Anti-gun vet huh?

Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms looks at the narrative of a vet who is not cool with that whole natural rights thing

What they often do is skew their military service, not to claim anything that’s not true, but to imply they are far more intimate with warfare than they are.

That’s what it sure looks like in this anti-gun post by a woman named Becky Margiotta, who penned an anti-gun screed at a site called The Lily, which is owned by the Washington Post. Some of the things she said just don’t add up.

After high school, I set off for West Point, where shooting was no longer a hobby – it was a professional skill. While at West Point, I logged countless days on the range, learning to operate weapons that were new to me – like the M-16 rifle – and honing my skills. I remember learning that the 5.56 mm ammunition used in assault rifles is intentionally designed to slow down upon impact so that it can tumble through the victim’s organs and inflict maximum casualties.

Now, I’m going to cut her some slack on this, because I seem to recall being told this when I was in the military as well.

However, it’s also all bull. The ammunition wasn’t designed to do any such thing. It’s designed to kill the enemy. End of discussion. There are criticisms of the round that because of the spitzer bullet design, it will yaw in soft tissue, but that’s not mitigated by the bullet being larger necessarily. So, on point one, we have someone who swallowed what they were given wholesale with no desire to research it on their own.

Then they go on the internet to spout off about it.

But Margiotta continues.

Following graduation from West Point, I commanded two Special Operations companies – small forces structured to complete the most physically and politically challenging missions. Multiple times a year, year after year, we underwent recertification on the weapons that were most central to our mission. Going to the range was treated with the utmost of gravity and military discipline. There was no joking around on the range. Every single round of ammunition was accounted for every single time.

I left the Army after completing nine years of service. Right around that time, the shooting at Columbine High School happened. I was heartbroken and horrified to hear how the weapons I had trained to use so carefully – including weapons that don’t belong in civilian hands – had been used in a school to end the lives of 13 innocent children and educators.

Now, let’s keep in mind that Columbine was in 1999 and she was out of the Army by then. Also, women weren’t allowed in ground combat roles officially until after 2013. So what kind of “Special Operations companies” was she in charge of? What “physically and politically challenging missions” was she dealing with?

What we know is that she damn sure wasn’t with the Ranger Regiment or Special Forces by any stretch of the imagination. That wasn’t remotely possible during the time frame she describes.

Go read it all, it is well worth it

6 thoughts on “Anti-gun vet huh?”

  1. Speaking from experience, I suspect she may have had some association with a Special Weapons Company. But it is NOTHING like a Special Forces Company.

    1. She also could have been the Company Commander for the Headquarters Company of a Special Forces Battalion. But that is a purely administrative position that doesn’t require any special training.

  2. There are a few individuals who claim to be experts in gun control, because of their stint in the military, supposedly “carrying the same weapon as an AR-15”, which they then say should be banned. While I respect everyone who puts on the uniform of this country, I cannot abide liars. Having served our country is not an exemption from honesty. If a vet honestly disagrees with me about how to reduce or curtail gun violence, fine! But misrepresenting the facts will not bring consensus as to any solution, but only clouds the issues.

  3. I am throwing the bs flag on the entire article. “…including weapons that don’t belong in civilian hands – had been used…” And this gem: “…intentionally designed to slow down…” First, the use of ‘intentionally’ is redundant to ‘designed’. Second, physics sweetheart. Physics.
    If ONLY we mere civilians would bow to the greater wisdom and insights of our insect overlords, the world would be a much happier, safer, more equal, and more diverrrrrse place. Wudn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s