U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-20-2009, 07:33 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,319,821 times
Reputation: 2558

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
I'm not dodging your question I just don't think you have the stature to cross examine a veteran.

Dont you mean elitist pig?
As a soldier & a veteran who can you answer to but the people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2009, 07:40 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,319,821 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
The "staure" to cross examine a veteran? . And in your mind what" stature" would be proper? Being a veteran is a noble thing, but not all "veterans" are created equal and veteran status does not uniuqely qualify a person as "special" per se. I did not serve, due to circumstances beyond my control, and I have been berated by "veterans" in certain topics of conversation, because of that fact. Thier belief was that since I "wasn't there" etc etc etc I "had no right" etc etc etc and I "couldn't know' etc etc etc. Ad Nauseum. No, I never saw the battlefield, and I never wore a uniform. We all have had "battlefields" though. Personal hells, situations that we would rather not have been in but we did what we had to do to survive. Before one looks at uniformed service as a license for an elitist attitude or as a special badge of honor one might wish to consider that fact. Having worn the uniform is certainly something to take pride in, it does not, however, lift one above anyone who did not. There are plenty of folks out there who are worthy of conversing on the subject at hand who are not veterans of any uniformed service, and their opinions are no less valuable than those who are.

Dont sweat it. He hasn't been there & done that either.
He served on a submarine & unless he's in his 80's never saw action doing so. He's simply an elitist slob who holds himself above us peons.
Most real soldiers I know havent much good to say about people like him. People like him get soldiers killed, when they see action anyway. Perhaps thats the root cause of his bitterness. Our real hero's hold him & his ilk in distain so they need to impose their foolishness on us. Little does he know just how much he actually hurts the taxpayers vision of the military.

But anyway, a large part of the reason guns have been further restricted is because of people just like him but who actually achieve a position of power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,361,805 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
I'm not dodging your question I just don't think you have the stature to cross examine a veteran.
You are dodging.

And, any AMERICAN has the "stature" to cross examine a veteran.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,084,905 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
wow. what stature do you think that another veteran needs in order to examine you? how much combat did you see? your post is a mockery of the great debates forum, and shows that you have no intentions of participating in a real discussion. you come here only to hurl insults, pronounce your opinion (ignorant as it is), and then expect others to leap to your bidding as if you were the heir to the empire.

i worked with a lot of sailors when i was in the usmc (which makes me a vet, by the way), and i have a lot of respect for a lot of them. but if you are trying to pass a noncombat rate as receiving 'extensive' firearms training, you are a plain liar.

seabees, seals, and corpsmen (yes, suprises some people) are the navy jobs that i am familiar with that get a lot of combat training. i am sure that there are others, but navy mp's, submariners, and cooks certainly aren't among them.

so again, i ask you, regardless of my veteran status, what was your job in the navy? what kind of weapon were you issued? how often did you carry it? how often did you train with it? how often did you use it in a combat situation?

and since you are using your military experience as a way to say that citizens are dangerous with guns, what kind of accidents did you see with guns in the military?

i would like to know how much more qualified you think a navy officer is to carry a firearm than a citizen, and why.

think you can get through those questions this time without letting your hubris, inexperience, and pouty nature get in the way?
It's pretty clear from the navy people you claim to have worked with that you weren't a Marine qualified for nuclear weapons duty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 11:20 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,886 posts, read 12,538,974 times
Reputation: 5210
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
It's pretty clear from the navy people you claim to have worked with that you weren't a Marine qualified for nuclear weapons duty.


well, it is clear from this soldier who has guarded Pershing II missle sites in germany, that you were not a sailor qualified for nuclear duty either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,084,905 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
well, it is clear from this soldier who has guarded Pershing II missle sites in germany, that you were not a sailor qualified for nuclear duty either.
SSBN 634 Blue Crew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 01:09 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,831,584 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
It's pretty clear from the navy people you claim to have worked with that you weren't a Marine qualified for nuclear weapons duty.
wrong. but again, you're dodging the questions.

what makes you think it is 'clear' that i never served in the prp program?

as a matter of fact, i did serve as a marine security detachment for navy nuclear assets.

note how that makes your hasty assumption wrong. i think that speaks a lot for the quality of the rest of the hasty assumptions you continue to make.

this is a great debate forum. presumably, you came here to have a respectful debate. that means that when you call someone out on their opinion, and they question you about yours, you answer, instead of insisting that they are below you and unfit of your response.

so, i will kindly point you back to post # 839.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,084,905 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
wrong. but again, you're dodging the questions.

what makes you think it is 'clear' that i never served in the prp program?

as a matter of fact, i did serve as a marine security detachment for navy nuclear assets.

note how that makes your hasty assumption wrong. i think that speaks a lot for the quality of the rest of the hasty assumptions you continue to make.

this is a great debate forum. presumably, you came here to have a respectful debate. that means that when you call someone out on their opinion, and they question you about yours, you answer, instead of insisting that they are below you and unfit of your response.

so, i will kindly point you back to post # 839.

aaron out.
If you did serve in a navy nuclear weapons security post then you'll know the level of small arm qualification that a commissioned officer on a sub maintains. The Navy uses Marine guards for overall security when in port. It's a question a someone familiar with Navy nuclear weapons security shouldn't have to ask.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 03:08 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,341 posts, read 10,902,291 times
Reputation: 12285
Standardized weapons qualification for ,military and law enforcement alike, does not, in and of itself, do much more than show that one can handle a weapon. Hitting a target is one thing, hitting one that is trying to kill or maim you is quite another. The use of lethal force is a 99% mental proposition. Training with the actual weapon that one is going to carry, important though that is, is still secondary to the will and ability to handle oneself under extreme stress. My twelve year old son could pass a standard qualification for military or law enforcement with handgun, rifle and shotgun but I have little confidence in his ability to operate those same weapons while under attack at this point. Having been trained in the use and having been issued a firearm does not make a person uniquely qualified in the use of lethal force or give a person a license to comment on another individuals ability and training ,sight unseen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 03:17 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,831,584 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
If you did serve in a navy nuclear weapons security post then you'll know the level of small arm qualification that a commissioned officer on a sub maintains. The Navy uses Marine guards for overall security when in port. It's a question a someone familiar with Navy nuclear weapons security shouldn't have to ask.
actually, our job had nothing to do with knowing how well or poorly trained the sub officers were in small arms combat. our job consisted of security of the installation, not of comparative combat training between marine infantry versus the navy commisioned. we never needed to know any of that, and thus, never received any classes on the subject.

we did, however, get to see how well trained the submariners in general were as far as small arms combat. it wasn't impressive, but it isn't really their job.

so again, if you would care to enlighten us, what was your job in the navy? what kind of weapon were you issued? how often did you carry it? how often did you train with it? how often did you use it in a combat situation?

and since you are using your military experience as a way to say that citizens are dangerous with guns, what kind of accidents did you see with guns in the military?

i would like to know how much more qualified you think a navy officer is to carry a firearm than a citizen, and why.

this isn't rocket science, rl. this is a request for very simple answers to very simple questions that could help you substantiate the 'expert' testimony you were giving earlier.

EDIT: back to the subject of whether i would know about your officer training:

as far as i was aware, there were many, different jobs for officers in the navy, as there are in the usmc, and there would therefore be many officers of different roles on the same boat, with *different* training. that would be why i am requesting nicely that you give us an account of your small arms training and experience, instead of just dismissing you outright as a pathetic, lying poser.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top