Signature Line

[Richard]

... If anyone , just one person finds it offensive I will change it..

With all due respect, Rob, I'll encourage you to keep your signature line as is.

It's meaningful to you, and there's a context to understanding that meaning. People who take time to ask you about it will soon learn that no offense is intended by you. And, where no offense is intended (given available information, freely offered by you to anyone who may ask), there's no offense given; where no offense is given, none should be taken.

More to the point, what is the example of Mattis himself? Has he ever offered to tone-down his rhetoric in responses to criticism of his rhetorical intensity? If you admire the man, then to emulate him only reinforces the sincerity of your admiration.

Keep the signature line. My 2-cents  

 

[Canine]

Nothing personal Gunny,but I have to agree with Bob on this one.I don't think this is the appropriate venue to talk about killing people.We all did what we had to do to stay alive over there.The VC too.That war has been over for more than 40 years.Time to move on.

 

[Vanholio]

It was brought to my attention that some may find my signature line offensive.. It is a quote from Gen Mattis USMC who I am an admirer of. If anyone , just one person finds it offensive I will change it..

I love the quote because it's thought provoking. It's a tough world. Killing other humans isn't healthy for the average person. Research bears that out. But sometimes circumstances are such that killing is the best bad choice. Whether the actors got set up by politics is secondary in that moment. 

I'm grateful I've never been in quite the position to make the choice or even to have to kill on instinct to survive. My experiences with violence have been bad enough without going to the next level.

 

[Gunny]

Bob D. , I take nothing said on this forum personal, it is an open discussion about many things. My quoting Gen. Mattis, who is a contemporary Marine, not a Vietnam Era Marine. At least from a command position.

My question actually derived from a thread you started yesterday that I thought inappropriate and another poster called my signature into the mix.

I do not speak of killing lightly and the one response I posted about killing I perhaps should not have posted. But it was and is too late to delete it.

I consider the majority of people on this forum my friends and my intent in life is not to alienate any of them. I have met five members in person and four have been as they present themselves, one ...not so much.

But if in fact it offends you I will keep my word and remove it. Rob

 

[TrainChaser]

Bob:  "I think it's a terrible mistake to think in terms of who deserves to live and die in war except after a fair trial."

A. No one here, that I've heard about, is going to war.  And while the original quotation is by a Marine Corps general, whenever I read that quotation, I got the impression that he was referring to individuals.  And he is right.

B. If a fair trial is required before someone can be shot, do you think the home-invading criminals are going to go along with that?

C.  Know what you can and what you can't do before you shoot someone.  In most states, you can't shoot someone until they're in your home.   In some states, you can't shoot them unless 'you feel that your life was in danger', even if they're in your home.  You can't shoot them just because they're in your yard, or (usually) when they're running away.  If an autistic or Down's Syndrome man opens your front door, stops and says, "Where's Grandma?", if you shoot him, you're likely to go to prison for murder.

D.  Many bleeding hearts are the worse hypocrites:  they don't want anyone to kill a poor little psycho who is coming after them, but if one of their own family is victimized, they tend to do a very fast 180.  Just like the mothers who drive drunk and kill their babies, and then 'get religion' and go around spreading the word to not drive drunk, a fact that most people know, and the others aren't going to listen to, anyway.

I was once at a party with a retired Army captain, and the subject was idiots in the military.  He sighed and said the stockades were always full.  One man asked him if commanding officers ever do anything to the bozos.  The captain said one general said that he put the worst ones on the front lines.

 

[Almost There]

Okay people, let's keep it on topic, please!

 

[anewbiewannabe]

I don't get it. It's not a discussion about war or killing people---it's a quote! Now I'm feeling sorry I mentioned my experience with my Viet Nam vet friends and my opinion on their treatment, but not too sorry. It's a great quote. A quote about how significant it is to someone to have to kill someone for the first time and how it can affect the person. It's not about defining who the ******** are---can't believe most people haven't said something similar about a particular ******* or other at some point in his or her life. It was a deflection away from the seriousness of the first statement in my opinion.

There are many people on here who carry a gun for defense. It's kind of pointless and actually dangerous if they haven't thought about whether or not they could use it if necessary---seems I even read or watched something from Bob Wells on exactly that. I am a gun owner and a bleeding heart. I hope never to have to use it against any creature, man or beast, but I had to seriously think about whether or not I could if necessary. I can. Responsible gun ownership requires this thought process. It was even included in the gun safety class I took. I personally appreciate the reminder every time I read that signature line.

I think there are some ******** that just need shot but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and do it. It's got nothing to do with which side they are on or what color or religion or anything other than them being despicable human beings. Still not going to go out and shoot them.

Wars may come and go, but the scars last forever whether others can see them or not. Some "heal" better or quicker than others. What a disrespectful load of claptrap for someone to say it's time to move on. That's like telling someone who lost a child they've grieved long enough, get over it. My mother died over 20 years ago and I'll never be over it. The loss of innocence is a serious loss as well.

There are some things I've found offensive on this site, but most fall into the category that saying anything about them just isn't worth my time. This I don't find offensive. If it makes just one person consider whether a gun is something they could use if necessary then it's done a public service---anyone who might decide to find it offensive ought to consider that before making that choice.

Gunny, I appreciate your viewpoint about your signature line and respect any choice you make about it.

 

[justbreathe]

*standing and clapping*

Thank for saying what needed to be said, anewbiewannbe.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

To quote one of my training instructors, somebody coming at me with a knife, a baseball bat, or a tire iron NEEDS to be shot, repeatedly, right then, right there.

 

[Ticklebellly]

I simply acknowledge the thinking behind the quote.   Don't like the thought that the action might be taken outside proper rules of engagement, Military wise.

The quote is quite narrow in the sense that it relates to certain circumstances and should not be seen as a general view of the world.

I don't find the signature quote offensive, just informative.   It reveals something about the person who chose the quote and seems consistent with the Usename.   Keep it.

Ticklebellly.

 

[Gary68]

i put all kinds of weirdness in the sig so i cant say anything about someone else's but did i miss the intro for the new super mod pink person???

 

[Gadget728]

Keep it!

 

[LeeRevell]

I personally see nothing wrong with the sig quote. And not because I am a military vet. I say keep it.