Go Ahead, Call Me A Gun Grabber

Joseph Kopser Gun Control Combat Veteran Gun Grabber

courtesy mysanantonio.com

“I can tell you that if ever I’m accused of being a gun grabber by Chip Roy I’ll make it very clear that indeed I did grab my weapon in Iraq every time I left the safety of our installation. I did grab my weapon every single time I left my combat vehicle. So if he and Ted Cruz want to call me a gun grabber, go ahead and see if that doesn’t backfire on them.” – Joseph Kopser in Combat Veterans Are Running On A Gun Control Message — But Can They Win? [via buzzfeed.com]

comments

  1. avatar Hunter427 says:

    PTSD

    1. avatar YaDaddy says:

      Oh this comeback is too easy:

      Yeah and if your fellow “gun grabber” Saddam Hussein had not disarmed his people as part of tyrannical rule over the people of Iraq, then maybe you wouldn’t have been over there in the first place havin’ to grab your gun all the time!

      Thanks an’ all, but your service to this country isn’t an excuse to destroy it’s hard won freedoms.

      Next tyrant, please.

      1. avatar billy-bob says:

        DI always told me to grab my rifle instead of my gun, one was for killin’, one was for fun.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Bradley Manning alias Chelsea Manning was an army veteran also. The army just like every other organization has it’s scumbags.

  2. avatar Setnakhte says:

    That’s why I say “firearms prohibitionist” or “citizen disarmist”.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      I usually go with ‘fuck off slaver’.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      He is, indeed, a prohibitionist. In fact, National Prohibition which sought to solve America’s social problems by banning whisky drinking is the exact analog for gun-control ideology. The arguments for both movements aling perfectly even though they are a century apart. Kopser is using his military experience as a justification for claiming a moral imperative to enforce his gun-control argument. This is a pretty typical “I support the 2nd amendment but . . .” kind of argument that we’ve seen before.

      If Chip Roy is any good he’ll easily unpack Kopser’s argument, deny his moral imperative, and make him carry his “gun-grabber” label like an albatross. Kosper should know better than to challenge Ted Cruz who is a world-class debater who politely dismembered Sen. Feinstein’s well-honed arguments in a congressional hearing.

    3. avatar 2aguy says:

      As Trump would likely say….I’ll just call him a gun grabber, it is accurate, and less complicated than any other term.

    4. avatar Chris Morton says:

      I prefer “racist, misogynistic anti-gun cultist”.

      Anybody who’d rather see a woman beaten, raped and murdered than defend herself with a gun is no better than ISIS.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Truth

  3. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    You are a gun grabber. Now tell me again about that oath you swore…

    1. avatar markbjj says:

      Hey Kopser you TRAITOR, you would have made a “Good” Officer in the British Army in 1775!

      The Main reason we have a Constitutional Republic and a Enumerated Bill Of Rights, is because the British Army ( Which was OUR Standing Army at the time ), Tried to Confiscate Our Firearms at Lexington and Concord you Traitor!

      Our God Given Second Amendment Rights Kopser, are to Prevent a Dictatorship by a STANDING MILITARY full with TRAITORS like YOU Kosper!

      History is repeating itself!

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        Yep…. the armed citizenry is supposed to balance the armed government. This guys a whole cloth statist gun grabber.

    2. avatar Chadwick says:

      Yeah he forgot about that one. Probably left his Constitution overseas…

  4. avatar Alexander says:

    Being a combat veteran has nothing to do with understanding the Constitution. In fact, most veterans in the world have no clue what the laws of their countries are, or were.

    1. avatar Sgt of Marines says:

      Don’t you think that is a very broad statement about the Constitutional knowledge of millions of veterans? Exactly what is the statistical bases for that ill informed statement?
      I am a combat veteran of a war long, long ago and far, far away and I have numerous copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers!!!

      1. avatar Greybeerd says:

        Hi sarge. I think there is truth to that statement. I recall very clearly early on being told by leadership “you have no rights, you signed those away to be here. You have the UCMJ and only what it tells you.” If you read the UCMJ it’s pretty clear you are answerable to leadership and they are answerable to the President and Congress alone. The Constitution only figures in to the President and Congress….way above my pay grade at the time.

      2. avatar Jackass Jim says:

        I hear so many blowhards stridently screeching that their military service qualifies them as experts in gun-type firearms, tactical tactics, governmental government, leading leaders, etc, ad-nauseam. The facts of the matter are that the majority of those that were, are, or will be in military service serve as support personnel that have only marginally marginal skills at any of the above. To make matters worse, In most cases, those with the least humility have the least grasp on basic skills intended to be imparted in grammar school.

        Case in point, The Sarge has zero grasp on the topic of statistics, hence the nuances between the words “some”, “most,” and “all”.

        Note to the masses of uni-brow pinheads poised to lambaste these clear and present observations: Not ALL are being maligned here – anyone with half a brain can see and recognize the bravery valor and patriotism of MOST military Vets. Those without half a brain will, of course, prove themselves part of the Few, The Dull, The Losers.

      3. avatar Alexander says:

        Sgt., commendably, you have knowledge of the Constitution. But, truthfully, how many of your fellow Marines would you say have the same knowledge? Truthfully? Would you agree that simply being a veteran is not a qualification in political matters? Our language and our culture are being perverted by false meanings, like being a victim turned into a hero. Likewise, spending four years in the army does not make one a constitutional scholar or guarantees that they have even read it.

      4. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Alright y’all calm down. Look, the problem is the left wing media’s ability to put people on a pedestal. Constitution loving and or conservative veterans are a dime a dozen. You can’t throw a rock without hittin one. But the minute one of the few left wing or pro gun control veterans comes around, the left makes such a big to do about them to try and make it look like tons of veterans agree with them. It’s just more fake news attacks to try and dishearten conservative America into thinking even there veterans are turning liberal. This is not the case, by a long shot.

    2. avatar N64456 says:

      William Calley, Beau Bergdahl, and Brafley Manning were all veterans of Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan and they are all POS’s….

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        Those bastards all exposed criminal activity by the government. How dare they!

        I’ve never understood the conservative cognitive dissonance:
        “I don’t trust the federal government with power!”
        “How dare you challenge the power of the federal government!”

        1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          Do wut now? WTF criminal activity by the government did they ALL expose?
          – William Laws Calley Jr. is a former United States Army officer convicted by court-martial of murdering 22 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War.
          – Beaudry Robert “Bowe” Bergdahl is a United States Army soldier who was held captive from June 2009 to May 2014 by the Taliban-aligned Haqqani network in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bergdahl was captured after deserting his post on June 30, 2009.
          – and srsly? – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning
          again, what THE FUCK are you talking about?

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          …. Bergdahl dude? Really? He fuckin deserted to the Taliban! You really think he was trying to expose some Shit? What is wrong with you? He defected to the TALIBAN. If you think they’re so great, maybe you should go live with them and see how that turns out.

  5. avatar Baldwin says:

    Joseph Kopser, thank you for your service in Iraq. But you are a gun grabber, and not in the good way you just described it. You are running for office as a democrat. You and your fellow democrats are hell bent on destroying what remains of my rights as free American. Not. One. Inch.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      This Joseph kopser is the domestic enemy we were warned about that is a threat to all that we hold dear.

      He is the wolf in The Sheepdogs clothing. While he is waving the flag when talking about his time in the military, he is treating with utter contempt, those who really did give their blood and thier lives in defense of our constitution, our country and our freedoms.

      He is a traitor to his uniform who has violated his oath to defend his country and constitution from all enemies , foreign and domestic and to every dictator, tyrant, and blood-soaked Madman of History.

  6. avatar Shire-man says:

    The whole “I’m an X so believe me when I say Y” thing smacks of “do you know who I am?” arrogance. Especially when it’s Y is not related to X in any way.

    1. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

      First of all, thank you for your service and putting it on the line.

      Secondly, because you were in combat does not make you an expert on gun control. Just like me having had oral surgery does not make me an expert on dental equipment/procedures.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        In that case I’d be a gynecologist.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Ba da bing!

  7. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

    Joseph Kopser – First, thank you for your service.

    Those weapons that you grabbed during your service were bought and paid for by the US Tax Payer – the US Citizen. By running on a Gun Control Platform, you are once again attempting to Grab Weapons from the US Tax Payer.

    Of course, you took an oath to protect The Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Gun Control is Anti American, Anti Constitution. Therefore, you are violating your Oath, which makes you an unqualified liar.

    Unfortunately, that makes you very qualified for public office… 🙁

    1. avatar Uniform Sierra Alpha says:

      Technically, willful violation of a Constitutional Oath is considered treason.

      We need to apply a new moniker for these types: Oathbreakers.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        No it’s not. It’s called perjury.

        1. avatar No one of consequence says:

          No. Perjury is “the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.” (Google dictionary)

          That is not the same a breaking a promise or an oath.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Violating your oath to support and defend the constitution is not perjury. It’s something else altogether. And we don’t need to make up words like oathbreaker to describe it. We already have a word.

        3. avatar Andrew Ryan says:

          Either oathbreaker or traitor is fine, but we need to be calling them SOMETHING. This should be no more socially acceptable than being a white supremacist.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Either oathbreaker or traitor is fine, but we need to be calling them SOMETHING.”

          How ’bout: idiot, moron, elitist, leftist, liberal, Dimocrat, demented, mentally deranged, authoritarian, despot, suppressionist, overseer, liar, con artist, power mad, or maybe just “citizen”?

          Can’t break an oath that no longer applies (and “treason” has a very narrow definition in the constitution”.)

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          These fuckers are being PAID to say iy, it’s not just SEDITION it’s

          P R O F I T E E R I N G.

          Let’s waste a few more of our waking hours workjng against the PROFITEERING MOTHERFUCKERS, shall we.

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          False, when you are Court you swear an oath to tell the truth. Failing at that you have committed perjury. Breaking your oath to defend the Constitution is more like perjury than any other crime.

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Treason has a Constitutional definition. Breaking an oath may or may not meet that definition. Unless there is aid to an enemy in an overt act witnessed by two people, it is not treason.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Unless there is aid to an enemy…”

          You got it.

          Note that the most important word is “enemy”; a status assigned by government, not individual citizens.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Fuck that. “Enemies both foreign and domestic” opens interpretation to each man” whether you took the oath or not.

      3. avatar JasonM says:

        Technically, willful violation of a Constitutional Oath is considered treason.

        No.

        Article 3, Section 3:
        Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          If disarming American population is not giving aid to America’s enemies, I don’t know what is.

  8. avatar DUG says:

    First, thank you for your service. I mean that sincerely. Second, you swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. All of the Constitution, not just the politically popular parts. So if you believe in universal registration, Red Flag laws, age laws, magazine bans, weapons bans, then Sir you are a GUN GRABBER. Again, thank you for your previous service to our nation and the Constitution!

    1. avatar Bloving says:

      I think I like the term, “Oath Breaker”.
      It might make a few voters wonder what other promises he’ll break…

    2. avatar Weapon Of War says:

      To hell with his service. He is an oath breaker and dishonors his service. Fuck him and the humvee he road in on. He is not worthy to be classed with real warriors who gave all.

  9. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    You are a gun grabber. You survived your tour in Iraq because you were given the tools necessary to survive an encounter with those who would do you harm. So with that first hand experience why would you ever suggest removing that same ability from people here at home?

    1. avatar Anner says:

      Nailed it

  10. avatar Karl says:

    “The troops are jerks” – BoJack Horseman

    Seriously what a holier than thou douche. Fu(k ’em, last war we fought for the security of America was the War of 1812.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      1917 we finished a war w/Mexico, now we fight to keep the pieces.

      1. avatar Karl says:

        Didn’t say we didn’t fight wars for American interests, I’m an empire builder at heart. Japan should be several states.

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Surprisingly, most wars America has fought in, are easily justified. But the liberal media has done an absolute bang up job convincing most of the populace, even most of her veterans that fought in the wars, that America is the new evil empire. I could go on in depth but it would take a very long rant. Because even Korea and Vietnam are very justifiable, the latter was just handled with sheer incompetence.

  11. avatar Various cheeses says:

    Stick to grabbing your own guns pal

  12. avatar Texan Trapped in FL says:

    I’m so sick of these West Point POG ass officers running for Congress and acting like their military service made them subject matter experts on firearms or combat. You’re not exactly “knee deep in blood and brass” as the OIC of an S-shop, and it definitely doesnt qualify you for an exemption from being called a gun grabber, champ. POGs gonna POG though.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Ryan was a battalion S2?

      1. avatar Texan Trapped in FL says:

        Ryan was Intel….S3 I think? Kosper, the guy the quote was from, got a degree in aerospace engineering. Can’t find his exact MOS but I found at one point in his career he was OIC of a motor pool. Not exactly John Rambos

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Since most of the names I can think up for him are unprintable, perhaps we should just call him Sgt. Zale?

  13. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    Makes me wonder if he was a REMF.

  14. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    The guns he grabbed were true assault weapons…full-auto…unlike what is available to the general public here in the USA.
    2nd is the ONLY amendment that states: shall not be infringed
    Also states: right of the people…NOT right of the militia

    1. avatar Toni says:

      and the militia is not govt funded or controlled hence even the national guard does not qualify as a militia. the militia is made up of civilians prepared to stand up for what is right. a military on the other hand is funded and controlled by the govt. america did not have a military as such until about the civil war if my memory serves me right. please correct me if i am wrong

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…the militia is not govt funded or controlled….”

        Then, what do you make of the following?
        (Clause 15 – The Militia)

        [The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

        (Clause 16 – The Militia)

        “[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

  15. avatar DJ says:

    Blue Falcon Confirmed

  16. avatar Mike says:

    Fuck off dick face…from a NCO who did multiple tours. Educate yourself on the Constitution.

  17. avatar charles d feigley sr says:

    TRAITOR

  18. avatar Greg says:

    Fucking Fobbitts.

  19. avatar MattG says:

    Apparently military IDs doesn’t come with a constitutionist party membership card after all. Thank you for your service but I’ll pass on your politics.
    Lots of friends and family served and I’ve gained a lot of appreciation for the sacrifices they’ve made. I’ve always held that someone willing to die for their country are good people in all facets of life but I guess there are always exceptions to the rule.

  20. avatar HP says:

    People like this guy are the ones the left holds up smugly and says “See? This guy is a vet, and no one is more qualified to judge who should have guns than him!”. Meanwhile, these same left wingers aren’t vets, and can barely conceal their contempt for the military. So I’d say this guy is a useful idiot, but the general consensus of “Oath Breaker” seems to be more on point.

  21. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Obviously there’s something wrong with his medulla oblongata…

  22. avatar FLAME DELETED says:

    Thank you for your service, Mr. Benedict Arnold.

  23. avatar ‘liljoe says:

    Notice he switches the word from gun to weapon? Wonder what weapon he grabbed?

    I appreciate our military and those who serve and served. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t vehemently disagree with one of them, and that doesn’t mean he can’t be labeled a gun grabber. Present actions define you as much as past ones do.

  24. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

    Another officer. In the day we had a saying.

    We had 2 wars to fight. The one against the enemy and the one against our officers.

    Fragging has been with armies since before gun powder. It’s a survival strategy by grunts that can’t believe just how ignorant the leadership can get.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      I was an ROTC created officer. After my first command, maybe even a little before, it became my opinion that all officers should be nominated from within the enlisted corps. It’s not that I was an arrogant or incompetent prick, I just think the officer corps needs a better vetting process and platoon leaders need more experience going in. Lack of confidence was my biggest problem, but others, a minority, I knew could barely tie their shoes and thought they were much better than they were.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Robert A. Heinlein served in the Navy between World War 1 & 2 but had a forced early retirement due to physical illness.

        His story “Starship Troopers” had for this process was that officer canidates were required to start at the bottom as a boot, and then actually have experience as a platoon leader leading men in combat, and do it effectively, before they could apply to be an officer.

        1. avatar Toni says:

          IMHO that is how it should be, and not just in the military either but in all career paths. university does not make you magically smarter, it just means you can regurgitate what you are taught better than the next person.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “IMHO that is how it should be, and not just in the military either but in all career paths. university does not make you magically smarter, it just means you can regurgitate what you are taught better than the next person.”

          Bringing officers up from the ranks has been done. The disastrous results manifest in the Civil War due to elected officers does not portend an officer corps filled only with “mustangs” is more likely to be successful. Former enlisted face a challenge not so burdening of appointed officers not from the ranks: troops are expendable, and there is no room for split loyalty. An officer should not have thoughts that a disagreeable decision will pose hardships on the ranks, or thoughts such as, “If I were still enlisted, this event/decision would be something I would not want to happen, so I need to take care of my guys.” (or some such) But this is a complex subject better suited for discussions of force structure and development.

          As to a university degree making anyone instantly better, the degree is an accomplishment (however great or small) that cannot be denied. It is proof of the ability to start a long term project, and carry on to finish. Of late, a university is merely grown-up high school, and apprenticeship for a trade. Because college degrees are so prevalent, the degree can be made a minimum qualification, much as a high school diploma was in the 50s and earlier.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      BS. And there has never been a shortage of whiny puissant grunts. Without good NCOs and Jr officers with a backbone the biggest mouth and laziest SOB runs the platoon. On average the weakest (most disfunctional) Jr Officers I knew came out of woopoo. Many mustangs could not break out of the NCO mindset and to COMMAND (couldn’t see the forest for the trees).

  25. avatar Sam I Am says:

    We need to come to a proper understanding of what “taking the oath” actually means.

    “The oath” is not perpetual. It applies only when in uniform, or holding a public office where “the oath” is administered. Let’s call that “public service”, to cover .mil, .gov, and whatever non-commercial, official activity/office.

    Once a person departs “public service”, the situation, the personal promise, the obligation “to uphold the constitution” ends. Ends. Under “the Constitution”, citizens not in public service are not bound by “the oath”. The Constitution permits free speech endorsing the overthrow of the government. As in, allowing citizens the freedom to promote legislation that violates the constitution, promote amendments that repeal certain provisions of the constitution, agitate for subjugation of the populace by government authority. And a whole host of “anti-American” activities.

    On another note, the determination of “enemies foreign and domestic” is a declaration reserved to the very government established to protect our constitutional rights. That means, “enemies” are decided by people in public service.

    Former oath-takers have a constitutional right to work toward what they see as “common sense gun control”. They are not violating “the oath”.

    1. avatar HP says:

      I understand what you’re saying, but on the basis of honor, does an oath end just because a job/level of service ends? I don’t think it does. But people will use whatever logic they can to make themselves feel better about reneging on something they once took an oath to do. And oath that has an end date isn’t an oath at all. You could simply work the oath into signing papers and be done with it. “You’re contractually obligated to defend the constitution. This obligation ends when the contract ends.” Nah, I don’t think so at all.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        I suspect that it is implied since you are no longer required to follow orders from the President and officers appointed over you after the end of your service. I am simply speaking of the military oath not the responsibilities of citizens in general.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “This was not meant as a personal attack against you.”

        Not taken as such.

        “Honor” is such an ephemeral word. A person who never engaged in public service, never took “the oath”, can “honor” the constitution in a number of ways. One is to hold firm belief that anything not in accord with the original meanings of the founding documents is anti-American, an attack on the constitution. One can also “honor” the constitution in deciding that the founding documents were the beginning, not the end.
        Let’s use the most explosive issue of the constitution, as perceived by today’s social development: slavery.

        It appears that slavery was a concept (and activity) posing the ability to utterly destroy any arrangement of (colonies) states in a national government. Rather than lose any hope of a nation, the founders did not prohibit slavery, but did institute a measure to limit its power in politics (the “three-fifths solution”). The founders did not intend that slavery never be abolished, only that the matter be “tabled” until some future date. The result was that slaveholders “honored” the constitution by maintaining the slave trade, and taking advantage of the rights/powers enshrined in the ninth and tenth amendments. The abolitionists (who were not uniformly integrationists) “honored” the constitution by trying to move the country toward removing slavery, and gaining the promise that all humans were equal. The founders knew that slavery had to be settled (abolished) in order for the nation to reach its full promise. They did not see “the three-fifths solution” as the end state under the constitution, but a marker for the future.

        Regarding slavery, both camps saw themselves “honoring” the constitution.

        Any citizen is free to decide to maintain their understanding of “the oath” even after public service ends. Many, many veterans will continue to conduct themselves with adherence to “the oath” by defending the constitution through political activism. Some will see the oath as preserving immutable principals. Some will conduct themselves with adherence to the same oath, but determining that fellow citizens are not enemies, thus modifications to the constitution do not constitute an attack.

        The veterans (and never veterans) I oppose are those who believe the constitution is obsolete, and changes to constitutional protections can legitimately, and necessarily, be modified by simple regulation.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      I don’t remember swearing for a specific “term/period”, only swearing because you believed you didn’t have to uphold the oath forever would be a pre-existing reservation that meant you did not swear the oath. So which is it?

      I don’t remember ever swearing-out, even when I drew my DD214.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The oath” is taken as an official of government(s). Once you are no longer an official of government, your oath ends. Same as the oath at trial to “tell the truth, the whole truth….”. That oath is not binding outside the testimony delivered in court. Outside the courtroom, you are free to lie to your heart’s content.

        There is no general citizen oath, and all are free to agitate to abolish the constitution if they choose.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      Sam I Am doesn’t know diddly squat. Commissioning oath is NOT the same as the oath of enlistment. A officers oath is to the Constitution and has no sunset and when leave service there is no termination ceremony. Plenty of REMF and prog officers that don’t understand such. I have not worn a green uniform for some time but my commissioning oath and service will not terminate until I’m dead. I have plenty of company in the combat arms. So bite me.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Your oath to your selfish self ends when you chose. “The Oath” ended when you no longer had the authority to act as a soldier, and no one had the authority to command you as a soldier. Don’t confuse pride of self with selfless service of which only you are aware.

        Being belligerent doesn’t validate your persona, or your comments. If you have no room for differing views, why not go where differing views are not present? No one here wants you to feel insulted, or diminished (but if you insist on doing it to yourself…it’s a free country).

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          WUT? Resignation of commission is not a rescission of oath. And oath of office is open-ended, meaning that you are swearing to something that you have to uphold regardless. Thus the office (U.S. Reps and President) has a lifetime pension.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And oath of office is open-ended, meaning that you are swearing to something that you have to uphold regardless.”

          Are you saying that after one leaves an office requiring “The Oath”, that person remains bound by the oath required? Under which concept of oaths does that happen? As mentioned, in court an oath to tell the truth has no effect on conduct outside the court; you can lie all you want.

          Government employees (who all take “The Oath”) do not qualify for retirement pensions based on taking “The Oath”, but upon term of qualified service as an employee.

          After vacating a government position (and not taking another) one is totally free to hold themselves to whichever oath they take, but with no legal authority to act as an official of government, and no legal authority for government to order your service continue after you leave service, “The Oath” becomes a personal decision, not an obligation. Consider: when a federal “official” accepts employment in agency X, “The Oath” is required. When that same “official” accepts a new position (in the same agency or another), a separate taking of “The Oath” is required. This would not be so if “The Oath” were perpetual, once taken.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          apples and anuses Sam you profess to be.

          IT’S ASSUMED THAT YOU ARE A TRUTHFUL PERSON, or you wouldn’t be invited to give testimony to a court. It’s a doubling-down to request that your particular testimony before a court of law is “true”. You are permanently liable for perjury of yourself if your testimony is found to be false.

          Plus your resignation, from the military, has to be approved. Your job in service to the U.S. or lower municipality carries a continued title: Representative, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ambassador, Your Honor. . . long after you leave office.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You are permanently liable for perjury of yourself if your testimony is found to be false.”

          Yes, but that is not a life-long “oath” to never lie about anything, ever again. If I truthfully testify to facts in a court proceeding, I am free to lie about my testimony afterward. I can correctly and truthfully (both provable) testify about object X while under oath. However, I can, without penalty, walk out of court and claim that object X is really object Y. I can also falsely declare that object Y is object C. I can, without accountability, lie about my age when having a pint at the club. I can lie, again without penalty, and claim that I taught the Wright brothers how to fly. I can, with no legal accountability lie, about my presence at the last world cup playoffs.

          The titles you listed are honorific, not actual. For instance, as a retired officer, I can be referred to as “General” without being subject to my former oath of office. The oath ends when I am no longer subject to legal obligations of the office for which I took “The Oath”. I can even rob a bank and not be in violation of any oath. I can agitate for repeal of the second amendment without violating any oath. As a free citizen, I am within “my rights” to join the communist party and vote to implement a communist government. And here is the big one: as a free citizen, when the government becomes authoritarian, autocratic, despotic and no longer acting under the control and permission of the citizenry, I can participate in rebellion without violating an oath that has no legal effect on me. Finally, just try to bring charges against me for supporting anything that you believe violates my dormant and discharged oath. See how long the authorities will entertain your complaint.

          I have no problem with anyone wanting to take upon themselves an oath to protect whatever; free country. Just understand the difference between law and personal decisions. There simply is not legal obligation, privilege, or penalty for not doing so after government service.

  26. avatar Ad Astra says:

    I’m sure he always wished for a nice shiny pair of jack boots to be part of his uniform.

  27. avatar FedUp says:

    How about gun grabbing Oath Breaker?
    You like that one, you unshaven bum?

    https://www.oathkeepers.org/

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Yeah, the he shaves when he gets home, so he will have the “grizzled man of the people look,” just in time for the photo-op, irritates me. Real men aren’t gun banners and oath breakers!

  28. avatar WildWest42 says:

    “Proponent of civilian disarmament” is the term you are looking for.

  29. avatar BrightBoy says:

    “Gun Grabber”

  30. avatar No one of consequence says:

    This attempt to coopt the term “gun grabber” just indicates that he is fully aware that what he is doing is wrong, but is choosing to do it anyway.

  31. avatar Steve says:

    Just another gun grabber playing to the snowflakes, I’m a 20 yr veteran I know my Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He thinks other Vets wont challenge him and his idea’s, issue’s, agenda, and BS…LMAO Vets will be the first to call him out, I am. With all the laws on the books already, I say first make it safe for everyone so we dont have to own or carry for protection against the bad guys who dont follow the laws. Because waiting for help is always to late. Not the LEO’s fault either, just being real.

    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.

  32. avatar Bob999 says:

    Um, I am a veteran too. More specifically, I am former military law enforcement. Just because a person is a veteran does not automatically make that person honorable or lawful. I apprehended a lot of misfits who were sent walking that now claim to be veterans. They were misfits who signed a paper which automatically bestows the title veteran. I believe in the Constitution, and I still believe in the oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I took my oath seriously, and I still do.. This politician is a disgrace to everything We stood for, and I am sure he will forever be a disgrace to this country.

  33. avatar 2aguy says:

    A lot of military members from socialist countries also picked up guns to fight for their socialist governments….and they also supported taking guns away from law abiding citizens…..if his beliefs on guns takes guns away from Americans, he is no better than any other gun grabber……

  34. avatar 2aguy says:

    Remember in November….any vote for a democrat, any democrat, is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment. They will support the democrat party leaders who will vote in anti-gun judges and Justices no matter how much they say they support the Right to have a gun. Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.

    1. avatar scott says:

      On the national level perhaps. Here in the People’s Republic of Illinois, many a rural, downstate Democrat represents his/her constituents, and goes against Chicago democrats voting for strict gun laws. Unlike the suburban Republicans up there.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Here in the People’s Republic of Illinois, many a rural, downstate Democrat represents his/her constituents, and goes against Chicago democrats voting for strict gun laws.”

        Unfortunately, it is the total Dimowit vote that counts. There is no re-assigning “conservative” Democrat votes to the Republicrat column. No matter your particular anti-gun control stance (or that of all your neighbors), a Dimowit win means a win for gun control.

  35. avatar Ralph says:

    So Joseph Kopser is a veteran. Bug fvcking deal. So is that other traitor, Spenser Rapone, the Commie who graduated from West Point.

    BTW, Rapone was just discharged under less than honorable conditions. Just as Kopser is about to be discharged by the voters.

    There’s no shortage of traitors in uniform. These days, however, most of them are Generals.

  36. avatar 2aguy says:

    Remember in November….any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment. Any vote that doesn’t keep the Senate in Republican hands is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment….Trump needs the Senate to appoint 2-3 new Supreme Court Justices if ginsburg, Kenndy and Thomas retire in his term……the court is not safe….vote in November…

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      If I could do it, I’d move your comment to the top of the comments, and do the same thing on every other article no matter what the topic.

      It has come to this; A vote for a Democrat at any level of government is a vote for gun confiscation, illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, abortion-on-demand-for-any-reason, the death of fossil fuels, the destruction of the nuclear family, the abandonment of personal responsibility, the fatal rise of the Welfare State. . . the list goes on, and almost certainly includes the Heartbreak of Psoriasis.

      Republicans, although all lying, corrupt sh*tweasels bent upon destroying the country for their own nefarious gain, have yet to complete their Hard Left turn and become the Democrats of Yore, and thus are the only option left to us.

  37. avatar Carrucan says:

    Military service doesn’t automatically imbue one with perfect perspective and common sense. I served with a bunch of great people, but there were others I wouldn’t trust with a crescent wrench, let alone a firearm. His service is anecdotal to his stance on gun control, making him almost as clueless as most anyone who supports gun control.

  38. avatar kap says:

    another twisted sister unsure of own genetics, want too effeminate the whole population, talk about an abuser I bet he beat his rifle while in Iraq, Probably a {REMF} Veteran to Veteran you sir are full of Shit! oh I know you must have been one of them 90 day blunder types, just itch en too get into combat to prove your man hood, and found out it was boring and at time’s down right deadly and you really couldn’t do shit about it so back in the world you think your ass is special and become a wanta be somebody. you think you better than everyone else and by God you going to prove it by screwing over the Constitution of this God given country! so join the circus clown

  39. avatar SurfGW says:

    He brings up his military service as a false justification for his gun grabbing. Let’s get the facts straight:
    -his time in Iraq was in Mosul at a time where sanitation was a greater concern than security
    -he was a staff officer who left the wire to see the conditions, likely in the safety of an armored MRAP where his rifle skills were completely irrelevant since the turret gunner would do any shooting
    -his campaign website mentions his challenges in Iraq were getting winter coats for local kids, machine gun mounts for administrative convoys, and MAINTAINENANCE OF AIR CONDITIONING IN VEHICLES.
    His military time as a staff officer likely made him view personal weapons as a risk because he probably had to make many mishap briefs or plan for risk mitigation on liberty.

  40. avatar Joe R. says:

    I’ll call you a stupid tool cack sacker, killer of unborn and born infants for money and a profiteer of their sellers of body parts for food while you simultAneously demand taxpayer suubsidies for the same. I’ll call you the POS (D) communist fuck that you are, proud purveyor of all forms of ruin in Society. Anerica’s guns will be the last thing you grab MF. You are one of the many reasons the evil POS (D) need to be hunted.

    Buzzfeed’s become satan’s anal sweat.

  41. avatar FedUp says:

    When you brag about your military service, but any civilian with experience in procurement logistics could have done your military job better than you could…

    Seriously, I hope the woman with a shoestring budget who beat him (and his $700k campaign) in the first primary election is reading this page and taking notes.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      To put it in perspective: someone cannot brag about carrying a weapon while driving around a neighborhood with fewer homocides than East Oakland or areas of LA while you are protected inside a vehicle with a machine gun mount and protection against RPGs.
      Not all military people are in contact with the enemy and this is intentionally misleading.

  42. avatar Weapon Of War says:

    So tired of the fucking military elitists. Go bite one shitbag.

  43. avatar Mike Stilinovich says:

    Hi Dan,

    This isn’t about this particular article but I believe it’s relevant here.
    I’m trying to rename name this enclosed article, link below, and the best I can come up with is to leave out depressing. I so want to have it titled with a little, I mean a lot of sensationalism like almost all of main street leftist journalism.
    So my question to you is what is a catchy title ?

    https://nypost.com/2017/10/05/the-depressing-truth-about-gun-control/

  44. avatar Luke R says:

    I despise the idea soldiers are any more or less moral than the rest of us. When was the military more ethical than the people of the gun? Was it at My Lai? Haditha? Mahmudiyah? Or maybe it’s the Afghan weddings we keep hitting with drones.

    Most of us have only ever killed targets and tasty critters. Candidly, and with all respect to the good men in the service, we have a better track record.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Don’t believe accusations about some of those incidents. Haditha Hammurabi human rights groups accusers were terrorists. Just about every 3/1 Marine involved was cleared. Many stories about Afghan weddings being shot up usually come from Afghans trying to get money for damages and claiming that shots fired at Coalition Forces were celebratory fire at weddings. Can’t think of any incidents where investigators found any wrongdoing.
      Military personnel have made their share of bad decisions like taking drugs and driving an armored vehicle on a Virginia road, but there is no need to bring up accusations that were investigated and found to be false.

      1. avatar Luke R says:

        Look buddy, you’re dodging at least half the incidents here with investigations I don’t trust anyway. Remember nobody got punished for My Lai either, the investigation claimed they did nothing wrong massacring an entire village. Then the punishments for Mahmudiyah were slaps on the wrist for gang rape and mass murder. The rate we hit people with drones, and the rate we kill non-combatants with them, is pretty staggering. Remember when Obama used them to kill US citizens?There’s too much indefensible there to defend a collective idea of the military being better.

        Defend good troops, and hammer the bad ones hard. But if you think drugs and a 4chan shitposter stealing an APC are the worst things the US military has done, you’re clearly not down with the whole ‘punish the bad ones’ thing.

        There’s a lot of cultural problems in the military, and we’re well-aware of the PT belts and the bureaucracy. But part of it is also that it’s easier for the bureaucracy to ignore or dodge the real slimeballs than embarrass the entire institution by bringing them into the light. Same principle as the Navy blaming irrelevant NCOs for collisions, they’d rather find a convenient scapegoat and be done with the scandal than actually address it.

        The second somebody found out about Mahmudiyah we should have shot the perps ourselves or extradited them to the Iraqis. Child-rapists and murderers are nobody to defend, and their punishments ranged from light to non-existent. Call me a libertarian asshole but I don’t think a uniform should be a free pass from crimes we wouldn’t tolerate. Somebody who could do that there could do that here, and I don’t want them walking free after something like that.

        That’s my cultural concern here. There’s good people and bad people alike, and the more we insist there’s some kind of magical goodness there the more cover we give to the scum who will hide behind it. No free passes for anybody, uniforms not withstanding.

        1. avatar Jon says:

          Just out of curiosity, what do you think of John Hatley and his situation?

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Keep in mind where the info is coming in these incidents. The liberal media has been at war with the military since Vietnam. That doesn’t justify any wrong doing by American soldiers, but, it’s worth noting that much of the information we get in the modern era on the events of the war, goes through an incredibly liberal biased filter, with a very perverse agenda, before we hear it. Also, with how biased colleges are across the nation, many college kids are being brainwashed with left wing anti war propaganda designed to further ruin the image of the United States. Much info out there has been skewed multiple times in the past 50 years. It’s never been harder to know the truth, in my opinion.

  45. avatar Cory C. says:

    What an utterly deceitful rebuttal.

  46. avatar Getfreight says:

    So he can grab his gun, but he’ll stop me from grabbing mine? He can go to hell.

    1. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

      They already do. try buying a modern burst-fire rifle.
      If you can’t buy it even with a tax stamp.
      You.. can’t.. grab.. it.

  47. avatar SdubM45 says:

    This is just more proof that Buzzfeed is, has, and always will be cancer.

  48. avatar Eddy says:

    Probably like a lot of others and hardly ever left the safe zone. And of course he knows that using something like this is the only way a no nothing unknown person could have any chance of getting elected anywhere.

  49. avatar former water walker says:

    Gee Benedict Arnold was a war hero -until he wasn’t. John Kerry too. And John McCain is supposed to have killed 135 in a hot landing…your opinion doesn’t mean dick. Especially in a volunteer elective war. Traitor!

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      The catastrophic fire on the USS Forrestal was NOT caused by John McCain ‘landing’ anything, hot or cold.

      It did not initiate with McCain’s aircraft AT ALL.

      It began when an errant electrical surge fired a rocket from an F-4 Phantom fighter, which hit the external fuel tank of an A-4 Skyhawk. The rocket didn’t explode as it was ‘safed,’ but the torn-off fuel tank ruptured and its fuel was ignited. Two bombs also fell off the A-4, landing in the now-burning fuel from the torn-off tank and other tanks on the first A-4. McCain’s aircraft, ANOTHER A-4, became involved when the fuel caught his aircraft on fire.
      Other aircraft parked proximately began to burn and explode, one of the two bombs exploded, and 134 men subsequently died due to the fire, the explosion, and fires started below the hangar deck caused by burning fuel running down through the hole blown in the flight deck.

      So. . . The aircraft were all parked, prepping for a mission. The rocket came off of an F-4, not an A-4. McCain flew A-4s exclusively, including on the day he was shot down. McCain had no control over the event, and was certainly not the cause of anyone’s death that day.

      I do not care for ‘McCain the Politician.’ I have nothing but respect for ‘McCain the War Hero.’

  50. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    ” Combat Vets”? More like lily-livered, gun-grabbing “Combat Commies” just like the Che’-lovin’ POS Leninist and West Point graduate Spenser Rapone who just given a less than honorable discharge and kicked out of the army with NO benefits, a bunch of traitors is what they are.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/commie-west-point-grad-spenser-rapone-given-other-than-honorable-discharge-from-us-military/

  51. avatar ollie says:

    That seat is safe GOP for a while – Kopser has as much chance as a turd in the toilet with a hand on the lever.

    Maybe in ten years as more and more Austin Sissy-Puke-Twerps keep moving into the district and ruining it.

  52. avatar oliver says:

    As a former Marine, I dont give a damn if anyone is a former Marine, Army Ramger, Navy SEAL, beat cop, neurosurgeon, MOH recipient, Nobel laureate, saved 10 kittens and a baby from a house fire etc. God given rights are God given rights. They are axiomatic to all free humans.Now unkindly F-ck off. Oh, and wherever he served is still undoubtedly a steaming shithole and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Your service there is still needed. Just sayin.

  53. avatar Ash says:

    When idiots regurgitate this type of nonsense, followed by some B.S about how he/she did so and so in combat, I immediately tune out. This meat-puffing, dick mobster probably didn’t do jack shit in combat. Most Texan vets will tell him to ETADIK … and rightfully so.

  54. avatar Jay says:

    No one gives a shit about your “service” if you decide to shit on our rights.

  55. avatar neiowa says:

    “Combat Vet” means little in the last 15yr brushfire “war”. We pretend that little girls are “combat troops”.

    Unless you received DIRECT fire where you and your combat arms squad/platoon/co responded with fire and maneuver you are NOT a combat vet. Driving a 5T into an ambush does not count. Neither does hearing a couple mortar rounds while you’re in the shower house.

    So what Company/Bn was this twit in? What was his MOS and duty position? What did he actually DO? My bet is he is another John Fing Kerry.

    NONE of these bastards so much as mention their branch of service. Much less disclose any actual info.

  56. avatar piper says:

    So Kopser is a POS who hates our Bill of Rights and wants to cloak that with military service. He sounds like some kind of foreign asset to me.

  57. avatar 33Charlemagne says:

    Military service even heroic combat service does not give anyone the right to abrogate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens!

  58. avatar timmothy says:

    Oswald was a vet too.

  59. avatar Mick says:

    As usual, the military HATES the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Their entire job is to kill anyone who the government disapproves of, so if course they hate anything that limits the government’s power.

  60. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

    If you send a gun grabber to get my Gun.. make sure she is a pretty thing.
    But I still won’t tell her where my Weapons are no matter how creative she is at grabbing my Gun.

  61. avatar Batterycap says:

    The media loves to find a former military person to speak out against the 2nd. They know that the assumption in the general public is that if you were in the military, you spent 100% of every day learning everything to know about every type of firearm, and that pretty much everyday was spent becoming an expert marksman because you spent every waking minute at the range.

    Because the military still is a cross section of society (questionable actually – mostly white – where’s the diversity police) every now and then a liberal with nothing better to do shows up.

    He or she is glad to use the public’s entirely wrong assumption to help spread their filthy liberal gibberish upon exiting from the military. Biggest case in point – John Kerry.

    Truth be known – very little time was or is spent on the range – especially compared to all of the other hurry up and wait activities. Once basic is done, forget it. Only a handful of MOS’s require more than a passing activity involving range qualification. Yeah – it comes up every now and then, but is a small minority activity.

    If you are in the motor pool or the kitchen, you want see much except the underside of whatever vehicle you are working on or feel the heat coming off the oven.

    But, lies spread like wildfire, and guys like this fellow are expert in propaganda.

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