Tulsi may have served in the military.  But I doubt she is a weapons expert.  Her unit is a rear-echelon unit.  It is not a front line unit.

Tulsi may have served in the military.  But I doubt she is a weapons expert.  Her unit is a rear-echelon unit.  It is not a front line unit.

She DID serve in the Hawaii Army National Guard, I remember her as an E4 (Specialist) back when she was assigned to a Medical unit in Kalaeloa (former Barbers Point NAS). As the years progressed and the deployments came around I seen her in passing and noticed she was a 2nd LT (Butter bar). To call one's self a weapons expert with ONLY qualifying on the range ONCE-a-Year would hardly be an accurate statement to make in her case. It would be a stretch to say that being "WELL-TRAINED" in your assigned weapon(s) (M9/17 9mm pistol & M4 rifle) would be accurate. And yes, she's served in units in the rear....which by definition would only make her qualify once-a-year just to stay current on the assigned taskings per individual soldier.
Early in my career (90's), I was assigned to a Cavalry unit and we would train on live fire ranges more times than I can remember, crew serve weapons (M60 MG, M2 .50cal MG, mounted & dismounted) along with the individual M4/16 rifle w/M203. Training with weapons/firearms is a "perishable" skill, many NEW recruits have a hard time qualifying nonetheless understanding the fundamentals of breathing control, trigger squeeze/reset, sight picture and recoil management.
Units now depend SOLELY on technology as training aids which makes soldiers LAZY rather than the "old skool" methods of having a senior NCO teaching classes in a field environment AWAY from the Garrison. Oh well, it's NOT what it used to be.....

She DID serve in the Hawaii Army National Guard, I remember her as an E4 (Specialist) back when she was assigned to a Medical unit in Kalaeloa (former Barbers Point NAS). As the years progressed and the deployments came around I seen her in passing and noticed she was a 2nd LT (Butter bar). To call one's self a weapons expert with ONLY qualifying on the range ONCE-a-Year would hardly be an accurate statement to make in her case. It would be a stretch to say that being "WELL-TRAINED" in your assigned weapon(s) (M9/17 9mm pistol & M4 rifle) would be accurate. And yes, she's served in units in the rear....which by definition would only make her qualify once-a-year just to stay current on the assigned taskings per individual soldier.
Early in my career (90's), I was assigned to a Cavalry unit and we would train on live fire ranges more times than I can remember, crew serve weapons (M60 MG, M2 .50cal MG, mounted & dismounted) along with the individual M4/16 rifle w/M203. Training with weapons/firearms is a "perishable" skill, many NEW recruits have a hard time qualifying nonetheless understanding the fundamentals of breathing control, trigger squeeze/reset, sight picture and recoil management.
Units now depend SOLELY on technology as training aids which makes soldiers LAZY rather than the "old skool" methods of having a senior NCO teaching classes in a field environment AWAY from the Garrison. Oh well, it's NOT what it used to be.....

Technically, I qualified "expert" in small arms marksmanship my first time shooting a handgun as an Air Force ROTC cadet.  It even came with a ribbon to wear.

I believe qualification at that time required 30 rounds fired in various stances and distances using a silhouette target with scoring rings.  A minimum score of 270 "qualified" you on the weapon.  290 and above qualified you as "expert".  I understand the standards have changed.  One article said you have to get 41 of 45 rds on target to qualify as expert.  Agree or disagree, the standard is what it is.

So, I could have called myself a "weapons expert" with NO annual training beyond my initial training and qualification test.

The standard was met.  The award was earned.  Whether or not it meets anyone else's definition of expert is a futile argument based on subjective criteria.

If the military's definition of "expert" creates more credibility with the public, taking advantage of it for political purposes might be a better point of criticism.  However arguing that she's not an expert isn't effective.

Just my opinion.

Tulsi may have served in the military.  But I doubt she is a weapons expert.  Her unit is a rear-echelon unit.  It is not a front line unit.

I have always been a computer geek, both on active duty and not.  I deployed to Saudi Arabia several times, and I was on mobility status.  That required that I qualify on small arms.  I earned the Air Force Small Arms Marksmanship ribbon.

All enlisted, regardless of primary duties, had to qualify with the M16.  Most that I worked with also qualified "expert".

Many of us also took time to go to the local indoor pistol range and on-base skeet club to shoot.  We spent more time practicing each month than just taking the annual qualification refresher/test.

Basically, what job you do in the military or what unit you're part of doesn't dictate whether or not you're an expert marksman.

Just saying.

I appreciate Tulsi Gabbard's service to our country.  And I am thankful for the sacrifices she made to protect our freedoms.

I also do not doubt that she is proficient and an expert marksman in her assigned weapons.

 And I came across sounding a little harsh in my comments about her being in a rear-echelon unit.  Without the support of these units the so called front line units would be dead in the water.  These support units are the heart and soul of any fighting force.

And certainly these units are just as courageous, brave, and committed to the mission on hand.

I mentioned I doubted that she is a weapons expert.  Again I do not doubt that she hold expert certification in the weapons of her unit.  But claiming to be a "weapons expert" is very broad and all encompassing instead of claiming, for example, being a weapons expert in rifle, pistol, grenade, and crew served weapons like the SAW and M-60 or whatever is in service now.

I do know there are certified weapons specialists in the 18 series (Special Forces) MOS where the weapons sergeant is as close as a weapons expert I could imagine.  The vast array of infantry weapons our US forces uses is so varied even front line soldiers are not proficient in all of them.  And the SF weapons sergeant also studies and strives for proficiency (marksmanship, break down, and repair) of all enemy weapons also!

I guess I took the term weapons expert as all encompassing. 

Being an expert in the weapons that her unit uses is of itself an accomplishment and something to be very proud of.  Good for her.

Worst than a gun grabbing politician is a veteran gun grabbing politician. They took an oath to protect the constitution. Guess she and others like sen K (also in dc, air force vet) forgot about it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I guess I took the term weapons expert as all encompassing. 

An "expert" in my opinion goes way beyond basic marksmanship.  My impression of the army was not all that stringent.  Read that the army is re-discovering the range beyond 50 yards.

FWIW, my last qual with an M-14 was considered "expert" but was at fixed ranges out to 500 yards.  No way does that equate to mastery of multiple weapons in a field environment.  A good shot, sure, but no "expert".

Worst than a gun grabbing politician is a veteran gun grabbing politician. They took an oath to protect the constitution. Guess she and others like sen K (also in dc, air force vet) forgot about it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Yes, I am disappointed on her stance on 2a.

An "expert" in my opinion goes way beyond basic marksmanship.  My impression of the army was not all that stringent.  Read that the army is re-discovering the range beyond 50 yards.

FWIW, my last qual with an M-14 was considered "expert" but was at fixed ranges out to 500 yards.  No way does that equate to mastery of multiple weapons in a field environment.  A good shot, sure, but no "expert".

Umm.  I think that falls under the category "Things that are obvious."

"Basic" and "expert" are mutually exclusive.  Either you are proficient in the basics, or you've exceeded the level of basic proficiency.

As I tried to explain, what the military labels as "expert" is based on their criteria at the time.  It does not mean they are an expert in other situations, such as being qualified to testify as an expert witness in court.

You can be an expert marksman in small arms but have no idea how to operate a rocket launcher, use a .50cal sniper rifle at over a mile, or any other weapon that you can name.  In the context of the Second Amendment, I think we are limited to discussing the proposals at hand, i.e. "Assault Weapons."  If she's qualified at the expert level for marksmanship, then she has the right to claim she's an expert for purposes of the discussion.  She understands the nomenclature, the functionality and the capabilities of the rifles.  That's about 100% more than most politicians pretending to know what the hell they are talking about.

Call her whatever you want, but arguing over her credentials, as I said already, isn't the point.  Listen to what she says, and see if her facts as they relate to firearms are correct.  If not, then her expertise may be in doubt.

I'm in no way defending her position on Modern Sporting Rifles.  In fact, she needs to be corrected on the point that what civilians own are NOT the same as what she claims to have witnessed on the battlefield and in hospitals.  Most American casualties were not the result of M4 fire.  They were from AK-47s, Shoulder Launched Rockets, and IEDs.  So, the wounds she discusses are not consistent with how she views AR-15s.

At least she hasn't been telling about how she ran for cover under sniper fire ...