Debating a combat veteran

[odysseus]

I'm confused. What exactly do you want for him? He's been there, done that. Armed military combat. What's your point?

I saw this on this thread and had to add 2 cents to it. I have run into it at times, there are some combat Veterans who are very gun-control minded and not supportive of civilian's RKBA rights. I had a coach in Highschool who was a Marine in Vietnam and saw combat. He was pretty much an anti-gun kind of guy, and would share his opinion of that with us kids.

Sometimes, their experiences in combat make them that way when they get home. They may be misguided, but that's how they are. It's just people; many Veterans are not pro-RKBA.

 

[jaysouth]

Four years a ranger in VN?? Hold my nose mode.

In late 68, the Long Range Patrol Companies went from being the lettered company of an infantry regiment(F Co, 58th Inf(101st LRRPS), E Co, 52d inf(1st Cav LRRPS) to a lettered company of the Ranger Regiment. I.E., H Co, 75th Rangers, K Company 75th Rangers, etc. Not knocking the LRRPS, but there is no way that you can compare them to the real rangers of WWII or today.

Four years past that date would have him still serving as a Ranger in 72. Not likely.

Not saying he didn't serve honorably, buy lying about your service can make you less than an honorable person(can you spell jean fraude kerriiee?). Not that lying about your service covers war or sea tales, if well told and there is enough alcohol present.

I am reminded of the comments of an old Navy Seal....Hell, there were never more than 150 SEALs in VN at any one time. Since 1980, I've met at least 5,000 of them.

Time line sucks too, enough to call BS on this 'vet'.

 

[bogie]

Thing is, a lot of vets consider firearms to be _offensive_ weapons. Our job is to encourage them to think of them as _defensive_ weapons.

 

[NoViuM]

I've met several vets who where out hunting charlie on search and destroy missions. I've met one person in Military Intelligence (grandfather), and other paper pusher. Both in Nam, neither any blood and guts combat.

 

[scout26]

My BS meter always starts to twitch when I hear someone say "I was Ranger/Special Forces/SEAL/Force Recon/Sniper/CIA Secret Agent, etc." I guess the only guys who are members of my American Legion Post were the plain grunts and REMF's. No High-Speed types, guess that's because the post has a copy of your DD214. BS'ers get busted most ricky-tick.

Ask him for his DD214. All his schools, times and places served will be on there. If he's a BT/DT (Been There/Done That, The Real Deal), he won't mind showing it. If he's a fraud he will either deny, delay or claim that it's "Classified" (They are never classified).


If someone asked my for my DD214 I have no problem showing it.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Tours

I knew one guy who managed a bunch of tours. He was a clerk and liked REMF duty. He managed to trade favors/cook orders for several extra tours. I didn't meet him until about 1971 when he just couldn't finagle the system anymore.

For me, I know how to search the web and could come up with a plausible history, sheesh, I could have claimed membership in Air America. I actually did have a commercial pilots license when I was drafted in 1970...

However, all I ever did was go to Fort Polk, LA and write newspaper articles and then got an early out so I only served 18 months + one day.

The alternative news source at the time was the "Fort Polk Puke" anyone remember that?

Lastly regarding DD 214s, expecting them to be 100 percent factual is, shall we say, uninformed knowledge...

 

[Monkeyleg]

chris in va: "You guys work for the media?"

No, advertising photography. Which means that we work when there's work. Which isn't often.

I'd never press my co-worker to show me his DD214. He's been in the photography business for decades, and his Viet Nam story is regarded as gospel. If I were to dispel that story somehow, even unintentionally, it wouldn't make me look good.

OTOH, if I can get some clues as to his truthfullness just for myself, it will give me some insight into who I'm working with.

Of all the guys I know who served, the one who saw the most combat was also the biggest screw-up, and he'll admit it. He was always assigned to s**t-burning when they got back to base.

And the one who saw no combat (there wasn't much fighting going on in Berlin, was there?) is the one with the stories for the women.

 

[jaysouth]

I was in a unit with a guy that got a MOH. After six months back in the states, he went back to VN. He stayed there until 71 or 72(his first tour began in 65). He did some high profile work in Mike Force and says he was a mail clerk at CCN when in fact he was involved in over the fence operations in Laos. Because of his MOH, the army did not want him in VN and did not want him in high profile activities. Because he has MOH, he could usually get the assignment he wanted, however.

I have not seen this guy in several years but back when he came to reunions, you could get the most engaging stories out of him about how he screwed the system one way or another, or outragious exploits in Asian brothels or bars. But not one word about action or anything that happened outside barbed wire perimeters.


Scout26

I spent a long time tending bar. One recurring story that I heard from 'heros' was that their BS could not be documented because their records got burned up in the fire at the St. Louis Records Center back in the 70s. The real skinny on that one is that some Air Force records were lost, but NO army records got burned up. Someday I could write an annex to B.G. Burkett's book, Stolen Valor.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'd never press my co-worker to show me his DD214. He's been in the photography business for decades, and his Viet Nam story is regarded as gospel. If I were to dispel that story somehow, even unintentionally, it wouldn't make me look good.

OTOH, if I can get some clues as to his truthfullness just for myself, it will give me some insight into who I'm working with.

You don't have to face him off on the DD214 issue. Just start doing some homework and asking some questions which make it clear you know what the Rangers did and when in and around Vietnam. He will get the hint. If he is a phony, he will stop talking about his "GI Joe" exploits around you.

Pilgrim

 

[jaysouth]

QUOTE:
OTOH, if I can get some clues as to his truthfullness just for myself, it will give me some insight into who I'm working with.


Monkeyleg:

Ask him in golly gee fashion "what did the rangers do in VN?"

The Rangers in VN were Long Range Recon Teams operating in 5 to 7 man teams doing recon missions IN vietnam for an infantry division.

Ask him "what division were you in?" Recon teams belonged to an infantry division.

Tell him you heard about the 'recondos', what were they? In fact it was a Theater (MACV) school run by the 5th Special Forces to train division LRRPs.
If he modestly admits attending this school, there is a roster online(god, don't ask me to find it right this moment)

 

[RoyG]

Show him the fake vet web site and ask him if he ever met anyone who was a fake.

 

[Mr.BadExample]

I had a roommate who was a Marine in the 80s, he was anti-gun. He thought only trained military personnel could use them worth a damn. He claimed to be Double Expert but never wanted to go to the range because "he would get too competitive."
We agreed to disagree.

 

[scout26]

Jaysouth,

Ahhh yes, the old ARPERCEN fire excuse.

While a DD214 may not be completely accurate, it should have enough info to either confrim or refute his claims.

I loathe Posers.

 

[Roadkill]

My experience is that anyone who spends a majority of his time today concerned about events which happened thirty plus years ago is either mentally misdirected and in need of the VA or not being truthful. Last damn thing I want to do is allow something I experienced thirty plus years ago to dominate my life today.

rk

 

[Byron Quick]

I know an elderly gentleman who was Special Forces. I was told that he served in Laos in an A Team.

All I've ever heard from him was that he retired from the Army after a career as an enlisted man.

He was a classmate of my uncle who was also career Army during the same time frame. My uncle was a clerk but ran into his friend from time to time during their service. My uncle told me of his combat service. To my knowledge, the gentleman has never told anyone that he was in combat; much less that he was SF.

There's a UPS driver in town. I happened to see some of his military records while helping him move. He was at Ia Drang in 1965. I asked him about it and we talked for a couple of hours about the battle. The next day he told me that he had nightmares for the first time in over a decade. He's never mentioned Vietnam to me again. That was over twenty years ago.

In my experience, the people who have been in combat; don't want to talk about it much.

 

[Old Dog]

In my experience, the people who have been in combat; don't want to talk about it much.

Exactly. At least with people who weren't there with them. This holds true for most folks I know.
On topic, though -- it may be the difference between Viet Nam (a war fought mostly in the country during a more "pacifist" and peaceful era) and Iraq (much combat in urban environments with a generation familiar with violence) -- but, since my career spans the post VN-era (most of the older guys with whom I first served were all VN vets) and OIF, I'm noting that while some of the VN vets I knew (and know) may have no special affinity for firearms, a lot of the OIF vets I know (who may not have been "into" guns before) have come back and seem to be, shall we say, a lot warmer to the idea of either carrying a firearm or at the very least, having one around ...

 

[Monkeyleg]

I just got around to asking my co-worker some questions today, which is why I'm resurrecting this thread.

Hawkmoon: "I was there in 1968, with the very first generation of M16s. You might ask the guy if he knows (or remembers) that the reason the M16 was changed from full-auto to 3-round burst fire was that it was basically uncontrollable in full-auto mode. If you didn't hit what you were aiming at with the first round, the following rounds mostly went cloud hunting."

I asked him about the three-burst fire, and he said that his M16 was full-auto, that his last real training with guns was in Viet Nam, and that any change must have come after 1972, when he left. He said that, in his training, he was taught to fire three to five round bursts, and that his instructor would give hell to anyone who fired more. He then said that the new recruits would often empty a full magazine at a target, and then have to reload, and that maybe that's why the military changed the rifle.

He also said that he kept all the rounds he was issued in magazines, rather than have any loose, that the army didn't issue 30-round magazines until some time after he'd been over there, and that he didn't trust their reliability.

He also said that, depending upon what he was doing, he would either carry his M16 only, or would also carry a shotgun, which he said was the best for going into the tall "elephant" grass, where an encounter might just be a matter of feet away.

Another thing he mentioned was sometimes carrying a Thompson, which he said he had purchased himself. He thought the Thompson was a good weapon, but felt that the M16 was more controllable under full-auto fire (my own experience runs contrary to that, but I shot my Thompson many times, and an M16 only once).

He also trained with the M60, the M207 grenade launcher (don't hold me to that numerical designation), and the M14. He said that the tree snipers favored the M14. He also described the various types of grenades: concussion, grenades loaded with buckshot, smoke, etc.

He's my age and, if he was drafted right out of high school, he would have gone in sometime in late 1969 or early 1970. As mentioned, he said he was there until 1972, which leaves another four years unaccounted for.

I'll gently press him on other points, but thought someone might like to respond to what he'd said today.

 

[junyo]

Reading the thread, i'm asking myself why his or your service or nonservice are relevant. If I'm giving him a job interview or a loan maybe, but how is it relevant to the question at hand? As boofus said, a shotgun puts just as much lead in the air just as fast as a machine gun, especially a quick cycling semi. Does he think those should be outlawed? And better yet, if it came to it, and he was defending his family or his liberty, would he prefer having the fully automatic option on the table on being told by the very people he might be defending against that his choices are limited? That's the argument. There's no need to play junior detective. Trying to dig up dirt to discredit the questioner and avoid the question is something people without an argument do.

 

[C.S.Powell]

Debating a Combat Vet.

First off I am a new guy with this group but I do enjoy reading the intelligent discussions offered here.
I served with F Co. 2nd Battalion 3rd Marines 3rd MarDiv at a place called KheSanh Vietnam, WIA May 9th 1967 in an ambush off Hill 881. That is not trying to tell a war story but only to give my perspective.
For years after returning to ConUs (after discharge, honorable) I wouldn't have anything to do with weapons of any kind even quit hunting. I was never against firearms I just didn't want to be part of it, I became disengaged on the subject. It took until a few years ago when Meth, crack etc. and the associated scum that accompany it started slithering into the mid-west to change my mind on ownership, I now have a ccw and carry all the time. When you have had to take another persons life it will change you forever, seeing what an M-60, .50 cal, 155mm or old iron bombs will do to a body is a life altering experience. The only way he will ever change is if the change comes from deep within his soul. Please just thank him for his service when others were running to Canada, spitting on him, calling him "baby killer" or protesting like today.
My personal feeling are now once again " I would rather stand and fight than be shot, stabbed or clubbed in the back trying to run away. Thank You for allowing this post, for The High Road and the honor of being an American!"
Semper Fi to all.

 

[kikilee]

Reading the thread, i'm asking myself why his or your service or nonservice are relevant. If I'm giving him a job interview or a loan maybe, but how is it relevant to the question at hand? As boofus said, a shotgun puts just as much lead in the air just as fast as a machine gun, especially a quick cycling semi. Does he think those should be outlawed? And better yet, if it came to it, and he was defending his family or his liberty, would he prefer having the fully automatic option on the table on being told by the very people he might be defending against that his choices are limited? That's the argument. There's no need to play junior detective. Trying to dig up dirt to discredit the questioner and avoid the question is something people without an argument do.

Couldn't agree more. As far as asking for a copy of his DD-214; mine is in my safe about 10 ft. from where I sit. In this age of computer generated images and "Photoshop" I could take mine and make it read like I was "Audie Murphy" if I was so inclined. It proves nothing.

I served honorably for 3 years 11 months and 28 days. (1969 - 1973) I have no use for those who would steal the honor of those who served and those who died.


I am a man of my word. It amazes me when I come across those whose word is worth nothing for that is a measure of a man.

"Your word and your honor go hand and hand. If you can't honor your word, you should be allowed to speak no more."

 

[WayneConrad]

All gun arguments based on danger, cost/benefit, or any other practical measure need to be ruthlessly ignored. The sole measure of the ultimate worth of a weapon of any kind is whether or not it is effective in fighting off tyrrany. One should ask the veteran if he would rather have full-auto weapons in his squad. If the answer is yes, then that is why the people need them. Even if they are dangerous to have. Government is far more dangerous to liberty than is the worst of our fellows.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I just got around to asking my co-worker some questions today, which is why I'm resurrecting this thread.

Hawkmoon: "I was there in 1968, with the very first generation of M16s. You might ask the guy if he knows (or remembers) that the reason the M16 was changed from full-auto to 3-round burst fire was that it was basically uncontrollable in full-auto mode. If you didn't hit what you were aiming at with the first round, the following rounds mostly went cloud hunting."

I asked him about the three-burst fire, and he said that his M16 was full-auto, that his last real training with guns was in Viet Nam, and that any change must have come after 1972, when he left. He said that, in his training, he was taught to fire three to five round bursts, and that his instructor would give hell to anyone who fired more. He then said that the new recruits would often empty a full magazine at a target, and then have to reload, and that maybe that's why the military changed the rifle.

Accurate. All we had in 1968 was full auto. I was trained on the M14 (semi-auto mode only) in the States, and handled my first M16 after arriving in Viet Nam. That is exactly why the 3-round burst mode was developed.

He also said that he kept all the rounds he was issued in magazines, rather than have any loose, that the army didn't issue 30-round magazines until some time after he'd been over there, and that he didn't trust their reliability.

Also accurate. I never saw anyone carry loose rounds. We loaded up all the magazines we could get, and slung them over our shoulders in bandaleers.

He also said that, depending upon what he was doing, he would either carry his M16 only, or would also carry a shotgun, which he said was the best for going into the tall "elephant" grass, where an encounter might just be a matter of feet away.

Also accurate. Dunno how they got 'em in, but people did have personal shotguns sent over from home. They were a popular option with guys who walked "point" for exactly the reason your co-worker stated.

Another thing he mentioned was sometimes carrying a Thompson, which he said he had purchased himself. He thought the Thompson was a good weapon, but felt that the M16 was more controllable under full-auto fire (my own experience runs contrary to that, but I shot my Thompson many times, and an M16 only once).

Never saw a Thompson and never heard of anyone using one over there, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

He also trained with the M60, the M207 grenade launcher (don't hold me to that numerical designation), and the M14. He said that the tree snipers favored the M14. He also described the various types of grenades: concussion, grenades loaded with buckshot, smoke, etc.

His training sounds about the same as mine, which comes as no surprise.

He's my age and, if he was drafted right out of high school, he would have gone in sometime in late 1969 or early 1970. As mentioned, he said he was there until 1972, which leaves another four years unaccounted for.

It does sound like he was there, it's just the chronology that doesn't APPEAR to hold up.

 

[Travis McGee]

My BS meter is pegged.
Ask him for his DD214.
If he won't proudly pull it out, if he says he lost it, or it's classified etc, he's lying.
Period.

 

[Walter]

Armed military combat AIN'T the same thing as 'concealed carry', or
'self-defense' carry. I did two tours as a grunt Marine in Viet Nam, and I
have had a concealed carry permit in Texas for the past ten years. I
know the difference.

The "rules of engagement" are much more strict for a civilian with a CCW.
There is not room on this site to detail all the differences in the situations.

Anyone who offers their services to the Armed forces of this country
serves to defend the Constitution of the United States, among other things.
Last I heard, the Second Amendment was still a valid part of the
Constitution.

I don't see where any person in the military service of the United States
has any business disparaging the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I don't think anybody who lives in this country has the right to decide who may or
may not own firearms. That argument was decided more than
200 years ago when the "Right to keep and bear arms" was included in the
"Bill of Rights".

Walter

 

[Taurus 66]

Ask him for his DD-214. All the info should be on there. The numbers don't add up.

Magsnubby's reply is worth consideration (not that any of the others are any less). If he keeps bringing up 'Nam, I guess you could ask him for documented proof, otherwise have him not waste your time and fill your head with that which appears to be undocumented/unproven.

Not so long ago, I was under the direction of a new foreman at my place of business, who has said on several occasions he was a member of an elite Airborne division during Vietnam. On top of it all, he said he was a sniper. It's difficult to believe due to being one on top of so many other tall stories as well. He did bring in a beret and hung it on the hat rack in his office, but he never did show a picture of him with the boys or a DD 214. Oh, and he just turned 50. While it is possible he could have served in the war, it's cutting it mighty close.

His positions on full-auto's were: if an untrained person--such as a kid-- got his/her hands on one, they would do more damage than with a semi-auto

Maybe ... maybe not. Not every bullet that comes out the barrel automatically gets a name assigned to it. How does an untrained person (such as a child) get his/her hands on one in the first place? Is the US Army that sloppy about keeping a tight inventory? If it's a civilian matter, does anyone really believe a law abiding citizen, who fought tooth and nail for all the required licensing is going to leave something like that lying around for little Tommy to fiddle with?

that the small number of full-auto's registered means the '34 GCA worked; and that full-auto's are more deadly. He based that last statement on his experience in Viet Nam.

He sounds like he wants no contest from you, that you should simply yield to all his sheer wisdom, though, if you give him resistance, he won't mind much. If your debates put him on the ropes, he will resolve to confusion tactics. Be aware of this.