Today’s installment of why I am reticent to support the US military anymore, the Muslim Marine is here to tell you why you shouldn’t own guns that look like the ones he used to carry in uniform.
THREAD on AR-15: I’m a US Marine which means I do have some professional experience with guns. Feel free to criticize my position or disagree but please don’t question my military service or knowledge of guns. I served this Nation with my life and I only want the best for it. 1/
— MuslimMarine (@mansoortshams) February 20, 2021
I’m not questioning is military service, I am adding it to my list of examples of why former military service doesn’t mean a person is a patriot or great American or their opinion is worth shit.
I will question his knowledge of guns. Just because the USMC taught him to shoot their issued weapons doesn’t me he knows shit beyond that.
I’ve traveled roughly 30 states across America which I’m sure is more than most Americans. I’ve had the chance to see many parts of our country and understand why a gun for self defense at times makes perfect sense. So to be clear I’m not against 2A or anyone owning a gun. 3/
— MuslimMarine (@mansoortshams) February 20, 2021
I’m just against civilians having access to same type war like weapon I did as a Marine. You’ll say, “that’s crazy.” But hear me out. The only real difference between my M16 I used as a Marine and AR-15 is my M16 fired nonstop while AR-15 requires pulling trigger every time. 4/
— MuslimMarine (@mansoortshams) February 20, 2021
That’s a big fucking difference. The government decided that in 1934. One round fired for every action of the trigger has been the line in the sand between military and civilian legal (without an NFA tax stamp) for nearly a century.
Everything else is irrelevant. But don’t question his superior Marine Corps knowledge of guns.
Now some will change the argument from self defense to 2A and forming militias to fight against a so-called hostile government. OK. Now help me understand how you expect to take on all those stealth fighters, F-16’s, drones, tanks, etc. with your AR-15’s? Please keep it real. 5/
— MuslimMarine (@mansoortshams) February 20, 2021
This argument is an automatic disqualifier for me. It is the argument of statists and tyrannical bullies.
It translates to “you will lose if you go up against our superior firepower so just accept the restriction of your rights so we don’t have to hurt you.”
It’s also wrong by the way.
It’s right in the strictest sense that an AR won’t’ kill an M1 Abrams MBT or F-16. But it will do a good job of taking out the pilots, tank crew, aircrew, maintenance crew, supply crew, refueling crew, etc, that is needed to operate, repair, reload, and refuel those great weapons on war. A bunch of M1s and F-16s sitting empty and broken with nobody to drive or fly them are not much of a threat.
And lastly, if the AR-15 is such a horrible weapon of war that shouldn’t be in civilian hands, why would it be ineffective against the military?
But I digress…
If it’s truly about self defense then why an AR-15 which can shoot across 5 football fields? Yes 500 yards or more in certain cases. Essentially you could sit in the comfort of your home and shoot over .25 mile and the person on the other end wouldn’t even know what hit them. 6/
— MuslimMarine (@mansoortshams) February 20, 2021
Now to some the AR-15’s long range firing capability may not mean much. But that’s just part of it. The AR-15’s power is meant to do some serious damage and killing (exactly like on the battlefield) — to destroy flesh and practically leave an ‘irreparable’ large exit wound. 7/
— MuslimMarine (@mansoortshams) February 20, 2021
This is a very slippery slope to banning any centerfire rifle ammo. Either he knows this and his intent is much more nefarious than just banning AR-15s or he doesn’t know this and he’s not nearly the gun expert that he claims to be.
Personally, I want my self-defense guns to destroy flesh and practically leave an ‘irreparable’ large exit wound. The technical term for that is “terminal ballistics.” You want to stop the threat at quickly as possible to doing as much damage as you can.
As for the range question, I might not have a need for 500 yards of self-defense. I can’t speak for others on this topic. But given that I have posted before about Antifa and other groups stocking up on body armor, having a centerfire rifle for self-defense is an absolute necessity.
Bottom line I (and most for gun reform) don’t take issue with 2A or your ability to have a gun like Lauren Boebert/others would have you believe. So please don’t misunderstand. But a battlefield type weapon should remain on the battlefield — not in the hands of civilians. Why? 8/
— MuslimMarine (@mansoortshams) February 20, 2021
First of all, the AR-15 is not a battlefield weapon.
Second, I’ve seen videos from Seattle and Portland, and what I saw were people launching IEDs. I’m not sure if an AR-15 is enough. I’d actually like some battlefield weapons to repel angry mobs armed with explosives. An M249 SAW is on my list of wants.
Imagine someone having a mental disorder or even someone ‘normal’ suddenly losing their mind. Now imagine them pulling out their ‘legally owned’ AR-15 and going out on a shooting spree taking out countless innocent lives because life unfortunately just doesn’t matter anymore. 9/
— MuslimMarine (@mansoortshams) February 20, 2021
Background checks, whether person should’ve had AR-15 or was mentally stable will not have mattered. But the type of weapon ie AR-15 WILL HAVE.
Conclusion: No everyday civilian American should have access to a war like AR-15 weapon. The dangers far out weight any benefits. End/
— MuslimMarine (@mansoortshams) February 20, 2021
The What-If game isn’t how we decide civil liberties.
Perhaps I shouldn’t chuckle at the irony of arguing “we should suspend civil liberties a little to save some loves” coming from a Muslim.
If this guy was just another asshole with an opinion, I don’t think I would care.
But this guy is standing on his superior knowledge and expertise in guns and weapons of war from his Marine Corps experience to tell you why he should decide what you should be allowed to own to defend yourself.
Oh yeah, and if you think you’re going to defend your freedom with that super dangerous AR-15 that is also not powerful enough to take on the US military with it, he’ll drive a Main Battle Tank through your house or kill you with a Hellfire from a Reaper to prove his point.
The Left sure does love a Junta.
I wonder what other parts of the Bill of Rights he wants to limit “for our own good”. I’d bet he doesn’t like parts of the 1st.
Wasnt he bleatin about this a few years ago? Or was that another “expert”. Wonder how he feels about the 850THOUSAND Americans that own REAL “weapons of war” IE MACHINE GUNS. Fuk em. The left is famous for “you dont need that”
He is a lying sack of walking fecal matter.
The 2a only applies to muskets used by the military in 1776. Not those experiential guns of the time.
The 2a only applies to the militia and we’ve banned civilian militias and replaced them with the NG.
The 1st only applies to freedom of speech if the speech is approved speech.
That legality of a weapon changes depending on which side of a line on a map you stand on.
The legality of having a chunk-o-metal depends on where you are on the map.
That is a chunk of metal, drill a hole in it and it is a firearm and depending on what it looks like an illegal firearm.
Drill a hole in the receiver of a firearm and it is an NFA weapon and illegal fire you too own.
This gun is to powerful for you to own but isn’t powerful enough so you can’t own it. And you aren’t allowed to own guns that are powerful enough because they are too powerful.
A deer and a human weight roughly the same, have similar organs but in my state and some others hunting with an AR-15 or any rifle in .223 is not legal since they say it can’t kill the deer without inflicting undue suffering. Doesn’t sound like a powerful weapon of war does it?
There’s a joke to be made about this guy eating crayons….
Wonder if he’d like to have the same standard applied to his faith?
After all, we’ve got plenty of hands on experience about Muslims being violent.
Another thought, I had a close friend that retired after 20 years service. Among other jobs he was a unit armorer. I am sure he was well qualified by U.S. Army standards but he had never performed some of the common maintenance tasks that a civilian AR owner does on a routine basis. The reason is the army has different standards, methods, and procedures. He wasn’t less qualified than a civilian owner just in a different environment. He was definitely an expert rifleman in the Army and an expert by their standards but not an expert in civilian life. He said some of the same things as our “marine expert” but last time I talked to him he had just bought another AR for self defense. He no longer thinks civilians can’t own an AR because he is now a civilian.
In 2016 another muslim taught us that no one should own or be able to rent trucks.
“I’m not questioning is military service” — I do. What reason, other than his bald faced claim, to be have to believe there is any truth in his claim? Conversely, the arguments he mades are substantial reason to doubt the claim.
That said, as you point out, it’s actually irrelevant. If he did serve, it is clear he (a) doesn’t obey the oath he took at the start of that service, and (b) doesn’t have any understanding of the weapons he supposedly used. Nor, for that matter, does he understand history, and the fact that American freedom is very much based on the rule that citizens may and do own “weapons of war”. That’s what the “shot heard around the world” was all about.
For that matter, the Miller decision clearly and plainly stated that “weapons of war” are the specific weapons entitled to 2nd Amendment protection. That reasoning was used to support a ban on short barrel shotguns — the assertion that no one had brought forth evidence that such weapons are suitable for use in war. (The reason this was so is malpractice on the part of the defendant’s attorney, who simply didn’t bother to appear when his client died even though the case was still going forward.)
Thinking is hard, and it makes your head hurt. So @mansoortshams doesn’t do any of it. Adopting beliefs is easy. This is what @mansoortshams has done. He is proud that he adopted the correct beliefs that all right thinking people have.
I call bullshit on what he’s saying. I spent 20 years in the Corps. The “M16” he carried wasn’t full auto unless he was in between 1969 and 1983/84. They haven’t been since the Corps adopted the M16A2 in 1983 which featured semi and 3-round burst, not full auto.
I just took a gander at his website. He has a promotion photo or award ceremony photo post ceremony in his “about” section where he’s in Digital Camo and black boots. Only time that was permissible was when we shifted from tri-color cammies to digital and a year and a half period (or thereabouts) to transition to the suede boots. Period started circa mid-2004. He didn’t serve during Nam or prior to Beirut; in other words the Kid is full of shit and using his service to give a veneer of authority to his argument.
I’m not on Twitter; someone who is should call him out.
I thought NATO adopted the 5.56mm specifically because it was not a lethal round.
Shouldn’t a marine know this?
You keep assuming he’s an actual Marine…
Yes, an actual military (shooting branches) person should know this. In military settings, it seems that wounding the enemy is at least as useful as killing him. At least for semi-civilized enemies where wounded soldiers get emergency care.
Yes, I believe he is a Marine. His website has pictures of him in uniform deployed.
I don’t think he saw much trigger pulling.
Just like with police, just because someone gets paid to carry a gun doesn’t make them gun guys.
He is probably the USMC version of the NYPD. He may have carried a gun for year but he knows nothing about it.
I’m reminded of the picture of Buttigieg in camo, holding a rifle in a manner that suggests he’s never touched one before and doesn’t particularly want to touch one now. Some version of that picture have been cropped to make that not so obvious; the full one ls clearer.
“…I am adding it to my list of examples of why former military service doesn’t mean a person is a patriot or great American or their opinion is worth shit.”
See: the video of a retired general demonstrating the difference between “semi-auto: and “full semi-auto”.
Which one?
Ref the ” you and your puny ar 15 cannot stand against our aircraft/tanks/artillery/missiles/bombs/nukes.. ”
Please brief al-quaida and the Taliban in on this strategic gem. They, among others, appear to lack this insight.