Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Silentnomore

(12 posts)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:17 PM Jan 2013

1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting 2nd Amendment

The following letter was disseminated and signed by over 1,000 current and former Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets) in support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, specifically as a defensive measure against tyranny. The letter was compiled through the joint efforts of current and former Special Forces personnel over at www.ProfessionalSoldiers.com, and quietly disseminated for signatures among secure, vetted circles.

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Read the rest : http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/#ixzz2JOc75eEI

Read more: http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/#ixzz2JPBQSHE9

116 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting 2nd Amendment (Original Post) Silentnomore Jan 2013 OP
It's in the Constitution, isn't it? sadbear Jan 2013 #1
Wow, you must be missing the part where they argue what it means. n-t Logical Jan 2013 #26
Ironic that they should be against tyranny fishiefish Jan 2013 #2
Special Forces, Liberating the Oppressed Plato68 Jan 2013 #15
Welcome to DU! Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #19
The poster has been banned Cali_Democrat Jan 2013 #98
Welcome to DU. A HERETIC I AM Jan 2013 #20
Looks like he won't be participating in much discussion Cali_Democrat Jan 2013 #99
Well, that didn't take long! n/t A HERETIC I AM Jan 2013 #101
funny you should get that exactly backwards- i'm sure you have plenty more gems to share farminator3000 Jan 2013 #42
Just like how they trained the Mujahideen in the 80's to fight the Russians Lesmoderesstupides Jan 2013 #61
Hmong and other Montagnard peoples? SQUEE Jan 2013 #69
that worked really well in vietnam datasuspect Jan 2013 #71
Screw them...Obama isn't trying to take away their guns or not protect the 2nd amendment. Auntie Bush Jan 2013 #3
Or maybe they read Berserker Jan 2013 #9
I own a gun and I don't feel the hate. neverforget Jan 2013 #30
If you're not feeling the hate then you aren't paying attention. nt Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #37
Ok. I am paying attention but the gun doesn't mean that much to me. neverforget Jan 2013 #49
or maybe they don't read so good farminator3000 Jan 2013 #43
Because random people on a website are going to taker your guns BainsBane Feb 2013 #111
Exactly, AuntieBush. This letter is no better than fox screws propaganda. Cha Jan 2013 #18
I signed it Deelee18 Jan 2013 #64
no you don't. Cha Jan 2013 #91
But it's not about defensive measures against tyranny. maxsolomon Jan 2013 #4
To Regulate a Militia Plato68 Jan 2013 #25
No, see, you've got the meaning all twisted up theKed Jan 2013 #32
Perhaps I misunderstand you Plato68 Jan 2013 #35
Well theKed Jan 2013 #40
I agree to simply disagree, and let it go. Plato68 Jan 2013 #50
Wouldn't that be considered the police and national arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #51
Now you're on the trolley. theKed Jan 2013 #55
Oh, you mean that third arm of the corporatist arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #59
worst interpretation of the 2nd amendment ever. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #45
You, and another poster above are dearly helping arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #52
wow! thanks! farminator3000 Jan 2013 #58
Ironically... Oilwellian Jan 2013 #56
or Shay's farminator3000 Jan 2013 #57
And I always thought such behaviour was arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #60
I note that you do not refute Hartmann's argument maxsolomon Jan 2013 #73
Message auto-removed Shadar Feb 2013 #115
Read the Federalist Papers Deelee18 Jan 2013 #65
Quote me the relevant section. I really don't have the time or inclination to read them. maxsolomon Jan 2013 #74
You mean like this one? Oilwellian Jan 2013 #87
LIKE maxsolomon Jan 2013 #104
Message auto-removed Shadar Feb 2013 #114
This... Agschmid Feb 2013 #116
fucking idiots frylock Jan 2013 #5
In a democracy, what better than having armed forces elite squads define the constitution for you!? villager Jan 2013 #6
Oh, please! Rider3 Jan 2013 #7
And those muskets were state of the art at the time. nt Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #38
Congratulations! Your NRA renewal membership is on its way to you! VOX Jan 2013 #62
We had 20-round magazines back then, too derby378 Jan 2013 #70
Responses.... OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #8
Try reading better. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #12
The real point in all of these details is why should ANYONE have to scramble.... OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #24
"...an untrained civilian, no matter how long they practice..." Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #39
Jared Lee Loughner was stopped when reloading. You disagree that ir might help at all??? n-t Logical Jan 2013 #27
Loughner was trying to clear a jam, not reloading GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #76
But it can only help having smaller magazines. No down side. Logical Jan 2013 #94
try giving a shit about people getting shot farminator3000 Jan 2013 #47
What make you think I don't care? GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #78
because you think that one thing which proves your point is the only reality farminator3000 Jan 2013 #85
so? rustydog Jan 2013 #10
I support the 2nd Amendment, too. That's not the issue. Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #11
Signed by the ONLY department of Govt capable of "tyrannical oppression". JaneyVee Jan 2013 #13
whooptie shit Supply Side Jesus Jan 2013 #14
Welcome to DU alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #16
I hope the other thousand of SF guys will sign a different pledge. One that states they are okaawhatever Jan 2013 #17
They could only fine that many? Robb Jan 2013 #21
We should not allow people that are willingly that stupid in the military... Ohio Joe Jan 2013 #22
Your not understanding. American Blood Jan 2013 #77
Fuck the assholes Ohio Joe Jan 2013 #86
At this point Dyedinthewoolliberal Jan 2013 #23
Former are civilians. nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #28
And their opinion is no more valid than any other citizens about the subject. Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #29
It certainly is a different military now... Bigmack Jan 2013 #31
. theKed Jan 2013 #33
how many green berets are there in the World snooper2 Jan 2013 #34
See my #89 below JHB Jan 2013 #90
Silenced Again NoGOPZone Jan 2013 #36
So being an ex Green Beret B Calm Jan 2013 #41
If they were actors or musicians, they could be experts on every subject. n/t hughee99 Jan 2013 #75
Seriously....putting the military opinion on a pedestal as policy..... Sheepshank Jan 2013 #82
A THOUSAND?! Wow, that's a LOT!! Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #44
Is their status supposed to carry some weight? Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #46
Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #81
It's "It's former Marine, fool." Punctuate your ad hominems correctly. WinkyDink Jan 2013 #84
It's EX-marine. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #93
It's "Marine Veteran". westerebus Feb 2013 #106
Maybe you are but me and the Crotch parted company 6/29/65 after 4 years useless activity. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #107
YMMV. westerebus Feb 2013 #109
My re-up ceremony was very similar. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #110
It's Corps!!!!!!!!!!!! Dyedinthewoolliberal Jan 2013 #97
The 2nd Amendment was not created to use against our own government Oilwellian Jan 2013 #48
So this group believe that everyone in the US should have 2nd Amendment rights LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #53
so this is where all these yahoos on this board have been getting their propaganda! farminator3000 Jan 2013 #54
Exactly! Plato68 Jan 2013 #68
hermaphrodite, actually farminator3000 Jan 2013 #72
I'm going to meet your 1,000 with 90% Americans who support FleetwoodMac Jan 2013 #63
I have no problem with active duty green berets having guns CBGLuthier Jan 2013 #66
Just what we need, paraniod Green Berets. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #67
most of them are punks compared to russian navy or former bosnian child soldiers datasuspect Jan 2013 #79
"The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the histo" limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #80
Who cares? They're not "special" citizens, regardless of their military prowess. WinkyDink Jan 2013 #83
And the link is to a far-right, Dem bashing site...anyone alert on this? nt joeybee12 Jan 2013 #88
Let's do the math on that... JHB Jan 2013 #89
It is in fact no secret that the Green Berets have long been the uniformed mercenaries of the CIA Oilwellian Jan 2013 #92
One of my best friends was a Green Beret. bluedigger Jan 2013 #95
I find that to be real common B Calm Jan 2013 #103
This is so sad, nobody is abolishing the 2nd amendment. Ever. Rex Jan 2013 #96
Green Berets? Meh. Cali_Democrat Jan 2013 #100
Meaningless... Blue_Tires Jan 2013 #102
Post removed Post removed Feb 2013 #105
"Green Berets Take Second Amendment Too Literally & Take a Stand Against Public Safety" pacalo Feb 2013 #108
you mean: the rights of the NRA to protect criminals BainsBane Feb 2013 #112
What they sign should impress me because? 99Forever Feb 2013 #113
 

fishiefish

(23 posts)
2. Ironic that they should be against tyranny
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:19 PM
Jan 2013

Considering that they were the ones enforcing tyranny in foreign countries.

 

Plato68

(5 posts)
15. Special Forces, Liberating the Oppressed
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:57 PM
Jan 2013

Perhaps your uninformed opinion would change if you knew that the mission of the "Green Berets" was to train small disadvantaged groups to protect themselves from oppressive governments. They are well read and well aware that disarming the populace is a historical norm.

A HERETIC I AM

(24,386 posts)
20. Welcome to DU.
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:29 PM
Jan 2013

Nicely stated. Be careful however. Many here these days have an immediate dislike for newcomers, many of them being members with less than year or two tenure themselves.

Again, welcome to Democratic Underground. I hope you will enjoy your participation.

farminator3000

(2,117 posts)
42. funny you should get that exactly backwards- i'm sure you have plenty more gems to share
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:27 AM
Jan 2013

Special Forces (United States Army)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Army Special Forces, also known as the Green Berets because of their distinctive service headgear, are a special operations force tasked with five primary missions: unconventional warfare (the original and most important mission of Special Forces), foreign internal defense, special reconnaissance, direct action, and counter-terrorism.


Counter-insurgency (FID)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Insurgency, Low intensity conflict, Divide and rule, and Fourth generation warfare

A counter-insurgency or counterinsurgency[1] (COIN) operation involves actions taken by the recognized government of a nation to contain or quell an insurgency taken up against it.[2] In the main, the insurgents seek to destroy or erase the political authority of the defending authorities in a population they seek to control, and the counter-insurgent forces seek to protect that authority and reduce or eliminate the supplanting authority of the insurgents.

 

Lesmoderesstupides

(156 posts)
61. Just like how they trained the Mujahideen in the 80's to fight the Russians
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:13 AM
Jan 2013

in Afghanistan who in turn used that knowledge to bring the fight to the USA resulting in 9/11 and are still fighting their new oppressors in Afghanistan today.

Is that the training you are talking about?

I can give you a bunch more examples if you would like


SQUEE

(1,315 posts)
69. Hmong and other Montagnard peoples?
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:46 AM
Jan 2013

Would they be in your list?
You know the oppressed and hunted ethnic group that was historical repressed and killed in the VietNamese central highlands. There is a reason they settled in large numbers where they did after the Viet Nam War.

Auntie Bush

(17,528 posts)
3. Screw them...Obama isn't trying to take away their guns or not protect the 2nd amendment.
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:23 PM
Jan 2013

They must listen to too much Rush and his cohorts.

neverforget

(9,437 posts)
30. I own a gun and I don't feel the hate.
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:52 PM
Jan 2013

But then again, I don't go around DU defending guns (not saying you do) because they are not the "be all, end all" of my rights.

neverforget

(9,437 posts)
49. Ok. I am paying attention but the gun doesn't mean that much to me.
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:50 AM
Jan 2013

I value human life more than a gun maybe that's why I don't feel the hate.

farminator3000

(2,117 posts)
43. or maybe they don't read so good
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:28 AM
Jan 2013

and get shit for supporting an 'unrealistic' view of their holy amendment.

Cha

(298,365 posts)
18. Exactly, AuntieBush. This letter is no better than fox screws propaganda.
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:26 PM
Jan 2013

Pres is talking about Sensible Gun Safety.. not taking away their damn right to bears arms.

Get a clue green berets who signed it.

maxsolomon

(33,502 posts)
4. But it's not about defensive measures against tyranny.
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:25 PM
Jan 2013

"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."

The "security of a free state" being referred to is the ability to be secure from slave rebellions through the efforts of the slave patrols, which were active militias.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Didn't you hear what Scalia said, Green Berets? The Constitution is dead, dead, dead. Stop changing the meaning of this sacred document.

 

Plato68

(5 posts)
25. To Regulate a Militia
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:20 PM
Jan 2013

I understand that, and the "other things" in our history.

I am not surprised that, when we read we focus on a few words in a sentence and form an opinion based in part on what we have heard in repetition.

Do you notice that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Why?

Not so that arms should always be available to the militia.
Not so that every person shall be available to join the militia.

But, to "regulate" the militia.

Regulate, control, keep operating within it's intended boundaries.

Why would our founders write that common citizens must be allowed to keep weapons in order to keep the militia under control? I suspect it's not about deer hunting.

theKed

(1,235 posts)
32. No, see, you've got the meaning all twisted up
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:02 AM
Jan 2013

The right of the citizenry to bear arms isn't the means of regulation of the militia. The well-regulated militia is the means for the citizenry to be armed.

 

Plato68

(5 posts)
35. Perhaps I misunderstand you
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:25 AM
Jan 2013

Is it your belief that the presence of British Forces (the declared "legal" government of the time) was a way to arm colonists?

Or do you propose that, when the National Guard moves into a city to control the actions of it's citizens, that is a way of arming "the people"?

Why, then did the amendment mention controlling the militia and link it to an armed citizenry, instead of some word or phrase that showed it as a source or arms? Why "well-regulated militia" and "the people"? Why not "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

theKed

(1,235 posts)
40. Well
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:45 AM
Jan 2013

First, the British Forces were not the "legal government" at the time the second amendment was enacted.

Second, "Why not "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?" - that is, more or less, what it is, in fact, saying. The grammatical structure of the amendment is a bit esoteric and not commonly used in contemporary American English, but that's what it is saying.

"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."

It says that a well-regulated militia (an armed force composed of and formed by the general citizenry) is necessary to the security of the state. To that end, the citizenry, it says, have a right to keep arms. The people's right to keep and bear arms hinges on their participation in a well-regulated militia body, a part that is basically ignored by the hard-right.

 

Plato68

(5 posts)
50. I agree to simply disagree, and let it go.
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:54 AM
Jan 2013

An armed militia cannot search your home without warrant. An armed militia cannot quarter it's members in your home unless in time of war under special circumstances. That armed militia will, of course, be controlled by unarmed citizens

Because, in the case you present......
"The people's right to keep and bear arms hinges on their participation in a well-regulated militia body."

Where do the farmers, and ranchers, and local police officers go to turn in their weapons?

arthritisR_US

(7,303 posts)
51. Wouldn't that be considered the police and national
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:05 AM
Jan 2013

guard not some jack asses shooting kids in the driveway or stalking and killing a kid on his way home from getting some skittles and pop? Just asking.

theKed

(1,235 posts)
55. Now you're on the trolley.
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:28 AM
Jan 2013

The 2nd Amendment is meant as a means for the people to form their own national security - since there was no standing army following the nation's formation. It has been distorted and eviscerated for a very long time. The current Supreme Court has done their share to help this along.

farminator3000

(2,117 posts)
45. worst interpretation of the 2nd amendment ever.
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:39 AM
Jan 2013

and that's saying something

It is vital that Americans separate myths from realities, because what many of us seem to have forgotten is that, in the vision of the founders of the United States of America, the right to bear arms carries with it enormous burdens and responsibilities.

In fact, if we restored the Second Amendment to its original meaning, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare. Invoking the Second Amendment ought to be a more effective argument for increased regulation than it is against it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900

Militias were tightly controlled organizations legally defined and regulated by the individual colonies before the Revolution and, after independence, by the individual states. Militia laws ran on for pages and were some of the lengthiest pieces of legislation in the statute books. States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.

These laws also defined what type of guns you had to buy — a form of taxation levied on individual households. Yes, long before Obamacare, the state made you buy something, even if you did not want to purchase it.

One of the reasons we have a Constitution is the founders were worried about the danger posed by individuals acting like a militia without legal authority
.

But rather than invoke the Second Amendment in the coming months, Americans need to learn something about the historical origins of this part of our constitutional tradition. The bottom line is simple: the Second Amendment requires more gun regulation, not less.


arthritisR_US

(7,303 posts)
52. You, and another poster above are dearly helping
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:11 AM
Jan 2013

me to understand this all now, thank you for the clarity. Alas, your intelligence will be lost on the obtuse.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
56. Ironically...
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:30 AM
Jan 2013

the 2nd Amendment would be used to quell any armed insurrection within a state. The yahoos who threaten an armed revolution will be put down by the very amendment they think they're defending. It's just absurd to think our founding fathers would create an amendment that would aid in the destruction of our own government. One need only study the Whiskey Rebellion to understand their intent behind the 2nd Amendment.

farminator3000

(2,117 posts)
57. or Shay's
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:40 AM
Jan 2013

The founders had a word for a bunch of farmers marching with guns without government sanction: a mob. One of the reasons we have a Constitution is the founders were worried about the danger posed by individuals acting like a militia without legal authority. This was precisely what happened during Shays’ Rebellion, an insurrection in western Massachusetts that persuaded many Americans that we needed a stronger central government to avert anarchy.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900

***

which somehow gets seized on by morans-
http://www.politifake.org/shays-rebellion-shay-rebellion-government-gun-control-politics-30001.html

arthritisR_US

(7,303 posts)
60. And I always thought such behaviour was
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:53 AM
Jan 2013

called treason. I have really appreciated the the posts tonight. I am learning and grateful for the insight

maxsolomon

(33,502 posts)
73. I note that you do not refute Hartmann's argument
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:58 PM
Jan 2013

You merely dismiss it as the "worst ever". Is his history inaccurate? Were Slave Patrols not Militias? Was DOMESTIC insurrection not a major concern of slave-holding states?

Otherwise, I agree with your post - more regulation, more responsibilities for the RKBA.

Response to Plato68 (Reply #25)

 

Deelee18

(2 posts)
65. Read the Federalist Papers
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:38 AM
Jan 2013

The purpose of the Amendment was to protect the citizenry from and oppressive government.

maxsolomon

(33,502 posts)
74. Quote me the relevant section. I really don't have the time or inclination to read them.
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:01 PM
Jan 2013

Yeah, yeah, I'm a bad citizen.

Do you contend that Hartmann is incorrect?

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
87. You mean like this one?
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:56 PM
Jan 2013

In the first paragraph of Federalist Paper No. 29, Alexander Hamilton writes,

“THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.”

He concludes that same paper saying,

“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition."

Hamilton argues if there is an insurrection in one state, the federal government can use its power to march a militia from one state to another to put it down.

Lest someone argue that this is mere liberal spin, then bear in mind in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791, the militia was ordered by President George Washington to do precisely that. Burdened with what they felt were unfair taxes, farmers rebelled and rose up in arms in Pennsylvania.

Washington ordered the militias from Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania to put it down, and they did. When the 13,000 troops arrived, the 500 insurgents went home. (As an interesting aside, President Washington literally led the troops, riding at the front!)

This historical fact clearly characterizes the intent of the amendment was not to fight against some tyrannical, over-taxing government as the right would have you believe. If it were, those very same founders who included it wouldn’t have utilized it in a manner the precise opposite of how they intended it.

Response to maxsolomon (Reply #4)

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
116. This...
Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:15 AM
Feb 2013

"Your a special kind of stupid aren't you?"

Is not okay in our community... I have not read the post you are responding too but still your comment is over the top and something that should not be part of our community.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
6. In a democracy, what better than having armed forces elite squads define the constitution for you!?
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:27 PM
Jan 2013

n/t

Rider3

(919 posts)
7. Oh, please!
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:28 PM
Jan 2013

If you're in combat, then grab your gun. If you are Joe-Everyday-Neighbor, you don't need a high-powered gun. Period. The law was first written when we only had muskets -- not AK-47s.

VOX

(22,976 posts)
62. Congratulations! Your NRA renewal membership is on its way to you!
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:01 AM
Jan 2013

Just want to express our appreciation for using one of our go-to talking points!

derby378

(30,252 posts)
70. We had 20-round magazines back then, too
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:49 AM
Jan 2013

Lewis and Clark had one installed on the rifle they took into the wilderness. I'm keeping my "AK-47."

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)
8. Responses....
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 07:05 PM
Jan 2013

Quotes from the article in italics, my responses in bold....

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

I doubt seriously if you're on the receiving end of a rate of fire of 45-60 rounds per minute versus up to 950 rounds per minute you're really going to be counting the rounds tearing into your body. You're dead or badly wounded either way. I don't even want to know what those children in Newtown were thinking in their final seconds.


The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

6-8 seconds fumbling around changing mags may mean all the difference in the world to someone trying to escape from someone intent on killing you. Some of these Green Berets should know that from personal experience.


Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Let's assume a shooter is using 10-round mags to fire 30 rounds:

Fire 10 rounds in approximately 10-15 seconds,
Change mags in 6-8 seconds,
Fire another 10 rounds in approximately 10-15 seconds,
Change mags in 6-8 seconds,
Fire another 10 rounds in approximately 10-15 seconds
--------------------------------------------------------
Total time elapsed using three 10-round mags: 42-61 seconds.

Now, let's assume a shooter is using a 30-round mag. Total time elapsed using one 30-round mag to fire 30 rounds: approximately 30-45 seconds.

Just my opinion, but it looks possible to me that some potential victims could scramble to safety while the shooter using 10-round mags is changing mags, while their chances of escaping from a shooter using a 30-round mag would be considerably less. Did the Green Berets consider that in their letter of support?







GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
12. Try reading better.
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:45 PM
Jan 2013

The letter writer states: reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines

That is TWO magazine swaps in a TOTAL of 6 - 8 seconds, NOT 6 - 8 seconds each.

Your state: 6-8 seconds fumbling around changing mags.
You are doubling the time for a magazine swap.

I am familiar with both the M-16 from time in the service and with many different types of semi-auto pistols. A magazine swap with a pistol can be done much faster than with an M-16. With only a little practice a person can swap a pistol mag in no more than 2 seconds. Experts, with a bevelled magazine well and a double stacked magazine can do a swap in 1/2 second, ordinary people, one second.

How far can you scramble in one second?

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)
24. The real point in all of these details is why should ANYONE have to scramble....
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:19 PM
Jan 2013

...to try to escape one or more gunmen intent on killing them in a school or any other setting? For all of the "concern" expressed by the current and former Green Berets for potential victims they seem to have missed the main point of the recent gun control discussion. Their letter seems much more intent on creating confusion in the minds of their readers than they do in helping to create a real solution.

And yes, I'm familiar with weapons from my time in the service as well. I know for a fact that an untrained civilian, no matter how long they practice, if they practice at all, will swap magazines at a much slower rate than a former or current serviceperson.

One more point...next time you want me to "try reading better", try being a little more diplomatic. I usually respond better to reasonable people, not those intent on being personally insulting.


Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
39. "...an untrained civilian, no matter how long they practice..."
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:36 AM
Jan 2013

If they're practicing then they aren't really untrained, are they?

I think you're trying to make changing out a magazine a lot harder than it is.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
76. Loughner was trying to clear a jam, not reloading
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:08 PM
Jan 2013

His mag held 33 rounds, plus one in the chamber = 34 rounds. The FBI said that he fired 31 rounds. That strongly indicates that his extended mag malfunctioned. Oversized mags tend to malfunction a lot. Experienced shooters tend to avoid them because of their unreliability. The follower springs often have incorrect tension over part of their range. That causes some rounds to not feed properly. Extended mags can have other problems too.

In Vietnam it was common to only load 18 rounds into a 20 round mag to help prevent failure-to-feed jams with the M-16. Also we learned to tap the back of the mag on our helmets to make sure the rounds were properly seated in the mag so they would feed correctly.

A mag swap on a pistol can be done more rapidly than people can tackle, as demonstrated by the killers at VT, Luby's, Ft. Hood, and others. But a jammed gun takes much more time to clear the jam.

farminator3000

(2,117 posts)
47. try giving a shit about people getting shot
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:43 AM
Jan 2013

if they guy gets tackled after unloading one mag OBVIOUSLY it is a fact 10 is better than 30

not even worth defending your position.

why not 6 round mags?

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
78. What make you think I don't care?
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:13 PM
Jan 2013

Who tackled the killers at Ft. Hood, VT, Luby's and other places? Ans: No one. Each one of them reloaded multiple times. Mag swaps with handguns are fast and easy.

farminator3000

(2,117 posts)
85. because you think that one thing which proves your point is the only reality
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:51 PM
Jan 2013

when, ALSO, in FACT, loughner was tackled by a 70+ year old ex-military guy ALREADY SHOT in the leg and A GUY WITH A GUN

who was SMART ENOUGH not to use it.

so your argument is a false one. that why i think you don't care.

you might look up the settle cafe one where the shooter was taken out by a CHAIR.

or the buhl massacre where the detective RAN THROUGH A BURNING BUILDING to tackle the shooter. and didn't lose his hat.

so give up with the BS already.

plus defending the OP is totally frigging lame.

rustydog

(9,186 posts)
10. so?
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:06 PM
Jan 2013

Has nothing to do with high capacity arms in the hands of civilians.
They have a right to their opinion. At one time the prevailing opinion was Slavery was hunky dorey and women were too stoopid to vote...Good for the troops anyway, they can believe whatever they want.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
11. I support the 2nd Amendment, too. That's not the issue.
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:26 PM
Jan 2013

They're scared that this will be a slippery slope to take away all guns from the public, which couldn't happen, even if the govt wanted to do that.

okaawhatever

(9,479 posts)
17. I hope the other thousand of SF guys will sign a different pledge. One that states they are
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:23 PM
Jan 2013

reasonable and understand the need for minimal regulations and they understand it's the Constitution that will stop anyone from completely unarming all citizens.

I have been around many and dated a few SF guys. None of the ones I know would sign something like that. Ofcourse they're pretty familiar with constitutional law and aren't afraid that they will be needed to overthrow the government.

I hate to see military guys behaving this way, especially since they are the minority opinion. When I was back at Ft. Bragg a couple of years ago an old friend who works at JSOC was saying they were having to lower the requirements for alot of recruits. I see now what he meant.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
21. They could only fine that many?
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:31 PM
Jan 2013

Aren't there like 4,000 active right now? And thousands more inactive?

Whoop dee damn doo.

Ohio Joe

(21,784 posts)
22. We should not allow people that are willingly that stupid in the military...
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:31 PM
Jan 2013

I don't think we should allow them to own guns either.

 

American Blood

(2 posts)
77. Your not understanding.
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:12 PM
Jan 2013

Who are you to "allow" people? Are you the new king of America? They are saying that you and all your friends do not have the right to tell them what their rights are. They are saying the their rights are laid out by the Constitution and do not mess with them. Get it now? These are the guys that do the Country's dirty work. I think you may want to pay attention. Just saying...

Ohio Joe

(21,784 posts)
86. Fuck the assholes
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:54 PM
Jan 2013

When they learn to distinguish reality from fantasy they might be worth listening to. Until then, fuck each and every one of the gun nuts.

Dyedinthewoolliberal

(15,634 posts)
23. At this point
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:40 PM
Jan 2013

I could not care less who supports the 2nd Amendment. This issue can be addressed without changing the amendment. If you have a gun, fine, keep it.
If you want to buy a semi automatic modified military type weapon (that's why they are not single shot weapons, that would be no good to a soldier) you have to pass a test or pay a fee or buy a license or something.
If you already have a gun, you are exercising your right under the 2nd Amendment.
Enacting a law regarding modified assault weapons is not infringing on your right............ imnsho

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
29. And their opinion is no more valid than any other citizens about the subject.
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:41 PM
Jan 2013

No special rights are conferred upon those who have served in the military.

Those that would think so have never read the Constitution they seem to revere so deeply.

 

Bigmack

(8,020 posts)
31. It certainly is a different military now...
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:00 AM
Jan 2013

..than the Corps I served in.

Nobody really cared whether we supported the 2nd Amendment.. or even the Constitution.

Yes, I know what the oath says... but I didn't spend much time discussing the subtleties of the Constitution with the ossifurs and lifer NCO's.

Basically, we were told to just STFU and do our jobs.

So... Special Forces... I'm just thrilled that you support the 2nd Amendment. But I really believe that the Congress, the Pres, and the courts should have more say than you do.

US MARINE CORPS OATH OF ENLISTMENT
"I, (pick a name the police won't recognize), swear..uhhhh....high-and-tight.... grunt... cammies....kill....fix bayonets....charge....slash....dig....burn....blowup....ugh...Air Force women....beer.....sailors wives.....air strikes....yes SIR!....whiskey....liberty call....salute....Ooorah Gunny....grenades...women....OORAH! So Help Me Chesty PULLER!"

X____________________
Thumb Print
XX _________________________________
Teeth Marks
_____________________
Date



 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
34. how many green berets are there in the World
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:08 AM
Jan 2013

After that answer,

We will go into statistics and how certain segments of society "left & right of center" tend to follow and may not be the independent thinkers we all like to believe we are of ourselves

JHB

(37,170 posts)
90. See my #89 below
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:30 PM
Jan 2013

Wasn't able to find the answer on the quick, but given the current and recent force levels, and the circa-50-year history of the GBs, the number for former GBs has to be in the tens of thousands.

Which puts this 1000-signature letter in the single-digit percentages.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
82. Seriously....putting the military opinion on a pedestal as policy.....
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:28 PM
Jan 2013

....is never, ever, ever a good idea. Military in charge of public policy, is one of the scariest shitting crapolla imaginable

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)
44. A THOUSAND?! Wow, that's a LOT!!
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:34 AM
Jan 2013

Nearly as many as will die in the next thirty days from hand-guns.

Thanks for sharing your opinion fellas, but yours carries no more weight than, say, that of grieving families of those who died.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
46. Is their status supposed to carry some weight?
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:43 AM
Jan 2013

I'm an ex-marine and heartily support rigorous gun control and registration of all firearms.

Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #46)

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
107. Maybe you are but me and the Crotch parted company 6/29/65 after 4 years useless activity.
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:56 PM
Feb 2013

Unless you consider marching, shitting in holes, eating garbage, and saluting imbeciles, useful.

westerebus

(2,976 posts)
109. YMMV.
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:21 PM
Feb 2013

1968-1971. West-Pac 1969. 0331.

First Sgt: Ready to re-up?

Me: No Top. I'm gonna grow my hair long, go to college, get some free love, and hope I never have to do this shit again.

First Sgt: Well... that's that... God bless... NEXT!

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
110. My re-up ceremony was very similar.
Sat Feb 2, 2013, 02:31 PM
Feb 2013

That I definitely not going to re-up was a given and the gunny that provided the ritual knew it. But, he did try and convince to extend my enlistment for (as I recall) for 14 months. All the usual blandishments of moving up a grade and choice of duty stations. Then I asked him about the newly heating up war in Vietnam. "Well...uh..it's a possibility you could catch a tour...". Then I told him what I thought of the war, and how I thought it was kind of insulting that he thought I might be willing to go and kill people I didn't know, had nothing against, so LBJ could prove his "anti-Communism".

The result was 30 days of mess duty before I grinned my way through the main gate.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
48. The 2nd Amendment was not created to use against our own government
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:44 AM
Jan 2013

The 2nd Amendment was created to defend against insurrection and invasion. I would be interested to see any historical document that says otherwise, especially where it specifies the need to defend ourselves against our own government should it become tyrannical. It's absolutely absurd to think our founding fathers, while creating our Constitution and Bill of Rights, would devise an amendment aiding in our own government's destruction. The myth these Green Berets are "catapulting" insults the intelligence of the founders. They built many safeguards into the Constitution to prevent the Federal government from becoming tyrannical. It built in a separation of powers, a balance of powers, a chambered Congress and a means for the Constitution to be amended. The very fact our 2nd Amendment rights are still honored today, is proof that the Constitution works.

In the first paragraph of Federalist Paper No. 29, Alexander Hamilton writes,

“THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.”

He concludes that same paper saying,

“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition."

Hamilton argues if there is an insurrection in one state, the federal government can use its power to march a militia from one state to another to put it down.

Lest someone argue that this is mere liberal spin, then bear in mind in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791, the militia was ordered by President George Washington to do precisely that. Burdened with what they felt were unfair taxes, farmers rebelled and rose up in arms in Pennsylvania.

Washington ordered the militias from Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania to put it down, and they did. When the 13,000 troops arrived, the 500 insurgents went home. (As an interesting aside, President Washington literally led the troops, riding at the front!)

This historical fact clearly characterizes the intent of the amendment was not to fight against some tyrannical, over-taxing government as some would have you believe. If it were, those very same founders who included it wouldn’t have utilized it in a manner the precise opposite of how they intended it.

In closing, I have to say the irony is something to behold when you consider the extreme 2nd Amendment advocates who threaten violence should the ownership of guns be regulated. It is indeed the very same amendment that will be used to quell their rebellion, should it come to fruition. So be careful what you advocate for. It may very well come back and label YOU as the enemy within who is threatening our peace and security.

LiberalFighter

(51,619 posts)
53. So this group believe that everyone in the US should have 2nd Amendment rights
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:27 AM
Jan 2013

The crazies, those determined not mentally stable, criminals, etc. That there should be no limits as to what is allowed for firearms. How soon before 2nd amendment crazies demand that fetuses have the same right?

Yet, there are restrictions on when and what can be hunted and the firearm that will be allowed. Yet, there are criterias determining if a person commits murder or it is self-defense. There are prohibitions of firearms in federal and state buildings, prisons, courts, and many other places.

farminator3000

(2,117 posts)
54. so this is where all these yahoos on this board have been getting their propaganda!
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:27 AM
Jan 2013

original poster-
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ


Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election.
And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

(what an immature crock of shit)

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes.

(they mentioned hitler, they lose automatically. it's an internet rule)

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whomever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

edit - AND WHY WON'T THESE FOOLS SHOW THEIR NAMES????




FleetwoodMac

(351 posts)
63. I'm going to meet your 1,000 with 90% Americans who support
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:25 AM
Jan 2013

universal background checks, and raise you 60% Americans who supports banning assault rifles.

In reserve, I still have 54% Americans who supports banning high capacity magazines, and another 58% who favors stricter gun control laws.

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
66. I have no problem with active duty green berets having guns
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:00 AM
Jan 2013

The rest of us however, that I have a problem with.

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
80. "The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the histo"
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:17 PM
Jan 2013

"The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind"

huh? Seems kind of overly simplistic. It's an interesting document but this seems sort of creepy and worshipful.



JHB

(37,170 posts)
89. Let's do the math on that...
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:22 PM
Jan 2013

According to the Army, as of 2011 current manpower for that force was 5500-6000, which is about double what it was as of September 11, 2001. I can't immediately find numbers for current and former Green Berets still alive, but the number would be in the tens of thousands.

From that number, this letter was "quietly disseminated for signatures among secure, vetted circles" (emphasis mine). I don't know if this really needs explaining, but circulating a document "among secure, vetted circles" is highly likely to boost the numbers positive responses it receives - the vetting would weed out most of the apathetic or unfavorable responses.

So under those circumstances, 1000 signatures doesn't seem all that impressive as a percentage - somewhere in the single digits.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
92. It is in fact no secret that the Green Berets have long been the uniformed mercenaries of the CIA
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:42 PM
Jan 2013

They're scumbag mercenaries.

bluedigger

(17,091 posts)
95. One of my best friends was a Green Beret.
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:55 PM
Jan 2013

He did three tours in Vietnam and was refused a fourth tour because his commanders told him "he liked it too much". He retired after 26 years as a Command Sergeant Major (the highest enlisted rank). And he never owned a personal firearm.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
103. I find that to be real common
Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:19 AM
Jan 2013

with combat veterans. My dad was a WW2 veteran who came back from war pretty much anti gun.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
96. This is so sad, nobody is abolishing the 2nd amendment. Ever.
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:56 PM
Jan 2013

People REALLY do need to lay off the Socknews! It is rotting their brains!

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
100. Green Berets? Meh.
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:26 PM
Jan 2013

Their voices are no more important than anybody else's. The idolization of all things military in this country is laughable and very fascistic.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
102. Meaningless...
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:11 PM
Jan 2013

I could get 1000 DU signatures RIGHT NOW to support the Dave Matthews Band, if I really wanted...What would that prove??

Response to Silentnomore (Original post)

BainsBane

(53,137 posts)
112. you mean: the rights of the NRA to protect criminals
Sat Feb 2, 2013, 05:12 PM
Feb 2013

shall not be abridged for fear of cutting into the profits of the gun lobby.

LaPierre betrayed his motives when opposing background checks before congress. He said criminals won't submit to background checks. That's exactly their fear. They depend on criminals for their livelihood: professional criminals who make a living through their guns and hobbyist criminals who enter the criminal class only after killing someone. That latter group is what the NRA refers to as the so-called law abiding gun owner. Law abiding people have nothing to fear from background checks or limits on magazine sizes. They don't need to kill dozens of people in a minute. So why do they insist on having that capacity if their intentions aren't criminal?

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
113. What they sign should impress me because?
Sat Feb 2, 2013, 05:18 PM
Feb 2013

A: __________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

Thanks in advance.

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.

Tell me more...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»1000 Green Berets Sign Le...