Doesn't it seem a bit FREAKIN RIDICULOUS that one of the most vulnerable targets of terror at home is our military people????? In many states any ding-dong can carry a gun openly in a Dairy Queen. Yet decorated Marines are forbidden to have their sidearms while they man posts in the USA that are KNOWN terrorist targets. They were supposed to be on heightened alert, and yet the #@#$*&^ "rulemakers" in Washington won't let them keep their weapons, even concealed !!! For SAFETY REASONS....... Unbelievable
I wonder if it might be more productive to allow military recuiters to wear their own sidearms if they so wish during their duties. But there won't be a snowball's chance for that to happen.
You can thank bush the elder for coming up with the proposal and clinton the male for signing it into law. Then you can thank Bush the younger and Obama for continuing the policy.
military bases in the USA are not warzones. there's no needs to have soldiers walking around with their guns. MPs are armed.
Where are the MPs when these shooting occur? I beg to differ with your statement that "there's no needs to have soldiers walking around with their guns". In this era, when radical muslim terrorists have made it public for the for terrorists to target our military personnel specifically, they most certainly should be able to defend themselves. We are at war with terrorism and we are sending our troops to war with no weapons.
More than 4 people would have died on military bases if everyone walked around with guns. Arming everyone based on one-in-a-million events defies logic, and uses emotion rather than reason.
Saying that more than four people would have died on military bases if everyone walked around with guns is a statement that defies logic or evidence and uses emotion rather than reason. The sign on the window identified the gun free zone.
I doubt the fact that it is a "one-in-a-million" event is any comfort to the victims or their families. Being armed is not an emotional decision, it is purely logical. These men are qualified to carry arms in defense of their country, they should be able to do it in defense of themselves and others. In many ways they are more qualified than your average LEO. Having MP's at gates are no deterrant when you're a 45 minute drive from a gate at some of these bases. Since an attack always ends with other guns anyway (LEO's), why not have those weapons at the point of origin in the hands of trained professionals already? THAT is logic. The argument that "a Marine might shoot himself in the foot" is the emotional argument.
Just to be on the same page... The shooters also carried carried their guns for safety reasons, right?
If there are no guns in an area, there is no gun violence. It's math, not emotion. The question is, how did a guy with a gun get into a the secured area? Fear is an emotion. The only reason people want to carry guns around in public is fear. I'm not afraid of being shot, so I don't carry a gun. I'll never carry a gun because I refuse to live in fear. I won't bar up my home either. Guys who want to carry around guns for "defense" against all of these alleged rapists and murderers going around need to stop watching Fox News and start experiencing life.
Which is why at charlie hebdo they were killed with ball point pens and strong language and not fully automatic AK 47s that you're not supposed to be able to get in France. Have you even read the article? IT was a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing strip mall and he shot it up from his car in the parking lot. When he went to a secure area he was eventually shot to death. Eventually. Says the guy who is so terrified of gun violence he wants to disarm the entire nation even when cars kill far more etc.
You wouldn't be arming them you'd simply be issuing them the weapon they are assigned more frequently...
Wrong. I don't have life insurance because I'm afraid, I have it because I need to be prepared. The same is true for being armed. Just because you're not afraid doesn't mean you're not going to get shot. How you feel has nothing to do with reality. I'm not afraid to go to a hospital, but they kill up to 450,000 people per year in mistakes. What I do know is that if someone ever threatens you or the lives of your families, you will indeed be very afraid. I would also be afraid, but I would have a chance to prevent it. You will just be another statistic.
In order: 1) neither are gun ranges or hunting clubs, plenty of armed people there...what's your point? 2) apparently there is, did you see the news yesterday?? 3) And where where they yesterday?
In order: 1) any proof of that statement, or did you pull it from your backside? 2) soldiers work with guns, it is there job (see also (1))
If you truly believe that you will post your address and list of valuables here.......go on, I dare you....prove you are not a hypocrite.... alleged rapists and murderers going around need to stop watching Fox News So you say there are no rapes or murders and it is all made up by Fox News??? You are either a complete tinfoil hat nut job, or your command of English as just been aquired.
Being government owned and issued property, soldiers cannot be armed except when carrying out official government duties. Protecting themselves from harm is not considered important, because they are expendable, and replaceable. If there is sufficient reason for the populace to be armed, there is sufficient reason for the military to be armed as well. There were no MPs present. Just as there are never police officers present when a murder is occurring. Are you attempting to argue that trained a disciplined military personnel would have fired wildly without aiming? How is it any different from attempting to disarm everyone based on a one-in-a-million event possibly occurring? They apparently carried for the purpose of committing murder.
Banning firearms based on one-in-a-million events defies logic, and uses emotion rather than reason. ... Whoops! - - - Updated - - - Clearly MP's are not effective in stopping a Islamic mass shooting.
Personal defense weapons keep your heroes safe from lunitics and assassins. Obama, Holder and Hillary stay protected and productive from their agent's guns. But I guess they are just better than you and more worthy. Same for your Hollywood icons with armd bodyguards.
I want to stop gun violence. I never once mentioned disarming the nation. Get your facts straight. Regular soldiers aren't permitted to carry firearms on a base. Not in the past few hundred years, anyway. Why should this change? This is why people get shot at gun shows and ghettos: too many people with guns. I've never been shot. That's my reality. I've never felt a need to carry a gun. I know that's un-American and I need to worship the Almighty gun, but I just don't. I have life insurance because I will actually die. I don't carry a gun in public because I just don't need to. See the difference?
This is truly the stupidest thing I've ever read. Nope. Don't you have a gun to worship? It's been hours. Ask Pat Tillman. Over 30,000 gun-related deaths per year despite steadily decreasing crime rates. It's time to reduce gun victimization too. Reducing gun ownership and using tougher gun laws is a start, but the Second Amendment needs to be repealed for there to be any sanity in America. The 2A has been used to make nonsense, hysterical, reactionary laws to protect gun toters.
