TROLLS & FRAUDSTERS
By David G. Hanger
May 08, 2013
My number one nephew is a Commander in the U.S. Navy, so I know the level of ignorance and the lack of integrity demonstrated by one Lieutenant-Commander James Thompson does not represent the general caliber of our current crop of Naval officers. In your case Lieutenant-Commander I sincerely suggest you get counseling soon because you do indicate symptoms of PTSD (You are a loutish, threatening bully), and your general demeanor and your attitude is unbecoming to your station as an officer in the service of this country, and your extremely foul mouth makes you anything but a gentleman. Indeed I would go so far as to say that your whole discourse indicates a lack of judgment on your part and a level of impulsiveness that has disqualified you for senior command.
It is never wise to call someone a liar when they are not, Lieutenant-Commander, nor does it show any intellect whatsoever to call someone an “asshole,” yet not write one single word relative to the real subject at hand. You have not hurt my feelings in any way, but you have seriously embarrassed yourself, and exposed an aspect of your personality that will not enhance your prospects for advancement. Notice I did not use one swear word to disparage your nonsense. Simply no need. Blather on, Lieutenant-Commander, you make far more a fool of yourself than ever I could.
I did not, by the way, say U.S. Army Rifle Team. I said Army Rifle Team, ignoramus, West Point; and I was invited onto that team. Likewise, in the mid- to late-1960s, a time before you were even in diapers, our training was that NATO rounds were useable in AK47s. Maybe it was true then, but isn’t true later; maybe that was just propaganda; doesn’t matter, it was an incidental parenthetical statement added as humor, and has nothing to do with the main arguments presented in the article.
Nor did I claim for myself any expertise whatsoever respective competition shooting, skeet shooting, hunting, or the use of any number of firearms. I simply stated that as a relatively highly skilled shooter in combination with my military training I have far more experience and qualification to use combat assault weapons than any civilian who thinks he needs one around the house. I am quite aware, Lieutenant-Commander, that there are many skilled veterans in this country; I hope in most instances they have sense enough not to take their work home with them. (I know that is not always true.)
Nor did I disparage your competition shooters in any sense. Competition shooters use specialized rifles and pistols designed exclusively for competition. Tried it, found it as boring as fishing, and much less challenging; but it does not bother me if you waste your time doing it.
So Lieutenant-Commander James Thompson in the future if you wish to slander me or lie through your teeth about me, do have the balls to say it to my face. I am in my 60s, so you have a slight chance.
And no, Mr. Thompson, your service in Afghanistan does not mean squat to me, nor does it have any relevance to my article; my family through the generations have served their country honorably, and I don’t think you are doing anything special. It is just another job; you have no foils to sell here.
I presented three points of consequence in my article: 1) Combat assault weapons do not belong in civilian hands; 2) You cannot determine who will be crazy next week, so you can never keep these weapons out of the hands of crazy people; and 3) The technology exists to personalize every hand gun henceforth produced, which in effect makes every hand gun out there obsolete, so why don’t we recall existing hand guns and replace them in the next few years with a weapon that only the owner can fire?
Not one word, Lieutenant-Commander, about any of that. I gather that in your world combat assault weapons in the private sector is eminently appropriate. Why? Are you planning on being a death squad commander when you retire? None of us, of course, really know, because you have not given us your opinion on any subject. I would caution you, however, about using the internet for this kind of crap, Mister, because the walls really do have big eyes, and you have already made an ass of yourself.
In Don Sivertsen’s case he is at least polite enough to just call me an idiot, and thus not disgrace his ignorance with his foul mouth, but in such regard I can only note I might agree with the man but then we’d both be wrong. As for people smarts I have to confess I do not have the experience of any local yokel, and I am quite satisfied with that. Since he presents no other cogent argument, there is no merit to any further comment.
Doug Thompson, on the other hand, is sufficiently dignified to try to present a substantive difference of opinion. There are regrettably a few problems with Mr. Thompson’s point of view, which should be obvious to even the casual reader of his palaver. He has gone beyond the old Second Amendment argument, which is silly to begin with, to the old John Birch, “Posse Comitatus” complete crapola, to wit, our government is our primary enemy against whom we have to all be armed to the teeth because at any moment might come the need to overthrow our government. Well, good luck with that, Mr. Thompson. Do give us a holler when you decide to start your revolution, so we can turn on the TV and the internet and watch the cops make a greasy spot on the pavement out of you.
Not only is that point of view rather paranoid, but there is absolutely nothing patriotic about it. Treason is not patriotism, and revolting against the government is treason. You may have the right to commit treason, but the government has the emphatic right to hang you for even trying. Your point of view is that of the anti-patriot; the person for whom the government is always the enemy; and, ultimately, you become the terrorist. If you feel the need to be armed to the teeth with modern combat assault weapons, I don’t think you are proposing a non-violent revolution; and when you start killing your neighbors for whatever reason, you are in fact a terrorist.
Curious isn’t it, that we have two boneheads named Thompson, both so loopy about combat assault weapons in the household, that they cannot begin to disguise their rage about the subject; and one operates under the pretense that he is sworn to uphold the government, and uses this as justification, while the other is a prospective traitor and terrorist who wants to tear it down and kill cops and/or his neighbors, and uses that as justification. I wonder how they will choose up sides.
I have a sneaking suspicion that our so-called “founding fathers,” whether you go back to Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc., or just back to Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant, would look askance at this notion that the second amendment authorizes everyone taking home combat assault weapons. Combat assault weapons are essentially direct fire hand artillery, capable of spraying as much metal as a cannon firing canister, and in just about as short a time. Are you planning on a neighborhood clearance sometime soon? Our founding fathers definitely recognized that artillery generally belonged in the hands of the government.
What is certain is they had no concept of combat assault weapons because such did not then exist. Today we have tasers, and I gather they are somewhat limited in legal distribution. Laser weapons are in late-stage development right now. The taser already comes close to being a short range Star Trek phaser, and an out-and-out vaporizer is probably not that far in the future (perhaps a combination of intensely focused sound wave and extreme heat). What will your argument be then? I can now melt your combat assault weapon from three miles away (or is it 30?), then stun you with my phaser while I look around in my back pack for my vaporizer. Will we sell all of these things in the local gun store, too?
You can’t have an Abrams tank or a Raptor drone; you don’t get artillery or rockets; F15s and helicopter gunships are not things civilians are allowed to use to smoke the neighborhood. They are military weapons, combat weapons, and they belong in military armories or installations. Combat assault weapons are also military weapons that belong in military armories.
I have yet to hear any cogent argument or justification to the contrary.
David G. Hanger
Received May 08, 2013 - Published May 08, 2013
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Representations of fact and opinions in letters are solely those of the author.
Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.