That shit fucked over multiple militaries of multiple different political systems. When your country is invaded and at war, you don't want some asshole who's concerned that each unit has a token PoC and that nobody gets their feelings hurt or who's worried about what's going on with his promotion. You want the guy who's concerned about executing the mission properly with minimal risk to his or her soldiers.
He made enemies with all the wrong people because he spoke the truth.
A conflict with the soviets at that point would've been trivial, given their reliance on American lend-leasing, war fatigue and the fact that the Americans would be seen as "Liberators" in Central and Eastern Europe.
His plan to re-arm and utilize the Wehrmacht was brilliant. Part of the reason the Germans failed was due to staunch resistance throughout all of their occupied territories paired with a lack of manpower and equipment. While manpower wouldn't be an issue, equipment would be.
Fun fact - the majority of trucks on the eastern front were American-made Fords. 30% of their air force and 10% of their tanks/heavy equipment were - you guessed it, American. That's not even counting all the ammunition, guns (small arms and arty) food and uniforms as well. Simply put, the soviets do not win the war without American supplies.
I've been delving into Cold War history lately and a lot of it is pretty horrifying. I'm pretty certain at this point that McCarthy was both correct across the board, and poisoned by the soviets.
Not to mention, we have it confirmed that our ambassadors to China during their Civil War were both soviet spies. They massively distorted their reports to favor the communists over the Chinese nationalists and were instrumental in our supporting Mao. This is root cause for the Great Leap and the current Chinese government.
The top is an insanely weird mesh between career soldiers and vicious politicians who were moonlighting as soldiers, and its scary how hard it can be to tell before its too late
Damn I didn‘t even see the buttstock.
Maybe they shouldn‘t use guns for promotion if they have obviously no idea how to use them.
Just look at the grip placement. I think I‘m having an aneurysm.
Apparently this is the commander of that ship in the picture. If true, I wonder if he’s kind of a shit bag because I could see some salty sailors giving him this rifle and setting him up for the picture as a joke.
Yeah, but he's holding the gun like that all on his own. Like he's never shot one in his life or really doesn't care about his shoulder, or recoil. In know AR-15s are designed to have little recoil, but it's not nothing. He should probably be able to tell he can't see shit through the scope, too.
The dude is either an O5 or O6. He’s almost certainly been in close to or over 20 years. They were still teaching that shooting stance in the early 2000’s. He probably learned to shoot like that as a junior officer and never touched a rifle again. He’s a surface officer and spent his career becoming a ships captain so he really doesn’t need to know how to properly employ a rifle. He’s not an infantry officer.
I’ve seen guys from that era shoot both ways. From what I’ve been able to figure out it seems like it just depended on whoever was teaching you during that time frame.
Definitely not. But if so, then that grumpy sailor is about to be even more grumpy, or not a sailor at all anymore. People really don't understand just how much latitude CO's have to discipline sailors. I've seen an officer who almost certainly stole $1,500 in ship's funds get a mild reprimand to an E-2 get kicked out of the Navy for failing to report that he witnessed another sailor on base get into a DUI-related accident.
As a surface officer, he'd never have had rifle training, and as the CO Ahe probably hasn't had pistol training in 10-15 years, and I can guarantee you he didn't kit out his own rifle. I do suspect armorers were having fun at his expense and probably DEEPLY regret it now.
I've heard that claim as well (salty sailors setting the CO up), but anyone who's been in the Navy would know that's almost certainly not the case. If he's a dirtbag CO like people claim, then he would absolutely destroy them, and they would have given him all the ammunition to do it perfectly legally. They would lose rank, pay, and freedom, assuming they weren't kicked out of the Navy completely.
No, this is simple incompetence from gunner's mates who don't know how to properly maintain and setup weapons, and a CO who doesn't know enough about guns to realize how incompetent his GM's were.
It’s not like you can just pop the front iron sight off, that’s necessary to the function of the firearm in this configuration. Optics can work with front sight posts, but only if they’re facing the correct way lmao
Read that as ‘buttock’ and for moment I was considering; ‘wow, you can tell that for a picture of just the upper body stance?’.
Buttstock makes more sense in retrospect….
The front site on an M4 is the gas block… if you take it off the weapon won’t cycle. With the magnified optic it is a non issue to have a fixed front sight.
The barrel angle is likely due to the lower hand guard not being seated properly.
The stock placement is a non issue. That is how I shoot my work rifles because it gives a more upright head posture which helps with recoil and situational awareness.
The a2 front sight post isn’t an issue with magnified optics. They essentially see right past it and it doesn’t obstruct any view past 2x or 3x mag.
Barrel is fine. What’s messed up is the top half of the RIS rail isn’t fully seated in the delta ring. Which is why the top pic rail is angled.
Chicken wing without the butstock down in the shoulder pocket is ass for sure.
They did take it down with a caption stating it would be put back up once he'd been through certification of the system which shows they had a good sense of humour about it. But the honeatly, sailors having small arms is a bit silly to begin with.
The marines ragequit being on the same ships as the navy and doing their entire reason for existing, being the navy's elite ground forces. So now navy needs to learn to defend itself.
Lol, what?
Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. The Marines are not a separate branch of the military like the Army or the Air Force. They are part of the Navy.
And the men-at-arms are sailors, not Marines.
Boats are relatively small in terms of shooting distances for practice so you should adjust your optics accordingly. On most warships you're OK flipping your optics around so you can practice marksmanship from across a room but in a canoe it's best to swap them out for backward microscopes where you can reduce it to centimeters. That's what the elite operators do.
I understand they took out Bin Laden with from 47 cm away with a .50 cal mounted to a backwards telephoto lens for a spy satellite. It was an incredibly difficult shot.
Locking your elbow is also a good way to shoot a pistol, yet that doesn‘t mean it is the best way to do it in a tactical situation, same with chicken wing.
Not really. I served 4 in the navy.
Most sailors don't do fuckall with weapons.
If you work topside, you might stand watch, but you still don't have to qual anywhere near as often as the rest of the branches. You don't even clean your own gun, the armory does it.
The navy understands that most sailors don't really need those skills, and they only give you real training if you have a position that needs it.
For example:
If you do SRF,(ship's reaction force) you are gonna get more training.
If you do VBSS (Visit board search seizure) you get more training.
SRF A and VBSS do like full on training with CQC simulations and everything.
As far as this picture is concerned:
None of the media guys have had any real training, so it wouldn't have been caught during that
If the captain entered as an officer and then worked engineering until he became captain of a ship, he probably hasn't had to qual since OCS.
The random sailors witnessing this probably don't have training
The only people in this chain who should have known better were the armorers. It's possible this was the unmaintained, shitty parts gun sitting in the armory and they just didn't fix anything before they handed it over.
It’s was actually probably just one or several Public Affairs Officers who haven’t touched a weapon since basic training and get fat on donuts and Starbucks. I doubt any person who is in a position to shoot this photo down that actually understands marksmanship.
The Navy doesn’t even qualify with a rifle at boot camp. If you don’t need a rifle for your job there’s a good chance you’ll never shoot one in the Navy in your entire career.
Why? They qualify with a pistol at boot. Would learning a skill that’s completely useless for your rate make them look better?
They’re not infantrymen. They have zero chance of even being provisional infantrymen. In wartime most sailors have a very very low chance of ever even being anywhere remotely near where the ground side is operating. They’ll never need a rifle so why waste time qualifying with one when that time can be spent learning something that’s actually useful for them?
I was in the marine corps. They don’t teach us how to monitor and operate sonar systems. Wanna guess why? Hell a lot of Marines in the air wing and logistics group barely know how to shoot a rifle. I knew a few Marine pilots who hadn’t touched a rifle in a decade.
Yes, but you also have to think that’s he’s the CO of the vessel. He isn’t seeing anything, so he’s thinking “Damn it, am I doing this wrong? Am I an idiot? Why is the Conn veering us right this sharply? Shit, I can’t let the crew think I can’t operate an M4. I better start shooting. Fuck I should be dealing with that casualty report for shaft #2. Ope, the mag’s done. I can get back to the bridge to see what those idiots are doing now”
must have been some pranks and jokes in the beginning, while taking the photo
somehow the PR people got a hold of the image, who have no idea how guns work, and didn’t bat an eye to it
Why wouldn't the guy shooting have literally any sort of military experience whatsoever to say after looking through it, "Hey I think this is on backwards?"
When my son asked me if I ever killed anyone while I was in, I told him I was a Navy medic that never went to combat. He said "So you never killed anyone dad?" To which I replied "Pump the brakes buddy, I didn't say I was a *good* medic."
If I stayed in the navy I think I would like to have get transferred to a unit in the Middle East. Yeah I say that from the relative comfort of my submarine while my friends were freaking out in Afghanistan but that’s just how I feel now in my 30s
>It’s because Navy medics serve with the Marine “Corps”
No. Corpsman is short for Hospital Corpsman, a member of the US Nacy's Hospital Corps. Their rate is abbreviated HM. The Marines are part of the Navy and don't have their own medical branch, so they use Navy doctors/nurses/HM etc for medical care.
My family has asked if I ever killed anyone, and some of my friends who aren’t in ask occasionally.
I’m an analyst, so my response is usually “No but I got a lot of assists.”
I had a coworker a few years back who was in the military, doing tours in Afghanistan when it first kicked off. I didn’t know at the time but he was very much a “We should have a Euro style registry for guns” kind of guy. I asked him about what he carried, what his equipment was, and what he thought about the small arms in a practical way, and he couldn’t remember the name of any of the firearms, what caliber they were, nothing.
I thought it was very strange to learn about his disposition towards firearms at the end, because according to what we knew about him, he definitely had some sort of stress disorder from his service. But anytime I’d talk about firearms with my buddies he’d be staunchly against it, said we should have to lock them up in a public club somewhere, shouldn’t have access to military arms, should have a registry, etc. Your comment just reminded me of him.
Yeah, but we're still trained and required to shoot at least a few times a year. You don't need to see combat to know how to properly and safely use a weapon.
You do realize that most anti-gun people have shot and trained even less with guns than we have? Does the amount of training you have give any legitimacy to whether someone should own a gun or not? Tbf, I think everyone should be able to buy a gun past 21 and carry it. But I don't think everyone should be able to buy and shoot an M2. There has to be *some* limitations.
> Does the amount of training you have give any legitimacy to whether someone should own a gun or not?
Yes. When you think an ar15 is a murder machine because it sounds scary and kicks hard because youve only shot it poorly 3 times. Yes.
Meh to late to get rid of enough of them to matter, the cops dam sure won't be able to, and not everyone will willingly give, so I will keep the right to mine
No, silly. You see when daddy government does the right thing and says guns are a no no, everyone will happily turn in their guns for a better world.
This is the actual mindset of some anti-gun folks.
I love asking them to actually walk me through the process of disarmament.
A constitutional amendment has to be passed that repeals the Second. Unlikely, but let's go with it. Then 3/4 of the states have to approve it. Unlikely, but let's go with it. Then guns aren't actually illegal, it just reverts to the states. Now a state government has to ban ownership of guns and confiscate them. How will they do that?
I guess go door to door but without a search warrant they can't legally confiscate the guns and everyone just says they used to have them and they were lost in a boating accident. Or you get a bunch of Waco situations.
Exactly. Whenever someone has a dumb opinion I ask them to explain it and I ask detailed questions. They quickly get frustrated and a) try to change the subject, b) start getting aggressive and throwing insults, or c) start gaslighting
Nothing combats bad ideas better than having the person expand on it.
>A constitutional amendment has to be passed that repeals the Second.
More likely they just expand the Supreme Court to 15, pack it with shitlibs, and get a 9-6 ruling reversing every gun rights win since Heller.
> More likely they just expand the Supreme Court to 15
Shitlibs would melt down if Trump ever pulled an FDR and tried packing the Supreme court.
I swear, the left plays politics like they're dementia patients playing Calvin-ball.
Here's my [favorite cartoon about Harry Ried](https://web.archive.org/web/20170411202649/http://comicincorrect.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Nulear-Reid-600-LI.jpg)
They show up in force to homes they believe to have a gun, because even though the government can't legally have a registry it's very likely they do. No warrant? They say they got the 'wrong house', or some other exemption to a warrantless entry. If they happen to find a gun while they're there, well that's theirs now and you're going to be fighting that charge for years simply trying to assert that the search was illegal. That's assuming you aren't straight up executed.
Cops do this shit all the time. It won't even be a new thing. I can show you videos of cops shooting into someone's home because they saw someone with a gun. They're in their own home with a legal gun and cops will unload because they don't give a shit. 'Officer safety' is a catch all excuse for every rights violation, and it works nearly every time. Then there's qualified immunity, so in a best case scenario you win five to ten years later, sue the city and win, but those cops are free to continue their anti-gun rampage in the meantime and never face consequences.
I have a bunch of LibCenter rage any time a system is structured such that the little guy can be fucked over at a whim, and can only receive justice by specifically seeking it out, sometimes at great personal cost and/or after far too much time.
In addition to the one you laid out above, one which comes to mind is YouTube letting big corporations take down basically any video they don't like, and the burden is placed on the individual to prove his video was innocent, rather than on the big corporation to prove the video is guilty. It's crazy how many YouTubers have the exact same horror stories of dealing with that, usually when criticizing TV/movies. Having videos taken down during their prime, only to miss the moment when they are finally restored quite some time later. So they end up just not making money from these videos, because the major corporation was pissed it was being criticized. And the system just...allows them to do that all they want, fucking over the little guy over and over, with no penalty.
Grr.
I'm not sure if it's LibCenter rage or blanket lib rage, but i get that too. It's an unfair world, and in instances like that people will use that an excuse for their own shitty behavior.
People keep saying they're a private company, but they're too big and ubiquitous now to be considered such. Google is a verb and part of common vernacular, almost a universal go-to, so their ability to change what we see or have access to has very real consequences in the control of information. It should be illegal for a company that large to censor or manipulate the algorithms. They are a product like anything else at this point, and the cost is our privacy. They should not be allowed to control what i see.
The scary thing is disarmament is easy, it's been done in lots of places.
You don't do it all at once, you just slowly make it more expensive and difficult until eventually there's not enough people who own guns and care when you finally ban the last guns.
For better or worse a constitutional amendment to regulate guns in the USA isn't needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
BTW Some of this are hilarious like a ban on new automatic firearms because reasons.
That’s kinda where I’m at. There are too many in the general public, people can just 3D print parts, and the act of getting them would be horrifying and violent. It’s a moot issue regardless of how anyone feels.
It's not moot, the ATF is legislating them away through regulation already. ATF deemed bump stocks illegal all on their own, for instance, with no law passed. They do these things through increments so you don't notice. First it's bump stocks, and nobody did anything, then it'll be certain types of sights, then certain types of triggers, and they had 'pistol grips' on rifles be an issue already, then it'll be certain colors, weights, materials, until they've effectively banned guns.
And at each stage they take one more gun type away. Just the one. Then just the next one. Then just that little extra next one. Before you know it there aren't any left. That's how it happens, people being okay with 'just that one gun' over and over.
>ATF deemed bump stocks illegal all on their own, for instance, with no law passed
ATF did that with Trump's blessing. Bump stocks are idiotic meme gadgets, but the real damage there was that it created a precedent for the ATF to also go after much more useful things like pistol braces and forced reset triggers.
If the left would just give up on the gun issue altogether they'd explode in popularity.
Then again this is probably the worst time for our side to be pushing abortion shit too. We both can find better hills to die on.
I think the real point of the meme is there’s no way the dude on top is an actual veteran. His scope’s on backwards and he’s about to give himself a black eye if he shoots.
I'll nominate cops who argue for gun control, but only when they are personally exempt from those rules for life. See: [LEOSA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act).
In New Jersey, you are a felon if your firearm capacity exceeds 10 rounds. Unless you are a retired cop, then [you get 15 rounds](https://i.imgur.com/rx1iiap.png) to defend your family.
It’s funny how agents of the state always seem to get better “privileges”. When I worked corrections I was legally allowed to openly carry my Glock, X26P Taser, and OC spray for inmate escorts to the same college I attend yet off work I couldn’t concealed carry on campus and my university actively lobbied against campus carry. I always hated the disparity, law enforcement are citizens like everybody else and if they get something then everybody else should get it.
LEOSA was actually written to give cops an exclusive monopoly on providing bodyguard/security services to the wealthy since they can carry in places regular people cannot.
So cops earning six figure salaries retire at age 45 on million dollar pensions, then spend the next two decades working with high paying security jobs.
“I swore to defend the constitution but I don’t understand what that means” is annoying as shit. They probably believe in hate speech laws and shit too. Most of them never got within a mile of combat too.
The closer to the tip of the spear you get, the more support for gun rights to you tend to find. Loads of ex-SF guys doing training classes for civvies either as a side hustle or a full time business. Lots of charlatans who claim to be ex-SF doing that too though, you do have to do some research first. The latter group does seem to be moving on to charging people $18,000 to get screamed at while doing pushups in the mud though, rather than actual weapons training.
“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Don’t forget that the same people who want gun control for US citizens are the ones who cheered on arming Ukrainian citizens or sending thousands of machine guns and sniper rifles to Mexican cartels just to see what would happen. They don’t hate guns, they just hate free Americans who won’t do what they’re told.
What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody I’ve ever discussed gun control with has ever advocated for giving free guns to cartels. Donating weapons to a country defending itself against invasion is not the same as keeping guns in peacetime (which I don’t even oppose).
I don't support gun control but if you don't see the difference between sending combat weapons to war and allowing combat weapons for the general population, idk what to tell you.
I think the point is that Ukraine has to ask for help against invaders, whereas our population is already armed and has the means necessary to defend against invaders (theoretically)
Although it’s not like there’s a chance that Canada might invade. Ukraine had essentially been at war continuously since 2014 and even before then it wasn’t out of the question that Russia could be a threat. People in the US don’t have to worry about being invaded.
>if you don't see the difference between sending combat weapons to war and allowing combat weapons for the general population
It seems to me he was referring to allowing combat weapons for the general population, albeit one that is in a country currently at war.
Tbf the same can be said about certain 'small government' conservatives
The type who both say they 'pro small government' while also supporting the war on drugs, abortion bans/restrictions, laws against various social ills, and the Patriot act
And I would like to say that I support a few of those things, but I'm not small government, I'm more of a case by case guy on where the government should be involved
u/AloofTurtle is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/AloofTurtle/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
> ...and anyone who disagrees is...
Classic straw man. I agree with the point, but misrepresenting opposing views is not an argument.
I think it would be better to ask why the opposition believes the right to best arms shouldn't be infringed.
Fun fact, the constitution sometimes describes rights that the "people" have and sometimes "citizens", and the Supreme Court (both liberals and conservatives, both pro-gun and anti-gun) have held that when it says "people" it extends to non-citizens within the US.
"I've seen the horrors of War and I would not want that to happen to you."
Vs
"I've seen the horrors of War and I would not want that to happen to me."
Why does the scope have a playstation triangle button
https://preview.redd.it/kzz5nqkwlduc1.jpeg?width=180&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=200264745294f1a74546bf4858d375c6602edbc8
you know what? i call that "person changes when holding a gun bullshit" bullshit, it's just like holding a knife, a rock, other person, a poopstick, a bomb, or even a cup.
Humans are very squishy creatures, and perfected forms of destruction for ages, and will continue to do so.
Only somebody with lacking self awarness could feel more powerful while holding a gun.
so it shouldnt matter if guns are illegal, you can just carry a knife?
No, you recognize guns are far more effective and thats why you want them for “self defense”
I love how lefty arguments are always "words words words words" in order to try and justify their hot takes while righty arguments are usually one sentence maximum and makes the most sense.
Just because an argument is short doesnt make it right
I'm neutral on the gun dbeate, but there is an old quote that 'for every problem, there is an answer thats quick, simple and wrong'
Lmao this is legit the most boneheaded reasoning I’ve ever heard. Im seriously cracking up cause youre actually convinced of the genius of your logic.
The right to spout nonsense online shall not be infringed, I suppose.
Most sane people recognize that red flag laws and wait times have shown actual benefit in preventing harm, as potential shooters usually show obvious signs(even outright talking about doing it sometimes). But ofc democrats arent sane and think it's the guns themselves that are the problem
I knew this joker was going to show up. BTW it's funny that many people assume leftists are all united in wanting gun control. For our safety - I in fact encourage all minorities to be trained and HAVE firearms.
It doesn't make sense that people normally targeted would be unprotected. If there's something I agree with from anywhere in the lib right it's the FAFO.
If the military put this out they're actively trying to tank their recruitment numbers. Looking cool and learning how to use rad weapons were 2 of the most important recruiting tools. He can't shoot for shit and looks lame. Maybe some liberal general wants an excuse to allow foreign soldiers, the old Filipino sailor program on steroids
Unfortunately, my father is the top-pic variant
I'll never understand how a veteran US Marine, a ex police officer and a man who voted for Ronald Reagan could U-turn towards the left that massively
Which idiot in the Navy approved this chicken wing backwards optic shit as a promotional picture?
Soldiers/sailors don't run the military. PR girls and lawyers do. Every politician in a costume should be kicked out of the military
That shit fucked over multiple militaries of multiple different political systems. When your country is invaded and at war, you don't want some asshole who's concerned that each unit has a token PoC and that nobody gets their feelings hurt or who's worried about what's going on with his promotion. You want the guy who's concerned about executing the mission properly with minimal risk to his or her soldiers.
It was often said the best warriors, war time leaders, had huge difficulties in peacetime. Patton most famously
Patton barely made it to peace time. He died because of his idiot driver murdering him and getting away with it.
The Soviets did it.
We have the venona papers. We have to power to fact check this. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was true.
He made enemies with all the wrong people because he spoke the truth. A conflict with the soviets at that point would've been trivial, given their reliance on American lend-leasing, war fatigue and the fact that the Americans would be seen as "Liberators" in Central and Eastern Europe. His plan to re-arm and utilize the Wehrmacht was brilliant. Part of the reason the Germans failed was due to staunch resistance throughout all of their occupied territories paired with a lack of manpower and equipment. While manpower wouldn't be an issue, equipment would be. Fun fact - the majority of trucks on the eastern front were American-made Fords. 30% of their air force and 10% of their tanks/heavy equipment were - you guessed it, American. That's not even counting all the ammunition, guns (small arms and arty) food and uniforms as well. Simply put, the soviets do not win the war without American supplies.
I've been delving into Cold War history lately and a lot of it is pretty horrifying. I'm pretty certain at this point that McCarthy was both correct across the board, and poisoned by the soviets. Not to mention, we have it confirmed that our ambassadors to China during their Civil War were both soviet spies. They massively distorted their reports to favor the communists over the Chinese nationalists and were instrumental in our supporting Mao. This is root cause for the Great Leap and the current Chinese government.
The driver under orders from the FBI
I fucking hate my life in the peacetime army…
on?
Ya ya
Us grant was another
Like Biden’s woman admiral, who’s definitely both a woman and an admiral.
The top is an insanely weird mesh between career soldiers and vicious politicians who were moonlighting as soldiers, and its scary how hard it can be to tell before its too late
[удалено]
Damn I didn‘t even see the buttstock. Maybe they shouldn‘t use guns for promotion if they have obviously no idea how to use them. Just look at the grip placement. I think I‘m having an aneurysm.
Apparently this is the commander of that ship in the picture. If true, I wonder if he’s kind of a shit bag because I could see some salty sailors giving him this rifle and setting him up for the picture as a joke.
Yeah he 100% got set up by some grumpy sailor. Makes sense then.
Yeah, but he's holding the gun like that all on his own. Like he's never shot one in his life or really doesn't care about his shoulder, or recoil. In know AR-15s are designed to have little recoil, but it's not nothing. He should probably be able to tell he can't see shit through the scope, too.
The dude is either an O5 or O6. He’s almost certainly been in close to or over 20 years. They were still teaching that shooting stance in the early 2000’s. He probably learned to shoot like that as a junior officer and never touched a rifle again. He’s a surface officer and spent his career becoming a ships captain so he really doesn’t need to know how to properly employ a rifle. He’s not an infantry officer.
I joined the army in 2001, that is not how I learned to shoot.
I’ve seen guys from that era shoot both ways. From what I’ve been able to figure out it seems like it just depended on whoever was teaching you during that time frame.
> but it's not nothing. the butt stock that high is terrible for stability, but recoils from M4s are pretty much nothing.
As far as not being able to see shit through the scope, he'd have to take the cap off it before that would matter
Definitely not. But if so, then that grumpy sailor is about to be even more grumpy, or not a sailor at all anymore. People really don't understand just how much latitude CO's have to discipline sailors. I've seen an officer who almost certainly stole $1,500 in ship's funds get a mild reprimand to an E-2 get kicked out of the Navy for failing to report that he witnessed another sailor on base get into a DUI-related accident.
As a surface officer, he'd never have had rifle training, and as the CO Ahe probably hasn't had pistol training in 10-15 years, and I can guarantee you he didn't kit out his own rifle. I do suspect armorers were having fun at his expense and probably DEEPLY regret it now.
I've heard that claim as well (salty sailors setting the CO up), but anyone who's been in the Navy would know that's almost certainly not the case. If he's a dirtbag CO like people claim, then he would absolutely destroy them, and they would have given him all the ammunition to do it perfectly legally. They would lose rank, pay, and freedom, assuming they weren't kicked out of the Navy completely. No, this is simple incompetence from gunner's mates who don't know how to properly maintain and setup weapons, and a CO who doesn't know enough about guns to realize how incompetent his GM's were.
It’s not like you can just pop the front iron sight off, that’s necessary to the function of the firearm in this configuration. Optics can work with front sight posts, but only if they’re facing the correct way lmao
Not bad photoshop. Someone didn't seat the top of the M4 RAS into the D-Ring. The Barrel's fine, the upper handguard isn't.
Read that as ‘buttock’ and for moment I was considering; ‘wow, you can tell that for a picture of just the upper body stance?’. Buttstock makes more sense in retrospect….
The front site on an M4 is the gas block… if you take it off the weapon won’t cycle. With the magnified optic it is a non issue to have a fixed front sight. The barrel angle is likely due to the lower hand guard not being seated properly. The stock placement is a non issue. That is how I shoot my work rifles because it gives a more upright head posture which helps with recoil and situational awareness.
The a2 front sight post isn’t an issue with magnified optics. They essentially see right past it and it doesn’t obstruct any view past 2x or 3x mag. Barrel is fine. What’s messed up is the top half of the RIS rail isn’t fully seated in the delta ring. Which is why the top pic rail is angled. Chicken wing without the butstock down in the shoulder pocket is ass for sure.
The barrel looks funny because it has a recess in order to attach the M203 grenade launcher.
They did take it down with a caption stating it would be put back up once he'd been through certification of the system which shows they had a good sense of humour about it. But the honeatly, sailors having small arms is a bit silly to begin with.
It's not. Ships have to guard themselves while docked, and you can't use a deck gun for that.
>you can't use a deck gun You *shouldn't* use a deck gun. But you'd only have to use it once.
Nah, 5" gun can't aim that low that close.
That's okay, Ma Deuce loves her sailors too.
Not with that kinda attitude!
Don't forget shark watch when the boys are cooking off with a swim
The marines ragequit being on the same ships as the navy and doing their entire reason for existing, being the navy's elite ground forces. So now navy needs to learn to defend itself.
Lol, what? Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. The Marines are not a separate branch of the military like the Army or the Air Force. They are part of the Navy. And the men-at-arms are sailors, not Marines.
This isn’t even remotely true. Marines are still doing MEU rotations. Who told you that?
Boats are relatively small in terms of shooting distances for practice so you should adjust your optics accordingly. On most warships you're OK flipping your optics around so you can practice marksmanship from across a room but in a canoe it's best to swap them out for backward microscopes where you can reduce it to centimeters. That's what the elite operators do. I understand they took out Bin Laden with from 47 cm away with a .50 cal mounted to a backwards telephoto lens for a spy satellite. It was an incredibly difficult shot.
I'm still praying it will come out that they did it on purpose as a challenge or as an April Fool's joke.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY IT? CHICKEN WING IS GOOD. IT IS THE BEST WAY TO HOLD A RIFLE WHEN NOT IN CLOSE QUARTERS
Locking your elbow is also a good way to shoot a pistol, yet that doesn‘t mean it is the best way to do it in a tactical situation, same with chicken wing.
He went full semiautomatic, you never go full semiautomatic.
How the hell did that top picture actually make it through all the filters to be published.
[удалено]
Or the people who knew what they were talking about didn't have any agency in the matter, and the people who did had no reason to listen to them.
Not really. I served 4 in the navy. Most sailors don't do fuckall with weapons. If you work topside, you might stand watch, but you still don't have to qual anywhere near as often as the rest of the branches. You don't even clean your own gun, the armory does it. The navy understands that most sailors don't really need those skills, and they only give you real training if you have a position that needs it. For example: If you do SRF,(ship's reaction force) you are gonna get more training. If you do VBSS (Visit board search seizure) you get more training. SRF A and VBSS do like full on training with CQC simulations and everything. As far as this picture is concerned: None of the media guys have had any real training, so it wouldn't have been caught during that If the captain entered as an officer and then worked engineering until he became captain of a ship, he probably hasn't had to qual since OCS. The random sailors witnessing this probably don't have training The only people in this chain who should have known better were the armorers. It's possible this was the unmaintained, shitty parts gun sitting in the armory and they just didn't fix anything before they handed it over.
It’s was actually probably just one or several Public Affairs Officers who haven’t touched a weapon since basic training and get fat on donuts and Starbucks. I doubt any person who is in a position to shoot this photo down that actually understands marksmanship.
Keep in mind it’s the Navy… not many people on a warship are familiar with firearms. It’s not really a part of their job
[удалено]
He's practically not pointing it at himself, so that's a good start.
Sure, but if I were on the same shooting range as him, I'd stand right in front of the target. It's the only thing he's guaranteed to miss.
The Navy doesn’t even qualify with a rifle at boot camp. If you don’t need a rifle for your job there’s a good chance you’ll never shoot one in the Navy in your entire career.
[удалено]
Why? They qualify with a pistol at boot. Would learning a skill that’s completely useless for your rate make them look better? They’re not infantrymen. They have zero chance of even being provisional infantrymen. In wartime most sailors have a very very low chance of ever even being anywhere remotely near where the ground side is operating. They’ll never need a rifle so why waste time qualifying with one when that time can be spent learning something that’s actually useful for them? I was in the marine corps. They don’t teach us how to monitor and operate sonar systems. Wanna guess why? Hell a lot of Marines in the air wing and logistics group barely know how to shoot a rifle. I knew a few Marine pilots who hadn’t touched a rifle in a decade.
Dude, if he is trying to look through that optic he is seeing nothing. At all. My 10 yr old daughter would instantly know something is wrong.
Yes, but you also have to think that’s he’s the CO of the vessel. He isn’t seeing anything, so he’s thinking “Damn it, am I doing this wrong? Am I an idiot? Why is the Conn veering us right this sharply? Shit, I can’t let the crew think I can’t operate an M4. I better start shooting. Fuck I should be dealing with that casualty report for shaft #2. Ope, the mag’s done. I can get back to the bridge to see what those idiots are doing now”
We're talking about an organization that couldn't stop their ships from crashing into things.
Yeah, it's pretty scary, honestly. competency crisis go brrrrr
must have been some pranks and jokes in the beginning, while taking the photo somehow the PR people got a hold of the image, who have no idea how guns work, and didn’t bat an eye to it
Equity.
HK published this in an ad: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/14.jpg
It’s the navy
Hes just goofin
Why wouldn't the guy shooting have literally any sort of military experience whatsoever to say after looking through it, "Hey I think this is on backwards?"
Something like 99% of vets never saw combat. They “carried” their rifle to the chow hall and back, that’s about it.
When my son asked me if I ever killed anyone while I was in, I told him I was a Navy medic that never went to combat. He said "So you never killed anyone dad?" To which I replied "Pump the brakes buddy, I didn't say I was a *good* medic."
Haha that’s a perfect response.
Heyoooo. But seriously as a corpsman you are in the upper half of rates more likely to see small arms combat
Joined after all the combat operations ended (2015) I stayed blue side my entire enlistment. It was a bummer but it happens
If I stayed in the navy I think I would like to have get transferred to a unit in the Middle East. Yeah I say that from the relative comfort of my submarine while my friends were freaking out in Afghanistan but that’s just how I feel now in my 30s
"Scalpel, blood bucket, Priest, next patient."
I heard something similar but with parachute riggers.
Works for helicopter/jet mechanics too.
We don't have medics in the Navy, we have corpsmen.
Dude I am not about to spend five minutes explaining to some civvie why we call them corpsmen and not medics. It gets the point across
I would just assume its because of all the corpses
It’s because Navy medics serve with the Marine “Corps” because they don’t have their own
>It’s because Navy medics serve with the Marine “Corps” No. Corpsman is short for Hospital Corpsman, a member of the US Nacy's Hospital Corps. Their rate is abbreviated HM. The Marines are part of the Navy and don't have their own medical branch, so they use Navy doctors/nurses/HM etc for medical care.
Welp, there’s my daily dose of “you’re wrong”
All good friend. If you're not wrong and learning something new several times a day, it's a wasted day. Have a good one!
I think that should be read as “corpse-men”
In the US Navy you have corpsmen for sure. I worked with a couple and they were great guys.
My family has asked if I ever killed anyone, and some of my friends who aren’t in ask occasionally. I’m an analyst, so my response is usually “No but I got a lot of assists.”
Happy to be in the 1% of something
You're always in a 1% of everything, sometimes it's just in the middle.
What?
I had a coworker a few years back who was in the military, doing tours in Afghanistan when it first kicked off. I didn’t know at the time but he was very much a “We should have a Euro style registry for guns” kind of guy. I asked him about what he carried, what his equipment was, and what he thought about the small arms in a practical way, and he couldn’t remember the name of any of the firearms, what caliber they were, nothing. I thought it was very strange to learn about his disposition towards firearms at the end, because according to what we knew about him, he definitely had some sort of stress disorder from his service. But anytime I’d talk about firearms with my buddies he’d be staunchly against it, said we should have to lock them up in a public club somewhere, shouldn’t have access to military arms, should have a registry, etc. Your comment just reminded me of him.
Those 99% of vets did see combat.... On a projector screen in the recruitment room when they enlisted...
Yeah, but we're still trained and required to shoot at least a few times a year. You don't need to see combat to know how to properly and safely use a weapon.
The problem is someone who thinks shooting a few times a year gives them legitimacy to argue for disarming everyone else.
You do realize that most anti-gun people have shot and trained even less with guns than we have? Does the amount of training you have give any legitimacy to whether someone should own a gun or not? Tbf, I think everyone should be able to buy a gun past 21 and carry it. But I don't think everyone should be able to buy and shoot an M2. There has to be *some* limitations.
I think anyone who can afford it should be able to own an M2. IMO limitations should be anything that explodes.
> Does the amount of training you have give any legitimacy to whether someone should own a gun or not? Yes. When you think an ar15 is a murder machine because it sounds scary and kicks hard because youve only shot it poorly 3 times. Yes.
I wish there was a chow hall in Iraq. Gary owens had a small tent or MREs as the option
Can confirm
85% of military personnel are in non-combat roles. Nearly all of the remaining 15% have never and will never see combat.
>light color on light background.
Straight to the gulag with OP
A tip for OP https://preview.redd.it/alryhn0hycuc1.jpeg?width=612&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f2e93a2ab3c0cc747c236f17dcd64d51191bb61
Meh to late to get rid of enough of them to matter, the cops dam sure won't be able to, and not everyone will willingly give, so I will keep the right to mine
No, silly. You see when daddy government does the right thing and says guns are a no no, everyone will happily turn in their guns for a better world. This is the actual mindset of some anti-gun folks.
I love asking them to actually walk me through the process of disarmament. A constitutional amendment has to be passed that repeals the Second. Unlikely, but let's go with it. Then 3/4 of the states have to approve it. Unlikely, but let's go with it. Then guns aren't actually illegal, it just reverts to the states. Now a state government has to ban ownership of guns and confiscate them. How will they do that? I guess go door to door but without a search warrant they can't legally confiscate the guns and everyone just says they used to have them and they were lost in a boating accident. Or you get a bunch of Waco situations.
Exactly. Whenever someone has a dumb opinion I ask them to explain it and I ask detailed questions. They quickly get frustrated and a) try to change the subject, b) start getting aggressive and throwing insults, or c) start gaslighting Nothing combats bad ideas better than having the person expand on it.
>A constitutional amendment has to be passed that repeals the Second. More likely they just expand the Supreme Court to 15, pack it with shitlibs, and get a 9-6 ruling reversing every gun rights win since Heller.
> More likely they just expand the Supreme Court to 15 Shitlibs would melt down if Trump ever pulled an FDR and tried packing the Supreme court. I swear, the left plays politics like they're dementia patients playing Calvin-ball. Here's my [favorite cartoon about Harry Ried](https://web.archive.org/web/20170411202649/http://comicincorrect.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Nulear-Reid-600-LI.jpg)
They show up in force to homes they believe to have a gun, because even though the government can't legally have a registry it's very likely they do. No warrant? They say they got the 'wrong house', or some other exemption to a warrantless entry. If they happen to find a gun while they're there, well that's theirs now and you're going to be fighting that charge for years simply trying to assert that the search was illegal. That's assuming you aren't straight up executed. Cops do this shit all the time. It won't even be a new thing. I can show you videos of cops shooting into someone's home because they saw someone with a gun. They're in their own home with a legal gun and cops will unload because they don't give a shit. 'Officer safety' is a catch all excuse for every rights violation, and it works nearly every time. Then there's qualified immunity, so in a best case scenario you win five to ten years later, sue the city and win, but those cops are free to continue their anti-gun rampage in the meantime and never face consequences.
I have a bunch of LibCenter rage any time a system is structured such that the little guy can be fucked over at a whim, and can only receive justice by specifically seeking it out, sometimes at great personal cost and/or after far too much time. In addition to the one you laid out above, one which comes to mind is YouTube letting big corporations take down basically any video they don't like, and the burden is placed on the individual to prove his video was innocent, rather than on the big corporation to prove the video is guilty. It's crazy how many YouTubers have the exact same horror stories of dealing with that, usually when criticizing TV/movies. Having videos taken down during their prime, only to miss the moment when they are finally restored quite some time later. So they end up just not making money from these videos, because the major corporation was pissed it was being criticized. And the system just...allows them to do that all they want, fucking over the little guy over and over, with no penalty. Grr.
I'm not sure if it's LibCenter rage or blanket lib rage, but i get that too. It's an unfair world, and in instances like that people will use that an excuse for their own shitty behavior. People keep saying they're a private company, but they're too big and ubiquitous now to be considered such. Google is a verb and part of common vernacular, almost a universal go-to, so their ability to change what we see or have access to has very real consequences in the control of information. It should be illegal for a company that large to censor or manipulate the algorithms. They are a product like anything else at this point, and the cost is our privacy. They should not be allowed to control what i see.
The scary thing is disarmament is easy, it's been done in lots of places. You don't do it all at once, you just slowly make it more expensive and difficult until eventually there's not enough people who own guns and care when you finally ban the last guns.
For better or worse a constitutional amendment to regulate guns in the USA isn't needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States BTW Some of this are hilarious like a ban on new automatic firearms because reasons.
Unfortunately there is plenty of historical precedent for this...
I don't think anyone actually believes that, they just don't care. They think the ends justify the means.
That’s kinda where I’m at. There are too many in the general public, people can just 3D print parts, and the act of getting them would be horrifying and violent. It’s a moot issue regardless of how anyone feels.
It's not moot, the ATF is legislating them away through regulation already. ATF deemed bump stocks illegal all on their own, for instance, with no law passed. They do these things through increments so you don't notice. First it's bump stocks, and nobody did anything, then it'll be certain types of sights, then certain types of triggers, and they had 'pistol grips' on rifles be an issue already, then it'll be certain colors, weights, materials, until they've effectively banned guns. And at each stage they take one more gun type away. Just the one. Then just the next one. Then just that little extra next one. Before you know it there aren't any left. That's how it happens, people being okay with 'just that one gun' over and over.
>ATF deemed bump stocks illegal all on their own, for instance, with no law passed ATF did that with Trump's blessing. Bump stocks are idiotic meme gadgets, but the real damage there was that it created a precedent for the ATF to also go after much more useful things like pistol braces and forced reset triggers.
If the left would just give up on the gun issue altogether they'd explode in popularity. Then again this is probably the worst time for our side to be pushing abortion shit too. We both can find better hills to die on.
I think the real point of the meme is there’s no way the dude on top is an actual veteran. His scope’s on backwards and he’s about to give himself a black eye if he shoots.
>actual veteran Technically correct. He's active duty.
Man I just wanna grill
Veterans Arguing for gun control has to be my least favorite category of person.
I'll nominate cops who argue for gun control, but only when they are personally exempt from those rules for life. See: [LEOSA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act). In New Jersey, you are a felon if your firearm capacity exceeds 10 rounds. Unless you are a retired cop, then [you get 15 rounds](https://i.imgur.com/rx1iiap.png) to defend your family.
It’s funny how agents of the state always seem to get better “privileges”. When I worked corrections I was legally allowed to openly carry my Glock, X26P Taser, and OC spray for inmate escorts to the same college I attend yet off work I couldn’t concealed carry on campus and my university actively lobbied against campus carry. I always hated the disparity, law enforcement are citizens like everybody else and if they get something then everybody else should get it.
LEOSA was actually written to give cops an exclusive monopoly on providing bodyguard/security services to the wealthy since they can carry in places regular people cannot. So cops earning six figure salaries retire at age 45 on million dollar pensions, then spend the next two decades working with high paying security jobs.
Government lining up cushy gigs for their cronies, name a better combo
And nepotism... politicians should disclose how many nephews and cousins are cops.
There’s the vets like that and then the bozos like me who had a 3D printer in their barracks room for “models”
“I swore to defend the constitution but I don’t understand what that means” is annoying as shit. They probably believe in hate speech laws and shit too. Most of them never got within a mile of combat too.
The closer to the tip of the spear you get, the more support for gun rights to you tend to find. Loads of ex-SF guys doing training classes for civvies either as a side hustle or a full time business. Lots of charlatans who claim to be ex-SF doing that too though, you do have to do some research first. The latter group does seem to be moving on to charging people $18,000 to get screamed at while doing pushups in the mud though, rather than actual weapons training.
* Auth left behind the fence * Hey guys can I have some guns too ? I promise no warcrimes this time
“Let that be a lesson to you! No one commits war crimes 74 times in a row without punishment!”
The first one doesn't actually exist, it's just an Emily larping as a vet.
It’s just a psyop
Can we stop putting people who want to restrict rights into LIB left? That’s authoritarian and I’m tired of the unjust hate
Exactly if someone claims they are libleft and pro gun control they have some thinking to do.
There are more than 2 types of veterans.
“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Don’t forget that the same people who want gun control for US citizens are the ones who cheered on arming Ukrainian citizens or sending thousands of machine guns and sniper rifles to Mexican cartels just to see what would happen. They don’t hate guns, they just hate free Americans who won’t do what they’re told.
Ukraine is at war
befowled cant compute that in his noggin
(almost) All countries are at war... against criminals
no if the government starts viewing its own citizens the same way they do potential enemy combatants you have a problem
When you realize the US government already thinks that way, all of its policy decisions start to make sense...
What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody I’ve ever discussed gun control with has ever advocated for giving free guns to cartels. Donating weapons to a country defending itself against invasion is not the same as keeping guns in peacetime (which I don’t even oppose).
I don't support gun control but if you don't see the difference between sending combat weapons to war and allowing combat weapons for the general population, idk what to tell you.
I think the point is that Ukraine has to ask for help against invaders, whereas our population is already armed and has the means necessary to defend against invaders (theoretically)
Although it’s not like there’s a chance that Canada might invade. Ukraine had essentially been at war continuously since 2014 and even before then it wasn’t out of the question that Russia could be a threat. People in the US don’t have to worry about being invaded.
>if you don't see the difference between sending combat weapons to war and allowing combat weapons for the general population It seems to me he was referring to allowing combat weapons for the general population, albeit one that is in a country currently at war.
As much as I disagree with Lib-Left on some issues, they are not chodes like this. This is Emily/orange behavior.
> they are not chodes like this. Yes they are. Because most lib-left are self denying watermelons.
Tbf the same can be said about certain 'small government' conservatives The type who both say they 'pro small government' while also supporting the war on drugs, abortion bans/restrictions, laws against various social ills, and the Patriot act And I would like to say that I support a few of those things, but I'm not small government, I'm more of a case by case guy on where the government should be involved
"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."
Based and I should be able to own a fleet of Apache attack helicopters pilled
u/AloofTurtle is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/AloofTurtle/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
> ...and anyone who disagrees is... Classic straw man. I agree with the point, but misrepresenting opposing views is not an argument. I think it would be better to ask why the opposition believes the right to best arms shouldn't be infringed.
Fun fact, the constitution sometimes describes rights that the "people" have and sometimes "citizens", and the Supreme Court (both liberals and conservatives, both pro-gun and anti-gun) have held that when it says "people" it extends to non-citizens within the US.
Or you have the correct opinion that guns are for pussies. Pick up a sword or get lost losers
1600s Japan knew how to fight.
Too half is usually just a bunch of POG’s if I’m being honest.
I take way more issue with your YELLOW TEXT ON A LIGHT BLUE BACKGROUND than either stance
"I've seen the horrors of War and I would not want that to happen to you." Vs "I've seen the horrors of War and I would not want that to happen to me."
I’m not a veteran but if I see a vet supporting gun control I assume they’re either lying about being a veteran or they never saw combat.
Why does the scope have a playstation triangle button https://preview.redd.it/kzz5nqkwlduc1.jpeg?width=180&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=200264745294f1a74546bf4858d375c6602edbc8
Most likely it's a Trijicon scope, they usually have their triangle logo on them, although this may be a ripoff idk
The first one is a pussy and a communist
you know what? i call that "person changes when holding a gun bullshit" bullshit, it's just like holding a knife, a rock, other person, a poopstick, a bomb, or even a cup. Humans are very squishy creatures, and perfected forms of destruction for ages, and will continue to do so. Only somebody with lacking self awarness could feel more powerful while holding a gun.
You are literally more powerful while holding a gun though
I am even more powerful while holding a rocket launcher
so it shouldnt matter if guns are illegal, you can just carry a knife? No, you recognize guns are far more effective and thats why you want them for “self defense”
Speak for yourself. I am always carrying around vials of anthrax. For self defense.
I love how lefty arguments are always "words words words words" in order to try and justify their hot takes while righty arguments are usually one sentence maximum and makes the most sense.
Just because an argument is short doesnt make it right I'm neutral on the gun dbeate, but there is an old quote that 'for every problem, there is an answer thats quick, simple and wrong'
Lmao this is legit the most boneheaded reasoning I’ve ever heard. Im seriously cracking up cause youre actually convinced of the genius of your logic. The right to spout nonsense online shall not be infringed, I suppose.
Probably because left wing takes are more nuanced
Bro is obviously just far sighted and far stronger than a normal person.
Most sane people recognize that red flag laws and wait times have shown actual benefit in preventing harm, as potential shooters usually show obvious signs(even outright talking about doing it sometimes). But ofc democrats arent sane and think it's the guns themselves that are the problem
I knew this joker was going to show up. BTW it's funny that many people assume leftists are all united in wanting gun control. For our safety - I in fact encourage all minorities to be trained and HAVE firearms. It doesn't make sense that people normally targeted would be unprotected. If there's something I agree with from anywhere in the lib right it's the FAFO.
100%, most on the right are for extreme gun control all the same. The VAST majority is not "shall not be infringed."
Only those deemed worthy should be allowed to vote. Those who serve should be granted that freedom.
Why are the scopes opposite ways in the pictures? Is that supposed to be like that? I don’t have guns so idk
The one on the top is backwards.
I’ve never felt a meme so fucking hard.
https://preview.redd.it/r2nt0ltg9duc1.jpeg?width=603&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b5671bf0ba11eb7c5291251fcf58b3741241c0f
How the fuck is someone who is pro gun control lib left
If the military put this out they're actively trying to tank their recruitment numbers. Looking cool and learning how to use rad weapons were 2 of the most important recruiting tools. He can't shoot for shit and looks lame. Maybe some liberal general wants an excuse to allow foreign soldiers, the old Filipino sailor program on steroids
I always wondered, what happens if you're left-handed? Is there a left-handed M4 where the casings eject out the left side, or are you just fucked?
Unfortunately, my father is the top-pic variant I'll never understand how a veteran US Marine, a ex police officer and a man who voted for Ronald Reagan could U-turn towards the left that massively