Posers

Here at D-J, we occasionally have to deal with clients claiming experience and expertise in an area in which they have no experience or expertise. In most cases, this is invariably ego-driven and can be handled by a sit down with the client where we explain our role as consultants and that we can not (and will not) tolerate dishonest clients. After some embarrassed backtracking we can usually move on to assist our client; this is much like a patient coming clean with (what they perceive as) an embarrassing (but significant) medical condition/lifestyle choice to his or her doctor. The doctor can’t help them unless he or she gets all the true facts.

Sometimes we meet a client incapable of honesty and have to show him the door. We call those people posers–people who claim to be from a field they aren’t or claim to have experience, skill, or knowledge they’ve never gotten. These people are impossible for us to work with because they are wholly incapable of seeking or understanding the truth; they actually begin to believe their fabricated lies.

It’s an election year so we see many candidates in this same position. The concept is they attempt to appeal to certain groups as being ‘one of them’ to garner votes and standing. And dispel concerns over stances they’ve taken AGAINST those same groups.

They are posers. And deserve NO position of public trust.

We were amused to see some media sources try to market VP nominee Tim Walz as a ‘combat veteran’ and a ‘gun guy’ when nothing could be further from the truth. A few photo-ops in uniform or with a dog and shotgun do NOT make someone either a combat veteran OR a gun guy. And he is neither.

There’s no question Walz served in an administrative role in the national guard and was eligible for retirement. When deployed, he served in Vincenza (which is a staff tour–one of our founders DID serve in combat during the Bosnia/Kosovo conflict stationed out of Aviano; Vincenza was the staff HQ of the CAOC which issued orders for the management of the war). Walz’s role during this time was largely administrative and in a support staff role; nevertheless he DID serve which deserves credit. What IS wrong is he would go on to exploit and lie about his record–not only about his ultimate rank but also about serving in combat. When his unit was activated to serve an actual combat tour, he found a way out. Which was later outed by a member of his unit (so long as they don’t have an axe to grind or personal vendetta, these people are folks you actually DO want to listen to–and can give a person the lowdown as to who a colleague actually was).

While there might be some embellished ‘there I was’ tales from time to time, lying about rank or accomplishment–or valor or decorations or combat–or even BEING in combat–is something NO genuine Soldier, Airman, Seaman, or Marine ever does. It’s considered a cardinal sin. So the fact Walz would attempt to exploit it is inexcusable. And shows a great deal about his lack of character; how he will exploit ANY situation for personal gain.

Walz claims to be a ‘hunter’ and ‘gun guy.’ A few staged Fudd photos splattered across the media does not a gun guy make. Walz’ record is rabidly ANTI-gun and he has pushed anti-gun legislation at every opportunity both in congress and at the state level. The typical M. O. for an anti-gun poser is a few pictures of the person hunting (or pretending to hunt) with a ‘good’ gun like a shotgun or bolt action rifle while decrying those evil black ‘weapons of war.’ And the same person claiming to be pro 2A while favoring ‘reasonable’ or ‘common sense’ restrictions on firearms. He CLAIMS to be ‘one of us’ while being a Trojan Horse. Their ultimate goal is the banishment of ALL firearms ownership by private citizens in our nation. Using the divide and conquer approach of classifying certain guns as ‘good’ and others ‘bad’ and then moving the goalposts such that ALL guns are ‘bad.’

ANY real ‘gun guy’ or ‘gun gal’ believes that there are a wide spectrum of firearms which are tools and suit particular purposes and wants. Just because THEY might not have use for an m4 (or pump shotgun for that matter) doesn’t mean that someone ELSE doesn’t have a use for it. And that it’s impossible for ONE person to determine what another NEEDS or WANTS to suit THEIR particular situation. They might be able to make suggestions as to what might work but ultimately it is an individual choice depending completely on personal situation. Trying to ban something like an AR (the most common and versatile patrol rifle in our country) is analogous to banning Phillips screwdrivers. YOU might not have a use for a Phillips screwdriver but that doesn’t mean that someone else doesn’t. And projecting the fear that Phillips screwdrivers are too pointy and might hurt someone is YOUR problem; not THEIRS.

The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. ALL ‘gun guys’ and ‘gun gals’ know this. It’s to affirm a basic human right (granted by our Creator) of being armed and of self-defense. And limit government from infringing (in any way) upon it. Very clear in the text of the 2A. It’s a concept of relative parity–that the individual people would possess the common arms of any military or governmental force and both be able to provide for defense of themselves and the free state, as well as a final check AGAINST a tyrannical police state developing. It’s where the rubber meets the road. If Law Enforcement gets it, we get it too. Whatever it be and whatever technical advancements have been made in time (Likewise the 1A protects freedom of speech and press whether it’s written with a quill, typed on a website or chat group, spoken from a soap box, or transmitted over a radio or telephone).

Filling out a 4473, having to obtain a license to carry a firearm, or having to submit to a ‘background check’ has as much constitutional validity as being required to register (and perhaps pass a background check and obtain a license from the government) to go to church. Or type these very words. Moreover, when the 2A falls, the 1A follows (already we hear posers coming out against ‘misinformation’ or ‘hate speech’ and trying to propose legislation to truncate it. ‘Misinformation’ obviously being whatever someone says that they disagree with. The 1A was specifically written to PROTECT so-called ‘misinformation’ and ‘hate speech’).

NO pro-2A candidate would ever utter restrictions on ‘high cap’ magazines, or use propaganda terms like ‘assault rifle,’ ‘weapon of war,’ ‘assault style rifle,’ ‘background checks,’ ‘gun violence,’ or ‘reasonable/common sense restrictions’ to in any way truncate our inherent 2A rights. Period. We’ve said this in the past. If you hear this drivel, or they ever DID back legislation in any way restricting the unrestricted right to own and carry firearms, they are NOT a ‘gun guy’ and NOT ‘one of us.’

They are a poser.

So don’t be fooled during this election cycle.