Kody, I thought you outlined a reasoned, rational approach that we all need to hear. I agree with your point and do not understand why people think that "tactical" is cool. Having spent time in the military many years ago, at a time when the military was extremely unappreciated, I don't every remember it being glamorous or something to be sought after outside of doing it as my duty. Did we have fun when we out there? No, it was a hard back-breaking, physically, and emotionally demanding job that most of us would gladly have given up, but we all were volunteers, every one in my unit. We had no draftees.
Having been a medic in a combat unit in places most of you have not heard about, I do not understand people's fascination with those kinds of weapons. I carried several different tactical weapons and was qualified expert with all of them. Big deal!
I believe that showcasing these weapons as you stated has a high probability to come back and bite us all. Would I ban them? No, a thousand times, no! But the more we wave those around, the more the left is going to blame those of us who are law abiding gun owners on situations like the Holocaust Shooting. This guy was not a conservative as we are. He was convinced the government planned 9/11.
This is not the time to be aggressive in our display of weapons. This is, as you said, a time to be aware of the battle being waged so we can educate those who don't even know there is a war going on.
If we want to play tactical, it needs to be on the battlefield of ideas, not pretending to be Rambo, (who in reality would not have lasted through the first firefight in real life.)

Nothing like the voice of experience and common sense to get to the point. Being tactical "on the battlefield of ideas", you gotta love that people. Well spoken, Bo!

gene123,I am not going to play "gotcha" but I will point out some things that you should know but apparently don’t.
When the 7th Cav moved in to the Ia Drang Valley in November 1965, they carried M16’s . If you doubt that, go to http://www.rickrescorla.com/. There is a picture of the man taken in November 1965 at the battle of Ia Drang. Psst, don’t tell anybody, but the weapon he is carrying , it’s am M16A1. You know, I believe that 1965 was in the 60’s That means I just might have been right about that, well, shut my mouth. Who’d a thunk it.
Now the M16 was renamed the M16A1 as it had the forward assist knob and the ridges on the bolt to assist engagement starting in 1967, but that was still in the 60’s, let’s see 67 yeah that was in the 60’s. Special Forces and Rangers carried the M16 even before that.

Now as to your statement or misstatement, I never said medics were trained with the M16. I said “ starting back in the 1960's and probably before, ALL medics unless they were conscientious objectors were required to carry a sidearm. either an M16, or an M1911.” All soldiers were trained in Basic Training with the M16 starting in the 60’s. When a medic went to Medic AIT at Fort Sam Houston for his 10 week basic medic training there was no weapons training. He had already had it in BCT. When the medic got overseas he was issued a weapon, unless he was a Conscientious Objector. We had no such individuals in my unit, we were an all volunteer force. We were issued weapon. I can’t imagine anyone who had been in the ARMY would not know that. Unless all they did was a desk job safely behind the wall in some relatively safe haven. I wouldn’t know about those. I was in the field most of the time. I spent almost 18 months at Fort Sam in training. We were to operate, shall we say somewhat independently as we might be in places where access was limited.
I never said where I was and won’t now. I just said you never heard of it. We did SAR (Search and Rescue) where we would go to places and pull out people like pilots whose planes were found where they weren’t welcome. They don’t fly well when they have too many holes in them ,wind resistance, drag and all that stuff. We were trained to find them and get them out with as little noise as possible. We didn’t want anyone to know we were there, and to this day the Army says we weren’t. We were not supposed to engage anyone unless the brown stuff hit the fan. It is called rules of engagement. Ours were don't if at all possible.
SO let’s see, you didn’t know the M16 was used in 1965 at IA Drang, you didn’t know that combat medics carried side arms and when presented with evidence in a post I gave you, you resorted to misquoting me and saying I said things I didn’t. Being a veteran you should know all of the things I just posted. I am not going to say you didn’t serve, just that you have a very limited exposure to what many of us actually did and I can’t help that but you are not worth the time it took me to write this.

We can let it drop, but again you are misstating what I said.

I knew there would be some who disagreed with my comments, that is fine and as it should be. Am I to take it to mean a 'No' to the good comment question means someone disagrees with my stand or thinks it is a poorly presented comment. You can disagree with my statement but have the courtesy to state your case. I thought that was the nature of a forum. I am saying that there is a battle of ideas being waged with regard to the sport of hunting. So, state your case or be part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Kody, Well said.

Let's not forget that the Brown Bess, Trapdoor Springfield and 1898 Mauser were also tactical or paramilitary guns at different points in U.S history. I shoot both black guns and sporter rifles. Why is it that people who've never owned or used something are the first to criticize it? All semiautos are functionally the same; the only difference is the exterior. Kody, I hate to say it, but you are using the same argument as the lawmakers who passed the assault weapon bill during the Clinton Adminstration: We should treat some guns differently because they look menacing!

gene123, you said,"Why is it that people who've never owned or used something are the first to criticize it?" why is it that people who have never been in the Army are always the first to know more about it than those of us who actually were there?
You missed Kody's point entirely, but that is the usual pattern for someone who half reads an item and has a knee jerk response and shows how much you didn't pay attention.

"Why is it that people who have never been in the Army are always the first to know more about it than those of us who actually were there?"

Well, I was honorably discharged from the Army in 1975, served in SE Asia, and have the DD 214 and loss of hearing to prove it.

Your story just doesn't ring true to me. You were so quick to point out that you were in a combat unit. Most people who have actually BEEN in the hellhole of war don't go around bragging about it. They keep it to themselves.

Here's a question I bet you can't answer. What is the most foul-mouthed creature in the SE Asian jungle?

Fellow vets: Don't answer.

And what is the "one-step snake, and what does it resemble?

One more point,Bo : You mentioned that "combat" medics trained with the M16 as far back as the 60s and probably before then.

The M16 did not become standard issue and used extensively in Nam until 1969.

Being a big, bad war hero, you should know that.

i dont see why it matters. people like guns. and who cares what they look like. some people like guns for their looks and style and that includes tactical. i dont see why it matters what they look like. i think as long as companies and groups are still being supported its a good thing. all the "tactical" thing is is a different look. look at the r-15 and r-25 they are taking on a bit of a tactical look and people love them.

oh now i see thank you very much for allowing me to undertsand your point i can see how things like that can happen. thank you very much

Josh, I don't think anyone would argue that point, the Ruger 10/22 is a well made, accurate firearm, and yes, it is, most likely one of the best, if not the best .22lr rifle ever made.

Bo, Check out the Whitetail question by the avid hunter wondering about staring at deer ...that will explain my hydra hunt comment.
With respect to the topic of tactical .22's I look at the comments of those who took exception to my opinions and it becomes very clear that what is lacking here is some critical reading skills. You are missing my point because you are formulating opinions before reading for understanding. When you arrive at a job site you had best listen carefully to all parties involved to get a clear understanding of the situation..THEN you tell them how you are going to get the job done. That is what I am saying is required in this situation. Arguments that are advanced without a clear understanding of what the other fellow has to say tend to go no where. A good discussion should arrive at some good conclusions.

Kody, good to have you back. I agree with you. There were some who did not read your post and decode the intent but had a knee jerk reaction and resorted to name calling and casting aspersions about things that he knew little about. I am not large of stature but my shoulders are broad enough that I could carry the load of his vacuous statements. He neither read completely nor understood the points we were trying to make. I have found that people who try to discredit any opposition by name calling and such usually have nothing to stand on for their argument. They are usually called LIBERALS but occasionally others resort to those tactics, and usually resort to showing how much they don't know or how much they don't pay attention to what has been said.

Most of us learned to shoot using a .22 and continue to hone our skills using this accurate and inexpensive round. While I have had many different .22 rifles my childhood Remington single shot bolt action rifle is dear to me. It is fair to say that many of us have such a rifle that holds great sentimental value. I have never and will never own a "tactical" .22 because there is nothing sentimental about that style of weapon. Let's start with the definition of tactical "of or relating to combat tactics" "using or being weapons or forces employed at the battlefront". Let's rig out a deadly little toy tactical .22 so guys can play soldier! At a time when the sport of hunting and firearms in general are under siege that is the last thing we need to go showcasing. Talk about playing into the hands of the opposition, it is like handing out ammunition that will be fired back at you. Sure the thing will look cool and be fun to shoot but I am saying this is the time for grown up choices. Choices today need to go steps beyond a bumper sticker defending your sport and your rights. The battle here can only be won with education - 'the pen is mightier than the sword'. The opposition understands that truth.. that is why they are winning!