Posted on 05/06/2010 5:44:40 PM PDT by Lexluthor69
Very true.
One of the schools I went to many years ago told us the fewer identifying marks the better.
I wanted the typical “Death from Above” wings and skull on my forearm but forgot about tattos at that point.
He asked if I had any advice - I passed on what my Dad told me as I went into service
"Always keep a unifform in the laundry, you never know when the CO might want to see you" OK, I kept a uniform in the bag in the locker - came in handy.
"Put your uniform under the matress, before you hit the rack - it will stay pressed or at least look better" OK, but I got an iron.
#3 - "Never, ever, argue with a man carrying a loaded machine gun" Nuf sed right there.
I just added a bit about no tats and how easy it is to ID someone with a tat. He wants to be a cop here in town, and gang bangers are good about tats, and passing the that info around.
4 years active, 4 in Reserve and no tats.
We do still go to the range together - but now he outshoots me at the 400 and 500 meter targets.....
Thank you for sharing your take on tats.
“Two words: laser removal.”
Two words: hell no
Look, I’ve never much liked tats at all... and I’m a vet myself. But you know as well as I do that the issue here isn’t a tattoo... the Corps allows those depending on where on the body they’re placed. The issue here is the Marines taking sides with the politically correct national socialists. If the Marines can justify this, then they can also justify banning crosses. After all, a crucifix is offensive to some Muslims and Jews. See where this kind of thing can go? Do you REALLY want to support this policy?
Was the Confederate flag tattoo visible in PTs? If so, it falls under the standard rule.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.