Daily Digest: The Equalizer

Anyone remember The Equalizer? It was like Burn Notice without an ex-CIA schlub and a woman who never met a kettle bell she didn’t love. Anyway, The Equalizer was the victim’s go-to guy-with-a-gun: Uzi, 1911, Walther. Good stuff. I always wondered: why the hell doesn’t the damsel in distress get her own damn gun? From what I’ve seen women can handle firearms just fine. When it comes to self-defense, a firearm is the world’s best equalizer. Yes, but—arming female soldiers and putting them on the front lines with their male counterparts is a mistake. The move will damage morale and degrade combat effectiveness. Defense Secretary Leon Pannetta doesn’t share that view; he’s just lifted the ban on female combat troops. It’s another example of the Obama administration’s complete failure to understand what it means to use a firearm, whether that’s in battle or on the street . . .

Speaking of women who can handle themselves with a gun, Team Taurus’s Jessie Duff [above] de-mystifies semi-autos.

Senator Pat Leahy—from the Constitutional carry state of Vermont—jumps the gun (so to speak) with what the New York Times describes as his own “modest gun safety” bill.

Nothing modest about Vegas baby! And anything that puts a gun in the hands of a newbie—safely—is a good thing.

Who wouldn’t want to hang with Joe “Tailgunner” Biden and talk gun control? Click onto his Google+ fireside hangout on gun violence tomorrow at 1:45p ET.

I wonder if the U.S. SS protects Joe Biden with a full-auto FN P90 (above) as he travels the country on his anti-firearms jihad.

When you want to find the sensible path to common sense gun control, why waste your time going anywhere other than HuffPo? As illustrated above.

After banging the drum for gun control the jobbing journos at nydailynews.com suddenly can’t face the music. Our new gun law: Rushed and wrong

Also from the “how wrong can you be” school of civilian disarmament: Veterans Know What Guns Can Do (courant.com):

If President Barack Obama is looking for allies in his quest to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, I suggest he think about veterans. Not necessarily the guy who ran the movie projector at Fort Dix, but men and now women who served in combat and combat support in our last half-dozen wars. These people have seen what firearms can do, to the victim and the shooter.

Federal gun grabbers fact-deficient fall-back position: a “high capacity” mag ban. Mike Thompson: A Middle Path to Reducing Gun Violence wsjonline.com

Recently discovered Carl Sandberg poem A Revolver. Interesting (but not unpredictable) that the scholar who unearthed the poem sees it as a condemnation of the Second Amendment. news.illinois.edu

Idaho lawmakers don’t need concealed weapon permits And neither does any American. All men being created equal and all.  spokesman.com

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

111 Responses to Daily Digest: The Equalizer

  1. avatarensitu says:

    US Troops pack up to 130 pounds of gear in the mountains of Afsandalot
    If a female can do that I say let em

    • avatarLeo338 says:

      The problem is the ones who can’t do that. They will complain that it is unfair so the military will have to change to make it fair for them. I wonder if they will also make the requirements for the SEALs and Rangers easier to accommodate woman?

      • avatarRandy Drescher says:

        Thats right on the money Leo. We have lady firemen that cannot do the job, most can’t lift a fat guy out of a burning bld so they work along side a strong young man. Maybe servicemen can carry the ladies backpacks too. Well, maybe there will be just too many rules to fight a good money making war, sigh. (My knuckles dragging the ground here?)I didn’t think so, Randy

    • avatarIvan w/ an AR says:

      Also, female physiology is actually better equipped to handle long term endurance requirements and blood loss. I would judge that this makes females an exelent choice for frontline operations, so long as the operations do not involve carrying excess gear over rediculous distances.

      • avatarcyrano says:

        I have a commuter car that is great on gas but that doesn’t mean I am going to hitch up the travel trailer and go offroading with it. That said, mixing the sexes has consequences. A significant portion of the command’s time is spent on counseling, sending people home for getting pregnant, establishing fairness in duties, dress codes, modesty requirements, and so on. A good example was a friend of mine had women in his unit when he was humping around the Baltic States in the 90s. The couldn’t relieve themselves off the roads because of mines. It took three men holding up ponchos to maintain dignity of one woman while she did her thing while it took 0 men to let the guy just turn the other way at the edge of the road. The WSJ has a couple good articles about the pitfalls of mixed combat crews. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/

  2. avatarRobert K. Tompsett says:

    Yep! One of my favorite.

  3. avatarBlindKyle says:

    So why is allowing female soldiers on the front lines a mistake? Either they can hack it or they can’t. If they want to fight, it’s their decision.

    • avatarJC says:

      Absolutely, as long as there are ZERO double standards for fitness requirements. ZERO. As it is now that is not the case. If you want to be in the Infantry you had better be able to hack it physically. Of course, this will not happen, they will continue to be allowed double standards which will lower the fighting capability of the unit they are in.

      • avatargloomhound says:

        +1

      • avatarAM says:

        It will start with women having to hold the same standards as men.

        This will go away when 99.99% of women can’t pass.

        • avatarAir Force TSgt says:

          This is very true… Great seeing female after female run a 14:00+ 1.5 mile during the test and get all happy about passing…. that time would have me visiting the First Shirt in my dress blues….load of crap.

      • avatarChuckN says:

        Seconded. For every female I’ve met who can
        meet the same physical performance, I’ve seen
        20 more who can’t. It’s not just PT either. A
        female could run a 5:00 mile and do 100 push
        ups but if she can’t carry the same combat load
        or carry her battle buddy to safety then she
        becomes a liability, not an asset.

        Being quite big, I always ended up with a SAW
        or 240. Not complaining about it, the fire power
        was worth the weight. But I NEVER met a female
        soldier who could hump a SAW for a 20 mile
        march let alone a 240. A girl better be a dang
        good shot to make up for not having another crew
        serve weapon with extra ammo.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          It’s all about the votes, baby! Panetta’s been carrying water for the new Progressives for years now. Sweden is more “progressive” than the US will ever be, and they don’t stick chicks in front-line infantry reserves or the mandatory service. Unrealistic PC Blowing for Votes is the new Black.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        Yes and I have never encountered a female that i would feel confident that could carry the weight, maneuver fast enough, and drag me out if i was shot up.

        i may sound insensitive, but frankly i do not care. the military is in the business if fighting wars, not playing with social experiment fires.

        • avatarSnjohnson says:

          What do you mean? This is America, everyone needs to be equal you bigot. How dare you suggest we throw away political correctness for the sake of our armed forces?

        • avatarWLCE says:

          damn i forgot. sorry.

          ill just have a cup of STFU and pay my taxes, DONT question anything, and listen to the state because they are always right. and of course, I WILL WORK HARDER!!!

          :D

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Spec Ops, now at 20,000 men and growing, will get exemptions. They’re the new Praetorian Guard. No double-standard for fitness is possible. All other units will just have to put up with it. I still await results on how the chicks on submarines is going to work out. Eventually military will only be allowed to marry military, straight or gay: The Guardians. Thanks a lot, Plato.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        +1 for the Praetorian Guard reference.

        People who are freaked out about SWAT militarization would do well to steer clear of info on how SOCOM has grown since 9/11. Yet another black-budget cipher in the DoD allocations, though to be fair they don’t come close to challenging the USAF for the all-time black-budget championship.

        • avatar16V says:

          +2 for Praetorian guard.

          I would offer that NSA long-since made the USAF ‘black budget’ look like chump change.

          Even as recently as the 70s, when everybody with the vaguest of clues knew about the NSA, there were still Senators and Congressman who truly believed it was a fantasy creation of the tin-foil hatters and parroted the party line of ‘No Such Agency’.

          Of course, their ilk also believed that one room at ATT SF didn’t exist either…

      • avatarJason says:

        The Praetorian Guard were actually regarded as poor combat troops by the actual legion, they were more of a parade troop than anything else; I don’t think we can say the same about the US SF.

    • avatarProfBathrobe says:

      Yeah. I say if they met the same standards as the other applicants than let them go ahead. Seems to work alright for Israel. Only I doubt we’d institute this policy with that level of intelligence. Here’s to hoping I’m wrong and we get more worthy ass-kickers on the line.

      • avatarCastle says:

        Women in the IDF don’t have the same options open to them as men, to my understanding. If I’m remembering right it’s either dogs, the karakal battalion (which men can get into easier than women), field intelligence, and possibly something else or two.

        Not saying that women shouldn’t be able serve in any capacity they can physically/mentally hack – I don’t think it should be any different then men. But Israel may not be the perfect example.

      • avatarRob Eide says:

        Israel does’nt send their troops all over the world. Imagine the medical fiasco this will create having to deal with female type issues.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Yeah, how about the “getting your period at Tora Bora” issue? How about the “dragging your wounded 190 lb. Marine buddy to safety in Fallujah” issue? The entire concept is based only on “how do we keep the maximum number of women voting Democrat?” calculation. Republicans should simple toss the abortion issue and get the wives voting their pocketbook again, voting their own children’s futures. Ah, but I dream.

      • avatarJR LORENCZ says:

        The Israelis had women in combat during the 1948 war. After a number were captured by the Syrian military, this practice was stopped completely. Reports as to what was done to the Israeli female soldiers has been kept quiet, due to its horrific nature. As we are fighting essentially the same cultural type, this may be a lesson to take some heed of.

        • avatarAir Force TSgt says:

          This is taught in SERE school… never ends well.

        • avatarHiPlanesDrifter says:

          The problem for women in combat isn’t that they can’t handle a weapon & shoot, run, do push-ups, or carry a heavy pack – the problem, as you point out, is if they get captured.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          females also cause unfavorable leverages in combat.

          if you take two wounded soldiers, a wounded male that is savable and a female that is terminal, it is our cultural instinct to try and save the female even though she cannot be saved.

          this will cause unparalleled disaster on the battlefield.

    • avatarCasey T says:

      There are some women who can cut it but most can’t. I served with a female Marine who I would much rather have fought with than most of my male Marine counterparts. However, she was 6″ 170 and I’m pretty sure she could have kicked the crap out of most of us. I think that if they want females in combat roles, then it’s fine. Have them go through through the same tests with the same requirements and they can serve if they pass.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Absolutely. If a chick (OK, woman) is cut out to be a grunt, give her the twelve-month pill and a gun. Accept that getting raped non-stop in captivity is no worse than a man’s being beaten and humiliated (and for Russians in Afghanistan, raped non-stop) non-stop. New cultural norm. Probably realistic. Chick gets abused? THEN you’re going to see war crimes vengeance, oh my droogs. In ‘Nam people were chill until a buddy got shot. Then it all changed, instantly, and they flashed to brutal. Wait until Suzie gets captured. Going to be ugly, oh my droogs. No question.

        • avatarjwm says:

          Clockwork orange. That’s an oldie.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          jwm: Hope, though, that the Clockwork allusion pulled forth the image of cold violence. A sergeant in Basic described to us how our ambivalence about the war would change the first time one of our flight platoon was killed. Mystery. Sure enough, he’d soft-peddled how true it was. A popular chick gets toasted? Look the f’k out.

        • avatarElliotte says:

          Forget Suzie getting captured, what about when Suzie gets “lonely” back at base camp. You’re gonna get a lot of the guys competing for her attention, then what happens to the guys she doesn’t pick? You get intra-unit rivalries and feuding. Not to mention what happens when the 12-month pill doesn’t work

  4. avatarOkieRim says:

    Because, training and evals aside, when the SHTF and she cant perform, people will die. Libs and social experimenters dont give a shit since the chance that they little muffin going into the military is like zero.
    The liberal infestation from the VN era are now granny’s, but they trained they kids and grand kids well, military=bad, not for you.

  5. avatarJB says:

    Alex Jones was saying this paves the way for women to be drafted alongside men, should the draft be reinstated. Unfortunate, if true.

  6. avatartron says:

    I can’t wait to take my direction on gun laws from a cartoonist that can’t spell “mandatory” right.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Yeah, I’ll give him credit for not being ignorant about guns, but I got to the end and saw that and it ruined my good impression.

    • avatarAnmut says:

      Hahah – there’s a reason he’s trying to make a living doing what the rest of us left behind on our high school notebook covers.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      +1million

      I’m an equal-opportunity pedant: I have been just as critical of spelling/usage errors in public comms from our side.

    • avatargloomhound says:

      Why ban body armor?

      I’m fairly sure armor is defensive… unless it’s the dreaded assault armor!

      • avatarSixpack70 says:

        I still want to know why they have such a hard on over body armor. Even if the bullet is stopped, your ass us going to be laying on the ground. Go watch videos of guys being shot while wearing interceptor vests with SAPI. Also we had soldiers buying stuff like dragon skin in the early part of the wars with their own money. These idiots don’t understand that we sometimes buy our own combat gear with our own money.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Because only Bad People like rapper thugs wear body armor. Didn’t you know that?

        Maybe we need a new category for I Am A Gun And Vest Owner. Only kidding a little.

      • avatarGyufygy says:

        Because .50AE isn’t standard issue to NYPD yet.

        ‘Course, I could be talking nonsense since I’m not sure if any handgun caliber, other than maybe the Nitros, can reach the power of rifle rounds.

        • avatarmashashin says:

          just use a Thompson Contender in whatever rifle caliber you want the trick is to not miss with that one shot

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        They (the administrators of what they call “our population” or sheep) have a dream. They see a shining city on a hill in which they have M4′s, penetrating bullets, body armor, infrared cameras, license plate readers, photo face ID, helicopters with a blank check for JP4, donuts and good pensions and… you don’t. It’s natural. They thought they were supposed to be in charge, and the billionaires thought they were supposed to be in charge. Nobody thought you were supposed to be in charge.

  7. avatarGuardian says:

    Ahhh. The Huffpo should be banned. Bunch of liberal cry babies. And to the author of that pretty little cartoon….. FOAD. # 9… its mandatory not manditory.

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      The First Amendment is just as important as the Second and it protects liberal cry babies just as much as it does anyone else.

      • avatar16V says:

        “I don’t have to agree with what you have to say, but it’s your right to say it.”

        At the risk of sounding all Sedona-vortex-crystal-rubbing, there has to be some yin and yang, otherwise there is no balance.

        As the most “fair”, “useful”, and “accurate” opinion might not be that which those in power wish to hear, they all must be protected. Especially the ones that aren’t the zeitgeist dujour.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Hey, people like the writers at the Huffington Joke are the ones always going on about how rights need to be limited. I say we start by following their own ideas, but applying them to the first amendment instead of the second. They can’t exactly cry foul play when it’s their own ideas being used against them.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      huffpro actually has some outstanding articles about the NDAA, Patriot Act, and other infringements upon liberty. i just dont agree with their views on the 2nd amendment.

    • avatarpat says:

      That Huffo cartoon, if followed literally, would (and is designed to) make us all (except the elite) turd peasants of the all wise and powerful ‘Big Gov’ libtard utopia.

  8. avatarJP in Tennessee says:

    I doubt that very many will get through the training and qualifications. And to those that do, may God bless them and their compatriots.
    Oh, and I’m a retired Army officer.

  9. avatarNickbnumbers says:

    Ban body armor?!
    How absolutely evil!

    It’s absurd enough to tell a grownup what kind of firearms he may/may not use to defend himself. It’s a whole other realm of evil to deny a man a type of clothing that can save his life.

    Imagine requiring by law complete vulnerability. “You, sir, must be easily penetrated by bullets. If you wear protective clothing, we’ll lock you in a cage!”

    • avatarpat says:

      These are laws that will make it easier for the state to take your money, choice and freedom. In other words, remove the teeth from the 2nd amendment, which was THE check on an out of bounds state.

  10. avatarJP in Tennessee says:

    What is it about a pistol grip that makes gun controlers shit their pants?

    • avatarGoldiGlocks says:

      Fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. You can figure out the rest.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      It’s the hunter-vs-defender divide.

      Hunters shoot animals, and outside of radical idiots, that is broadly held to be OK. Also, hunters are highly regulated and do their killing out of sight of Civilized People, so they’ve got that in their favor.

      Defenders shoot people. Bad ones, to be sure, but it’s still a person who needs shooting when the moment of truth arrives. Defenders kill people in your city, even in your neighborhood, maybe even (gasp) next door!

      Killing people is Not OK in the absolutist worldview of the peacenik, therefore any tool that enables one person to kill another effectively is a Bad Gun. Even if the recipient of high velocity projectile therapy is a Very Bad Person, the peacenik ethos says that we should try to stop them non-lethally and remand them to the justice system.

      Note that there is a huge fracking difference between a true liberal (ie yours truly) and an authoritarian peacenik “liberal” with a wishful-thinking-based understanding of human nature.

      This viewpoint brought to you by: several decades of associating with folks at every point on the political scatter-plot and listening, really listening, to learn where their value system comes from.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Absolutely. A true liberal in the J.S. Mills meaning is open to better solutions, is against Conservative defense of special monopolies and the status quo, and believes in human self-respect and self-development. What passes for liberals these days simply prefers spreading money for votes regardless of effort, hates the idea of any supportive voter getting fired for incompetence, and thinks an ideal war (i.e. Clinton’s take on Afghanistan) just involves some Spec Ops and a train-load of cruise missiles, all handled by some of “those guys,” otherwise “forgeddaboutit.”

  11. avatarIn Memphis says:

    I admit, I am armchair quarterbacking this, I know nothing of combat. A heart complication ended my mlitary service very early in.

    The most common argument I hear against women in combat is the weight of the gear and their body not being built for it. I call major BS on that. When I was a firefighter I worked alongside some great female firefighters. Not manly, built and butch but girly and average. If they can handle the weight of gear worn and carried, extreme heat and possibly carrying a 200lb person in near zero visiblity… then I say again, BS!

    Im sure a battlefield is a horrible place to prove oneself but unless women show they cant, who is anyone to say they cant?

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      For the record I do agree they should have to meet and pass the same exact physical fitness standards as the men. And NO I do not think that automatically rules them all out

      • avatarAM says:

        It rules most of them out.

        (The pullups in particular.)

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I suggest that you tour a Crossfit gym, preferably during a Level II or Elite session, and see if you still believe that women can’t do pull-ups with proper training.

          Just this past Monday we had pull-ups in the WoD (workout of the day) and the female types were holding their own. Sure, you’re not going to see them add on a 25lb kettlebell for extra resistance outside of national competitions, but they sure as hell can knock out the straight and kipping pull-ups just as fast as the guys.

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          “It rules most of them out”

          Irrelivant. Why should thoes who cam be judged and held back just because a majority cant?

        • avatar16V says:

          AlphaGeek, The Bay Area is its own little universe.

          My exes from my time there were in preposterously good shape, and there’s just not many other places in the US where that many women do triathalons and double-centuries. Especially with advanced degrees.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          there are women at crossfit gyms that make me look like a wimp. ill yield to that, no doubt.

          can they ruck as far as i can, as long as i can, and fire and maneuver as fast? i would bet a huge chunk of change that none of them could and that is the point of the entire argument.

          Facing reality, in hand to hand combat, i could crush a 140-170 lb woman like stale bread. why this comparison? because a foreign soldier or hardened taliban insurgent sure as hell could.

          I also know for a fact even a highly trained and physically extraordinary gun crew of women couldnt keep up with men once the FO sends a order for a FFE (im talking about artillery).

          I also know even a highly trained and physically extraordinary tank crew of women in a M1 couldnt load rounds of HEAT or APFSDS (which weigh 53 and 49 lbs respectively) as fast, maintain the tank and lift the heavy components for parts replacements, nor could they operate for weeks or months at a time confined to the inside of their vehicle on the same level as even a mediocre male crew.

          I dont agree with women in the military but recognize that there are jobs they are suitable for and some they arent suitable for due to evolutionary physical limitations. One shouldnt paint all women in the armed forces with the same brush as elite crossfitters that represent less than 1% of the population.

        • avatarjwm says:

          You know, I did all those pullups in boot. I don’t remember how many we had to do to pass, but it was enough. But outside of the regular testing we did I don’t remember ever using a pull up in the real world.

          As for whether or not women can hack it in combat. I honestly don’t know. In my time women were carefully kept out of harms way.

          My wife, a granma, could hack it in a home invader type of shootout. But that’s over quickly. I think a lot of women can handle the stress of life or death as well as men. Can they handle rucking in the boonies and sleeping in a hole in the ground? Not to be too indelicate, but how does a women handle her period in a slit trench with 2 other guys?

    • avatarGoldiGlocks says:

      Firefighters carry that weight only once in a while during a call out, then go back to the station take a shower and eat chili. No such luck in the infantry. You can spend weeks at a time in the field with your gear on. Forced march, attack, dig in, patrol, repeat…day on stay on. Some women will do it…for a time. If any make it through single enlistment without becoming disabled, they will not re-up for another.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        Good point Goldi but my point still stands that a woman CAN handle extreme physical demands. Im not saying firefighting is comparable to combat by any means but dont think there is no endurance to it. This may not be the 70s or 80s where torchers kept my brothers busy but its definatley not all about thoes cushy couches and good food.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      you bring up good points but you have to understand that it is scientific fact that women have weaker lower and upper body strength, even when compared to a male with mediocre conditioning.

      yes, there are crossfit gals that are beasts, no doubt about that. seeing one capable of doing 100 pullups certainly makes you question your manhood ;) but can she march 4-6 mph for 10 miles with a 50 lb ruck? can she fire and maneuver just as fast as males? will she be able to drag my shot up carcass behind cover? these are relevant questions in regards to combat arms. From my experience, even a female in extraordinary physical strength and conditioning still cannot pull her weight when compared to a male in decent physical conditioning let alone peak (which is typical in light infantry units i.e. airborne/air assault).

      i do have a problem with women in the armed forces but recognize the important role they can play within the ranks; my opposition to women is not a fault of women’s physical limitations, but rather the staggering statistics in regards to sexual assault within the armed forces, which is utterly sickening. delegating them to support roles and operating aircraft, they can certainly pull their weight (assuming they are held to the same SERE standards for air combat crewmen). Hell, perhaps they can be assigned to artillery units (which is questionable). But infantry? especially light infantry? no way. Special Operations? on a snowy day in hell.

      i recommend reading “women in the military: flirting with disaster” by Brain Mitchell. we should have at least a intellectually honest debate about women and combat arms without catering to emotionalism and feminist “can do” politically correct dogma.

    • avatarpat says:

      But, assuming they can do as you say (carry heavy weights at good speed), they cant do it for hours and days on end like a dude. Something has to give in the strength, speed, endurance equation. I understand womens lungs can pull far less oxygen into their bodies then men (I may have heard like up to a 1/4 to a 1/3 but am not sure). They dont even have a prayer at doing upper body grunt stuff like loading 80lb shells all day like a man.

  12. avatarBud says:

    I have no problem with women in combat as long as they are in all women units.
    Here’s my problem with women in combat. I have seen extensive combat. I have seen men waste their lives dying for other men. I was there on January 8, 1968 when Gary Wetzel earned the Medal of honor and i saw a lot of people die that afternoon.

    Everyone in the military, especially the combat arms, know that no matter what, the mission comes first. Try to keep the casualties down but the bottom line is that if you have to expend lives to complete the mission, then you do it.

    But when you add interpersonal sexual relations into a combat platoon, the mission will become second. As a Plt Sgt, I could not order my 1st Sqd Ldr-wife to take the hill no matter what the consequences.
    And don’t try and tell me that “combat buddy” isn’t going to have a whole new meaning.

    • avatarAir Force TSgt says:

      Very well put, after more deployments than I can count since 2001, I can say 100% of the time you deploy with females you will have every guy within 5 miles trying to shack up…. and this is the “modern” military, it is not uncommon for many females to have multiple partners on one trip….great for morale, horrible for the mission.

    • avatarGyufygy says:

      I’d be surprised if it wasn’t against regs to have a married couple to be in the same direct chain of command. It ain’t taking a hill or clearing a house with your spouse, but that seems like asking for trouble, even in non-combat branches. I could be completely wrong, though, since I don’t actually know the regs.

    • avatarHuman Being says:

      Besides not being able to actively order a female soldier to take a hill, there’s how every male who’s aware of it will react when they find out the woman is now hurt/under threat. The mission will go away and the central focus of every guy there will become “protect the girl”.

  13. avatarRalph says:

    I’m in favor of gays in the military and female combat troops. Hey, better them than me.

    • avatarGyufygy says:

      The day you go back in, Airman Curmudgeon, is a dark day indeed.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      No, Ralph, I sense you’ve got that little bit of mean streak that lets a guy finish a mission (or a trial). But for now, keep it aimed at Capitol Hill…

  14. avatarKip Guy says:

    It is bunk to justify blocking women from combat roles because they are women. There should be clear performance standards set, based upon the requirements to do the job. Anyone who can pass those should be able to hold the job, regardless of sex, creed, or any other thing. We went through this same argument with black soldiers, and hispanic soldiers. If we blocked them from combat roles we wouldn’t be able to field an army. The only question should be: can they do the job.

    So, no double standards, but also no setting standards arbitrarily higher than they need to be.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Well said.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Yep, so the point is that black soldiers would perform better in combat if the unit was fifty percent chicks? What?

    • avatarcyrano says:

      How Utopian of you… There is what you said and there is reality. From talking to commanders of support units with mixed sexes there is a lot more to consider than just doing the job when you got men and women bunked side by side for 13 months. Mixing the sexes has consequences. A significant portion of the command’s time is spent on counseling, sending people home for getting pregnant, establishing fairness in duties, dress codes, modesty requirements, and so on. You got a lot of shacking up between married people which then starts a list of other problems. It bogs down commander from doing his command duties and changes your LT, LTC, etc into a referee, counselor, and babysitter to all things that happen to men and women. See my earlier response to another commentor on articles beyond the PT standards.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      I think most of the rage against women in combat roles is that the puffed up “I’m so tough and superior because I was in the Army!” types don’t want to admit that a “lowly woman” could do their job.

  15. avatarLeo338 says:

    Did anyone read that article on the 9 steps to gun control? I am sick of articles like that.

    • avatarg says:

      He writes a compelling article… for anti-gun types.

      It’s another “us versus them” article, pitting hunters against any gun owner who doesn’t own a revolver, bolt-action hunting rifle, or pump shotgun. He has a right to an opinion, but obviously his right to an opinion doesn’t also include him being able to infringe on all of our rights, simply because we choose to own guns that he thinks are too dangerous.

      The comic illustration he made is powerful propaganda. I expect it to posted around…

    • avatarSixpack70 says:

      Yeah, I’m sick of all of the people who don’t get the second amendment and are spouting off a bunch of nonsense. It’s looks like an attempt to divide hunters and defenders. My dad was once in the why do you need that club. Now he is in the I want that club. He understands that these gun ban laws are stupid and pointless.

    • avatarGoldiGlocks says:

      The meme in this article has been repeated over and over by several authors in several different newspapers and online magazines. The similarities are starting to creep me out. This is a propaganda campaign with specific messages that must be countered. ” I’m a hunter but…” It’s BS. I registered for HuffPo just so I could post a comment. Under the handle GoldiG. Check it out and tell me what you think.

  16. avatarJAS says:

    I think there are lots of places for women in combat. Push button stuff, fighter jocks, all combat aircraft, navy ships, light weapons duty, etc. On the ground, up a sand hill with a 100 pound combat load, not….

  17. avatarAharon says:

    I’ll be amusingly impressed when the Obama Administration pushes for demanding women at 18 years old to be required (like all adult men) to register for Selective Service. Three things will soon occur:

    1) The Pentagon will state and the mass media report how absolutely amazing are the bravery, skills, and abilities of America’s female warriors that they even surpass most of America’s male warriors.

    2) Male combat soldiers will probably now have to carry more gear on their backs.

    3) Increased numbers of male soldiers will be accused of rape while away from base and on combat missions.

    • avatarCastle says:

      So…men can’t control themselves, and because of that women shouldn’t be on the front lines? Or women will lie about men raping them to achieve some kind of goal? I can’t say I’m getting your point here.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        I would guess that the point is that any “young men and women together under stress” week after week after week will lead to actions and then regrets on both sides, which leads (as at college parties) to accusations of rape or abuse later. In a war environment? Up that whole scenario 40%. Bad mission? “I’m gonna die. Damn. Might as well f##k.” Didn’t die? “What the hell was I thinking!”

  18. avatarAaronW says:

    No body armor? In some ways, that’s the most offensive idea in that little one-panel cartoon.

  19. avatarCameron S. says:

    I hate to come off as sexist, but females simply don’t belong in direct combat roles. I work in a gym, and the average 16 year old male that come in to lift is significantly stronger than any of our female phsyical trainers that have been spending 10+ years studying, eating right, working out 3x a day, etc.

    Secondarily, I’ve read about, and noticed personally in my life that females are more likely to mentally/emotionally buckle in times of extreme stress.

    If females are let into combat positions across the board, they MUST be held to every exact same physical standard. And honestly, if any of them can do that all I don’t even want them serving in the military. I think they would serve our nation as a whole much better by not dying in combat so their superior genes can be successfully passed on…

  20. avatarWhilemyTZgentlyweeps says:

    Neil Young said it all,

    “Powderfinger”:

    Look out, Mama,
    there’s a white boat
    comin’ up the river
    With a big red beacon,
    and a flag,
    and a man on the rail
    I think you’d better call John,
    ‘Cause it don’t
    look like they’re here
    to deliver the mail
    And it’s less than a mile away
    I hope they didn’t come to stay
    It’s got numbers on the side
    and a gun
    And it’s makin’ big waves.

    Daddy’s gone,
    my brother’s out hunting
    in the mountains
    Big John’s been drinking
    since the river took Emmy-Lou
    So the powers that be
    left me here
    to do the thinkin’
    And I just turned twenty-two
    I was wonderin’ what to do
    And the closer they got,
    The more those feelings grew.

    Daddy’s rifle in my hand
    felt reassurin’
    He told me,
    Red means run, son,
    numbers add up to nothin’
    But when the first shot
    hit the docks I saw it comin’
    Raised my rifle to my eye
    Never stopped to wonder why.
    Then I saw black,
    And my face splashed in the sky.

    Shelter me from the powder
    and the finger
    Cover me with the thought
    that pulled the trigger
    Think of me
    as one you’d never figured
    Would fade away so young
    With so much left undone
    Remember me to my love,
    I know I’ll miss her.

  21. avatarWLCE says:

    it seems like the politically incorrect crowd once again injects a new infestation of rot within our armed forces. im glad i left, thats all i have to say.

    women in combat roles? well see how much the iranians and north koreans care about “diversity”…they actually want to win wars rather than make everyone happy.

  22. avatarAharon says:

    It would be an interesting long-term study to observe the quality of team work and overall human dynamics by creating a combat company that is equally divided and integrated with 25% stra*ght men, 25% g*y men, 25% stra*ght women, and 25% l*zbian women. My guess is that in today’s politically-correct military the women would get most of the promotions and medals, and the men would take most of the casualties.

  23. avatarAharon says:

    Happy Birthday to John Moses Browning!

  24. avatarM&B Strategies says:

    Sorry cant resist. Off a liberal blog in MT today.
    http://mtcowgirl.com/2013/01/23/livingstone-resurfaces/

  25. avatarBig B says:

    What’s next? Making sure jets, tanks and ships are wheelchair accessible! It’s not everyone’s RIGHT to serve and fight. They get to pick and choose those who can help win an all out war, as bloody and nasty as it may be. Women have a role in the military but not everywhere.

  26. avatarSilver says:

    That cartoon guy forgot to add step 10: Civil War

    Or at least, that’s how it should be. It’d be worth it just to see tyrant-enablers like this dragged from their holes and made to pay for their treachery.

    • avatarHal says:

      This. That cartoon is dispicable. A day or two ago there was a quote from huffpo basically telling gun owners to “bring it” so they could be killed by the US Military. Nothing would make them happier.

  27. avatarDave Busener says:

    Something to account for – the first major assault against our freedom was signed into law by none other than Ronald Regan, our Constitution’s first modern traitor. No one back then spoke of the true nature of the 2A. All anyone heard was the ‘hunting’ propaganda, like now with the newly crafted New York anti-gun legislation. Then came Clinton. This time the argument had less to do with hunting and more to do with the nature of the 2A, whether it was the right of the states to keep and bear arms or the right of individuals. In 1982 the Senate Judiciary Committee led by Hatch found it necessary to do a ‘study’, as they like to do to prove a point, and found that indeed the right is individual. However, each attorney general stated whatever interpretation the president’s party wanted and made it official executive doctrine. Clinton, having his heart and mind deep into the American Nomenclature, decided the 2A applied only to states not to individuals then proceeded to talk everyone into a semi-automatic magazine ban (gun looks are not relevant). Subsequently, after the ban ended and our 2A rights partially restored, the Supreme Court supported the 5th district conclusion that the 2A is an individual right. THIS IS HUGE but no one talks about it. The Supreme Court did not rule on HUNTING. It ruled on our right to bear arms in defense of home, community, state and country and indirectly concluded that the particular arms used to secure our safety are those of military value, including fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines as well as any other tool typically carried by a typical foot-soldier. Could the American People be so terminally stupid as to listen to Gov Cuomumo bring up hunting? None of my assault weapon semi-auto copies are used to hunt anything other than human beings. Yup. My guns are made with a duty cycle of 40 rounds per minute and designed to kill PEOPLE as per the constitutional mandate of the 2A. Why haven’t I heard one word about the Supreme Court ruling that gives us the basis for a full restoration of our liberty and security? not to mention a restoration of essential checks and balances – including a negation of the Regan Gun ban of 1986. Sporting purposes? Soviet propagnada. Anyone remember the GRU? What about their 5 year plans? Ironically they succeeded in the full-out indoctrination of the so-called hippie generation only to have their Soviet Union fall apart bankrupt. In the interim we have become a weak and fearful people who need to be controlled and cared for by a new world order. A wise man used to say, ‘Anyone who trades a right for security is worthy of neither.’ I do not believe this nation is worthy of something so great and inspiring as the Constitution. Not anymore. Look at how its meaning has been twisted, contorted and the following corruption believed by a People that doesn’t care about liberty. Well, 47% don’t care very much and would much rather settle for entitlements. So, what do we do with our 30 round clips? We keep Mao se Obama at bay and wait for the rising generation to do the right thing, whatever that is. Good times. btw, What happens to women captured in battle? What is their intrinsic value to an embittered enemy? I wonder…… Oh well, guess it’s a free country after all.

    • avatarDave Busener says:

      Guess I got a little carried away and wrote a friggin book. The Equalizer was filmed back when we still had our rights and I got to thinking at the changes since that time. Women in battle was a hot topic back then too. Women in the workplace was big as well. We don’t hack each other up with swords anymore. To prosecute war we operate machinery that even tiny little asians can operate, even tiny little asian women. OF COURSE WOMEN CAN FIGHT AS WELL AS MEN. It’s a matter of training for the right equipment. EVERYONE’S knees go out after ten years anyway, men and women, so that’s it for me.

  28. avatarLinebackerU says:

    You’re making the same mistake that the Republican party made in the 2012 election. You can’t alienate more than half the population and then expect people to side with you on other issues.

    This website has a horrible habit of condescension towards liberals, Democrats and women (as seen in this article.) Guess what? That group constitutes a vast majority of America. Many of these people are gun owners and should be part of your core constituency.

    Instead, you choose to write articles like this one and elsewhere talk about how “the libs are grabbin our guns”. Counterproductive.

    • avatarHal says:

      “This website has a horrible habit of condescension towards liberals”

      You reap what you sow. While traitorous, hypocritical, phony conservatives do exist, 99% of those attempting to legitimately disarm the American Citizenry are liberals.

      If you are a liberal gun owner, make a choice: do you want to be a liberal and stand for civil/human rights in name only because it makes you feel good? Or, do you want to own a gun and not cherry-pick what rights people can and cannot have? You might think you can do both; you can’t. Let me know how it works out for you in the end.

      The same goes for those on our “side” that want to deprive gays of their rights. Or women of theirs. You are not part of my side. You can’t be pro-liberty and only care about the second amendment. You either care about people having the right to live in the manner of their own choosing… or you don’t.

      Know thyself. Being libertarian minded and caring about individual liberty means letting people choose things for themselves. Even if you don’t agree with those choices. Even if you hate those choices. If you are part of *any* movement or group that seeks to reduce the individual liberties of others in any way, then you need to reexamine whether or not you actually give a damn about liberty.

      But stop complaining about the way liberals get treated here. If the vast majority of you were not trying to deprive others of the RTKABA (and tax us to death) the tone would be different. But they are. So it isn’t. Make a choice and stand for something.

      As for women in the Infantry, I am an Infantry Officer. If a female Soldier can put on a ruck and carry a SAW and keep up with my Joes, then she’s welcome in my Company. If she can’t then I will drum her out of my Company exactly like I do to the weak male Soldiers who can’t cut the mustard.

  29. avatarHal says:

    Let me ge this straight… Huffpo wants to:

    1) Ban firearms for civilians that are actually effective for self defense

    and

    2) Ban body armor?

    Great. No we could neither possess effective defensive tools nor protect ourselves from injury. I hope every single one of them loses everything and everyone they love and then I hope they get AIDS. Absolutely, 100% genuine evil. If they all dropped dead from strokes right now the world would be a better place. Curse them.

  30. I absolutely love The Equalizer, McCall ranks right up there with Number 6 as a government agent tired of doing bad things for good reasons.

    However, the writers and staff were completely ignorant of guns. I remember one episode where someone pretended to be McCall, and killed people with either a .357 or a .44. McCall had to go through his underworld gun connections, looking for someone who could sell such a hand cannon. Furrfu. Even when I was a teenager, I thought that that was absurd. (Gave them an excuse to have Meat Loaf as a guest star, though.)

    Half of the victims of the Equalizer would have been fine had they just had their own gun to defend themselves. Of course, they lived in New York, and only the bad guys had guns….

  31. avatarMarcell Wragg says:

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control encourages the adult public, ages 18 to 64, to engage each week in at least one and a quarter hours of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity or two and a half hours of moderate-intensity aerobic activity; that time can be met in any increments.,..,*

    Remember to read our new web blog
    <http://healthwellnesslab.com/

Leave a Reply

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