I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

This super conservative fox news military man’s take on the firearm issue is so logical and surprisingly wise I’m going to quote this whole article. I hope it’s within the rules.

I just ask people to read it in the spirit of finding wisdom on this issue.

nypost.com...

By Ralph Peters

Guns and I go back a long way.
My father was a champion skeet shooter. A picture of him aiming his favorite pump skyward has pride of place in our living room. He owned fine rifles and shotguns, and he valued them.

My first experience with pulling a trigger came late, by family standards. I was already 7 or 8 when my dad and “Uncle” George took me out back of Old Lily’s house and handed me a sawed-off shotgun (illegal then and now) kept handy for woodchucks and rattlesnakes. The recoil didn’t knock me off my feet, but my shoulder ached for weeks.

I’m blessed to have few material regrets, but I still feel a sting when I recall how, after my father’s bankruptcy, we had to sell his guns to put food on the table. Those arms were important to him and, thus, to me.

I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs. (Let’s not talk about dud-grenade disposal . . .).
And I’m a gun owner. As I write these lines, there’s an 1858 Tower musket behind me and a Colt on my desk.

But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semiautomatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.


The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.

Florida shooter obtained 10 rifles in year before massacre

The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster. These are cop-killer weapons, too.

The standard argument deployed in reply to demands that military-grade weapons be banned or mildly restricted from public sale cites the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Well, here’s what the Second Amendment actually says: “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.” That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” Did any of the recent shooters belong to a “well regulated militia”? As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law-enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.


As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming. Our standing army numbered in the hundreds.

Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?

Las Vegas shooter likely altered guns to be even deadlier

How can members of our Congress or state legislators put their re-election campaigns above the lives of children? How can they do that? We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?
How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?


The demagogues( like Alex Jones--my comment) who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day.

As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.
When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most-disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.

Again, I support gun ownership. Always have, always will. But if anyone feels irresistibly compelled to fire automatic weapons or their surrogates, I have a deal for them: Join the US Army or the Marines as a combat infantryman. You’ll even get paid to pull triggers. Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.

originally posted by: Willtell


This super conservative fox news military man’s take on the firearm issue is so logical and surprisingly wise I’m going to quote this whole article. I hope it’s within the rules.

I just ask people to read it in the spirit of finding wisdom on this issue.

nypost.com...

By Ralph Peters

Guns and I go back a long way.
My father was a champion skeet shooter. A picture of him aiming his favorite pump skyward has pride of place in our living room. He owned fine rifles and shotguns, and he valued them.

My first experience with pulling a trigger came late, by family standards. I was already 7 or 8 when my dad and “Uncle” George took me out back of Old Lily’s house and handed me a sawed-off shotgun (illegal then and now) kept handy for woodchucks and rattlesnakes. The recoil didn’t knock me off my feet, but my shoulder ached for weeks.

I’m blessed to have few material regrets, but I still feel a sting when I recall how, after my father’s bankruptcy, we had to sell his guns to put food on the table. Those arms were important to him and, thus, to me.

I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs. (Let’s not talk about dud-grenade disposal . . .).
And I’m a gun owner. As I write these lines, there’s an 1858 Tower musket behind me and a Colt on my desk.

But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semiautomatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.


The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.

Florida shooter obtained 10 rifles in year before massacre

The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster. These are cop-killer weapons, too.

The standard argument deployed in reply to demands that military-grade weapons be banned or mildly restricted from public sale cites the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Well, here’s what the Second Amendment actually says: “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.” That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” Did any of the recent shooters belong to a “well regulated militia”? As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law-enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.


As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming. Our standing army numbered in the hundreds.

Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?

Las Vegas shooter likely altered guns to be even deadlier

How can members of our Congress or state legislators put their re-election campaigns above the lives of children? How can they do that? We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?
How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?


The demagogues( like Alex Jones--my comment) who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day.

As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.
When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most-disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.

Again, I support gun ownership. Always have, always will. But if anyone feels irresistibly compelled to fire automatic weapons or their surrogates, I have a deal for them: Join the US Army or the Marines as a combat infantryman. You’ll even get paid to pull triggers. Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.

Feeling are cool lol. Irrelevant, but cool I guess. Too bad no one cares. I'd be more interested in what differentiates an "assault" weapons from... I don't know... every other rifle that exists.

He is preaching at a wall.

Very, very few automatic weapons exist in the US compared to what people seem to think. Off the top of my head, i can't think of the last time automatic weapons were used. Maybe that bank robbery in LA back in the 90's?

"Assault weapons" do not exist in civilian hands. We have watered down rifles known as AR 15's.

a reply to: Willtell

So suddenly you are quoting FOX news and conservatives? Really? Very disingenuous.

Ralph has his opinions and good for him. Irrelevant to my view, in other words it means nothing.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

good thing assault weapons are already banned, all we have are these stupid semi-automatic rifles.

I love the constant barrage of emotions overriding logic, its oddly reassuring to watch it happen...

We've already banned drugs, see how well that's worked out.

And when all the law abiding citizen give up their guns who comes to the rescue? certainly not the FBI who were warned a dozen time about this guy or certainly not the police:

www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: Willtell

Good for him,

He is welcome to his opinion and he is more than free (and so are you) to turn in any firearms that you own that are offensive to you.

As a veteran, I own an AR 15 because I know the platform in and out and have chosen it because I have been trained and know it better than anything else.

Feel free to lead by example and turn in all YOUR guns.

I will keep mine.

Call me when your war on drugs has been finally won and illegal drugs are no longer available because likewise, every criminal will have access to guns. I do not plan to disarm myself.

I'd like to ban the term 'assault weapon'.

Or at least beat the people who say it with a bar of soap in a sock.

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: Willtell

So suddenly you are quoting FOX news and conservatives? Really? Very disingenuous.

Ralph has his opinions and good for him. Irrelevant to my view, in other words it means nothing.

I’ve never been an anti gun guy but don’t own a gun and never will unless some massive insanity takes over.


I personally believe, as I posted many times, that this issue should NOT be only a gun issue, but I believe guns are an integral part of the problem, but not the only part of the problem.

This writer, I usually don’t like at all, but here I can’t see any flaws in his thinking and he deals with all the anti anti gun control issues succinctly.

Appeal to authority. I'm a vet too and disagree. He totally leaves out the main reason for the 2nd.

Plus, we'd have a few excellent militias if they weren't targeted by Cointelpro over the years.

When did you start totally trusting the government, Will?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's those bump stocks ya know? They make semi-autos into full-auto with perfect accuracy.

Or not. This ridiculous concept that Semi-Autos are military grade is nonsense. I live in Britain and Ironically, Semi-automatic rifles are still legal here. Yes, these "Assault Weapons" are still legal in the UK!

Can any anti-AR15 person explain that one to me...

I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

Propaganda.

Remember when our military use to fight fascists?

Now they are being used to push their agenda.

originally posted by: The GUT
Appeal to authority. I'm a vet too and disagree. He totally leaves out the main reason for the 2nd.

Plus, we'd have a few excellent militias if they weren't targeted by Cointelpro over the years.

When did you start totally trusting the government, Will?

You know better than that.

Me trust the government?


I have a little inside information I WILLl NEVER reveal, my friend.
…Probably

Anyway, it’s a legitimate issue of importance to the society


I hope you, my good friend, do not believe a small group of malcontents with AR 15 can stop any government antics.

a reply to: Willtell

There's nothing to read.

Since it's the complete antithesis of what the word liberal means.

And the epitome of what the word fascist means.

a reply to: Willtell

Wow, I was bang on! You specifically named the rifle that I mentioned!

Why are Armalite targeted over other rifle manufacturers?

(No puns intended )

a reply to: Willtell

I've been active duty military for 17 years and I categorically disagree with all of his opinions on this topic.

I'm not going to bash the guy, because looking through his previous pieces I agree with him on some things.

But, this guy is just another random ***hole on the internet. And his opinion should be taken as such.

But more importantly, the Supreme Court disagrees with his opinion too.

If anyone is afraid of the government, therefore, we should have access to automatic firearms, or maybe drug dealers you are frightened of or whatever, we have to understand these weapons will never save you from a government gone crazy, all those guns will do is get you dead quickly and violently.

..Cause whatever big bad gun you think you have the government has one much bigger and badder!


You sacrifice those guns you are attached to because you are a good citizen who cares for the victims of a society gone mad.

Its called sacrifice...


From a Christian civilization, you should understand this principle.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Willtell

So What?

IF your were a 'real' military man, you'd know AR-15s aren't assault weapons. The U.S. Military does not use AR-15s.

Your a leftie and in the minority on this one...Actually on about everything you post.

I didn’t write that article, it was written by a super fox news conservative.

Too bad you didn’t read it

Cool. You promoted it. That makes you an accessory. My post remains spot on.

originally posted by: Willtell

Anyway, it’s a legitimate issue of importance to the society


I hope you, my good friend, do not believe a small group of malcontents with AR 15 can stop any government antics.

Well, I hope it never comes to that but should it, I don't believe "malcontents" would be the right word in face of "antics." That's not internally consistent.

The odds are irrelevant, the sentiment not.