Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: fireforeffect

“After that you bring them back to the States and tell them it is not safe for them to have firearms in their possession.”

The problem is that they should not need to repel or neutralize an attack when not in a combat zone. The security and protection needs to be increased so that our bases are safe for our troops and their dependents. The last 2 attacks were from properly credentialed actors that escaped scrutiny before perpetrating their attacks.


77 posted on 09/17/2013 2:55:22 PM PDT by Calamari (Pass enough laws and everyone is guilty of something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: Calamari

“:The problem is that they should not need to repel or neutralize an attack when not in a combat zone.”\

There is no such thing. ALL military personnel are considered war fighters at all times. They are targets at all times. The military must always be run as such. Of course it isn’t and that has invited attacks.

I can guarantee you that in one particular unit where we are armed at all times no one would think for a nanosecond about using violence against us. Unarmed, PC, pansy military offices are prime targets for frustrated cowards.

I am of the belief that all officers should be armed at all times with a sidearm and all enlisted the same if not issued a rifle where practical.


84 posted on 09/17/2013 4:04:47 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

To: Calamari
The problem is that they should not need to repel or neutralize an attack when not in a combat zone.

Define “Combat Zone”. Chicago? New York? Washington City? You are safer on the streets of Kabul, statistically speaking.

The attacks on Fort Hood, Fort Dix, the recruiters in Arkansas, and etc. are not anomalies. This is an asymmetric war, there are NO safe rear areas. Not even your living room.

While this murderer was not a terrorist, that we know of, there are plenty of hippies and other national socialist who would like to do the same thing.

91 posted on 09/18/2013 6:02:27 AM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

To: Calamari
On further reflection, and reading past you first sentence.

The security and protection needs to be increased so that our bases are safe for our troops and their dependents.

As with “shall issue” or open carry states, crime goes down when the perps know that their victims might shoot back. Allowing some military personnel, say all officers and NCO’s, to carry at all times would prevent this type of thing. Also you would have to allow them to have ammunition beyond one or two magazines, which apparently the Washington Navy Yard security personnel were not allowed to have.

The last 2 attacks were from properly credentialed actors that escaped scrutiny before perpetrating their attacks.

But I thought background checks were RACIST!? Yes, clear failure of the system. Regan, peace be upon him, screwed up when he cleared out the metal hospitals.

92 posted on 09/18/2013 6:18:23 AM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson