Lt. Col Ralph Peters: Ban assault rifles

[PsyOps]

I'm a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs. (Let’s not talk about dud-grenade disposal . . .)

And I’m a gun owner. As I write these lines, there’s an 1858 Tower musket behind me and a Colt on my desk.

But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.

What a sad state this country has come to where a so-called devoted military veteran completely loses sight on the core reason he served: to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I, too, am a veteran who gave 20 years of my life serving the same constitution. I was a lowly enlisted guy; and yet I feel I have a better understanding of why I served and the constitution I was charged with defending than a so-called 'educated' officer. There is no word "except" in the 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (except those that could kill a lot of people at one time), shall not be infringed."

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American" - Tench Coxe (1788)

You either don't give a damn about what our founders said and their intent on the individual keeping and bearing their own arms, or you just don't know. If it's the former, based on some ridiculous notion that they could have never understood firearm technology would get to this point, then push to have the 2nd repealed because no weapon used today could have been anticipated in its existence. If it's the latter then get a ####ing education.

How dare Col Peters dictate to me or anyone else what we, as individuals, should or should have. Coxe was clear "... and every other terrible implement of the soldier". The intent was that the people should be just as well-armed as our military in order for THE PEOPLE to have the means to defend ourselves from tyranny.

You libs have run around calling Trump the next Hitler. If this fear is real, are you really comfortable with this thought that he could get our military to act against the people in order to become the next Hitler, and you are pushing to be completely helpless against this by being disarmed? This is exactly why the 2nd amendment was ratified. This is exactly why our founders wanted the people to be fully armed. Knowledgeable people like Col Peters calling for such bans only tells me he wants our military to hold all of the power. That should scare the hell out of everyone.

Col Peters said: "These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings." YES Col Peters, exactly! That's we own any firearm. I don't hunt. I don't go to the target range every week. I don't skeet shoot. I have firearms for two reasons and two only: to defend my family, myself and my property; and two be ready when/if Trump tries to install himself as dictator. And I'll be damn if someone like Peters is going to throw his resume as a veteran at me to justify his desire to dictate to me how I would arm myself.

 

[Hijinx]

I'm a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons



What a sad state this country has come to where a so-called devoted military veteran completely loses sight on the core reason he served: to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I, too, am a veteran who gave 20 years of my life serving the same constitution. I was a lowly enlisted guy; and yet I feel I have a better understanding of why I served and the constitution I was charged with defending than a so-called 'educated' officer. There is no word "except" in the 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (except those that could kill a lot of people at one time), shall not be infringed."

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American" - Tench Coxe (1788)

You either don't give a damn about what our founders said and their intent on the individual keeping and bearing their own arms, or you just don't know. If it's the former, based on some ridiculous notion that they could have never understood firearm technology would get to this point, then push to have the 2nd repealed because no weapon used today could have been anticipated in its existence. If it's the latter then get a ####ing education.

How dare Col Peters dictate to me or anyone else what we, as individuals, should or should have. Coxe was clear "... and every other terrible implement of the soldier". The intent was that the people should be just as well-armed as our military in order for THE PEOPLE to have the means to defend ourselves from tyranny.

You libs have run around calling Trump the next Hitler. If this fear is real, are you really comfortable with this thought that he could get our military to act against the people in order to become the next Hitler, and you are pushing to be completely helpless against this by being disarmed? This is exactly why the 2nd amendment was ratified. This is exactly why our founders wanted the people to be fully armed. Knowledgeable people like Col Peters calling for such bans only tells me he wants our military to hold all of the power. That should scare the hell out of everyone.

Col Peters said: "These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings." YES Col Peters, exactly! That's we own any firearm. I don't hunt. I don't go to the target range every week. I don't skeet shoot. I have firearms for two reasons and two only: to defend my family, myself and my property; and two be ready when/if Trump tries to install himself as dictator. And I'll be damn if someone like Peters is going to throw his resume as a veteran at me to justify his desire to dictate to me how I would arm myself.

Up yours Colonel.

 

[black dog]

Now that you are retired Colonel maybe you can find the time to actually read and understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And brush up on your American history, I'm not a educated man but I believe we sent the Redcoats packing about 15 years before the 2nd amendment..

 

[transporter]

What a sad state this country has come to where a so-called devoted military veteran completely loses sight on the core reason he served: to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Huh, at the end of your little screed you say you own firearms in case a US leader wants to be a dictator, yet, you are dictating your beliefs to all others. The Constitution was designed to change with the times. You are clearly of the opinion that firearms may change but the Constitution can't. It was written on parchment, not carved in stone.

BTW....the words in the Constitution start with "A well regulated militia"...please explain what well regulated militia in the US goes into an elementary school and shoots 1st graders...what well regulated militia goes into a high school and slaughters teens...goes into a bar and slaughters folks out to enjoy a weekend evening...goes to Las Vegas and mows down hundreds of the SAME CITIZENS THE MILITIA IS SUPPOSED TO DEFEND!!!

I, too, am a veteran who gave 20 years of my life serving the same constitution. I was a lowly enlisted guy; and yet I feel I have a better understanding of why I served and the constitution I was charged with defending than a so-called 'educated' officer. There is no word "except" in the 2nd amendment.

Based on all your comments on here...that is a highly debatable statement. You don't even seem to understand English...you didn't serve the Constitution...you served the President. Seems you have forgotten the words of the oath you took:

"I, _____, 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (except those that could kill a lot of people at one time), shall not be infringed."

"

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American" - Tench Coxe (1788)

Wrong...again. A Militia is not an individual. The quote you offer is nowhere in the Constitution you say you served...is it? The quote is an interpretation.

You either don't give a damn about what our founders said and their intent on the individual keeping and bearing their own arms, or you just don't know. If it's the former, based on some ridiculous notion that they could have never understood firearm technology would get to this point, then push to have the 2nd repealed because no weapon used today could have been anticipated in its existence. If it's the latter then get a ####ing education.

No...no...you can't piss and moan about the words in the Constitution and then talk about intent. Intent is changeable. This paragraph is the entire problem with people like you. The majority of this country does not want to repeal 2A. You are an idiot if that is what you think.

How dare Col Peters dictate to me or anyone else what we, as individuals, should or should have. Coxe was clear "... and every other terrible implement of the soldier". The intent was that the people should be just as well-armed as our military in order for THE PEOPLE to have the means to defend ourselves from tyranny.

Oh grow the f*** up. The govt dictates what you can and cannot do every god damned day. The Bible dictates what you can and cannot do as a Christian. This paragraph is nothing more than the complete proof of how far your head is up your ass.

You libs have run around calling Trump the next Hitler. If this fear is real, are you really comfortable with this thought that he could get our military to act against the people in order to become the next Hitler, and you are pushing to be completely helpless against this by being disarmed? This is exactly why the 2nd amendment was ratified. This is exactly why our founders wanted the people to be fully armed. Knowledgeable people like Col Peters calling for such bans only tells me he wants our military to hold all of the power. That should scare the hell out of everyone.

Where did the Col. say you should be disarmed? Again...remove your head from your ass.

Col Peters said: "These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings." YES Col Peters, exactly! That's we own any firearm. I don't hunt. I don't go to the target range every week. I don't skeet shoot. I have firearms for two reasons and two only: to defend my family, myself and my property; and two be ready when/if Trump tries to install himself as dictator. And I'll be damn if someone like Peters is going to throw his resume as a veteran at me to justify his desire to dictate to me how I would arm myself.

So please explain how a pistol, a shotgun or a rifle isn't a completely capable weapon to defend your family, yourself and your property? How many times in your life has a group of heavily armed invaders attacked your family or yourself on your property? I seemed to have missed all those stories of mass home invasions that required semi or fully automatic weapons to repel.

Sure seems like someone ought to dictate some sh!t to you...because you don't seem to understand much...and your points are incredibly weak....just like your mind

 

[Gilligan]

How many times in your life has a group of heavily armed invaders attacked your family or yourself on your property?

That happened here three times in just the last month. We were down to less then three thousands rounds of ammo before we fended off the last one. So I've increased what I keep on hand by about 10 rifles and 20 thousand rounds...you just can't be too careful, sugar tits.

 

[black dog]

So please explain how a pistol, a shotgun or a rifle isn't a completely capable weapon to defend your family, yourself and your property? How many times in your life has a group of heavily armed invaders attacked your family or yourself on your property? I seemed to have missed all those stories of mass home invasions that required semi or fully automatic weapons to repel.

Sure seems like someone ought to dictate some sh!t to you...because you don't seem to understand much...and your points are incredibly weak....just like your mind

Thats one of the GREAT THINGS ABOUT AMERICA we dont have to explain to anyone with how we use our given Rights. If you want to ride the commuter bus, no problem. If you want to drive a Geo Metro or a 647 hp Ford GT, its your personal choice.. Just like firearms you dont have to own one, or you can buy a 22 revolver, or you can buy a beltfed 50 M2 Browning....
Its not hard to understand...

 

[Ken King]

Read it's reply in a nasally voice, toss in some spitting and sputtering, and it sounds just like the Colonel.

 

[Gilligan]

Thats one of the GREAT THINGS ABOUT AMERICA we dont have to explain to anyone with how we use our given Rights. If you want to ride the commuter bus, no problem. If you want to drive a Geo Metro or a 647 hp Ford GT, its your personal choice.. Just like firearms you dont have to own one, or you can buy a 22 revolver, or you can buy a beltfed 50 M2 Browning....
Its not hard to understand...

She just don't understand.

 

[PsyOps]

So please explain how a pistol, a shotgun or a rifle isn't a completely capable weapon to defend your family, yourself and your property? How many times in your life has a group of heavily armed invaders attacked your family or yourself on your property? I seemed to have missed all those stories of mass home invasions that required semi or fully automatic weapons to repel.

Sure seems like someone ought to dictate some sh!t to you...because you don't seem to understand much...and your points are incredibly weak....just like your mind

Please explain to me why it's any of your damn business how I decide to defend myself.

Yours second question assumes it will never happen since it hasn't yet happened. But, explain to me how YOU would defend yourself if and when a "a group of heavily armed invaders attack" you? Given your take on this whole subject, I think guns scare you to death and would never have one; so you're dead in that scenario.

I don't give a damn what you think I understand. My 20 years in the military has taught me plenty in terms of why these weapons exist, my knowledge in how to use them proficiently, and what circumstance would dictate when I do use them. The bottom line is, I have them and am ready for most any circumstance where I might have to use lethal force. And you, the government, folks like Col 'Traitor' Peters, or anyone else do NOT have the right to dictate how I exercise my rights and protect myself. I completely get your arrogance may think you can, and that's why you fail over and over again to make any sort substantive retort to these discussions. Your arrogance is you defining ignorance.

Oh, and you're a damn coward because I know you've disappeared with your tail between your legs and won't even try to respectfully debate me.

 

[PsyOps]

Read it's reply in a nasally voice, toss in some spitting and sputtering, and it sounds just like the Colonel.

I have watched Peters over the years and never took him for a gun grabbing progressive. Perhaps he sat at a desk giving orders for too long and now lives in that echo chamber of believing he is the end-all answer to these things.

 

[Kyle]

 

[Yooper]

I have watched Peters over the years and never took him for a gun grabbing progressive. Perhaps he sat at a desk giving orders for too long and now lives in that echo chamber of believing he is the end-all answer to these things.

I actually know Ralph (went to DLI language school for Russian with him (he was terrible, so take his comments on his book jackets about his language abilities with a grain of salt). Even called him "friend" for awhile and our paths diverged.

This comment doesn't surprise me. Ralph sees himself as a sort of gentleman warrior; like the rich elite kids of WWII (Kennedy, etc.). He's the kind who is more comfortable hunting grouse with a shotgun (not that he would eat it; note the "shooting skeet" comment). His comment about spoiling the meat a hunter shot using an MSR is ridiculous: clearly out of his lane. Why?

Because Ralph, despite all his claims, really isn't (or ever was) a grunt or hunter or 2A enthusiast. He always brings up all the "muddy boots" stuff to establish bona fides that aren't really there (infantry battalion, yes, but as the S-2 or I think, actually, the AS-2 (bn asst intel officer, what we used to call a BIC)). Honestly, I could be mistaken but I don't remember much legitimate muddy boots time (meaning, whatever time that was in an infantry battalion was as a staff officer & not a line officer). Drove us line officers crazy, but that's how MI folks like to talk (need all the street cred they can get). Speaking of street cred, he also makes sure you know he also was an enlisted soldier.

Having said that, Ralph is an excellent strategic thinker and in the matter of global issues is very much worth listening to (ties in with the end of this comment). So please, if you can, don't throw baby out with the bath water.

Nevertheless, this is disappointing. Not for me (because it doesn't surprise me), but perhaps for Ralph. He and his wife live a very rich lifestyle in downtown DC (at least he did; he's made tons of money off both his excellent non-fiction and equally excellent fiction) so anything messy like gun rights surely impinges on his lifestyle (as it does all other DC elites). But Ralph really likes being liked and respected and I suspect this will hurt because he's about to lose at least half his audience/fans.

To be precise, Ralph is a retired lieutenant colonel. If you want to read a colonel worth reading, seek out and read Colonel (US Army, retired) Kurt Schlichter (fellow alumnus of the USA War College and though now a lawyer, a real infantry, muddy boots officer soldier). Wouldn't be surprised to see/hear Kurt having harsh words for Ralph (especially since Kurt just put out a column at Townhall.com refuting much of what Ralph says (especially, the militia part)).

Ralph's out of his lane here. On purpose, I believe. Why? Because he's playing a bigger game: he needs to disavow "the gun thing" b/c it helps him in the social circles he occupies. Ralph is no longer "one of us" (if he ever was) and his bank account and access depend on no one ever thinking he was/is.

---End of line (MCP).

 

[Gilligan]

To be precise, Ralph is a retired lieutenant colonel. If you want to read a colonel worth reading, seek out and read Colonel (US Army, retired) Kurt Schlichter (fellow alumnus of the USA War College and though now a lawyer, a real infantry, muddy boots officer soldier). Wouldn't be surprised to see/hear Kurt having harsh words for Ralph (especially since Kurt just put out a column at Townhall.com refuting much of what Ralph says (especially, the militia part))..

I read everything Kurt puts out there.

Very valuable post you made...because my opinion of of Ralph was definitely higher before.

 

[littlelady]

Psy, quite an eye opener. Thanks for the thread.

Kyle, you are right. Shooting at the Repub ball team wasn’t a trigger, so to speak, for the banning of guns. Disgusting.

Yooper, thanks for your insightful comments. Interesting, indeed.

 

[Yooper]

T/Y, Gilligan & littlelady.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[BOP]

So please explain how a pistol, a shotgun or a rifle isn't a completely capable weapon to defend your family, yourself and your property? How many times in your life has a group of heavily armed invaders attacked your family or yourself on your property? I seemed to have missed all those stories of mass home invasions that required semi or fully automatic weapons to repel.

Sure seems like someone ought to dictate some sh!t to you...because you don't seem to understand much...and your points are incredibly weak....just like your mind

A song, just for you.

 

[littlelady]

A song, just for you.

That was a knee slapper, sha! Thanks!

 

[Starman]

I've read three of Peters' books: Beyond Terror, Beyond Baghdad, and Looking for Trouble.

He always seemed like a guy that liked to make war, or make a case for war. Never a case for peace. I reckon this is as good a way as any to make his war.

 

[edinsomd]

Peters is a POG, a REMF who never saw combat. #### him.

 

[PsyOps]

Ralph is no longer "one of us" (if he ever was) and his bank account and access depend on no one ever thinking he was/is.

Peters can never EVER claim his charge to support and defend the constitution - OUR LIBERTIES - was a legitimate oath. As long as I remain a law-abiding citizen of this country, I am free to do as I please, as long as it harms no one and remains within the confines of the law. Banning *things* from free and peaceful people, simply because you don't trust us are the things of tyranny. With nearly every day that goes by, I become more and more astounded at people I thought stood on a certain side of an issue, only to find out they don't. Peters has been all-in with destroying our enemies overseas, and never blinked at trusting our youth handling these firearms to accomplish that mission; yet, in this country, to protect ourselves from domestic enemies, we cannot be trusted with the same tools. What causes a person to lose sight that this is why we have a 2nd amendment?