fight to keep that founding spirit is fought in our coffee shops and streets since our voice is all but silent in Washington as our “representatives” have become either winner of a popularity contest or winner of favor by huge corporate interests that buy their elections (or both). So while I don’t agree with many of the OC crowds tactics, the proof they are of no actual harm is evident in the complete lack of real problems. You never see anyone shot, you never see anyone really threatened by them (liberals wetting their pants over the mere sight of a gun doesn’t count). I do think they are pushing more fence sitters to the other side and I’d prefer they carry plastic training guns and wear nicer clothes, which would remove pretty much all the negative press associated with their rallies, but they haven’t caused one legitimate issue that I’ve ever heard about.
What the author doesn’t even get is that peaceful civil rights protests and demonstrations are what keep this country relatively free and from becoming a third world hell hole like the ones he claims to have spent time in. The fact that he sees his service as something that makes him better than his fellow citizens is an indication that this guy isn’t someone to listen to. I don’t need to spend time seeing third world countries to know I don’t want mine to turn into one through socialism and corporate greed.
“Hence why I said — and only rightly so might I add — that we have only ever been completely in the wrong since after WW2. Full stop”.
Well, that isn’t quite true.
We took over Hawaii in 1894- illegal, Slick Willie apologizied for it in 1994, big deal.
Actions in several Latin American states in the period, including Nicaragua- where the US Marines invented the concept of the dive bomber.
Modern day Iraq is not 1940s Germany: not really defending American liberty over there.
Why Are You ‘Defending Liberty’ in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield?
Short answer: THIS Third World Country candidate needs active defense; the SWA battlefield is too far away to do any good.
Besides, the only fighting an Air National Guard senior master sergeant [sic] (couldn’t make CMS before he retired?) would be doing is to get to the head of the buffet line on Lobster Night at the NCO Club.
“Would you agree that it is very unusual for cops to go around their daily patrols with ARs hanging from their shoulders? handguns, for the purposes of OC, are significantly less threatening than EBRs (except in California, where Airsoft are threatening and might get you killed)”
No, I wouldn’t
See my comments on the mom in in Israel with the Uzi..
Life in Israel, where they live under constant threat of bombs, guns and rockets, is significantly different than life in the USA. When is the last time YOU say a woman in the grocery store in the US with an Uzi over her shoulder? Or an AK? Or an AR? It just doesn’t happen here.
LOL!
Thank you comrade, for sticking your foot in your mouth for me!
Recall 9-11-2001?
So we don’t live under any threat at all? Then pray tell what is the “War on Terror” and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan all about then?
I’ll wait while you answer that comrade.
He should have said CREDIBLE threat. 9-11 was a once in a lifetime attack; even Bin Laden was surprised it was successful. Everything since then has been a “movie plot threat,” straining everyone’s (except the Terrorism Industry) credulity. Israel’s inhabitants face a very real threat every day; we don’t. Apples and oranges. Stop and think.
I was being facetious. There is not and never was a credible threat. All these events and actions
are BS.
Bin Laden was long dead before he was zapped by the Obomber.
“Why Are You ‘Defending Liberty’ in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield?”
Lot’s of keyboard soldiers here and many valid perspectives and points of view.
Young made the decision to invest his life into a career of service to his country which includes sacrifice and risk. He may not have earned a CIB as a combat rifleman, but he is part of the team that provided air support for the services various missions. He as much as, if not more than anyone here has EARNED his right to have an opinion about those who flaunt their 2A freedoms and endanger the rest of us by turning public opinion against POTG with poorly thought out public displays.
Maybe if those flamboyant attention seeking open carriers spent some time in service to their country gaining experience and perspective “defending liberty” in some capacity they would, after gaining some maturity and real life experience, recognize the counter productive impact their flagrant, in your face displays have on the bigger gun rights movement.
Really?
“Give me liberty or give me death”!
Well, now that’s funny:
Um…because those ‘wars’ “kinetic military actions”-not-wars-wars…are f’ng UNconstitutional, ya Constitutionally clueless statist fascist collaborator Quisling hack!
And, “defending liberty” on foreign soil in an UnConstitutional war for the chickenshit pansy loudmouths in govt and corporatist thinktanks, isn’t ‘patriotic,’ nor is it even an effective tactic or strategy for staving off real, non-FBI manufactured terrorism for that matter. It’s the equivalent of wearing John McClane’s “I hate niggers” poster-board in the Harlem scene in Die Hard 3: http://wac.9ebf.edgecastcdn.net/809EBF/ec-origin.philly.barstoolsports.com/files/2014/04/i-hate-niggers-i-hate-everybody.png
Then again, coming from a hoplophobic statist clown writing at HuffPo, such constitutionally-imbecilic hoplophobia should never come as a surprise.
An “Authorization of Use of Military Force” is NOT a “declaration,” just because Quisling statist fascist govt terrorists declare it to be so, along with their acquiescent dildo-fuckers on MSM rant it is so, predictably.
The US Congress, at an era when they at least pretended to abide by their Constitutional Oaths, actually Constitutionally declared war, with actual words “declared” in 1941:
“That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared;”
There’s a reason why it’s called a Constitutional Declaration, um… because it explicitly states it is a motherfucking “declaration.”
The reason why that word never appears with the last Simian in WH’s not-declaration-‘declaration,’ aka AUF, is because lawfully, it is NOT a declaration: they know it, the informed among us know it; they’re counting on/expecting the gullible, apathetic sheeple populace to not know it.
Now, compare the following GWB regime legalese trickery vs the one from 1941: “…the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.” <— That, is NOT a declaration.
Why doesn’t AUF, actually declare war?
The fact, that a plain, common language was used in all previous Constitutional, congressional declarations of wars, and not this one, should tell you the evasive nature of the AUF legalese rationalization: it’s just euphemistic bullshit lawyer-speak, just in case these motherfuckers get brought up at Nuremberg 2.0. They know what future awaits them.
Despite what the political class delude, the WPA/WPR itself is wholly UnConstitutional. But even under its provisions, unless Congress officially declares war or US or its forces and territory is attacked POTUS has no war enumerated war powers as per the US Constitution. As such: US was NEVER attacked by the country of Iraq or Afghanistan, but by terrorists: a criminal gang who use violence to leverage political agenda (which, frankly would include many nations and militaries; but for the sake of discussion, shall be limited to the said terrorist Alqaeda who are not based in Afghanistan, but began with funds from CIA, and later by the Saudis, but whoTF’s counting).
Of course, just being a vet does not grant one any more common law clarity. Observe the Bagram Torture central warcriminal ‘Sorry, geopolitically clueless: what I told Hastings in RS article was my Exit Strategy’ Gen. Stanley McChrystal whining about how only the military should carry ‘high-powered’ .223/5.56mm chambered weapons…vs say you know: a hunting round like .300winmag or 7remmag.
The “Veteran” moniker only gets you so far: a traitor, an unconstitutional dimwit, hoplophobe, is still a traitorous unconstitutional dimwit hoplophobe, no matter what their current or former profession may have been.
c’est la vie.
Then again, the HufferPoster is wrong.
Technically speaking, the CONUS is officially now (however unconstitutionally) declared a “battlefield” under the 2012 NDAA that every traitorous scum in CONgress voted for, from both Dem commies and RINO Regpugs, to oBUSHma who signed it into ‘law,’ with an ‘I’ll never use it, for realz yo!-pinkyswear,’ for the dictatorial powers outlined under Section 1021 and Section 1022 of it:’ http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/11/unconstitutional-bill-declares-us-a-battlefield-for-the-military/
http://rt.com/usa/senate-mccain-battlefield-graham-429/
Apparently Tom Young’s too busy to read his own HuffPost cohorts’ dissenting opinions, at least on “fight them over there, so we won’t have to fight them here”-kindergarten simpleton jingoism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne-eviatar/promises-promises-preside_b_1182067.html
The Muj and the Taliban are not identical. The Northern Alliance also came from the Muj. And some of the Taliban came from groups that were not armed by the US (and they weren’t created by us either, The Afghanis have a history of fighting invaders, ask the Russians and the British Raj.)
Then too, the Muj weren’t necessarily fighting for freedom (as a philosophical concept) but just to keep from being a Soviet puppet”.
LOL!
That isn’t quite true, just like the “moderates” we armed in Syria.
The lines are very blurred sometimes.
The Taliban were against the trans-Afghan pipeline (unless their palms got enough green) and they cut back the opium poppy production, so they had to go.
An Afghan is an Afghan first and last, his oath to you means absolutely nothing at all. I don’t blame him, he is wiser than 90% of most Amerikans are.
“That’s it’s an old phrase doesn’t make it any less stupid.
It’s a propaganda phrase, that has actually nothing to do with freedom.
You implied that the Taliban are ‘freedom fighters’ so I again ask what freedoms, exactly, are they fighting for? Other than the freedom to oppress others, I mean. Do you think that the Taliban give a rat’s rear end about freedom?
The USA didn’t lose the war in Viet Nam militarily, we defeated the NVA, and effectively destroyed the VC in ’68, but, as is happening again, the leftists in control of the Congress in the ’70s, and in control of the White House and Senate today, give away what’s been won by our military.
The Taliban is mostly in control of Afghanistan because the same people that want to disarm us, gave it back to them.
Not sure why you brought China into the discussion, we supported the Nationalists, but didn’t really do much to help them”.
LOl!
Excuse me, but did we “win” in Vietnam?
No.
So we lost, correct?
I never made any such implication about the Taliban, you don’t read and interpret very well.
I said “One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” which is exactly true and nothing stupid about it.
The Red Chinese exist only because UNcle Sugar stabbed the Nationalists in the back and let them “win”. I am not sure as to why you are not clear on that?
@JK
I’m not ‘clear’ on much of what you write because it ‘s not true.
We did ‘win’ in Viet Nam, then the politicians gave it away.
Yes. by using the stupid phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” in immediate response to a comment about the Taliban, you did imply that the Taliban are ‘freedom fighters.’ ‘Taliban’ in the comment to which you replied was linked directly by the person who made the comment to the term ‘freedom fighter.’ I read and understand quite well, thank you. That you insist on supporting the phrase seems to indicate that you have difficulty with the concept of ‘freedom.’
You appear to only exist to disrupt. To be a troll, in other words.
Troll, like yourself in other words?
What I wrote is true and correct, that really ticks you off doesn’t it comrade?
BTW comrade troll, I still recall to this day that moment in 1975 when the last helicopter left out of Saigon carrying the embassy flag with it when we “won” against the communists.
Glorius, was it not comrade?!
“Lamp”!
And that continued to burn, though no oil could be brought..
BS.
There is no nit picking about it.
My late grandfather ordered his first pistiol form Sears, Roebuck & Company when he was 13 years old, via catalog.
It was a .32 Iver Johnson revolver. He used it to pot rabbits off the tractor he was assigned to help on before he went to the big city to work for Wells Fargo as a driver.
The gun is still about today!
As usual, soldiers are against peasants owning guns.
Yes.
In Japan they passed strict laws against gun ownership by the peons because it made the samuri look worthless and rendered the collection of taxes difficult.
“Personally I don’t really care how long it’s been. The point is that it has been a capability to put slings on weapons for a very long time so use the damn thing. Rifles are to be carried on the back unless you are actively hunting or trying to kill someone.
To make it more simple, you don’t see police just wandering around with guns IN THEIR HANDS, unless they are actively chasing someone. So we open carriers shouldn’t either. Otherwise it’s called brandishing and it is illegal. Now stop busting my chops”.
Stop acting like a juvenile. Why is this so important to you?
“Sorry JK, you’re wrong. Fact”.
No, I am correct as you would find if you studied history.
“He should have said CREDIBLE threat. 9-11 was a once in a lifetime attack; even Bin Laden was surprised it was successful. Everything since then has been a “movie plot threat,” straining everyone’s (except the Terrorism Industry) credulity. Israel’s inhabitants face a very real threat every day; we don’t. Apples and oranges. Stop and think”.
You might try that yourself.
So why did we invade Afghanistan and Iraq and why do we have the DHS, TSA, etc, etc.. then?
I’ll wait while you answer that.
Oh be still, my fainting heart!
Why? I’ll tell you why. I have zero interest in being on a battlefield. I may want to go into a coffee shop. Why would I worry about my freedoms in a foreign country I have no reason to be in save some war to support a state I do not recognize as legitimate? I want to be free here where I live. Let the people who live there carry guns to make that place free!
We carry guns to remind the parasites that call themselves government that we are free and if they try to take that away from us, the battlefield will be here not in some far off land where we dont belong. The guns we carry keep this place from becoming a battlefield.
And this Asshole is wrong, in the third world you see the government and the gangs intimidating the unarmed population with their guns. In our country you see armed citizens intimidating those who would repress us.
Huffpro’s unique brand of “he was in the military, therefore his opinion is superior” is hilariously ironic considering that with such a particular group of charlatans and gun snatchers, they are usually the first to view everyone’s opinion as equal…except of course when they disagree.
I didn’t know Huffpro and big gun control valued the opinions of veterans anyways…especially somehow placing him on a pedestal and viewing his opinion as somehow superior because they agree with it.
and why do gun snatchers assume open carriers or other 2nd amendment supporters haven’t served?
I mean fvck. Count how many veterans are on this blog alone, let alone the others. Or even Arfcom. It is well known that gun ownership and veteran status often go hand in hand.
He called their AR-15s assault rifles. Methinks he isn’t as knowledgeable about guns as he is trying to imply.
“Thank you. I caught hell I and I think my comment was deleted because I said OCers gun fetishists were douche bags.
I stand by my statement, OCers gun fetishists are douche bags. OCers gun fetishists are little boys with a bright red Corvette screaming LOOK AT ME!
The average dick wad going to McDs or the store to buy a gallon of milk does NOT need to have his Glock strapped to his hip like he’s Wyatt Earp. Put the damn thing deadly penis extension in your pants and cover it with a shirt. Stealth and surprise hiding and timidity are a person best defense and tactical offense”.
FIFY. Are your sure you’re in the right place?
LOL! What an idiot! Best laugh I have had in a long while.
Those of you that are against carrying guns or opposed to carrying guns openly, I get it, Guns are scary and given the wrong person with a gun, things can get out of hand in a hurry. Done correctly though there should be absolutely no reason for alarm.
I don’t know what’s up with the newer generation of OC’ers, they seem to think that open carry has to be in their hands (WRONG), which would rightly scare the hell out of anyone that is either worried about their safety, or a fence sitter wondering if they should carry or not. Especially with the safeties or should I say LACK OF safeties that some guns are made with today. Open carry was meant to be IN A HOLSTER, or on your back, NOT in your hands. That is called Brandishing and yes it is illegal. I really think there should be a safety class, similar to a hunters safety course that people must take before they open carry, but that in itself to some people would be infringing on their rights. If we didn’t have so many misguided people on the subject, it wouldn’t be as much of a problem, but here we are.
Comments are closed.