Lt General Russel Honore (Ret) Responds to TTAG Reader’s Email

LT General Russel Honore (courtesy cnn.com)

TTAG reader NEIOWA read Lt General Russel Honore’s comments about “America’s gun culture” and email the retired military man:

General,

Your recent comments, as reported in the libtard US Today newpaper, regarding the firearms are poorly informed. Or worse. Given the very poor accuracy of this rag, perhaps US Today’s reporting does not accurately reflect your comments or opinions. The lowest quality “newspaper” in the US and not the place to appear. However, if accurate I would like to offer to help you with references that will assist with properly retraining yourself on this critical part of our constitution . . .

The 2nd Amendment DOES guarantee that citizens can carry any individual weapon, anywhere at any time they may choose. Unfortunately the world has changed and citizens have become aware they need to take responsibility for protecting themselves and their family. The government has no responsibility, ability, or demonstrated competence to do such..

We both took an oath to the Constitution. There is no sunset and it is important to understand it.

Lt General Russel Honore (Ret) wrote back:

Okay thanks for reaching out ,and your offer to help , I am aware of the right to bare arms , Iam saying that we have a current movement for everyone to carry ever where  , and we should have a conversation about that , having commanded a Infantry Division and a ARMY with thousands of troops with live Ammunition , the Accidents and Incidents happen frequently , imagine Tiger stadium with 90,000 people with guns and ample beer on hand , or our own French Quarter with open carry , people go the quarter to drink , I would be glad to discuss , if everyone in movie had a gun as some politicians suggested and one person started shooting after first rounds went off you could have multiple friendly fire KIA and WIA

In this gun fight there are no rules of engagement , I have loaded guns in my home in secure area , inside the intent of the law and but I refuse to take a gun with me to take my grandkids to get ice cream , so I would like to talk , I have gotten several comments on email and social media who disagree most are angry words and even threats we need to speak about the unspeakable , Iam not about taking people guns , FBI data show mass shooting with AA rifles and Auto pistols with large mags cause more KIA and WIA then by 50% more per incident ,
Best Regards,

LT General Russel Honore (Ret)
www.generalhonore.com
See/Smell Something, Say Something,
Do Something, Take a picture Call 911

UPDATE from NEIOWA:

Despite what some of the “members” may think, one doesn’t typically get stars by being a moron. Some may dip way too much into the politics.

Note that I have absolutely no prior contact with the General. Never met or heard of him while I was in the Army. I do vaguely recall that he was the Katrina guy.

I sent him what I thought was a civil msg and he responded in kind. Have exchanged a couple emails since.

As the other msg I sent you I invited the General to visit TTAG and to learn more about the current state of affairs and he responded that he will do so. Perhaps we can educate him. Retired General Officers would be good to have on our side. “Generals for the 2nd”. I know Two retired Infantry that I once upon a time closely worked for who made/are 3 Star. Often more towards the FUDD end of things.

comments

  1. avatar NotoriousAPP says:

    My goodness…that grammar was awful.

    Won’t bring a firearm when he takes his kids to get ice cream? Must not like his grandkids.

    1. avatar Kyle in CT says:

      My thoughts too RE grammar. Kind of made me want to cry.

      1. avatar Bob Wall says:

        Found multiple grammatical errors in both NEIOWA’s and the general’s messages. I would imagine the general gets a lot of correspondence, and sends it out via speech-to text recognition.

        Were the general to send official correspondence, it would have been proofread by his assistant, chief of staff, and staff PAO.

        Don’t stare at the gnat, and swallow the camel. You should be glad General Honore took the time to respond, and is willing to open a dialogue.

        1. avatar Ben says:

          I don’t care that he gets a lot of correspondence. This has his name attached to it, so it’s HIS. HE owns it. HE is illiterate if he can’t proofread his own letter and correct ten grammatical errors. And that doesn’t even begin to address the serious issues he has with an independently thinking citizenry that takes personal self defense much more seriously than he does. HE is a failure.

        2. avatar derek says:

          kind of hoping those were accidents in the repeating of the tale. please I hope. That being said , I was in the army right about the time a lot of the guys who got told ” jail or the army” got rank. so I know there are idiots who are good at one or two things that get them through.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Reading the General’s letter reminds me of the episode of “Seinfeld” when Kramer posed as a businessman down at some downtown building.

        At some point the boss calls him into his office to discuss his dismay over the reports Kramer has turned in: “These reports you handed in. It’s almost as if you have no business training at all….. I don’t know what this is supposed to be.”

        Kramer then gets fired, from a company where he’s not even employed.

        I read the General’s letter, and I’m equally dismayed. His letter reads like the semi-coherent ramblings of a non-native English-speaking, borderline Mongoloid, illiterate in his own language and failing further in ours.

        I’m not even sure what this is supposed to be. Is it a parody? Mockery? He didn’t really write this, did he? Could he? It’s almost as though he were raised by wolves, and his only exposure to English had been the random screams of the occasional wayward hiker beset by said wolves.

        I’m not expecting wordsmith wizardry from him, nor that he have serious opinions about the Oxford comma. Please, just be able to communicate in something more than the written equivalent of clicks and grunts.

        1. avatar Joe Mama says:

          Especially with the “bling” listing of education at his website”

          ” He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant of Infantry and awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in Vocational Agriculture upon graduation from Southern University and A&M College in 1971. He holds a Master of Arts in Human Resources from Troy State University as well as an Honorary Doctorate in Public Administration from Southern University and A&M College, an Honorary Doctorate in Laws from Stillman College, and an Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters from Stillman College.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Yes. I would hope that a General would have a higher level of literacy.

      1. avatar Delta2actual says:

        Yes. Both grammatical literacy and gun literacy….

        1. avatar Gene says:

          Clearly, “autocorrect” is at fault.

        2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          More like auto-Ebonics.

    3. avatar Don says:

      No one said everyone has to carry, just that they should have the right. Even in states with a pro gun culture and easy to get permits or no permits required, less than 25% seem to carry. But having just a few able to do so would likely have an effect on the crime rate in what are now gun free zones.
      Criminals and nuts seem to seek out gun free zones and avoid anyone that could defend themselves with a gun. Almost every spree killer nut job ends their own life at the first sigh of a defensive gun appearing on the scene. Most criminals move on quickly when they encounter armed resistance and head to a less risky opportunity, of which there are many.
      There should be a lesson there.

    4. avatar John L. says:

      My first thought was that also.

      However upon reflection, I’m wondering if he’s using a text to speech program. It reads much more like a transcript than a sample of poor writing.

      Most flag officers have aides to take dictation and convert the thoughts into a formal communications format. If he’s retired he won’t have that any more and might just be out of the habit.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        I don’t think so. What’s an “AA rifle?” I’m sure he’s referring to semi-auto rifles, but there’s no way he said, or some transcription software misunderstood him as having said, “AA.” That’s a typo he physically made on a keyboard as he physically typed this gibberish.

        1. avatar displacer says:

          Anti-aircraft rifles, of course. I’m assuming that he’s talking about Arisakas?

    5. avatar MAC][ says:

      Geez…it was a response to a letter, not an award nominated novella. At no time was I unable to discern the meaning of his prose. So in this sense, English: Mission Accomplished.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        “At no time”? Even this gibberish?

        Iam not about taking people guns , FBI data show mass shooting with AA rifles and Auto pistols with large mags cause more KIA and WIA then by 50% more per incident

        Because that shit there is just word salad.

        1. avatar BLAMMO says:

          … with tofu.

    6. avatar Jack says:

      His grammar, spelling and, of course, the ignorance of his argument, do lead me to believe that he is, in fact, a moron and the you do get to be a general entirely though politics.

    7. avatar ThomasR says:

      It’s all about first impressions in your presentation. When a person in a high position of authority shows up at a public event in holey jeans, stained wife beater T-shirt, with food on their unshaved face, what is the first thought about this person?

      So in a written response on a hot topic where the first impression is a based on a written one; where there is improper punctuation, run on sentences, misspelled words and improper sentence structure from a man that was a general?

      My first impression? What an embarrassment.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Then, of course, once one gets past this feeling of embarrassment, and one tries to decipher the mish mash of thoughts as they are presented. One sees that those thoughts are not based on logic, fact, history, experience, or the constitution, from a general sworn with his life to defend such document.

        And then what one feels is horror, and fear for the Republic, if this general is the comon example of a person given the authority, the men and the weapons of war to supposedly defend our society, our Constitution and the freedom it represents.

    8. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      Meh, I honestly started skimming when I read that’s first paragraph full of ad hominem and infantile jabs such as “libtard”, general probably just thought he was debating some 15year old (or someone with intellect of one) so his answer is just playing down to the level of his opponent.

      Pretty hard to take anyone seriously when they throw a tantrum, stamp their feet and stoop to the level of middle school name calling to make a point. Any chance to win that argument was lost in the first sentence.

    9. avatar Nuckles says:

      I met him while on assignment.

      He signed his book for me (it was free).

      He signed it “Be Prepared!”

      I took my gun with me to buy ice cream last night. Felt fairly f’ing prepared.

  2. avatar Dondgeon says:

    So he just leaps right to DRINKING while carrying? That’s a completely different scenario. Where was that ever entertained?

    Also, GOOD LORD the General needs a grammar lesson, with all due respect.

    1. avatar Parnell says:

      Yes. The right to “bare” arms. I have bare arms right now but my gun is at home because i’m in a gun-free office. I agree with you about the drinking thing. I don’t know about others but raised in an NYPD household I learned very early to stay far away from the gun when tipping the bottle.

      1. avatar AhClem says:

        So, with a right to “bare arms”; now I can wear a wife-beater on the golf course?

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Now I’m wondering whether that was a Freudian slip, and that he really believes we actually are entitled to defend ourselves with only our bare arms.

  3. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Ah they typical liberal, elistist we’re-a-bunch-of-stupid-drunken-rednecks bullcrap.

    Oh by the way general, if you want to sound smarter than us and wave your service in our faces like a shield (because you can’t stand on your own debating skills), learn proper English.

    I honestly laughed when I saw that he “commanded ‘a’ infantry division and ‘a’ ARMY.” You’d think they would teach officers proper grammar in OCS.

    And what exactly is an “AA rifle” by chance?

    1. avatar Robert W. says:

      I was perplexed too, the best I can come up with is the wording from one of those recent Bloomberg article “studies” that mentions Automatic Assault Rifles. Clearly he has taken at least a few sips from the Bloomberg cool-aid glass. But hopefully it is just reading a couple articles from left leaning on-line news rags and never taking time to actually research and think about them. Hopefuly, if he truly can be convinced to go meet the guys from TTAG, he can be shown a couple counter points, and let what should be an intelligent man (despite his grammar, I do not either think you can become a general and be dumb, maybe not a genious, but not dumb) do some of his own research and come to his own conclusions.

      Hopefully one of them is that soldiers in an army, and civilians in real life, act differently, have different ROE, different reasons for carrying weapons, etc. Basically, the reasons you may have some NDs from soldiers are not going to be the same for civilians carrying for self-defense. While a room full of tooled up and on tour soldiers might all start returning fire because that is what they are trained to do first and foremost; a room full of civilians with a portion carrying on the other hand may have other priorities, like protecting their own or escaping the line of fire if possible, and firing only on a direct identifiable threat, rather than just in the general direction of gunfire (insert Cyril Figgis “SUPPRESSING FIRE!”)

      1. avatar DoomGuy says:

        I’m afraid the good general is already a lost cause.

        He’s a politician (that’s how you ride through the ranks nowadays, because competence and leadership are punished and looked down upon), and now that he’s retired from the army and has no more authority, he wants to be somewhere he can order people around again.

        That’s all this is about. He’s currying favor with the Bloomberg power structure so he can be in control of people again.

        1. avatar bob says:

          Coasting through life getting his ticket punched regardless of actual competence much like his CIC Barry.

  4. avatar tom w a glock says:

    I used to work for a general officer who had been junior to this guy.The stories about this guy are almost legendary. And he is right about stupid accidents happening when anything is in widespread use: put 10,000 guys in the field in trucks and some % will find a way to kill themselves; it’s just natural selection at work.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Expecting, no demanding, zero accidents just ensures we don’t get useful reports of near misses out of fear of being punished.

      This has been a long-standing problem in other branches of the govt as well, especially the ones that do R&D.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Tom

      You need to clarify ” legendary”. Is that as “walks on water/doer of great things” or NOT.

      1. avatar Julio says:

        Infamous, then? Just like the shorter description for El Guapo. Cue the Amigos!

  5. avatar Greg says:

    As much as I hate to admit it, we can’t just have anyone and everyone walking around armed. I’m sure everyone one of you know someone who shouldn’t even be trusted driving a car, much less armed.

    The complexity we face is how to properly train individuals so they can safely be armed and tach them how to store and care for them.

    This is all something we must quickly take on or We risk the government using anything they feel like as an excuse to confiscate weapons.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      They are welcome to try. Confiscation will lead to a civil war. A civil war the statists will lose.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      As much as I hate to admit it, we can’t just have anyone and everyone walking around armed.

      We can’t?

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      Yes, actually, I think we can.

      1. avatar Greg says:

        really? i’ve seen users on the firing line who can’t hit a silhouette target 3 feet away, and users who were checking their weapon status by pulling the trigger. Good thing they were at least pointed down range.

        yes, we’re all created equal, and yes, we must respect everyone’s right to bear arms, but let’s be honest about it, knowing how to safely handle firearms is not a natural trait or a born right.

        1. avatar John L. says:

          Nobody’s born knowing how to speak English (or any other language) either.

          And I’m afraid I will have to disagree with you.

          You have a right to bear arms, regardless of how uneducated, careless or stupid you are with them. If you use them improperly there are consequences; but until then you’re good to go.

          Just like free speech. You’re not required to take training in what not to say in a movie theater before going to one. Or to post online.

        2. avatar Fred says:

          So how much human stupidity are we simply trying to suppress by limiting natural rights? We have rights that we can exercise, once someone proves they can’t handle the rights we can talk about limiting their individual rights.

        3. avatar T C Knight says:

          I doubt very seriously if the Minute Men said something like…”Aw, leave John at home, he can’t hit the broad side of a barn with that musket”

        4. avatar Jordan says:

          It is very simple. Roll in basic safety and marksmanship training (perhaps BB guns at first then maybe 22s and shotguns) courses into the PE curriculum (or health if you are one of those weird “guns as a public health issue” types). I took such a course in JH not that long ago (circa1996). Granted I know there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who fear and loath guns and gun owners, but there is the solution none the less.

      2. avatar Tommycat says:

        I won’t pretend to speak for him, but I think he means that some persons have really poor decision making skills, and don’t understand the magnitude of the responsibility that comes with the right. This is why it would be imperative to have all children taught safe usage rather than simply let them go and buy them when they are older and “Good Luck” them. I wouldn’t say that they should not be allowed arms, but that they should be taught proper firearm safety before they exercise that right.

        Meaning in school, not something that’s required to be paid for in addition to the firearm purchase. Free safety courses.

      3. avatar Robert W. says:

        Well there is a small counter-point to some things in ,”…that among these are life,…”

        While I do absolutely believe that the second amendment grants strong protections against the government regulation of arms of the people, and that the use of arms by civil individuals is HIGHLY likely to improve the chance of improving your life when confronted by immoral or dangerous people, basic morals, the intentions and acts of our founding fathers, and the rule of law, dictate that the Right to Bear Arms is not infinite.

        Thus, I do believe that the government is allowed to disbar felons and dangerous mentally handicapped persons from keeping arms. The likelihood of those individuals taking the life from another person is far, far greater than the likelihood that they will be able to use arms simply to protect life.

        I also believe that there IS a line to be drawn, or at least an increasing amount of allowable regulation relative to the inherent unintentional lethality of some arms, that can affect use and ownership of some arms. Counter to the flippant argument that some anti-gun-rights make, the second amendment does not and can not support the ownership and use of nuclear or biological weapons by private citizens I do not even think that the ownership or use of biological or nuclear weapons by GOVERNMENTS is moral, the unintended consequences from use and collateral damage are extreme compared to the benefits they grant.

        Things like disallowing the use of automatic arms for an every day, in public spaces, carry weapon should be allowable. Ownership should not and can not be regulated though, as they WOULD have a purpose in certain situations, no matter how unlikely those situations are likely to come about.

        Basically, the government DOES have the right and obligation to support the Right to Life. But it is also just as simply said that currently governments have far exceeded the actions that they are allowed to take.

        Some day there will be true compromise and rational discussions on what and how arms can be regulated, but for now we do have to push back on everything, since everything IS over-constrained by the government.

        1. avatar John Thomas says:

          “…use of nuclear or biological weapons…”

          ive made the argument that these are less “arms”, and more “man-made ecological disasters”. in fact, i would say that i think people everywhere should disallow their governments to make them, employ them, and everything in between. but then, thatd be pretty naive of me. i guess im just more concerned with whats right than whats expedient.

        2. avatar Richard in WA says:

          I think under current regs they would be classified as “destructive devices”.

      4. avatar Gene says:

        Works just fine in Virginia.

      5. avatar Sea Jae says:

        +1, well said Chip…. Greg, heed those words, written long ago… Then repeat often to self, and those who would rather not…. Peace…

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “As much as I hate to admit it, we can’t just have anyone and everyone walking around armed.”

      We can and we are. A higher incidence of gun related accidents (and just plain stupid acts) are the social costs of life in a society fundamentally based on general liberty and personal freedom. We’ll deal with this stuff just fine, that you very much.

    4. avatar RDK says:

      I posted this before but here it is again. Long story short…out of 33k+ gun deaths only 505 were “accidental”: Seriously, there are tens of millions of guns in American and only 500 accidental deaths….statistically speaking there isn’t a massive problem with people who know nothing about guns killing people. Heck, about the same amount of people die from falling of a ladder and almost THREE TIMES as many die from falling down stairs. http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

      My old post:

      I’m so tired of the old “Only those highly trained should have guns and then gun deaths would plummet” argument. These people say the average soldier(or citizen) shouldn’t be allowed to carry. They say those people aren’t “highly trained.” Okay, so what exactly does all that training give you? Supposedly, if you are “highly trained” you can shoot you weapon very accurately thus not hitting innocent bystanders. You are trained to know WHEN to take you weapon out and start shooting(thus not shooting innocent people). And you are well trained in safely possessing/using the weapon thus not injuring yourself and others due to an accident.

      So here’s the problem with this line of thinking. According to a CDC report http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf page 57 there were 33,636 firearm deaths in 2013 in the United States.
      21,175 were suicides. A ton of training would not prevent any of those. So right of the bat, having all gun owners being “highly trained” will do nothing to prevent the majority of gun deaths. Killing yourself has nothing to do with accurate shooting or safety as by definition if you are going to kill yourself you aren’t concerned about safety.
      11,208 deaths were homicide. Again, people murdering other people isn’t a result of not being accurate with a gun or being safe with one. By definition murderers want to be dangerous with their weapons not safe. Also, by definition criminals ignore laws so having laws limiting gun ownership to those who were “highly trained” would have no affect on these deaths as criminals would just ignore those laws.
      467 were legal intervention/war(ie self defense) so those people obviously were accurate with their weapons and safely employed them to protect themselves.
      281 were undetermined.
      The final 505 were accidental. Now these are really the ONLY ones where safety training, etc might have saved some lives. But I would argue that many of these deaths happened to people who went through the training and still ignored the rules(just like police who are supposed to be so highly trained yet shoot themselves cleaning their guns, or hunters who went through hunter’s safety course, etc). And I would also argue that many of these people even if required to go through rigorous training would still ignore the rules or just be human and make mistakes. So let’s be generous and say half of these people could have been saved through better training. That would mean that implementing very tough laws putting all gun owners through rigorous courses, etc ensuring they were “highly trained” would cut the gun deaths in this country by .0074%. A number so small as to be statistically insignificant.

      So really, any laws that insist only “highly trained” people be allowed to own guns are useless. The intent isn’t really to save lives. The intent is to destroy the gun culture. They want to make us jump through so many hoops, spend so much money doing that training etc, that most just give up and say “screw it, it’s too expensive and takes too much time to get my gun license”.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Two thumbs up!

    5. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “everyone one of you know someone who shouldn’t even be trusted driving a car”

      And yet, those people get driver’s licenses and drive around dangerously every day. So much for mandatory training being the cure-all for stupid people doing stupid things…

      The number of accidental deaths caused by people being unsafe with firearms is so low as to be almost statistically insignificant. 600 people per year die this way, and while it is tragic when it happens, that’s an incredibly good safety record for a population of 310 million people with 250+ million guns.

    6. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Perhaps not, but how, in a free society, should those people be identified and stripped of weapons?

      My first choice is self-selection. Those who already believe they could never master the arcane mechanics necessary to operate safely a modern self-defense weapon, are free never to pick one up. I applaud their choice. After all, a man has to know his limitations.

      For those who do not realize what a hopelessly incompetent menace they are to themselves and others, well, we’ll just have to wait for them to screw up. Hopefully nobody gets killed the first time, so we can take his guns before he does permanent damage, but someone might.

      That’s part of the risk of living in a free society. We don’t punish people for what they might do, only for what they have done.

  6. avatar bryan1980 says:

    General, if you would rather not carry a gun when you take your grandkids for ice cream, that’s your right. However, don’t make that decision for all of us. You have no right to do so, nor does anyone else.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I second Bryan1980’s comment above.

  7. avatar eric k says:

    I wonder if he realizes oc is legal in a great many entire states… can’t say for sure the op’s state… but still makes me wonder

  8. avatar ST says:

    I doubt this message will be received well, but the necessary ones never are these days.

    Here goes.

    Ze General has a point. We advocate that all people should carry IOW the USC. Fair enough. But, as the goober who fired his AR whilst guarding a recruiter office shows…not everyone is squared away enough to regularly carry and use firearms.

    That last point isn’t anti gun dogma. It is an uncomfortable fact. We cannot advocate a plan for advancing gun ownership without addressing morons carrying firearms. We enthusiasts may tolerate it as an acceptable risk. Joe Voter and Jane Soccermom will not.

    Irresponsible people drive cars all the time, you might say in counterpoint. Which is why every year, cars turn into automated iPads with wheels and airbags. I’d rather live in an America where we don’t have federal agency(ies) overseeing gun ownership on a mass level because of morons and their IGOT behavior.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      …not everyone is squared away enough to regularly carry and use firearms.

      Welcome to free society.

      The solution is not to tell responsible people to change their behavior in the lawful exercise of rights, but rather to expect people to act responsibly, and then hold them accountable for the damage caused when they fail to act responsibly.

      1. avatar Not Jimbo says:

        ^^ This!

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Spot on as usual!

      3. avatar John L. says:

        Well said.

        In a free society you have the right to prove yourself incompetent.

      4. avatar Mk10108 says:

        Simplifying ones life, referencing an earlier post. With all duuuuue respect, and a salute….go F&CK yourself.

        That was easy.

      5. avatar SkyMan77 says:

        + Another >>> Thank you Chip…

  9. avatar doesky2 says:

    Simple question for the general…..

    1) You kids and wife are in a movie theater
    2) Someone pulls a gun and starts shooting
    3) Most people dive for the floor and “hide” because that’s what most of the “experts” suggest
    4) Your wife is laying on the floor and hears the gunman walking around and shooting people in the heads

    Now, at that moment would you like an armed concealed carry person to return fire and possibly hit your wife and kids or would you like things to continue for another 10 minutes until the cops show up?

    Where are all these instances of citizens being accidentally killed by a good guy concealed carrier returning fire? Compare and contrast those “friendly fire” numbers to the victim count by the bad guys.

    1. avatar Mike B says:

      YES! This!. “Where are all these instances of citizens being accidentally killed by a good guy concealed carrier returning fire? Compare and contrast those “friendly fire” numbers to the victim count by the bad guys.”

      Here is the difference that almost all anti-gun, anti-carry folks miss: In an active shooter situation, one person is TRYING to shoot as many people as they can, and they DON’T CARE who they hit. Shooting people is their goal.
      Meanwhile, the law abiding person carrying a firearm does so for the purpose of PROTECTING and DEFENDING themselves and other innocent people. They will NOT fire their gun if they think other innocent people wil be hit, because they DON’T WANT TO HURT innocent people. Their goal is to stop the threat.

      So, do we really want to allow the person whose goal is to shoot as many people as possible to have free reign in a situation for the time it takes law enforcement to respond, or do we want to someone on scene whose goal is to stop that person, but with the possibility of injuring others?

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Mike B.

        The situation is even deeper than you explained. A spree killer who operates unopposed can place carefully aimed shots for maximum effect and maximum casualties. A spree killer who is under fire can no longer place carefully aimed shots and is much LESS likely to kill innocent victims.

        But wait, there’s more! Any armed victims who choose to return fire at the spree killer are doing their best to place carefully aimed shots at the spree killer. As a direct result, they are NOT placing carefully aimed shots at potential innocent bystanders. In other words the probability of an armed victim shooting a bystander is low. Perhaps more importantly, an armed victim who does accidentally shoot an innocent bystander will be putting a bullet in a RANDOM location on the bystander’s body. Bullet wounds to random locations of the body have a low probability of being fatal.

        When you combine these two FACTS, the decision whether or not an armed victim returns fire on a spree killer becomes a no-brainer. An armed victim radically reduces the casualty count of a spree killer. And the probability of an armed victim killing an innocent bystander with a random bullet is extremely low. It is so low in fact that I cannot recall a single instance of it ever happening. And believe me, if an armed victim ever shot and killed an innocent bystander while trying to defend themselves from an attacker, we would never hear the end of it. It would be headline news for weeks, possibly even months.

    2. avatar Steven says:

      In the chaos of a shooting in a theatre packed with people in the dark, how do you identify who is a bad guy and who is another concealed carrying good guy. Say you pop up and see the good guy drop the bad guy. Do you give him a chance to test action vs reaction or do you drop him before he has a chance to drop you.

      We have a great deal of momentum right now, but I worry that we are one high profile friendly fire incident away from having it rolled back. They seize on anything as a rallying point for yet another law to address the various perceived evils of the world. Unfortunately as gun ownership increases, we will be ever more represented by the lowest common denominator.

      1. avatar Jeremy S says:

        That may be sad and frustrating, but the point remains that it’s still a preferable outcome to the spree shooter continuing unopposed for as long as he damn well pleases.

        It’s also an exercise based entirely in theory and speculation, as it has apparently never happened before in practice. We can all “envision” this sort of scenario, but it hasn’t played out. Maybe because the bad guy starts shooting first, and by the time somebody gets around to shooting back everybody with the means and wherewithal to return fire is already pretty darn clear on who the BG is?

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Steven,

        There is a simple and clear answer to your hypothetical scenario.
        (1) Once a spree killer engages an armed victim in a gunfight, the spree killer is no longer casually executing victims. That will reduce the casualty count which is an excellent outcome.
        (2) If you observe a gunfight and you don’t know which person is the spree killer and which person is the armed victim, hold your fire, period. Wait until you know for certain who the spree killer is. This will become apparent very quickly: either the armed victim will incapacitate the spree killer and the killing will stop (and there is no further need for anyone to shoot) … or the spree killer will take out the armed victim and continue their killing. If the latter happens, engage the spree killer at will. Either way, the spree killer’s rampage will be much shorter and the number of victims will be much smaller (assuming that you are able to finally incapacitate the spree killer). These are also excellent outcomes.

        Given the above, I don’t see a down side. Does our military not engage enemies on the battlefield because there might be friendly fire? Of course our military engages enemies on the battlefield. Likewise, we should engage our “enemies” (spree killers or terrorists) on the “battlefield” (wherever we may happen to be when a spree killer or terrorist attacks).

  10. avatar Retired Para says:

    As a retired military guy I am embarrassed but not surprised by the retired General’s line of thinking. Something I saw consistently during my 20+ years of active duty service was a FUDD mentality among the officer ranks that became more apparent as they progressed in rank. I respectfully suggest to the General that he step back and re-read the Constitution of the United States along with the writings of the founders, especially in regards to the 2A.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      “Something I saw consistently during my 20+ years of active duty service was a FUDD mentality among the officer ranks that became more apparent as they progressed in rank” Interesting observation. Coincidence, or not?

      1. avatar Bruce Badger says:

        The further they progress in rank the more risk averse they become. Political animals advance, war fighters do not. One negative comment on your efficiency report and your career is not only dead ended, but you are on track to involuntary separation. If not promoted for X number of years, you are politely asked to leave.

        Patton would never have been given a second chance in today’s military.

        One with no notable achievements can do quite well if they have no black marks on the ole efficiency report. Our modern military does not favor the bold.

        Additionally, Obama has spent his entire time in office purging the military of any HINT of independent thinkers. He has systematically fired an unprecedented number of Generals until only the ass kissers remain.

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          In the alternative news there are stories about the military grooming officers for the overall political agenda.

        2. avatar Bruce Badger says:

          I would think that is obvious.

          And not just the officers. Just like our school systems, the political indoctrination is spread from the top down.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          Agree, but maybe not as obvious as you assume, at least not to the public.

        4. avatar Julio says:

          Respectfully–let me introduce you to someone more…outspoken and less…political.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mattis

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Please, Fudd isn’t an acronym, it’s Elmer Fudd’s last name. If, on the other hand, you meant Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, that IS an acronym, FUD, but it has only one “D.”

      (This applies to neiowa as well, who did it in the original post.)

      1. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

        Please leave Elmer out of this…he is not bothering anyone, just hunting waaabbitts

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Do you understand pedantic?

        On this forum the meaning/intent of FUDD is understood.

        On a whim I checked see EIGHT YEAR OLD citation at
        http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fudd

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I understood your intent. Doesn’t mean that you don’t look stupid making the mistake.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I know what a Fudd is. And the Urban dictionary seems to realize you don’t spell it in all caps.

      3. avatar Stinkeye says:

        I feel your pain, Steve. I’ve tried on many occasions to correct this and many other common errors around here, but I’ve mostly given up now.

        It’s amusing to me that the same people who will shred someone else for writing “.9mm” or “assault rifle” are content to offer “well, you knew what I meant” as an excuse for their own errors…

  11. avatar Joseph says:

    I think in his day that being drunk and caring firearms was a normal thing. That just means he believes Hollywood and the mainstream media that everyone who has a gun is a drunken redneck.

  12. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

    Any time I hear/see phase “we need to have a conversation about the 2nd Ammendment “. Can’t help but think it’s code for “Peons, sit down, shut up and let your betters handle this” Anyone who spouts that is an enemy of the Constitution

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yup. The natural right to keep and bear arms is an established fact. It needs no further “conversation.”

      I’m not going to have a conversation with a thief who has broken into my home and is stealing what is mine. Likewise, I have no interest or intention of having a conversation with those who would steal from me the exercise of my individual right to keep and bear arms. Only a free people bear arms. I intend to always be free so I intend to always bear arms.

  13. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    …I am aware of the right to bare [sic] arms , Iam [sic] saying that we have a current movement for everyone to carry ever where , and we should have a conversation about that…

    Why should the lawful exercise of rights by the law-abiding require or be subject to a “conversation”?

    …having commanded a Infantry Division and a ARMY with thousands of troops with live Ammunition , the Accidents and Incidents happen frequently…

    How frequently? And how does that frequency correlate to the frequency with which NDs and accidents happen among law-abiding civilians?

    The statistics regarding fatalities due to negligent discharges speak for themselves: it is a non-issue.

    imagine Tiger stadium with 90,000 people with guns and ample beer on hand…

    Imagine 90,000 law-abiding citizens, carrying firearms, drinking or not, and causing nobody any harm with those firearms. Might something happen at some point? Of course. That’s one of the risks of free society: you can’t always prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. Infringing the rights of the responsible, law-abiding people because of the actions of the extreme-minority irresponsible is morally wrong and contrary to a free society.

    …or our own French Quarter with open carry , people go the quarter to drink…

    There are many of us who rarely (if ever) drink in public, and are fully capable of comporting ourselves in a responsible manner. There are also those who remain capable of comporting themselves in a responsible manner, even if they choose to drink. Where are the statistics that show drunk people doing stupid things with firearms as being some sort of meaningful problem?

    …I would be glad to discuss , if everyone in movie had a gun as some politicians suggested and one person started shooting after first rounds went off you could have multiple friendly fire KIA and WIA

    Actually, statistics show that the more people that are generally armed, the less likely criminals are even to attempt to commit their crimes in that area. More law-abiding being armed acts as an inherent deterrent.

    As for when they attempt their crimes anyway: consider Charles Whitman, as just one example of what happens when a criminal attempts to shoot a bunch of lawfully armed, law-abiding citizens.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Chip,

      What the nice General was trying to say about drunk fans at Tiger Stadium is that he wants drunk fans to be able to assault people without having to worry about their victims shooting them.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “And how does that frequency correlate to the frequency with which NDs and accidents happen among law-abiding civilians?”

      Or the frequency between cops and law-abiding civilians?

  14. avatar Seth says:

    Thank you for your service General… I’d like to pay for you to attend a class on the English language as a way of expressing my gratitude, maybe then people can actually comprehend your statements.

  15. avatar SteveInCO says:

    We need to have a conversation about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    It ends with the words “shall not be infringed,” unlike every other rights-recognizing statement anywhere in the Constitution. That means any attempt to restrict people’s access to firearms is unconstitutional.

    End of Conversation, have a nice day.

  16. avatar Bungameng says:

    Well, I’d point the general to the alternative – countries where access to firearms is heavily restricted and which face similar societal problems like US, i.e. gang problems and high rate of drugs abuse. Like that one state just South of the US border.

    For second, there is the issue of “who has the right to decide” who is eligible to what. As an example, I would offer Charb, editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo, who was a sport shooter, but whose application for concealed carry was not approved, despite receiving numerous death threats and actual kill attempts prior to the Charlie Hebdo shooting (conducted by criminal with illegally obtained guns).

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      He might actually prefer the alternative. After all, in those situations, the people in charge are the ones with the guns. That’s usually the generals. 😉

  17. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    Whatever Russel. You’re babbling now. You gave what by all accounts appears to be an anti-2A commentary to a very Anti-2A liberal rag, at a time when there is no more middle ground. The Administration and their extremist allies in the media are trying to disarm us, a la the ‘Australian model’. So for you to come out with some babbling borderline anti-2A statement, and from someone with your background, who took the oath that you did, is quite frankly lame. I don’t want to hear your back peddling. You’re at best a Fudd, and at worst a closet Anti. Go away.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Good job by NEIOWA. As for the General who commanded an infantry division, I wonder how many of his men he got killed, and whether he has ever lost a minute’s sleep over them. I kinda doubt it.

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      Well put.

  19. avatar Big Daddy says:

    again, some people are missing the point… if the movie theater was full of armed people, a long wolf looking to create a spectacle would not choose the theater. They would choose a different location where people were not armed. The shootout in a theater scenario would not happen for the same reasons that a mass shooting has not occurred at any location where people are armed.

    think back to the cold war. how many nuc’s were launched? none. why? everyone had one. Mutual assured mass destruction was the deterrent. peace through strength.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      I’m on your side but……Mutually Assured Destruction only works with sane people.

      The communist leaders were basically sane and enjoyed their fancy dachas and Ukranian teenage hookers.
      They much preferred living large than lobbing ICBM’s.
      Not so much though with the Iranian Islamofascists. I’m pretty sure there are some in the leadership that would nuke Israel or the US if their name lived on in infamy.

      1. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

        Hey, if you have a crappy life with little fun, and get to see all these other people enjoying life on the internet, and your reward is 70 young girls to rape, why not pull the trigger or push a button?

  20. avatar Jeff says:

    As a retired military officer, who never rose very high in the ranks, I can tell you that rising to the General ranks is as much political as it is capability. Just examine a sampling of the General Officers who retired and then entered politics. That said, I have to commend the General for engaging in a civil discourse on the issue, no matter how much I might disagree with his position. Also, I doubt that he intended for you to publish his phone number, given how despicable some of the denizens of the Internet can be. It might be a good idea to remove the phone number, if it’s not already too late.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      My bad. Done.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      I think we should welcome the general to TTAG. If he genuinely want’s to have a conversation about the 2nd amendment, I can’t think of a better place to have it than here. One thing about this place is that we tend to be pretty up-front with our politics and conservations. The general might find that refreshing. But, then, maybe not.

    3. avatar foodog says:

      +1, Jeff, and thank you NIEOWA on your forthright effort to get through to Gen Honore. I would never trust USA Today, the Marriot Hotel Free Paper Outside Your Door Throwaway to report the news accurately, (nor do I trust NYT or WAPO to do the same, but I digress.

      Repeating what Jeff said, and this is from another 06, ret, serving about the same time frame as Gen Honore. You dont get to flag level if you are a nitwit. And of course its political. Life is political.

      I am not familiar with the Army history here, so I will defer to those who are, to interpret background and capability of Gen Honore to speak on civilian gun policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel_L._Honor%C3%A9

      The bigger point about that- ie, comments about someone based sloppy or no information, or worse, lazy terms like FUDD, statist slave, etc- is no different than the common and despicable tactics of the Left, ie “freeze polarize demonize” etc etc- with a cheesy ad hominem.

      So lets not do that here, and I say that as a reminder as I have been guilty of same, ie on Shannon Watts and Bloomturd, – so lets try to keep uppermost the idea that TTAG is a place that is a “clean, well-lit clean room” ~ Hemingway. At least when dealing with those who are probably on our side as to freedom in general, and can be educated with engagement.

      NOW, as to his comments- yes, I agree, its disappointing – and General, if you are reading this,
      its not clear to me Sir, what exactly you are saying, and I look forward to your future replies.

      My respectful and unsolicited advice is you get some editing and PR help, especially if Wikipedia is correct in your running a public speaking consulting firm.

      You never get a second chance to set a first impression, and if I had written something like this for a flag brief, I would have had my A$$ chewed off, as Aide or Chief of Staff…

      Thank you for your Service, and Go Navy, Beat Army.

  21. avatar TravisP says:

    I Agree with the general and I think the problem is a failure in communication. Clearly the general is talking about your right to bare arm, as in wear sleeveless shirts. I respect the General’s opinion on this subject. I believe as adults we should limit our bare arms to certain locations and activities. For example a nice restaurant has every right to enforce their dress code and turn me away for bearing arms.

    Let’s not forget Kevin Federline, who routinely abused his right to bare arms,

  22. avatar TravisP says:

    Also I bet anti air guns (AA) with large magazines would cause some issues in the average concealed carrier was shooting one in close proximity to other individuals. Again the general is correct

    1. avatar clickboom says:

      Correct, AA guns put off massive flak and are unsuitable for carry. Also, they weigh 1200 pounds.

      But seriously, if this is to become a real dialogue, we ought refrain from using words like “libtard” in the opening sentence of our letters and discourses.

  23. avatar Shire-man says:

    Sounds like he has severe brain damage but couldn’t find a good coach like the one Gabby has.

    Love the loose call out to FBI data. Maybe if he actually checked the data he’d see he’s barking up the wrong tree entirely if he wants to save lives.

  24. avatar Chris says:

    It wouldn’t be like the infantry, as in the infantry, everyone is armed. Not everyone would carry, even if allowed. And if you try to tell me that if one or two people had been armed at the Aurora theater, that things would be worse, that’s the point when I stop listening to you. I don’t have time for foolishness.

  25. avatar mike says:

    Why is everyone so quick to give a 3-star general flak for spelling mistakes? BFD… so what if he was furiously tapping fast on his phone.

    Online spelling/grammar police… one of my biggest pet peeves.

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      Because we have a right to expect three starred generals to be literate.

  26. avatar TT says:

    I just emailed this to General Honore:

    General Honore, I’ve been following your commentary in USA Today and the follow-up discussion on The Truth About Guns. Thank you for engaging in a dialogue.

    I wanted to raise a couple of brief points for you to consider. I understand your concerns about what you described as the current movement for everyone to carry everywhere. Please consider that open carrying of guns is currently allowed without license in 25 states. With the exception of about three of these states, open-carry has been allowed for decades or longer. There is nothing recent about it.

    Another 15 states allow open carry with a license. Forty-two states require the issuance of a concealed carry permit upon certain conditions. Only about six states make it difficult or impossible to get a permit for concealed carry. Most of these permissive concealed carry laws have been on the books for 10-20 years.

    The fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of the country, including Louisiana, Americans secured the right to carry a gun whenever they want and nearly wherever they want a long time ago. Your concerns about wide-spread shootings have not happened. In fact, both crime and accidental shootings in the U.S. have been decreasing for about 10 years, while regular firearm carrying has almost increased.

    1. avatar TT says:

      Make that “almost certainly increased.”

  27. avatar Skyler says:

    Actually, in Louisiana you most certainly can become a general in the Louisiana National Guard as a moron. That is the most corrupt state in the Union.

    “Bare” arms? His grammar is worse than a decent 4th grader.

    I won’t say whether he is specifically a moron, or whether he specifically is the result of corrupt politics, but I would say the possibility is quite real given the evidence.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Guy’s . . . The general is from a generation and an occupation where typing skills were not stressed. We tend to forget that there are significant numbers of people out there who never learned to compose at a keyboard. Watching a friend laboring to hunt and peck his way through a simple short-paragraph email reply (took him about an hour) was excruciating to watch. Let’s give the general a break.

      1. avatar Skyler says:

        Bull! He should be college educated from a day when college still meant something. The illiterate response supposedly given by him would never pass muster for any USMC general officer I have ever met or read about since before WWII (excepting Chesty Puller, but he’s an exception to the rule because of his perceived combat success.)

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Having heard him speak, it would not surprise me Honore also speaks French.

        Much like Spanglish, it sound like he speaks a ‘liquid’ mix of English and French, at least in sentence construction.

        Dismissing someone who sounds to you ‘hick’ as being stupid is not wise.

        The same goes for giving IQ points to someone who works at sounding polished.

        Unfortunately, it takes a bit of time to figure out who’s the real deal.

      3. avatar Second Amendment Lover says:

        Have you ever heard the general speak? It isn’t much better. Then again, we should give him a break because his generation never learned proper English. Yeah, right.

  28. avatar Daniel says:

    As to his assertions that he commanded armies, and OMG all the NDs. This is part-and-parcel of the ridiculous rules around where you can/can’t carry. Instead of loading it, putting it in the holster, and forget it until needed, soldiers are forced to load/unload around clearing barrels all the time, depending on where they go during their daily routine.

    I have no stats to back this up, but my bet is that most of the NDs would go away if soldiers were just allowed to carry without having to touch it all day long.

  29. avatar Jojo says:

    I carried all over the french quarter the last time I was there. Not drinking, of course, but that isn’t the only reason to be there.

  30. avatar MAC][ says:

    I’m glad the general responded. Statistically I imagine that he’s correct on the first account that with more people carrying a loaded firearm comes a higher incidence of NDs. We could do a long study on that one, but it’s likely unnecessary due to the basic math. A greater number of people fly fishing will likely equal a greater number of fly fishing related accidents. Wow…so much stats.

    His other points relating to being carrying in a theater or stadium turning incidents into random free-fire-zones of ramped up carnage? Fantasy without any basis in historical and statistical fact.

    It’s not about whether people can or do carry in all of these places General, they already DO. It’s about whether law-abiding citizens are permitted to do so.

  31. avatar William says:

    You are never relieved of your oath to protect and defend the Constitution once you take it. Just saying.

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      Says who? Upon exiting the service and relinquishing your commission, you are no longer bound by that oath. If you accept retirement pay or remain in the individual ready reserve then you do continue an obligation, but that’s all.

  32. avatar Grindstone says:

    Why do they ALWAYS, without fail, jump to the “if everyone had a gun…” absurdity?

  33. avatar John Sell says:

    The General is just stuck on stupid.

  34. avatar Second Amendment Lover says:

    My God, this general writes like a complete illiterate dolt. How on earth did he make it past captain much less earn three stars? God help us.

  35. avatar The Original Brad says:

    “Ah! the Generals! They are numerous, but not good for much!” – Aristophanes, Greek poet and playwright.

    Wow, just, wow. I hope for his sake he was drunk when he wrote that because he looks like an illiterate fool. The Peter Principle clearly stands in this case.

  36. avatar Gman says:

    I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    Dear Lt General Russel Honore (Ret), I suggest you repeat this oath until you come to your senses. You should be ashamed to have spoken those words. I suggest you think long and hard what our Constitution stands for and why. Perhaps we need to have a conversation about freedom of speech, or freedom of religion as well? Or maybe, our society would be all that much safer if we had a conversation about the 4th and 5th Amendments as well. Honestly Sir, your words dishonor that oath, and our country.

  37. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    I don’t agree with the general’s position and I don’t need to be pedantic to debate the issue. Yes, his grammar is poor, but his point was fairly clear. Debate the issues, not his command of the English language.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ^ This.

      Use the brain you were born with to grok the point he was trying to make.

      If still unclear, ask for clarification.

      It makes life much easier to simply maneuver around obstacles instead of pig-pigheadedly plowing straight ahead.

      Unless they insist on pointing your errors while they commit the same.

      Then it’s ‘Game On’.. (like with our pet trolls here…)

  38. avatar BradN says:

    I hate this argument that my rights should somehow be forfeit because some moron somewhere is going to have a negligent discharge. You don’t hold everyone to the standards of morons. That’s not how society works, or how it’s suppose to work anyways. We are not children that need to be told what to do. Save that style of governance for the people of Australia.

  39. avatar Aaron says:

    So Honore thinks the 2A recognizes the right to “bare” arms, e.g. to wear wife beater t-shirts??

  40. avatar Aaron says:

    If we trained Army privates better, and had better accessions standards, then maybe generals would not be so scared to arm them. When I was a commander, I had some Soldiers that couldn’t be trusted to drive a HMMVW, much less be armed all the time with fully automatic weapons – but I did my best to remove those few bad apples from the Army.

    But even if he is concerned about being an infantry division commander, he seems to forget that citizens are not privates.

  41. avatar Karen says:

    Umm the french quarter, if they mean the one in new orleans, is open carry. I work in the french quarter.

  42. avatar JohnF says:

    NEIOWA: “Despite what some of the “members” may think, one doesn’t typically get stars by being a moron.”

    You don’t know your military history. It is rife with morons wearing stars. Generals get promoted by Congress, not the military. ‘Nuff said.”

    And this guy is functionally illiterate!

  43. avatar RDK says:

    The General is worried about lowly Privates, etc having accidental discharges and the “danger” it causes?! Seems to me the Privates, etc are the ones who should be worried….. worried about politicized Generals such as this guy sending them and their buddies into hopeless foreign meat grinders….telling them to fight without the proper equipment and support with Rules of Engagement that effectively neuter them.

  44. avatar Bud Harton says:

    Like i used to teach my soldiers as an Infantry company 1st Sgt, “perception becomes reality”. If the general isn’t smart enough to proof read his written response, then it does appear that he is illiterate.

    If his unit was plagued by negligent discharges then he should know as well as every other military leader already knows, he had a huge leadership and training failure.

    And finally, he needs to revisit his Oath that he swore numerous times, apparently not once understanding the meaning or content.

    Anyone that visits New Orleans and the surrounding Parishes since Katrina and continuing right up until today knows what an epic failure the relief efforts were and still are. Claiming fame from that epic failure is laughable.

    Watching US military personnel forcibly removing legally owned by American citizens, the same troops under his command, has done more to poison the American military’s relationship with American citizens than any other singular event since the civil war.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

    The only thing the General should be feeling right now is shame

  45. avatar fishydude says:

    Clearly he misses the elephant in the room. Mass shooting occur in declared gun free zones. They do not occur in ‘theaters where everyone has a gun.” They don’t even occur in theater without gun buster signs. So his point is BS.
    And if ND’s happen on military bases it is due to poor training not the presence of guns alone.
    A stadium full of disarmed people is a free fire zone. There is no way to keep someone will to kill from getting guns into any public venue.
    Lawful carriers, for the most part know not to mix guns and alcohol. So his drinking at a ball park with a gun is bogus too.
    He has no logical valid argument on his side.

  46. avatar VTPATRIOT says:

    Illiterate Idiot. His lack of literary skills is a key indicator. Lost me with “BARE arms”. Imagine that “troops with live ammunition”. Case closed.

  47. avatar Cknarf says:

    I appreciate that he took the time to write a personal response, instead of just some generic copy/paste crap I get from politicians.

  48. avatar gsnyder says:

    I think these guys get somewhat burned out. I sure there are accidents, but the situations which create them does not correlate to anything outside the military.No movie theater would likely ever be filled with every patron armed nor any other venue. The man thinks in military terms, the civilian mindset is far different.

    1. avatar VTPATRIOT says:

      He ain’t “these guys”. Get it?

  49. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Welcome General
    Dispite the comments of others I know you can read. As an officer I know you were given reading lists of books from leadership schools in the military. Here are my suggestions for your next reading list.

    This nonviolent stuff’ll get you killed by Charles E Cobb jr 2014.

    Negros and the Gun, The Black Tradition of Arms by Nicholas Johnson 2014.

    Extraordinary, ordinary family and me by Condoleezza Rice 2012

    Negros with Guns by Robert Williams 1962

    Please read them. They will help you to understand why people love freedom and hate the safety you and others want to bring us.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Best response of the day Chris! I really don’t care one way or the other if a retired general has any opinions-as long as he isn’t confiscating guns in NO or actively being an enemy of the POTG. Yes the response was pathetic. I would guess the good general does better verbally commanding the grunts…oh yeah +1 NEIOWA.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        In my almost 22 years in the army I met plenty of people who didn’t have the best writing skills or the best oral communication skills. But they were great soldiers and great friends. And I tried to help them when I could, like proof reading their work and suggest corrections without being judgmental.

        As a gun community I would hope we welcome a new person so they know they can rely on us for help.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          Thinking when you are institutionalized long enough to earn three stars, your mind does little changing (it’s not what got you three stars). The general said it all, already; he sees no good can come from allowing people less trained than his soldiers having guns….to many NDs in his units, means way too many NDs by untrained civilians.

  50. avatar Jt says:

    This general is institutionalized. He spent a career In a position where he had to be the parent or grandparent figure for a whole hierarchy of people, thousands of them, who follow is word. As a commanding officer, he was responsible for the well being of thousands of soldiers. In today’s risk averse politically correct military, there is no individual responsibility placed on servicemembers, unless they drink underage or discriminate against women or gays. Otherwise, everything bad they do is held against their commanders. Therefore, this general spent a career being afraid that a servicemember under him might hurt himself, because that would be the end of that generals career. This general sees himself as an enlightened one, capable of bearing the burnden of keeping us lowly civilians from hurting ourselves, since we cannot do it alone. Our military has been socially engineered and its officers crafted to follow the PC, big government line. None of this translates into civilian life, where people are supposed to be accountable for themselves. Sadly, in our country, the criminal isn’t blamed for the crime; rather scape goats like guns are blamed, because they are polarizing. It’s a straw man argument that helps government justify its size and budget.

  51. avatar Johnny B Goode says:

    I am happy to see the General did respond. He is not well informed of our current laws. Most states have a zero tolerance law on the books in regards to guns and alcohol. The general is concerned out friendly fire in movie theaters. It is very easy to get a concealed carry permit now in most states but very few people do get a permit. Given the total number of people who practice concealed carry in any given area the chance that more than one or two armed citizens will be in a theater at any given time is very slim. He is concerned about accidents with loaded guns on base. We have far more hunters than members of the military. Yet we have very few hunting accidents with over 8 million people combing the woods for game.. Many of the hunting accidents were caused by people who are hunting illegally by failing to take a hunters safety course or in violation of other safety laws. I know our military can be trained to handle live weapons on base with a strong safety record.

  52. avatar Dustin says:

    What a politician… Just wants power over the trash that he knows we all are…

  53. avatar Lone Ranger says:

    General, first of all thanks for your service.

    You are worried about the same kinds of scenarios that Democrats and Socialists have warned us about for decades… that a large number of armed citizens is going to result in a bloodbath every time someone gets into a minor disagreement.

    Reality has not borne out those concerns, not a bit.

    Has it occurred to you that if more of our fellow citizens were armed and we eliminated Gun Free Zones (criminal friendly zones) that more armed citizens in and of itself makes the chance of a lunatic firing in a theater or school much less likely?

    In nearly all cases when a deranged attacker is met with resistance they give up, or better, they eat their own gun.

    The people want to resist these lunatics. We don’t want to hope the Police show up in time to stop them.

  54. avatar Jon says:

    Ban bad grammar, not guns!!!

  55. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    , imagine Tiger stadium with 90,000 people with guns. Imagine the NRA convention in Indy with tens thousands of armed people in attendance with nothing happening.

  56. avatar Taylor TX says:

    “I am aware of the right to bare arms ,”

    WHICH WAY TO THE GUN SHOW?!

  57. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
    Dwight D. Eisenhower

    I can see why Eisenhower stated the above with Generals such as we have on this Blog.

  58. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    Sadly I have learned that senior officers are politicians, not warriors.
    When politicians say “I support the Second Amendment, but…”
    I reply “oh really, what do you carry?” and I am met by a blank stares.

  59. avatar george from fort worth says:

    thanx for printint a picture of the general. i want to be sure to never protect him or his grand children. he openly and publicly declared their lives are not worth protecting himself; why rely on me? when someone of assumed elite stature (generally meaning being superior to the idiots he serves) declares that self-defense is too dangerous, then that person is right. it is too dangerous to him, his kin and those who would think to rescue him and his family from violence he already accepts ad inevitable and acceptable.

    don’t defend those who won’t defend themselves !!

    ever

    i will keep this article saved against the day i can forward it to his survivors.

  60. avatar God says:

    Anyone that thinks that USA Today is a “liberal” newspaper, or is of poor quality, is a moron. Or an ammosexual, but that would be redundant. Honore did this pest a favor by writing back but then again that only encourages other pests.

  61. avatar Bob109 says:

    The Army never really got it. When in the USAF in the 80s, our SPs carried M-9s with 30 rounds, 1 in the chamber, and safety off. We had very few negligent discharges. Army MPs stationed near us carried empty guns. The Army leadership complained numerous times about the way we carried
    , but we ignored them. They believe it was inevitable we would have an NG. We never did. I learned then that if you give someone responsibility, they tend to be responsible. If you trust your people, they tend to be trustworthy. The Army seldom trusted their people, so when they were armed, they made mistakes.

  62. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    What this guy doesn’t get is that there are millions of us who carry every day. Already. We certainly don’t need the permission of this control freak to continue to do so. Like most liberals he will come around after a criminal sticks a gun in his face, until then you will not convince him. I wish him well, and hope he never has to face the consequences of his decision.

  63. I guess we shouldn’t expect bearers of shoulder stars to be able to form a single coherent sentence. That probably explains what’s been going wrong in the military for a long time. And yes, you do get stars by being a moron. You get stripes by knowing your head from your asshole and you are not eligible for OCS if you have already extricated your head from your own ass.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email