Skip to comments.Soldier On Leave, Attacked (This is NOT the real story here)
Posted on 05/29/2010 6:39:14 AM PDT by Bulldawg Fan
(WSB Radio) -- An Army veteran home on leave claims he was beaten and robbed over the weekend at a northwest Atlanta apartment complex.
In a complaint filed with Atlanta police, the soldier, who doesn't want to be identified, told investigators he was sitting in his car with his cousin at the Rolling Bend Apartments when a group of men approached the car. He believes the cousin, T-J, set him up. The victim told Channel 2 Action News "they were coming up to the car and I noticed T-J hit the lock button, the unlock button, they were coming up to the side of the car and they opened the door and grabbed my rifle.
The soldier attempted to retrieve the M-4 assault rifle, but the men punched and kicked him and hit him over the head with a bottle. He was treated for a concussion and scrapes and bruises at Grady Hospital.
The Army veteran fears the powerful weapon and the bad neighborhood will not be a "good combination."
Despite his injuries, the soldier heads back to active duty on Monday, still not knowing who attacked him.
The “writer” also said he was a “veteran” and he was returning to “active duty.”
No - the army won’t let you take your M-4 with you on leave.
The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
One other explanation is that it wasn’t a real military M4. It could have been a semi-auto M4 style rifle such as the ones Bushmaster and Olympic sell. Given that the media usually doesn’t have a clue about firearms and a huge anti-gun agenda, I would not be surprised that the story could be factually wrong when it comes the to the weapon.
No way he took a M4 home on leave...
It may be that it was an semi-auto version of an M4. When does the MSM get these things right. I have a semi-auto version of the M4. barrel is a just a little longer and it's semi-auto only. And it doesn't say "Colt" on it. The receiver says "Stag Arms", but the rest of it is not from Stag. Built it from a kit on the Stag receiver.
The fact that they did not arrest him, argues for it being a personally owned weapon. If that is the case, it's too bad he didn't get it into action.