Former general earns anti-gun kudos for spouting nonsense

Former general earns anti-gun kudos for spouting nonsense
AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File

In my experience, most combat veterans are vehemently pro-gun. They’ve seen evil in the world and they’re not stupid enough to believe it can’t happen here. There are exceptions, of course.

But the anti-gun crowd doesn’t like to hear from them. They like to hear from generals who will back up their claims, like this tool.

Not every American is an active part of American “gun culture.” Some of us have never shot a firearm, for fun or otherwise. Some of us really are ignorant about guns themselves.

That can’t be said for anyone in the military, however. And it definitely can’t be said for a former Major General of the U.S. Army.

Actually, yeah, it can.

You’d be amazed at the military personnel I know who were completely ignorant of firearms. Hell, when I was in, we had one day at the range in boot camp and that was it. We were in the Navy and most of us never touched another firearm while in uniform.

So yeah, it most definitely can be said about people in the military.

And that can go for former major generals, too.

That’s why an explanation of the difference between an AR-15 and military-style firearms from retired Major General Paul Eaton has gone viral. Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry.

He wrote:

“As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. A thread:

Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t.

The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15.

So what’s the difference between the military’s M4 and the original AR-15? Barrel length and the ability to shoot three round bursts. M4s can shoot in three round bursts. AR-15s can only shoot a single shot.

That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too.”

And yet, that’s a significant difference that the general tries to pretend isn’t really much of anything.

If it’s not that big of a deal, then why don’t we start issuing troops AR-15s? After all, if they’re functionally no different, then why not? Eaton claimed in the above-linked piece that American troops fire single shot, so there’s really no difference, so why not save some money and give up the select-fire capability?

See, what the above piece failed to note is that Eaton isn’t just some former major general in the Army and an otherwise dispassionate observer who just happens to have a stance anti-gun activists agree with. He’s a Democrat activist who has worked with VoteVets, a left-leaning veteran’s organization. He was also an advisor to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

In other words, he’s a political hack with a very real bias toward anti-gun, leftist politics.

That’s an important point that needed to brought up, but wasn’t. If someone has a bias, it should be noted and explored. Especially since you can find legions of combat veterans who will disagree with Eaton.