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.
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.
What was my job in the Navy? I was a nuclear qualified submarine warfare officer. Funny that you don't have much insight into the naval forces you served with, I liaised relatively often with the Marine JOs on the sub tender when we were in Holy Loch, Scotland. They certainly had an interest in how we would coordinate any defense of the subs and tender in case of attack.
In small arms, the only weapon I was qualified on was the 45. Officers carry sidearms. Since the sub crew provided nuclear weapons security on the boat, duty officers were require to maintain qualifications, which I did. As I said I was also qualified on the real weapons we carried: Poseidon C-3, and conventional as well as nuclear torpedoes.
What was my job in the Navy? I was a nuclear qualified submarine warfare officer. Funny that you don't have much insight into the naval forces you served with, I liaised relatively often with the Marine JOs on the sub tender when we were in Holy Loch, Scotland. They certainly had an interest in how we would coordinate any defense of the subs and tender in case of attack.
In small arms, the only weapon I was qualified on was the 45. Officers carry sidearms. Since the sub crew provided nuclear weapons security on the boat, duty officers were require to maintain qualifications, which I did. As I said I was also qualified on the real weapons we carried: Poseidon C-3, and conventional as well as nuclear torpedoes.
as far as me not having much insight into the navy, that is apparently based on me not having any idea what your job in the navy, and that you didn't want to tell me–i'm not a mind reader. other than that, all it has to do with is the training and combat experience that somehow i am supposed to have memorized, even though it had nothing to do with my job (and was another tidbit that you were loathe to share with us).
does that really seem to suggest to you that i am not what i claim? if it does, then we need to do a few tests, to see how much you know about the marine corps infantry that you claim to have worked extensively with, its sop, its traditions, its training regimen, its strategies, and its combat history, in order to see if you really are the navy sub officer that you claim to be. still make sense? didn't think so.
awesome. so how often did you get to train with and use your sidearms? this is important in order to understand what kind of actual weapons handling experience you have.
as an example, later on in my experience on a navy sub base, we worked extensively with the navy masters at arms (for those of you following, the navy version of military police), and had the opportunity to train them in many of their roles in the base we worked at. we were all very disappointed in how minuscule their training with weaponry was. most of the ma's had been to a rifle range exactly once in their training, firing less than 100 rounds through the fully automatic ar-15's that they were then issued when they came to our base. the majority of them were still shaky on weapon conditions, weapon safety rules, and none of them had any training whatsoever in strategic deployment of small arms.
as far as my small arms training, i was marine corps infantry. i would bet that it is safe to say that i have more small arms training and small arms strategical knowledge than just about any nonseal, nonseabee officer in the navy (again, i wouldn't be surprised if there are other navy combat roles that i am missing, but as far as the job descriptions that i am aware of). i have never shot anything but expert with a rifle in the marine corps (though admittedly, i was only a sharpshooter with a pistol), and have spent year after year doing nothing but infantry tactics.
still, even with my experience, as far as a rifle or a pistol is concerned, i have no doubt in my mind that civilians like rifleman, tin, and noahma know more about small arms, and would outshoot me just about every time. why? because military shooters are not the only shooters in the world with actual training, with experience, and with the technical know-how. in fact, i'd wager that most champion shooters are not even military. i wouldn't hold a candle next to any of the professional circuit shooters out there.
i'm good, but i'm not a pro. i would bet that i have considerably more firearms training and experience than you, and yet, my experience is certainly dwarfed by some of those civilians that you apparently disdain so much. that would mean that they possess much more small arms book knowledge and experience-derived know-how than you, and that your earlier assertion that:
Quote:
Based upon my military experience I'd say you had a citizen that was more of a danger to himself and his family than anything else. Like putting a circular saw in the hands of a five year old.
...is an arrogant overestimation of your own prowess, and a failure to realize that there are civilians out there that have mastered an art that you barely understand.
in that case, in whose hands is the weapon more of a danger to himself and family, you, or the master?
The DC gun ban was recently deemed unconstitutional in DC v. Heller, 2008.
Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion and argued that it was the intent of the framers that individuals have guns for self-defense purposes.
There is only one problem with the decision: places are STILL trying to write laws to go around the decision. It can only get worse now for the law abiding. Criminals will still get guns; if new twisted laws get made, they will try to circumvent Heller. Don't delude yourself into thinking unconstitutional means the Second Amendment is safe.
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.
Your awareness is lacking. I doubt an enlisted Marine with limited squad level experience would understand the differences between a rifle company and a ballistic missile submarine. The only officer on a submarine that isn't trained to take the boat into combat is the supply corp officer. All others are Submarine Warfare Specialist. I was qualified to stand and did stand all watches manned by officers on the boat.
As I have said from the beginning, I was considered qualified by the Navy on the 45 which was the weapon issued to commissioned officers in that era. In terms of level of qualification, I just ask you what is more important to protect from hostile action than a submarine with multiple nuclear tipped missiles? Air Force One comes to mind, but that's about it.
USS Stonewall Jackson. Built in Mare Island shipyard. Commanding Officer of the Blue Crew in 1974 David Cockfield. Deployed to Holy Loch Scotland. After I was transferred to instructor duty, ship was backfitted with Trident C-4 missiles. Ship is now decommissioned.
There is only one problem with the decision: places are STILL trying to write laws to go around the decision. It can only get worse now for the law abiding. Criminals will still get guns; if new twisted laws get made, they will try to circumvent Heller. Don't delude yourself into thinking unconstitutional means the Second Amendment is safe.
Heller only allows you to keep a loaded gun in your house, if there are no minors around.
Your awareness is lacking. I doubt an enlisted Marine with limited squad level experience would understand the differences between a rifle company and a ballistic missile submarine. The only officer on a submarine that isn't trained to take the boat into combat is the supply corp officer. All others are Submarine Warfare Specialist. I was qualified to stand and did stand all watches manned by officers on the boat.
As I have said from the beginning, I was considered qualified by the Navy on the 45 which was the weapon issued to commissioned officers in that era. In terms of level of qualification, I just ask you what is more important to protect from hostile action than a submarine with multiple nuclear tipped missiles? Air Force One comes to mind, but that's about it.
you are still dodging my questions.
i am asking you specifics on your small arms qualifications. you respond with cryptic messages about air force one. believe me, smart guy, i know how much security they put on the sub bases. what i want is to know the level of qualification you have with small arms in order to better judge your 'expert military opinion' on civilian shooters.
think you can get around to answering that? it should be apparent to everyone on the board now–even those that hadn't caught it before–that you made a highly exaggerated claim, were asked specifics about it, and are now trying very hard not to have to answer questions about it. kinda like hillary and her sniper fire. kind of like bush and saddam's nukes. in the real world, we call that lying.
as for my knowledge of navy officers, i never presumed to know what kind of training you receive.
Quote:
I doubt an enlisted Marine with limited squad level experience would understand the differences between a rifle company and a ballistic missile submarine.
interesting how this seems to contradict and combat the very premise that you were using to deflect my questions earlier: that i should have known, if i'd really been there. you didn't want to answer my questions, as they would prove to everyone else that you don't know half of what you are claiming to know, and therefore attacked the credentials of the questioner (and tried to claim that he was inferior enough not to rate an answer to begin with). but as i have already claimed, i presumed no actual knowledge (just a theory) about your training.
that was why i was asking. that is one of the main differences that i see between you and i; i ask and search, while you presume and pronounce.
my theory is that you have about the same level of marksmanship training as the navy master at arms (just a little higher probably, since the officers always get better training). but nothing in the realm of the firearms expert that you have been painting yourself out to be, and definitely not equal to or superior to the hobbie marksmen out there that could shoot a quarter off of a post at 50 yards with a pistol. if my theory ends up correct, hooray for logical deduction. if not, shrug, you can't get them right all the time.
but again, since i didn't know for sure, i asked. what you did was assume, presume, and then make that opinion the doctrine you were going to live by come hell or high water.
for the rest of you, that is not how a debate is handled. the purpose of a debate is to qualify an argument. if you can't debate it correctly, you will never qualify it.
here is a link to a wiki article about online debate; it is part of a larger article about debate as an whole, and can spin people up on the issue. Debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and here is a link to strategies that generally weaken your argument. they are known as logical fallacies, and very often, they are our fallbacks and our security blankets in an argument. think about how many times you've argued with your roommates/spouses/siblings/whatever, and ended up saying something like, "oh yeah, well you're ugly!" or something along those lines. they might make you feel better temporarily, but in the end, you crash and burn as far as making an intelligent point. Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
meanwhile, i'm still, three pages later, awaiting an answer from our beloved mentor and friend, rlchurch.
i am asking you specifics on your small arms qualifications. you respond with cryptic messages about air force one. believe me, smart guy, i know how much security they put on the sub bases. what i want is to know the level of qualification you have with small arms in order to better judge your 'expert military opinion' on civilian shooters.
What part of "qualified" on the 45 is escaping you? That has a specific military meaning.
What part of "qualified" on the 45 is escaping you? That has a specific military meaning.
That would be a standard 25 and 50 yard bullseye course, slow rapid and timed fire 5 shots per string standing ,kneeling and prone, using 230 grain military ball ammo at 900 fps. Weapon would be rack grade 1911A1, seven shot capacity, 5 inch barrel, single action automatic. Did you ever go through the standard PPC/ Oh, sorry I believe that the military designates it as CORC. (combat operations readiness course) ? I believe the question the gentlemen are asking is, did you ever have to operate your weapon under stress or did you recieve any extra training that required you to operate your weapon under combat conditions? What gives you the credentials to state that your military experience uniquely qualifies you as "trained" or "experienced" in small arms use beyond your uniformed service? I think that is what is being asked.
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.
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.
