Quote of the Day: Voice of Experience Edition

“The threat posed by having many weapon-carrying students and faculty only increases the danger of having an innocent bystander’s life taken in an exchange of fire or even a negligent discharge. I fully respect a citizen’s right to bear arms, but bringing a dangerous tool like a gun into a place of learning will only make that place a more dangerous environment, not a safer one.” – Nicholas Petrella, (not pictured above) former Marine Combat Marksmanship Instructor

91 Responses to Quote of the Day: Voice of Experience Edition

  1. avatarStephen says:

    bullshit

  2. avatarBobS says:

    Yeah, we saw how that worked so well at VaTech, Ft Hood, and Aurora, Co didn’t we……
    Armed self-defense: it works in practice, but will it work in theory?

    • avatarTim says:

      By all accounts the examples you provide, while being very highly publicised, are statistically insignificant in regards to the percentage of victims of gun crimes each year. So I have ask, Can you use these “mass shootings” as examples to promote CCW at schools while in the same breath tell the anti-gun lobby that these types of shootings aren’t a good enough reason to ban assault weapons or hi-cap mags?

      I really don’t know myself, but I don’t think that your argument holds up.

      • avatarSteve says:

        Conversely, the numbers of bystanders injured during engagements involving CCW holders are also very low (lower than those for police-involved shootings). Can you use those as a rational argument against allowing the same licensees to carry in a different environment?

        Incidentally, how does declaring mass shootings statistical outliers invalidate the argument for on-campus carry, but still validate the argument for an assault weapons ban? Logically, if these events are so rare (and they are rare – DOJ statistics show that more people are beaten to death with bare hands every year than are killed by rifles), then how will an AWB amount to anything meaningful?

        • avatarektor says:

          one thing that you never see; the continious use of weapons in self-defense situations.

          And the total failure of the psychotic gun control laws to prevent the constant shootings in the so blessed cities.
          ex. posted on this forum the other day, from Thursday thru Sunday; 103 shootings.

          Like the old Russian joke; there is not news in the truth and no truth in the news.

  3. “I fully respect a citizen’s right to bear arms, but bringing a dangerous tool like a gun into a place of learning will only make that place a more dangerous environment, not a safer one.”

    I fully respect a citizen’s right to bear arms, but nevermind, no I don’t. FIXED

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Well duh. He’s a military man, and the military’s primary purpose is to protect the interests of the government – armed citizens aren’t beneficial to increasing government control over citizens lives, thus they are a bad idea in the eyes of the military.

      • avatarKalashnikat says:

        You’ve never been in the Military and are spouting stereotypes that don’t apply. IF, and I mean if, this quote is truthful and not a “false flag” (I’m a gun owner but…) it doesn’t represent the feelings of most of the military folks I’ve ever known…and I served for 20 years. We respect the Constitution, our fellow citizens rights, and the requirement to be prepared to defend home, family, and country…
        The oath is to the Constitution, not to a pResident or a regime.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          The words are to the Constitution, the actual service and obedience is to whatever the people in Congress / the White House tell you to do, regardless of legality or morality.

          If the military actually upheld the Constitution, there would have been a revolt decades ago over the government’s blatant disdain for the Constitution. Keep telling yourself that you’re so noble and righteous, but your actions tell a different story.

  4. avatarJamie in ND says:

    “I fully respect a citizen’s right to bear arms, ”
    No you don’t.

  5. avatarJ says:

    Having taught marksmanship for many years including as a Marine, having fired everything from DCM, small bore rifle, small bore and big bore pistol, steel silhouette and countless rounds in the course of my duties as a Marine Infantryman and Scout Sniper. And having carried for more years than that Instructor has been on the planet. I say crap!

    On the other hand, sending 17 and 18 year old, largely undisciplined kids into our institutions of liberal indoctrination where the major is partying, is dangerous!

    Let’s get our priorities straight and then the gun “safety” issue won’t be….an issue!

    • avatargreat unknown says:

      You bring up an interesting point: let’s make a universal prerequisite for college education two years of having held down a full-time, 9-5, 5 days a week job. And government work doesn’t count.

      • avatarLevi B says:

        9-5, 5 days a week rules out government jobs already.

        • avatarelnonio says:

          Nonsense. My job is 0730-1630 (that’s 9 hours) whereas 9-5 is 8 hours. 5 days a week. Plus I’m on call 24/7, and the occasional glorious 24hr duty.

          So no, doesn’t rule out all government jobs.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      On the other hand, I have never known anyone to learn responsibility by not being given any.

    • avatarGreg Camp says:

      The focus of these debates are always on students, but let’s be realistic. The minimum age for a carry license in most states is twenty-one, not eighteen. Having a drunk-driving conviction or other such record is a disqualification. The truth is that faculty and staff are more likely to be the ones carrying–in other words, the people who are considered responsible enough to teach and take care of the students.

  6. avatarNot Too Eloquent says:

    You are not as good as I am so you don’t get a gun, but I do.

  7. avatarBrad says:

    Wrong – I was a Marine Rifleman 20 years ago and I saw this was a common attitude with more than a few Marines involved in marksmanship training billets. The logic being, “I’ve seen ND’s and other bad things with highly trained Marines, so what make me think a civilian with a fraction of our training would do better. Keep the guns in the hands of professionals, like me.”

    Here’s a quote from his article just ot prove my point – “The prospect of having sparingly-trained concealed-carriers on a crowded college campus can increase the severity of incidents like these.”

    As you can see, he has little respect for anyone outside the military profession or police profession that has received “higher” value training. We can be our own worst enemy by simply being close minded.

  8. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    As a Marine, he has more first hand knowledge and experience regarding his particular point. Think about it… they give every college-aged kid in their organization a weapon, send them to a foreign country, and end up killing innocent bystanders in droves.

    • avatarLevi B says:

      Sort of like giving every 16 year old a car and having them kill innocent people in droves?

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        Huh? Maybe my sarcasm was a bit vague. I was attempting to express an indictment of the military for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners while also indicting this guy’s illogical assumption that most civilians are just as sociopathic as his colleagues.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Actually, aviators and artillerymen do the most damage. Riflemen just aimless shoot in the general direction of the enemy hoping to hit something…anything.

        • avatarektor says:

          so henry; in how many firefigths have you been??? you must be a witness to a whole lot of fighting?? ever face off against a kid armed with an AK?????
          well???????????

      • avatarKalashnikat says:

        Henry, I’m calling you a liar. It’s the presidentially approved drone strikes that kill innocent bystanders, not the military forces.

        • avatarJ says:

          This whole discussion (wider anti-gun argument), is disingenuous as it pertains to “safety”. If you’re a carpenter and work with a table saw all your life, you will eventually get cut. Drive a car for thirty years and you will be involved in car accident(s).

          Every single event or involvement carries with it the threat of injury or the possibility/probability of an “ND” of one sort or another and yet there is no call to stop people from being involved in anything else; just CCW because of the possibility of ND. The fact is, the argument against allowing folks to carry has more to do with some people hating guns; period.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Tell that to the victims a Mai Lai or Haditha. Also, those drones don’t just magically pilot themselves.

          You’re falling prey to the logical fallacy that we should only blame the lawmakers or those who give the orders while refusing an honest examination of those who actually pull the trigger or push the button.

  9. avatarMichael B. says:

    When I want the opinion of a professional welfare queen, I’ll go down to the ghetto and ask.

    • avatarTJRidgway says:

      Thank the Soldiers and Sailors that serve (your “Welfare Queens”) for your right to spit in their faces.

      Thank the teachers you had that you have the ability to do the same to them.

      Note that many of those who serve end up taking work home and working quite a few more hours than the official totals reveal.

      -11 Years (and counting) Sailor

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        Since when are Marines constitutional lawyers?

        “Thanking” them for my rights? You gotta be kidding me. I suppose you think I should thank the one in the article too, who clearly wants to trample all over my rights because I’m not one of the blessed few?

        Look, they do a fine job at killing people on orders from the state (rightly or wrongly) but to portray them as some noble warriors for liberty and the constitution is a joke.

        • avatarAharon says:

          “Look, they do a fine job at killing people on orders from the state (rightly or wrongly) but to portray them as some noble warriors for liberty and the constitution is a joke.”

          — A classic line. #1

        • avatarTJRidgway says:

          Perhaps I worded that wrong. You really should thank them for protecting your rights, rather than having those inalienable rights. Thanks for the clarification.

          I don’t agree with this Marine in the slightest. I know several Marine Combat Marksmanship intructors, and every one is completely supportive and encouraging of civilian CCW.

          As for waging war on other countries: I don’t know anyone who likes going over there and doing it. It’s not something we desire to do. It is what our citizens elected representatives are telling us to do, which is what we swore to do. If you don’t want it to happen, please change it. I don’t think you will find a more anti-war voting demographic than the military.

          As to your last line, almost every military member I know with over 12 years in really is in it because they believe in it. It damned sure isn’t the pay, because by 12 years in you can fairly easily make more outside if you have even a little bit of work ethic.

        • avatarJake says:

          I’ll thank someone for protecting my rights when they are actually I don’t know protecting them? Homie “following orders” does not automatically translate to “protecting the freedoms of Americans” as a matter of fact it does just the opposite as you then admit in your third paragraph. You did not swear to do as you were told. You swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and to hold TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME. The odious second half of the sentence comes with caveats that further limit the “mandate” to follow orders. You can’t use a quarter of a sentence of your oath to justify ignoring the rest of it. Kind of reminds you of that whole comma or period thing with 2A, no?

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Thank the Soldiers and Sailors that serve (your “Welfare Queens”) for your right to spit in their faces.

        Please, name one war in the last 65 years where our nation was in danger of being invaded and our freedoms were jeopardized.

        It’s OK, you can take as much time as you need.

        Thank the teachers you had that you have the ability to do the same to them.

        That just plain doesn’t even make sense.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “Please, name one war in the last 65 years where our nation was in danger of being invaded and our freedoms were jeopardized.”
          ——
          Objection: presupposes invasion being the only danger to the country.

        • avatarTJRidgway says:

          You have the ability to read and write because someone taught you.

          Regarding those wars, see my reply above. TL;DR: You voted them in, military typically votes against those who want war. Vote different if you don’t like it.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          @Moonshine

          I said “and our freedoms were in jeopardy”. No nation has realistically attempted to invade or attack us from afar since WWII, yet we’ve been in an almost never ending state of war since the end of WWII.

          @TJR

          Yes, I have the ability to read and write because my mother taught me. My sister and I both read books (not books for pre-schoolers) and the sports section of the newspaper before we ever started Kindergarten. My mother was not paid by stolen money to teach us how to read, she did it because that’s what any halfway decent parent does with their children – teach them basic skills necessary for life.

          The military is predominately Republican and Republicans are the mains ones pushing for war. Not to mention that there’s that whole crazy idea of don’t sign up to be part of a war if you don’t want to be in a war…..

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “And” is an inclusive word, Glocke. Therefore, to meet the standard you set forth in your challenge, the threat of invasion would have had to exist. In addition, declared war is not the only threat to our lives or way of life. Further beyond that, the events of the past decade or so have shown that hostile action is not always conducted in the traditional nation-versus-nation manner.

        • avataranonymous says:

          “name one war in the last 65 years where our nation was in danger of being invaded and our freedoms were jeopardized.”

          - The Ward On Drugs.
          - The War On Terror.

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      That’s a bit harsh, Mike. Are there useless pukes in the military? Of course. The military, like any profession, is merely a subset of the population as a whole. But put away the broad brush; just because this serviceman is an idiot does not mean they all are.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        I don’t recall Mike saying anything about “idiots”, he merely pointed out that their paychecks are entirely funded by making everyone else worse off and that they do not produce anything of value at their taxpayer-funded jobs. Or, as our CEO put it when he put a hiring freeze on middle-management types, they’re “non-revenue generating positions”.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “their paychecks are entirely funded by making everyone else worse off…”
          ——
          Indeed? Everyone else is worse off because of the military? Finally! I have someone else to blame for my poor position in life. I knew it wasn’t MY fault! [mind you don't step in the dripping sarcasm]

          “…and that they do not produce anything of value at their taxpayer-funded jobs”
          ——
          Please. The military is not a corporation. Of course it doesn’t PRODUCE anything.

        • avatarJake says:

          Moonie I think he means the people they kill for no reason. And the fact that it is not a corporation is not an argument. Cost benefit analysis is relevant to everything that costs money. And given that the benefit is half the world hating us, the other half fearing us, both Russia and China moving from deterrence to publicly not ruling out preemptive nuclear strikes, and an attack on our own soil by people we funded and armed for years every once in a while; I would say the cost is too high, especially when it is almost exponentially higher than it was just a decade ago.

        • avatarJake says:

          Moonie I think he means the people they kill for no reason. And the fact that it is not a corporation is not a valid argument. COST benefit analysis is relevant to every single thing in all reality that COSTs money. And given that the benefit is half the world hating us, the other half fearing us, both Russia and China moving from deterrence to publicly not ruling out preemptive nuclear strikes, and an attack on our own soil by people we funded and armed for years (still do) every once in a while; I would say the cost is too high, especially when it is almost exponentially higher than it was just a decade ago.

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        No, I think the sentiment that I must bow down and kiss the ring of my supposed masters for giving me privileges is harsh.

        I don’t mind the military and have known plenty of honorable servicemen. They’re necessary. But they’re simply armed government employees doing a job for a wide variety of reasons, not all of which are noble.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “No, I think the sentiment that I must bow down and kiss the ring of my supposed masters for giving me privileges is harsh.”
          ——
          I’d agree if I heard that sentiment expressed. For the life of me, I can’t find anything in the jarhead’s editorial that sounds like that.

        • avatarBruce says:

          Thanks Michael B. I’m glad you “don’t mind the military”.

    • avatarRambeast says:

      It is true, the military hasn’t defended our freedom since WWII. Our forefathers warned about getting involved in the affairs of other nations, but we have ignored them. Corporate interests are fought, and political “my d!ck is bigger than yours” contests are the main conflicts. On occasion we are paid to intervene.

      I would suggest you watch a little documentary called “A World Without US”. The US spends a lot of time keeping parts of the world from imploding. This serves to keep us free from any conglomerate of dictators that might band together and start a global firestorm. Since we have a bigger military budget than nearly all other nations combined, we have been nominated as the iron fist of the world.

      I do not feel sympathy for our troops however. Today’s military is volunteer service. They know the risks going in, and accept them. If they are duped by their recruiters that the military is some rock star profession, they deserve the rude awakening that their lack of research provides. If they feel they are doing the right thing, then good for them. However, when they stop questioning the motives behind the commands, and get into the “which way boss?” mentality, they lose whatever shred of respect and support I had for them at all.

      My opinion on this subject is constantly flowing back and forth. I understand the need for our forces in some cases, but others infuriate me to no end. I know many servicemen and women (I am the product of one) most of my family has served in one branch or another. Most of my friends are ex military. I have seen the effect of the military’s influence on their thought processes, and I am worried. I have no doubt that if told to, our armed forces will kill US citizens with little or no remorse. When you are programmed to view any opposition as the enemy, less than human, then you are capable of guiltless murder…even of your own countrymen and family.

      [/rant]

      • avatarjwm says:

        rambeast, guiltless murder , even of your own countrymen and family. such a statement is much more an indictment of your own mindset than of any servicemen i know.

        • avatarRambeast says:

          I do not make a habit of projecting. I am speaking from my experience with the military personell I know. Conditioning of the troops is SOP. They are made to not question any orders. If they do, the consequences are not pleasant. I am not saying ALL current and past military are of this mindset, but when you look at all the actions taken against US citizens by LEO, NG, Army, etc. there is no denying that they will spill the blood of those that they are supposed to protect. Penn state, Ruby Ridge, Waco are just a few of the examples. It has boiled down to control and asserting the will of the state over the love of their fellow countrymen.

  10. avatarSilver says:

    Moron.

    You know, antis, we’ve had multiple school shootings with fish in a barrel scenarios, everyone being unarmed and helpless as they were gunned down. Why don’t we legalize campus carry and just see what happens next time some psycho decides to shoot up a school? What do you have to lose except your irrational and illogical belief system?

    Also, this guy perfectly exemplifies the old saying that whatever you put after the word “but” negates anything previously stated.

  11. avatarJWest says:

    1. Combat Marksmanship Instructor?
    2. The only USMC title I’m aware of is: Primary Marksmanship Instructor or PMI.
    3. As I recall, everyone who instructed in the more arcane branches of marksmanship and combat tactics were simply instructors, although some billets required PMI qualified Marines.
    4. Things may have changed.
    5. Someone other than the person quoted may have genned up the title.
    6. Virtually any Marine NCO has participated in running ranges and weapons instruction, at some point. Experience and expertise would vary greatly -but every one of them has an opinion.

    • avatarelnonio says:

      Well, looks like you need to do some homework then, because yes, things do have a tendency to change over time, you know?!
      http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/wtbn/MCO%203574.2K/MCO%203574%202K%20.pdf

      MOS: 0931 It’s actually Combat Marksmanship Trainer, but the very order refers to them as instructors.

      • avatarJWest says:

        1. Thanks for the heads-up.
        2. Way too lazy to research it or ask around.
        3. Am conversant with a lot of post-GEN Gray changes. Missed that one.
        4. Two things stay the same: Marine grunts carry heavy loads when they patrol outside the wire; and they fight like wildcats.
        5. God bless the Corps and Chesty, too.
        V/R JWest

  12. avatarWiregrass says:

    I suppose this explains the rationale behind the recently modified policy of our soldiers in Afghanistan walking around with unloaded weapons while being gunned down by our supposed Afghan allies.

  13. avatarAharon says:

    We’ve only needed the military for a handful of wars and conflicts since the late 1700s and some of those fights were partially or solely because of American politicians’ meddling internationally in the affairs of others.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      This is the 200th aniversary of the start of the War of 1812. Want to explain why it was fought?

      So why do you carry a gun? All you have to do is stay away from bad areas [much easier now that we have the internet] and mind your own business and you will never face a threat. Now that I think about your arguments have convinced me to be a gun grabber. If we all just mind our own business we wouldn’t have a need for a gun now would we?

      • avatarAharon says:

        Did I write that all wars fought by the USA were unnecessary or that we need absolutely no military since the late 1700s? No, I did not write that.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          I don’t think you understood why I asked the question. I guess you probably don’t know the answer anyway.

          Despite all our attempts to avoid getting involved in the Napoleonic Wars, including a ruinous self-blockade known as the Embargo Act, Europe’s war came looking for us. If that was true 200 years ago in the age of sail then it certainly true in the age jets, rockets and cyberwarfare. The United States has a big foot print in the world just be our existence. Trouble will always find us and once it does the repercussions can go on for decades.

          Perhaps the effects of the Embargo Acts were an anomaly and we should just seal our borders, end international trade and prohibit Americans from leaving the country. Maybe then trouble won’t come looking for us anymore. And perhaps you can avoid the cost and burden of gun ownership by just living on the net, minding your own business and staying out of people’s way. That way trouble won’t find you.

  14. avatarST says:

    His perspective is somewhat skewed by the fact that the US Military doesn’t value training for most of its members.Outside of SOC , the military’s policy is essentially “we can’t afford to teach you to shoot, so carry with empty chamber at the actual war zone”

    I do not know what units he taught at as an instructor, but for most support positions in the military pistol qualification is a joke. As far as im concerned the provided 50 9mm cartridges of qualifying ammo rounds down to zero, and the atrocious gun handling overseas proves it. ND’ing a Beretta 92 takes skill, but some troops got the gift. Not altogether unexpected when you yank someone off a street with no gun experience and give them a 9mm with only cursory instruction.

    Thus, the silly rules about weapon conditions at large deployed bases, and why this Marine instructor says what he says. The logic being if military members screw the pooch so often they can’t be trusted with loaded weapons, who can?

    Truth of the matter is a good NRA/CCW course puts the military’s training program to shame. Quite a few “weapon carrying students and faculty” are better shots than the Marines’ own students are.

    • avatarJWest says:

      1. Don’t disagree, too much.
      2. No one is too concerned about pistols, in an AO. They are about useless in a serious fight. Goes for submachine guns too.
      3. They are generally issued to folks who can’t handle a rifle in addition to other duties: crew served weapons people, vehicle drivers, whatnot.
      4. If you’re out in the weeds, you will wind up carrying a rifle, pretty much regardless -even if it is against orders, regulations, policy, etc.
      5. Troops are pretty good about self policing on safety. Muzzle flags, weapon status will get you called, even if you rank the caller (officers and foreign troops are the worst offenders).
      6. As far as disarming and taking armor off -my friends tell me that was the idea of Cultural Affairs types, to emphasize that we trusted the Afghans. Proved we were idiots. Policy no longer in effect.

    • avatarelnonio says:

      Interesting argument, but not based on reality I’m afraid. First, go ahead and read the order I posted above.

      “we can’t afford to teach you to shoot, so carry with empty chamber at the actual war zone”

      Really? Aside from recruit training (M16A4) and TBS (M16A4; M9) where *all* recruits and new lieutenants are taught to shoot from scracth, then yearly requals. Yes, there are shortages of ranges, causing some officers to not shoot the yearly rifle quals. We always find a way to get junior enlisted on yearly ranges with the rifle. There would be mutinies if not, since range scores are needed for promotion. Occasionally event enlisted not required to qualify with pistols will get to go to. And all officers up to LtCol qualify with pistols yearly. Oh, if you deploy, you are also going to the range, even IAs. in other branches, I suppose YMMV. But this is the Marine Corps’ way.

      Other than SOC? Again, not so.

      “I do not know what units he taught at as an instructor” Indeed, you don’t. The units don’t teach themselves. There are units that are set up to teach other units; Weapons Training Battalions. Teaching is standardized across the Corps, precisely to avoid units teaching to different standards.

      “for most support positions in the military pistol qualification is a joke.” Again, not so in the Corps. Your assumption that all “support positions” (presume you mean combat service support MOS) get pistols only is rubbish. Don’t be fooled with the “only those units with pistol/rifle on the T/O” statement. All units have both, and the T/O is adjusted to make sure we all have what we need when we go downrange.

      Carrying with an empty chamber in a combat zone? Are you kidding me? What distinctions, if any, are you making? Everywhere in Afghanistan? Inside or outside the wire? To the chow hall? Ridiculous statement.

      “Not altogether unexpected when you yank someone off a street with no gun experience and give them a 9mm with only cursory instruction.” Had you actually gone through pistol training, you would know better. But that’s what happens when one speaks without either experience nor, apparently, education in the matter of military small arms marksmanship training.

      The pistol range part of the order is being experimented with, but the one-day range (aka experienced shooter range, aka I have to stand duty next week and must qual in a hurry) alone requires a hair under 100 rounds.

      “Thus, the silly rules about weapon conditions at large deployed bases, and why this Marine instructor says what he says. The logic being if military members screw the pooch so often they can’t be trusted with loaded weapons, who can?” Really? Well then, do drop by Quantico, unannounced and showing hostile intent or actually performing a hostile act, and see how unloaded the duty weapons are, why don’t you?!

  15. avatarjwm says:

    rather you agree or not, yes we do need the military. care to live in a world where we have no military but china, russia , iran etc. has theirs?
    because our servicemen have not always been wisely used does’nt make them unneeded.
    as for this man’s opinion about carrying on campus. we all have opinions and we don’t hold them back, why should he? i don’t agree with his but he has the right to run off at the mouth the same as me.

    • avataranonymous says:

      “care to live in a world where we have no military but china, russia , iran etc. has theirs?”

      Won’t they be deterred by 100 million gun owners with “a rifle behind every blade of grass , just as the Japanese apocryphally were?

      • avatarjwm says:

        didn’t we just talk of the failures of the colonial militias? and if you think the countries that gave us mao and stalin are going to be deterred by a few rifle you truly have no understanding of military operations. mao and stalin murdered millions of their own, do you think their modern replacements would hesitate to do more here.

        • avatarJake says:

          There is a heck of a lot of territory between not existing and being a massively over-funded tool of oligarchs who have no concern for human dignity or the Constitution.

    • avatarJake says:

      Nobody says we don’t need some deterrence. But we could sure use a military with a little more humility and less haughtiness about being more intelligent about such matters than the ordinary civilians and expectations of being worshiped simply by virtue of the uniform.

  16. avatarrussell says:

    I think the media may have successfully found one of the very select, the very sad, one of the… Idiot Marines.

    I guess carrying my M4 in Paktika probably only made it more dangerous, as everyone in my squad had the risk of shooting each other, and innocent bystanders. How did we ever make it out alive I wonder?

    Despite the advice of this obviously high speed low drag former marksmanship instructor, I’m going to keep carrying my little nine to and from class, and to and from my car. Somehow I bet that the marine in question somehow includes himself in the grouping of people he considers professional enough to carry. Oh, what a noble sheep dog, selflessly protecting the incapable idiot citizens surrounding him. I wonder if this knight has his own squire. What an ass.

    As a marksmanship instructor, airborne infantryman, and all around stud, I instead encourage everyone, whether a “qualified” individual or not-just carry, and ignore this holier-than-thou asshole.

  17. avatarNikeratos says:

    Golly! I’ve carried concealed every dayfor 27 years in courts, school,church,jobs, and every other situation I can think of. I’ve never had a ND. I guess I’d better stop,though,since according to this “expert”, it’s just a matter of time…..

  18. avatartdiinva says:

    All this denigration of members of the military brings to mind a poem.

    Tommy

    I went into a public-’ouse to get a pint o’beer,
    The publican ‘e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
    The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
    I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:

    O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
    But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins,” when the band begins to play,
    The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
    O it’s “Thank you, Mr. Atkins,” when the band begins to play.

    I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
    They gave a drunk civilian room, but ‘adn’t none for me;
    They sent me to the gallery or round the music-’alls,
    But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!

    For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, wait outside”;
    But it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide,
    The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide,
    O it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide.

    Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
    Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
    An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
    Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.

    Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy how’s yer soul?”
    But it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll,
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll.

    We aren’t no thin red ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
    But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
    An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints:
    Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;

    While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, fall be’ind,”
    But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir,” when there’s trouble in the wind,
    There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
    O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir,” when there’s trouble in the wind.

    You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires an’ all:
    We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
    Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
    The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.

    For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
    But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country,” when the guns begin to shoot;
    An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
    But Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool – you bet that Tommy sees!

    I can see the usual suspect waving the flag the next time something bad happens.

    • avatarJake says:

      I guess denigration of someone is now defined as lack of worship of that someone, or believing one is equal with that someone. Who knew. I guess MLK was denigrating the crap out of the whitey. Soldiers are great, just like politicians are great. When and ONLY when they are upholding the law instead of flouting it.

  19. avatarBart says:

    I just hate disarming myself when I walk into my college classes. I carry everywhere else but the school has a magic line were no bad happens I guess.

  20. avatarRIGHT! says:

    “Somehow I bet that the marine in question somehow includes himself in the grouping of people he considers professional enough to carry. Oh, what a noble sheep dog, selflessly protecting the incapable idiot citizens surrounding him. I wonder if this knight has his own squire. What an ass.”

    Thank You for saving me the trouble of saying this myself

  21. avatarAccur81 says:

    As a Marine and LEO, this quote really irritates me. Granted, there are ND’s in the military. I can also say that the US military employs some of the dumbest people in the world who are not legally retarded. I distinctly remeber LCPL Hill in an inspection wearing two left shoes. Different brands, too. I’m not kidding, Hill crammed a left shoe on his right foot, and left the right shoe in his locker.

    Even if civilian shooters were worse than LEOs and military, which is usually not the case, I would support civilian gun and CCW ownership. If you’ve ever been in a SHTF situation without a weapon handy, you’ll likely change your opinion. Otherwise, be defenseless if that’s what suits you, but don’t push that nonsense on me.

  22. avatarSanchanim says:

    Isn’t this kind of like using the blood bath wild west sort of theory.
    I hate to say this, but it really hasn’t ever happened as far as I know so until it does, it isn’t an issue right?
    Sure we have spree shooters lots of gang violence, but think about it.
    If we have a spree shooter or some other issue and we see a load of CCW holders open fire and lots of bystanders get killed then it is a discussion to have. Unfortunately most students don’t even have this right at the moment so really it is putting the cart before the horse here.

    • avatarJake says:

      It isn’t, especially given that per capita murder wise the wild west was the playplace at McD’s compared to some areas of the US today.

  23. avatarJ says:

    This whole discussion (wider anti-gun argument), is disingenuous as it pertains to “safety”. If you’re a carpenter and work with a table saw all your life, you will eventually get cut. Drive a car for thirty years and you will be involved in car accident(s).

    Every single event or involvement carries with it the threat of injury or the possibility/probability of an “ND” of one sort or another and yet there is no call to stop people from being involved in anything else; just CCW because of the possibility of ND. The fact is, the argument against allowing folks to carry has more to do with some people hating guns; period.

    As far as the NCO’s opinion about the logic of allowing students to carry while on campus; either he was reacting to the idea of a young, undisciplined, partying college student wielding a firearm at a frat event or he is in fact somewhat uneducated about what defines a right. In any case, it is not indicative of his MOS, his experience or the Marine Corps. Every Marine I ever served with and across all MOS’s, fully well understood the value of a firearm – especially when you need it and fully supported the concept of a right to own and carry.

    Chock it up to an anomally in Marine Corps thinking.

  24. avatarSlowburn says:

    First off, thanks to everyone who’s ever honorably served or is still serving in the U.S. Military, and including the N. Guard, Reserves, Coasties and the Merchant seamen.
    As for the Marines, there may be a former Marine Marksmanship Instructor, but there’s no such thing as a former Marine. Once a Marine, a person can be something after that too, but they’re always and forever Marines. As the saying goes, Marines have been doing so much for so long with so little, they’re now expected to do everything with nothing forever.’ Lotsa of meaning in that one.
    As for Mr. Petrella’s opinion, life’s a place of learning and I’m sure he knows that well.
    Not all colleges are libtard indoc and perpetuation centers, and not everyone who takes classes on a campus are oblivious, irresponsible party-hardy types.
    Sure he knows everything I’m about to say but I’ll say it anyway.
    There’s folks who go take college level classes who are active Military, Reserve and what have you, continuing their education who’ve had instruction with firearms.
    There’s also Police Officers who attend college classes. Then there’s the conscientious citizen-types who’ve gone the extra mile and been privileged by their state and have state issued carry permits. With permit holders, there’s restrictions on places they can legally carry, but while some college campuses may well qualify as bastions of liberalism, they ain’t fortresses.
    When the first event occurred in any place that a person with criminal intent used a gun to threaten or murder people, then that place and any place like it right-quick should be taken off the list of places restricted to at least people trained in the Military, Police Officers, and permit holders.
    Fact is, there’s no real substitute for a gun when one’s needed, and the general rule is, if a gun ain’t available for use in 5 seconds or less or there’s no person who has one and knows how to use it that can and will in 5 seconds or less, that’s a dangerous environment. Period.
    Not ’cause I said so, just is.

  25. avatarRalph says:

    I like Marines, I respect Marines, I honor Marines, but let’s face it — you don’t need to ace an IQ test to get into the Marine Corps.

  26. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    The idea of disarming a group of people contained in tight proximity as a “safety” issue has proven to be incorrect time and time again.

    Let’s put aside college campuses for the moment. Let’s instead turn our attention to the Ft. Hood shooting, where the Muslim pshrink shot and killed 13, wounded 29.

    Two men rushed the shooter. Neither had weapons. Both died from gunshot wounds.

    Another man threw a folding chair (or table – can’t remember just now) at the shooter. Got shot for his trouble.

    So the issue wasn’t a lack of courage or a lack of action in attempting to stop Hasan. It was a lack of weapon(s) with which to take down the nutjob.

    No one, not even a Marine marksmanship instructor, is ever going to convince me that putting weapons into the hands of one or more people who were there when Hasan started shooting up Ft. Hood would have killed or wounded as many people as Hasan did.

    The thing people have to get into their heads about these situations is that we have a choice between:

    a) a nutjob killing a whole lot of people all by himself, or
    b) a nutjob killing many fewer people, and possibly the people who stop him might cause injury or death of one or more bystanders in the process.

    There is no rational choice of “c) no one dies.” That’s just not a realistic outcome, and can be expected only in the same universe in which we get to share our morning coffee with the Tooth Fairy and The Underpants Gnomes.

    What we should be realistically expecting from allowing people in tight proximity to carry weapons is that:

    a) fewer people overall are injured or die,
    b) perhaps future nutjobs contemplating their own version of these events become dissuaded by previous nutjobs dying ignominious deaths at the hand(s) of those who were supposed to be anonymous victims.

  27. avatarDrama says:

    I wrote a letter into the paper here after Virginia Tech saying the same thing. My point then was simply that the chaos of the situation might not work out so well depending on how many people are and get involved.

    These years later, looking at the status of things in LE, what with their propensity to shoot first and ask questions later I’d hate to be the unlucky John Doe who got popped by some overzealous commando cause I was armed at the scene of a crime. I guess the only benefit is that if the vigilante can administer justice swiftly, he/she can be holstered and conspicuous before the coppers even show up.

    • avatarJake says:

      Umm have you ever seen a person take 20 minutes to go from low ready to holstered? You’d have to be stuck in a relativistic bubble to not be able to holster before the cops make it to the perimeter of the scene. Remember in these scenarios SOP is wait outside until you hear the shooter run low and kill himself, then enter as cautiously as physically as possible so you don’t chip one of your dainty nails. (operator-black polish, of course)

  28. avatarasia331 says:

    I am a retired Marine. I am also a university professor. I have many students. Many of them are former active duty Marines as well and combat veterans. Explain to me Mr. Patrella how it is that I and other Marines are safer on campus in an unarmed status?

    Oh and by the way, since when do Marines use the term “gun” to describe a small arm?

  29. avatarChad says:

    Factually, your proven wrong, Mr. big shot, Military Instructor. Many states, including the one I live in, allow concealed carry on campuses. There are NO blood in the streets as always predicted. Your argument isn’t based on facts.

    In the Fort Hood killings, our very own military personnel are disarmed when on base. That is a disgrace and it costs some of our brave soldiers their lives!

    A classroom with an armed student, teacher or administrator, is the safest place on campus. That’s the facts!

  30. avatarwolfpack 46 says:

    My Lai and Haditha, you are a real person too, since a little over 100 people were killed on the first one, a dozen on the second one, SO WHERE ARE THE HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OTHES, Henry, where are the others.
    oh yeah current events; you didn’t got the memo, the cases where dismissed because the administration influnced the court. Bet you didn’t know that.
    have you ever faced off against a kid carrying an AK????

  31. avatarSammy says:

    Say hello to one of the boys they are going to send for our guns.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.