Tim Walz Said He Wants To Ban Guns He ‘Carried in War.’ He Never Saw Combat.

[dogs4thewin]

I doubt it. While he was not in combat, he certainly was trained with and carried the weapon.

yes, but when you say in war that at least to me implies actual combat or at the very least that you were near the combat even if you were not actually IN combat ( not all service members actually leave the base and so not all of them even in a combat zone will actually BE in combat.

My mother's father for example served in the reserves between Korea and Nam now I am sure L was trained in those weapons ( maybe not those, but whatever they had at the time. Do you know he does not even CONSIDER himself a veteran as he feels he did not sacrifice anything for this country? Oddly neither does the government as he was never called up ( that has changed now for the people in now. ( They are considered veterans even if they were never called to active duty.

I am not saying that Walz did not sacrifice anything that is not it at ALL. I am saying that when you talk about things you did in war ( or anything serious you need to have actually BEEN there. Now if he had said something like weapons USED in war that would be different even if I still disagree with him, However, when you say weapons that YOU used in war and yet you never saw the first day of combat you sir used nothing in war. Unless he wants to try to say he used during war time in as far as he would have been in during the wars in the middle east OK but that is still not the same thing as carrying it in active combat or even in a combat zone.

 

[Valletta]

I, also, am a combat veteran who never saw combat. What does being in combat have to do with carrying arms? I was in an active war zone and carried a rifle when appropriate.

I'm finding these continued attacks on a military man for political expediency a bit hypocritical.

It's about Walz misrepresenting his service. Let's discuss his record.

Tim Walz falsely claimed he served in Afghanistan. When a local vet called him out, his office did nothing. AlphaNews.org

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz has described himself as "a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom."

alphanews.org

 

[probinson]

Coming soon to a fact-checking site near you.

Claim: Walz claimed he carried guns "in war" when he said, “We shouldn't allow weapons that I used in war to be on America's streets.”

Our rating: TRUE

Tim Walz was in the military, and we're pretty sure he carried guns while there was a war occurring somewhere in the world. Therefore we rate this claim TRUE.

 

[Bradskii]

I wish you would have given such testimony to the January 6th committee that went after Trump.

What...to tell them that it would be nigh on impossible to organise the National Guard to back up the police at the Capitol on Jan 6 on a moments notice? I imagine it would be in that situation as well. But that wasn't the problem. Trump said he wanted to organise troops before the event (in time to organise it). But...

'A government memo about the events leading up to Jan. 6, statements from Pelosi’s office and the Pentagon and testimony from the former House sergeant-at-arms show Trump did not request 10,000 troops ahead of the rally.' Fact check: Trump repeats false claim that Pelosi rejected request for National Guard ahead of Jan. 6

I know this will come as a shock to you. But he lied.

 

[Valletta]

What...to tell them that it would be nigh on impossible to organise the National Guard to back up the police at the Capitol on Jan 6 on a moments notice? I imagine it would be in that situation as well. But that wasn't the problem. Trump said he wanted to organise troops before the event (in time to organise it). But...

'A government memo about the events leading up to Jan. 6, statements from Pelosi’s office and the Pentagon and testimony from the former House sergeant-at-arms show Trump did not request 10,000 troops ahead of the rally.' Fact check: Trump repeats false claim that Pelosi rejected request for National Guard ahead of Jan. 6

I know this will come as a shock to you. But he lied.

I know Walz lied. Trump offered the 10,000 troops. Nancy Pelosi didn't want them

 

[Belk]

It's about Walz misrepresenting his service. Let's discuss his record.

Tim Walz falsely claimed he served in Afghanistan. When a local vet called him out, his office did nothing. AlphaNews.org

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz has described himself as "a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom."

alphanews.org

No, let's not. Let's stop acting like any slight irregularity is an issue.

 

[Bradskii]

I know Walz lied. Trump offered the 10,000 troops. Nancy Pelosi didn't want them

Then you must offer some evidence. Here is the evidence that he did not: Fact check: Trump repeats false claim that Pelosi rejected request for National Guard ahead of Jan. 6

'Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby had previously looked into Trump’s claim and told The Washington Post in March that “we have no record of such an order being given.”

A timeline from the Department of Defense only mentions an agreement made on Jan. 4 about potentially providing 340 District of Columbia National Guard members at the request of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to support traffic control points and to deploy a quick reaction force “if additional support is requested by civilian authorities.”

Additionally, when asked by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during a Feb. 23 Senate hearing if discussions took place on Jan. 4 with congressional leadership about bringing in the National Guard, former House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving said he "had no follow up conversations."

"It was not until the sixth that I alerted leadership that we might be making a request," Irving said. "And that was the end of the discussion."

I look forward to your evidence that he did offer them.

 

[eclipsenow]

This thread isn't about Trump.

And yet when we do a compare and contrast - the differences become a bit startling.

 

[rjs330]

Tim Walz Said He Wants To Ban Guns He ‘Carried in War.’ He Never Saw Combat.

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz claimed to have carried guns "in war" during his career in the Army National Guard, according to a video released by the Kamala Harris campaign Tuesday. There’s one glaring problem with his claim.

freebeacon.com

This will finish him.

No it won't. Just wait and see on this thread how he will be defended.

 

[rjs330]

Walz is a man of honour.

He's no man of honor. He bailed on his honor when he quit as soon as he discovered he was going to have to fight.

No he actually is guilty of stolen honor.

 

[Valletta]

No it won't. Just wait and see on this thread how he will be defended.

They have made changes to his campaign biography.

 

[eclipsenow]

Sorry - unless you can quote a few paragraphs - I'm not interested in being given a whole propaganda channel.
The amount of fact-checking that has to be done on Trump and Vance per day beats Harris and Walz's fact checking per year!

Honestly - this is the most overblown alt-right reaction to one bit of hyperbole.
Like - if America goes to war - what civilian doesn't say "We're at war?"

Walz is in the National Guard. They're MAINLY about defending the homeland - and rarely go overseas. But he did go over for enduring freedom - but ended up supporting an allied country in a natural disaster. (Italy). He was contrasting the fact that he carried military weapons that should NEVER be on the streets with where they should be - 'in war'. Now - as I have shown with CIVILIANS saying "We're at war" - what more right does he have to say carried 'in war' when he did go overseas during a conflict period - even if he was never on the front lines - but serving in a natural disaster area? Honestly. ONE line and the right harp on and on and on about it - but Trump lies more per day than you'll catch Kamala or Tim using hyperbole.

it's just an alternate reality you guys live in.
It truly amazes me.
How far America has fallen - especially the "Christian right"!

 

[Servus]

Sorry - unless you can quote a few paragraphs - I'm not interested in being given a whole propaganda channel.
The amount of fact-checking that has to be done on Trump and Vance per day beats Harris and Walz's fact checking per year!

Honestly - this is the most overblown alt-right reaction to one bit of hyperbole.
Like - if America goes to war - what civilian doesn't say "We're at war?"

Walz is in the National Guard. They're MAINLY about defending the homeland - and rarely go overseas. But he did go over for enduring freedom - but ended up supporting an allied country in a natural disaster. (Italy). He was contrasting the fact that he carried military weapons that should NEVER be on the streets with where they should be - 'in war'. Now - as I have shown with CIVILIANS saying "We're at war" - what more right does he have to say carried 'in war' when he did go overseas during a conflict period - even if he was never on the front lines - but serving in a natural disaster area? Honestly. ONE line and the right harp on and on and on about it - but Trump lies more per day than you'll catch Kamala or Tim using hyperbole.

it's just an alternate reality you guys live in.
It truly amazes me.
How far America has fallen - especially the "Christian right"!

iHeart radio is not a propaganda channel. It's just a regular radio station network that offers a lot of variety.

So are you ever going to actually challenge what Thomas Behrends has to say about Walz, or just continue deflecting?

 

[FenderTL5]

iHeart radio is not a propaganda channel. It's just a regular radio station network that offers a lot of variety.

iHeart is a platform that carries multiple formats and programs. What one is listening to may or may not carry propaganda depending on the particular program or host(s).
fwiw, for over five years I've been live on an iHeart channel for 4 hours every weekend.

 

[Servus]

iHeart is a platform that carries multiple formats and programs. What one is listening to may or may not carry propaganda depending on the particular program or host(s).
fwiw, for over five years I've been live on an iHeart channel for 4 hours every weekend.

My point was that it wasn't Fox. It's probably a conservative radio show, because a liberal radio show is less likely to present an interview of someone saying anything negative about Walz. Although CNN had some negative commentary regarding Walz's statements about being in war, so you never know.

 

[wing2000]

 

[FenderTL5]

My point was that it wasn't Fox.,

Understood, but linking to an even more cnservative leaning podcast because it was on iHeart misses the mark of your point. iHeart has viewpoints from every direction, it's merely the host on which those viewpoints reside.
For example, it would be similar to saying a viewpoint isn't extremely liberal/conservative because it's on Social Media. One can find both extremes on Social Media, it's merely a host.

 

[Servus]

Understood, but linking to an even more cnservative leaning podcast because it was on iHeart misses the mark of your point. iHeart has viewpoints from every direction, it's merely the host on which those viewpoints reside.
For example, it would be similar to saying a viewpoint isn't extremely liberal/conservative because it's on Social Media. One can find both extremes on Social Media, it's merely a host.

If I cut and paste your quote above to all kinds of different platforms, is that going to change what you wrote?

Whether CNN or Fox or TYT or People interviews Thomas Behrends, it's not going to change what he has to say about Walz.

 

[FenderTL5]

If I cut and paste your quote above to all kinds of different platforms, is that going to change what you wrote?

No, and that's my point. Just because it's on iHeart, that does not make the viewpoint more or less biased.

 

[Servus]

No, and that's my point. Just because it's on iHeart, that does not make the viewpoint more or less biased.

Exactly. The point is whether CNN or Fox or TYT or People interviews Thomas Behrends, it's not going to change what he has to say about Walz.