(Note: by rights this should be in Firearms News, but I can't make original posts there. Moderators, please feel free to move it.)
Morons like Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago are blaming the guns for the massacre at Fort Hood by the whacko psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan. The blame properly belongs to someone else: President William Jefferson Clinton.
Here is John Lott's take on who deserves the blame for that massacre.
Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993 under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection."
It can't be a Democrat Presidents fault. It has to be Bush II's fault somehow someway.....I think he may have even shot Kennedy...He was probably in Texas that day...It could have really been him in the Texas Tower with a Red Ryder BB gun and they just framed Charles Whitman for shooting all of those people.....How close does Dubya live to Ft. Hood?.....
__________________ USAF SSgt 80-86 IN GOD WE TRUST NRA MEMBER
These statements should be used to put a sock in the “anti-gunners” mouths to shut them up.
“The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal.”
“Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun.”
“All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. -- in which more than three people have been killed -- have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.”
Sandy, you know that and I know that, but you have to remember that the anti-gunners are not viewing this rationally. "Guns is E-V-I-L" isn't an opinion with them; it's their religion. They are as fanatic about taking away our rights as any terror bomber is about blowing things up to make a political statement.
Having accepted that guns are by definition evil, anti-gunners are incapable of examining the evidence impartially and drawing the conclusions that sane people would. Attempting to reason with a committed anti-gun fanatic is as futile as trying to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Anti-gunners are liberals. Liberals' skulls are too thick to get sense through them. Thy are deformed to the extent that every time they open their mouths, their ears close up. Their mouths stay open all the time, spewing that liberal hog wash. So, do not ever expect them to learn that people kill people, not guns. It is impossible to get this message through to them. Facts seem to make their eyes glaze over so that they can't see the truth.
But it's been that way for a long time. The Army brass bears some responsibility too.
Not all that much, G. Green. They do have to obey orders from the Commander in Chief.
Slick Willy Dickwad is the one who issued that order, though I admit I am surprised Curious George didn't rescind it. You can bet your sweet bippy that the Obamination won't! Not even after yet another massacre where it's obvious to anyone with eyes to see that if the victims had not been in a gun-free zone - that is, if they were allowed either concealed or open carry - the mad dog doing the shooting would not have killed nearly as many as he did.
You look at any of them - the Long Island Railroad Massacre, Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Fort Hood - and you see the same thing: people unable to shoot back because some authority has disarmed them "for their own good." Cause and effect in these cases is so simple even Sir Bedemere's peasants could figure it out! The solution is equally simple: ARM THE PEOPLE SO THEY CAN FIGHT BACK WHEN A MAD DOG SHOWS UP.
...Cyrano ... that's when we start 'taking care of ourselves' regardless of what the anti-gun politicians want. When it comes down to it, I'd rather face a jury of my peers than find out what's on the other side of life.
... I'm sure that my sentiments are the same to some on Ft. Hood and other installations right now as well ...
... besides, if anyone wants to play with someone carrying an M4 and M9, bring it on. A typical loser terrorist or deranged idiot won't even think of it. Pansies ...
__________________ You don't scare me! Work on it!
Last edited by LarryO1970; 11-13-2009 at 07:59 AM.
I've never been in the military, but I was always under the impression that weapons were generally kept locked up as just a standard procedure, and it's always been that way. I mean, during the Pearl Harbor attack, there's documented instances where weapons and ammunition were locked up and they couldn't fight back until the weapons lockers were broken into. Has the military EVER been able to just stroll around on any base during peacetime carrying loaded weapons, just because they're military? I'm talking about since the Civil War and the days of the Frontier Cavalry Posts.
Ever feel like the world's a tuxedo, and you're a pair of brown shoes? - George Gobel
Presidents are interested in revving up the base. There is nothing like
emasculating the military to make liberals swoon with delight.
Bush2, Cheney, Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld have done enough just by wrecking the Republican Party. They don't need to be blamed for things that happened before they came to power. Obamaism is the one true legacy of the Bush2 administration.
Having very tight control over weapons on military bases has been the norm at least back to 1981 (was always that way during my career). LOL I guess the military was always more concerned about us being more dangerous than the population outside.. Hmmm Testosterone Laden 18-20 yo's worked and pushed hard then turned loose to go and drink and raise hell... Hmmmm maybe NOT allowing automatic weapons into that recreational mix might have some merit? Of course 25-30yrs ago the term Work Hard- Play Hard had a different meaning than it does today (many changes since then most of which I never liked). So that part I don't beleive has changed dramatically. As for the Civilian Security on the gates, I'm not sure what party pushed that but my understanding at the time that that started taking place (from all bases having military personnel on the gates) was that it was a cost saving initiative- by the time pay & benefits were all considered it was cheaper to pay civilians than it was to pay for military personnel to do it, although I personally always felt better and more secure with my peers guarding the gates than DOD Police doing the same.
Last edited by EtherialOne; 11-13-2009 at 02:16 PM.
Civilians, Retiries nor Active Duty can have guns on base unless they are transporting them to and from an authorized storage facility.
Only personnel preforming duties requiring weapons can have them whether they are civilian, or military personnel. E.G Gate Guards, LE, MPs, SPs, OSI, CDI and so on.
Just checked with my base commander, I'm not at liberty to "quote" him, but as we have had a couple of meetings over this already, It's "technically" illegal, and not "recommended". For all intents and general purposes, You are correct.