[macquire]

“Few GI’s tried to stop him”

‘cause GI’s can’t be trusted to wear their side arms when on base according to the liberals that forced the arms ban.... go figure.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

Exactly.

[Never on my watch]

I work on base in a building with more than 100 people, most of whom are active and retire military. All of those are trained in the use of firearms and many are marksmen. And yet we are sitting ducks should a devout Muslim enter the building. It is asinine that our servicemen do not at least the option of wearing a sidearm.

[FES0844]

“Few GI’s tried to stop him”

He was one of them. They probably couldn’t believe what was happening. Hang the traitor.

[Humal]

The soldiers not being armed just floors me. How can soldiers NOT be armed?? Had they been, there would have been a whole different out-come to this horrible situation. If they haven't changed this rule, why not??

[Sherman Logan]

‘cause GI’s can’t be trusted to wear their side arms when on base according to the liberals that forced the arms ban.... go figure.

The strict control of weapons on army bases goes back many decades, long before it became a political issue. In fact, I doubt there was ever a time when soldiers were allowed to routinely carry weapons when not required by their specific duties.

This probably goes all the way back to when soldiers and sailors were recruited quite literally from the dregs of society and if armed were quite likely to use those arms on their officers.

So it's just not a recent liberal thing.

[NEMDF]

This headline seems to infer that the GIs should have been expected to stop him, even though they were not armed. Sort of like, “....it’s not his fault; no one stopped him...”.