Posted on 09/17/2013 12:14:05 PM PDT by pansgold
It take a gun to stop a crazy with a gun and until someone gets there and locates the killer, the madman will continue to kill.
The FBI is now saying yesterday's shootings were caused by a lone gunman armed with a single shotgun. The murderer armed himself with the handgun from an armed security guard had shot but there was no AR-15 used as incorrectly reported.he s
(Excerpt) Read more at gunsnfreedom.com ...
Y’know, a lot of this problem is self-inflicted. We as gun owners have a real bad tendency to “hide our light under a bushel basket.” That is to say that most gun owners don’t carry and those that do tend to carry concealed. Which might be OK from a tactical perspective, but in the long run just undercuts our position. Very few gun owners Open Carry the Tools of Liberty. And it’s not helping us one little bit.
Ask yourself: would the kind of senseless butchery we’ve seen in CT and DC and CO and other places have occurred if even 10% of the population Open Carried?
No, it probably would not.
And we also have to ask whether we would even be hearing the tired bleatings of the gun grabbers if 10% of the population Open Carried?
No, we probably would not.
So while we complain about the gun grabbers and fight them politically, it continues to be something of a rearguard effort. We could largely eliminate violent crime and get marginalize the gun grabbers in one fell swoop if just say one out of 4 or one out of 5 gunowners would just openly and proudly carry the Tools of Liberty as they went about their day to day business.
We are sitting ducks right now. A band of clowns can overrun our military bases.
The Beruit Marine barracks - guards had no ammo.
USS Cole - M2 guys topside also had no ammo.
DID YOU KNOW THE CAPTAIN FORBADE AMMO EVEN *AFTER* THE ZODIAK STRUCK..?
He later said he wanted to avoid a tragedy —sounds made up, right?
I didn’t know our men on military bases couldn’t have a handgun until the killing at Fort Hood. I was stunned to find that out. That many deaths at Fort Hood wouldn’t have happened if our guns had a handgum. These killings at the Naval base also be much less if our guys had a handgun.
That law needs to be struck down right now.
Ahhh... crazy’s hearing voices don’t obe thelaw?
It seems like the Navy Yard shooter (I refuse to print its name) would have thought twice, and only have succeeded once, if he were met by a few armed GIs running to the sound of the gunfire, with weapons drawn.
The Bushies are big govt liberals....ALL Of ‘EM!
Crazy.
Policies .. Who needs them unless they serve a leftist goal.
Years ago, even as we took up a new fight against terrorists of no particular persuasion, we lost our way, our nation’s leaders floundered and philandered too, the price we have paid since for their intrigues is inestimable, for families, for states and our nation.
Put some ice on it, Bubba. Time for you to get Jimmah Carter to build you a house.. With a view. Of Hillary and the hell she hath wrought as well.
That’s right.
Good question but I think that the answer lies in two parts. First, if you'll recall, Bush #43 (W) said he would sign an assault weapons ban. He could say this and be comforted in the knowledge that Congress would never send him one. But I'm pretty sure that he would have done so had one been sent to his desk.
Part two of this lies in his daddy, Bush #41. That Bush is decidedly antigun. He's the guy who got rid of all our cheap Chinese, Egyptian, Czech and Bulgarian 7.62x39 ammo by an EO ban. He's the guy who also banned (by EO) the superb H&K PSG-1 long range rifle from ever again competing at Camp Perry or being used to take game at 800+ meters. At a minimum of $10K to buy one, it wasn't high on the list of guns wanted in da 'Hood. This was also the guy, you'll remember, who coined the term for our society just after Gulf War #1 of New World Order, in 1992. That is not an accident.
I have the same question..I had no idea that there were no guns allowed on military bases..its a MILITARY BASE..if guns are not allowed there then these brave men and women who sacrifice everything for our freedom are just sitting ducks. Jihadists attack military bases in Afghanistan all the time, you would think they would allow military to carry weapons, but thanks to Slick Willy he banned it
As far as I’m concerned, American military personnel should be required to carry their firearm at all times.
Chicken, Alaska was invaded by ninjyas from 7 different LE Agencies. They literally outnumbered the ENTIRE TOWN.
And yet we cannot defend our own military bases in the capital city of our own country.
We enforce Iraqi borders, Yemeni borders, but leave our OWN totally undefended.
Is there any historical precedent?
“I am reaching for the popcorn and waiting for the Barney Fife comments.”
We’ll see. You might be waiting for awhile.
“LET US SEE A GUSHING FLOOD..!”
Yes, but ultimately it’s up to us to do it. Do we really think the politicians are going to preserve our liberties?
If even 10% of the population Open Carried, do you really think this would be an issue?
1. We let our BP guy get killed (bean-bag rounds)
2. We let our Customs guy get killed
3. We let our “Embassy” guys get killed
4. We disarm our military
WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BE IN THE MILITARY...?
“If FIXING this (doing away with gun free zones) isn’t common sense gun legislation, I don’t know what is. (for clarification).”
But it sort of begs the question: do the politicians possess any common sense? I think the answer to that by and large is a resounding NO.
If we wish to preserve our liberties, then the only people who will do so are ourselves. When we act with common sense by regularly and openly carrying the Tools of Libery, a lot of this silliness will evaporate. When we start acting like a free people and effectively nullify the usurpations of our liberties, then much of our political silliness will evaporate as well.
Having spent several years as a military policeman on several military bases, I would like to clarify a couple of misconceptions here.
There is currently nothing preventing a commanding officer from arming troops with government firearms while they go about their duties on a military base except fear of “accidental discharges”. The law in place prohibits the possession of only privately owned firearms on bases.
Federal law and the laws of the states already allow any service member to carry an assigned firearm at any time during the course of their military duties.
There is a culture in the military of making policies for the lowest common denominator. Commanders choose not to arm troops on bases because inevitably some Joe will screw up and shoot his buddy at the motor pool.
I’m not saying it’s a good reason for not having, for example, all E-5s and above armed at least with pistols. It’s just the military rationale for not doing it.
Sure, we could change the EO or law or whatever and allow privately owned firearms in the barracks or on base housing, but this does not address the fact that service members should be armed while on base carrying out their duties. This must originate at the base commander level.
“We are sitting ducks right now. A band of clowns can overrun our military bases.”
The same could be said for our homes, our businesses, and our schools. How many people even carry, let alone carry openly?
A big part of the solution is already out there and perfectly legal in most states. Yet our population has become so neutered as to not even dare carry the Tools of Liberty.
Because Bush wasn’t nearly as “conservative” as everyone touted him to be.
I tried to point this out a couple of times, but was shouted down.
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.