Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: Gunman kills 3 at Nevada IHOP, including guardsmen

  1. #1
    Regular Member John Canuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    297

    Gunman kills 3 at Nevada IHOP, including guardsmen

    Gunman kills 3 at Nevada IHOP, including guardsmen

    http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-kills-3...004946980.html

    Oh oh, get ready for the hysteria. How long until he is labelled as a Tea Party loony?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, , USA
    Posts
    68

    Let our soldiers carry a personal sidearm - NOW!!!

    I am sick of these stories. Stories that don't have to occur if people would be prudent and arm themselves! I have written my Congressional representatives several times about this issue. As a Guardsman myself I feel for the families of those who were killed yesterday.

    To serve overseas in a COMBAT ZONE...make it safely...only to come home and be killed is a travesty!! It just does not make any sense at all!!!

    I would ask you all to write your representative and request the following actions be taken:

    1.) That unit, base, and facility commanders develop quick reaction plans for violent shooters. Such plans should allow for at least one armed guard on the premises at ALL times! With others appointed as backups!

    2.) That all of our military personnel be allowed to carry a personal weapon when offpost on official busisness or when in uniform off duty (transiting to and from their homes).

    I look forward to everyone's input....your thoughts are welcome and valued. That is the joy of free speech...we can discuss matters openly that are important to us!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    From what I've seen on the many parts of this forum, many IHOPs are almost all posted against carry. Not all (because it;s apparently not a national policy ad is left to local managers) but many--in AZ, Indiana, and other states are posted.

    If this is true, then there is simply NO WAY this news story is true, because everyone knows that posting an area as a "gun free zone" instantly and magically renders it completely safe and free of all violence.

    Let's here from the locals in the Carson City NV area, as to whether or not the IHOPs out there--specifically the one in this story--are posted.

    Because if this particular IHOP was posted, then this news story is OBVIOUSLY made up and completely fictional, and we need to investigate what REALLY happened. Absent the presence of a firearm, it seems to me that the victims in this incident must have been killed by some other means, and the truth needs to come out...

    <sarcasm OFF>
    Last edited by Dreamer; 09-07-2011 at 05:19 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    troops in uniform? Good thing they weren't carrying firearms, they'd be treated like terrorists if they tried to bring them on base. (wearing a uniform usually indicates you are on your way to or from a base and you ARE DISARMED)

    The government would rather them be dead and their families be missing a father, son, brother than have those troops carry a gun in their car on base....


    LAAAAND OF THE FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE AND THE HOMEEEEEEEE OF THEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BRAVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    This is indeed a tragedy, one centered primarily on the misguided decisions of commanders who deprive their troops of a means to defend themselves out of fear one of them "may" abuse the privilege.

    That's cowardice in the face of a civil enemy.

    If the commanders can't make better decisions than that, they need to either relinquish their command or have it transferred to someone who is more concerned about protecting the troops than their own backsides.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    As a vet (active army 1987-1991) I still keep up a subcription to Army Times, the weekly newspaper. After the Fort Hood shooting there was hope that the Army would loosen up some of the strict rules about carrying fireams on or off duty or on or off post. Sadly, we saw just the opposite. Base commanders tightened rules even requiring troops who live off post to register weapons stored in off post housing. Hunters and those transporting firearms onto post for target shooting were also faced with tightened rules such as preregistering all weapons to be brought on post and getting approval each and every time the particular weapon would be transported on post. No more showing up with your shotgun to hunt dove on the old tank ranges. You have to jump through all sorts of hoops now.
    The DoD has resisted any and all attempt to allow military members to carry even off duty. It's disgusting and needs to change but I simply don't see how it will happen anytime soon. Unless the orders come from the top down to each and every base commander and that just isn't in the cards.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by yale View Post
    As a vet (active army 1987-1991) I still keep up a subcription to Army Times, the weekly newspaper. After the Fort Hood shooting there was hope that the Army would loosen up some of the strict rules about carrying fireams on or off duty or on or off post. Sadly, we saw just the opposite. Base commanders tightened rules even requiring troops who live off post to register weapons stored in off post housing. Hunters and those transporting firearms onto post for target shooting were also faced with tightened rules such as preregistering all weapons to be brought on post and getting approval each and every time the particular weapon would be transported on post. No more showing up with your shotgun to hunt dove on the old tank ranges. You have to jump through all sorts of hoops now.
    The DoD has resisted any and all attempt to allow military members to carry even off duty. It's disgusting and needs to change but I simply don't see how it will happen anytime soon. Unless the orders come from the top down to each and every base commander and that just isn't in the cards.
    Thanks for your service yale;

    now about your post, a lot of it is untrue and probably gossip you read in the Times magazines. I read through them a lot and most if it just seems like rumors and gossip. The registering of guns off post never went through with that unit if I remember correctly. I know many people who carry when we are off base/ off duty and the military has had no say in it. I did bring the problem up of not being able to have a gun in my car to my Group Commander and all he did was point at me and tell me I HAD NO RIGHTS and that if I was in a dangerous area to get a truck and move.... O_O

    Since9, this isn't so much commanders at fault. It is our law makers. I believe it is US CODE Title 18 Chapter 4 that prohibits firearms on federal installations. (So that applies to you and I, but I don't know about the laws for these gaurd troops on a state owned base)


    The funny thing is this law allows you to lawfully carry a gun on federal property..... but self defense is not lawful anymore I guess!
    Last edited by Schlitz; 09-08-2011 at 08:10 AM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  8. #8
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Shooters weapons identified

    The weapon he used was a pre-ban Norinco 'AK' (Type 56S). The other 'AK' was a Romanian WASR 10... the same type involved in the 'Fast & Furious' BATF scam. Also a Colt .38 handgun... model unk. I've had a suspicion about the WASR 10 connection... 'n this guy was a head case. If documented as such he couldn't have bought them.

    I'm wondering if these NG's had any connections to Border Patrol operations? Was this a cartel ordered hit? A suicide type... like the Al Qeada bombers? Y'know... do this or we kill your family... or do this and we pay off your debts... whatever?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manassas, VA
    Posts
    2

    Question

    Hey everyone (my first offical post here) I was thinking about this story and being a proud member of the VA national guard I have to think about our soldiers carrying firearms off post. As one of our founding fathers have said free standing armies are dangerous to liberty ect. the opinion that our soldiers should be abel to carry guns/firearms/weapons off post is a bit tricky for me to subscirbe to. I completly agree that the soldiers were vicitms because they were not armed. And again this is tricky for me because soldiers off post (specifically) presents chanllenges as far as the consitution is concerned. I'll try not to be to long winded while presenting everything I'm thinking here...

    So my first issue is the whole armed soldiers off post (we'll deal with the national guard specifically here b/c active duty is a whole other animal). My problem is the consitution and local state and federal laws that cover such things. Of course on the flip side it really does no good to disarm them as we see evident in this story. So how would we solve this problem (speakign again specifically of NG)? I would love to be abel to carry in uniform but I also have the reservation about laws and constitution and founding fathers opinions. And of course there's the whole AR 670-1 (uniform reg for the army). So there's a bit of a snag for this and I'd love to know you're guys'/gal's opinions about it, and possible solutions i.e. consitutiona amendments/fixing the laws.

    As far as active duty is concerned I fully believe that soldiers should be bale to carry their pow's (personally owned weapons not prisoners of war) on post, on or off duty. As far as off post is concerned I think they should be restriced to off duty in their Pov's (personally owned vehicles) . And again I know it serves no purpose to disarm our soldiers in uniform becuase they are probably more likely to be "victims" of a crime off post but I again go back to the reservation of the constitution and opinions of our founding fathers. So like I said this is tricky. Soldiers are citizens too, in fact more so than some because of their sacrifice and I know first hand that soldiers get almost none of the rights that they have sworn to protect and defend. (for instance the 1st, 2nd and 4th that I can name off the top of my head).

    I want our soldiers to be able to defend themselves but I also worry about what the constitution says and why the provisions were put into place, anyone else have these conflicts??

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Seroke View Post
    <snip>I want our soldiers to be able to defend themselves but I also worry about what the constitution says and why the provisions were put into place, anyone else have these conflicts??
    Carrying in uniform isn't the same as being a part of a "standing army" with police powers.


    You are missing the focus. The focus should be on "once a civilian puts on a uniform that isn't an LE uniform, for some irrational reason, he/she is required to no longer be armed...."


    Why?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    You know, when I was in the Army (Active) I tried to show respect for Army policy. In many cases the policy made sense when you looked at the context of what was happening in the world when the policy was written.
    I remember reading a story about some chimpanzees a few years ago. The story goes that some scientists put a bunch of chimps in a cage together. Then they put some fruit in the cage. When one of the chimps tried to pick up the fruit the scientists sprayed them with a fire hose. After this happened a couple times the chimps learned not to pick up the fruit.
    The scientists started introducing new chimps to the group. When one of them would try to pick up the fruit the original chimps would attack the new chimps. The scientists continued introducing new chimps while taking away the original chimps until eventually all the original chimps were gone.
    All of the new chimps knew they couldn't touch the fruit but they didn't know why. And that is how Army Policy began.
    My point is that when this policy started there was probably a very good reason for it but all the people that understood the reason are gone and have been replaced. Maybe the policy made sense at the time but today it doesn't work. Anybody that served knows that the military is extremely slow to change policy. At least when it would be a good idea. If someone presents a bad idea they seem to run with it. Funny thing is that most of those bad ideas don't come from the military. They come from the politician behind the desk and the civilian on the couch.
    Last edited by decklin; 09-08-2011 at 07:32 PM.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Exactly. Though I'm sure given the opportunity our commanders would have us disarmed, they don't need to. Federal law disarms the troops.
    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 930

    whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

    I don't blame crazy people for the avoidable deaths. They're sick and crazy. Crazy people are out there, it is not a surprise anymore for someone to come into a building and start wasting people. Actually, I expect it everywhere I go. It sucks to be on my lunch break in uniform and be worried that someone is going to come in and maybe target me specifically because of my uniform. Thanks uncle sam.

    Our politicians would rather see my daughter grow up with out a father than have me lawfully defend my life. It's ******* sick.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 09-08-2011 at 09:12 PM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by yale View Post
    As a vet (active army 1987-1991)Base commanders tightened rules even requiring troops who live off post to register weapons stored in off post housing.
    If the off-post housing is owned by the DoD, then they may be able to do so. If they off-post housing are homes and apartments owned or rented by the service members, then any order requiring a service member to register their firearms is ILLEGAL AS HELL.

    No more showing up with your shotgun to hunt dove on the old tank ranges.
    Yeah, we used to shoot skeet near the alert pad, and hunting deer was an annual event on the Air Force Academy.

    The DoD has resisted any and all attempt to allow military members to carry even off duty.
    It's not within the DoD's purview to either "allow" or "deny" a service member anything while the service member is off-duty, with a very few yet well-specified prohibitions covered under the UCMJ. Adultery and fraternization remain two of those prohibitions.

    It's disgusting and needs to change but I simply don't see how it will happen anytime soon.
    All it will take is smart service member unconcerned about continuing their careers who can afford a good attorney. Get noticed, challenge the unlawful order through IG chains of command, and when the chain of command begins to try and hammer the service member, have the lawyer work his magic.

    Correction: It'll take a great lawyer, one experienced with the ins and outs of the military justice system.

    Unless the orders come from the top down to each and every base commander and that just isn't in the cards.
    If they hypothetical case I mentioned reaches the level of the federal courts, it'll become such a public faux pas with egg on the faces of the military higher ups they'll have no wiggle room but to comply.

    American service members risk their lives every day protecting the rights of ALL U.S. Citizens, and that INCLUDES American service members. Contrary to popular misconception, one does NOT forfeit one's rights when they join the military. Thousands of commanders over the decades have discovered this fact the hard way, much to their chagrin.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    One word.

    Westboro


    Sen Reid found one spot of common ground with me.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member Johnburns15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lexington, ky
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    troops in uniform? Good thing they weren't carrying firearms, they'd be treated like terrorists if they tried to bring them on base. (wearing a uniform usually indicates you are on your way to or from a base and you ARE DISARMED)

    The government would rather them be dead and their families be missing a father, son, brother than have those troops carry a gun in their car on base....


    LAAAAND OF THE FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE AND THE HOMEEEEEEEE OF THEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BRAVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
    No offense to your post and I am not trying to start an argument by any means. I also believe that the troops that list their lives in this incident were all males. But there are also females in the military. I agree with you about the government not caring if the "father, son, or brother" lost their lives but you should have also included "mothers, daughter, and sisters.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnburns15 View Post
    No offense to your post and I am not trying to start an argument by any means. I also believe that the troops that list their lives in this incident were all males. But there are also females in the military. I agree with you about the government not caring if the "father, son, or brother" lost their lives but you should have also included "mothers, daughter, and sisters.
    Nope.


    Two men, one woman.

    Maj. Heath Kelly, Sgt. 1st Class Christian Riege, Sgt. 1st Class Miranda McElhiney and Florence Donovan were killed in the shooting. Gunman Eduardo Sencion, 32, took his own life.
    Last edited by wrightme; 09-10-2011 at 12:26 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Maj. Heath Kelly, Sgt. 1st Class Christian Riege, Sgt. 1st Class Miranda McElhiney and Florence Donovan were killed in the shooting. Gunman Eduardo Sencion, 32, took his own life.
    Sure would be nice if the nutjobs who perpetrate this on honest, law-abiding folks would do this in the reverse order...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Sure would be nice if the nutjobs who perpetrate this on honest, law-abiding folks would do this in the reverse order...
    It would also be nice if the so-called mental experts came up with an effective therapy that actually cured people, or actually worked:

    "He's been on medication for a long period of his life. And he was considered to be doing fine," Furlong said.

    http://www.aol.com/2011/09/09/ihop-s..._n_955429.html


    Hmmm. Lets see. He was on mental drugs at the time of the shooting. And, had been on mental drugs for a long period of his life. Yet, he killed people, and then himself. It seems pretty obvious the drugs didn't work.

    Note also that Klebold and Harris, the Columbine shooters were both on psychiatric medication. As were quite a number of mass shooters in this country. Now, one can go around in circles all day about other factors this, other factors that--really fog up the issue. But, one thing really stands out if one is willing to look through the fog: the medications didn't prevent the killings, didn't prevent the suicides.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    challenge the unlawful order through IG chains of command, and when the chain of command begins to try and hammer the service member, have the lawyer work his magic.
    It isn't really a DoD policy, it is federal law. You cannot bring a firearm into a federal facility unless it is for lawful purposes. As of right now "to stay alive to see another day" is not a lawful purpose to carry a firearm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnburns15 View Post
    No offense to your post and I am not trying to start an argument by any means. I also believe that the troops that list their lives in this incident were all males. But there are also females in the military. I agree with you about the government not caring if the "father, son, or brother" lost their lives but you should have also included "mothers, daughter, and sisters.
    No offense to your post, but you could have mentioned cousins, 1st cousins, 2nd cousins, mother in laws, father in laws, brother in laws, sister in laws, step brothers, step sisters, step moms, step dads....you see where I am going? I'm very well aware that women serve, and they are sisters, moms, and daughters. Next time I will include every possible title from the family tree O_o

    no offense taken, i know what I could have included, I just tried to keep it short. I'm assuming everyone else knows that women do serve as well, but if they didn't you have clarified it and I thank you for that...
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The real news story is that no one died in the Kennesaw Waffle House one fateful day.

  21. #21
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    Reiterating what SCHLITZ touched upon above - people should no longer be shocked, or mystified that such shooting sprees occur. The list is long - and includes , but is not restricted to - Ft Hood, McDonalds, Luby's Cafeteria, now an IHOP, etc.

    As it has been pointed out repeatedly during the 9/11 ceremonies this morning - "Everyone can do SOMETHING".

    I can do something by being prepared mentally, functionally, and operationally to be ready to take action in the event I find myself situated at some future targeted location.

    What is required in this war against fanatic Islamic murderers, as well in our efforts to convince people to not only appreciate, but to actually EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in defense against criminal threats in general is for armed citizens to be ready, willing, and able to stop these murderers in their tracks.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    Reiterating what SCHLITZ touched upon above - people should no longer be shocked, or mystified that such shooting sprees occur. The list is long - and includes , but is not restricted to - Ft Hood, McDonalds, Luby's Cafeteria, now an IHOP, etc.
    I'm known as the "paranoid" guy at work because I carry a gun EVERYWHERE (off duty of course). No matter what happens people don't believe it can happen to them. No one believes a guy with an AK47 is going to ruin their pancakes until it's too late.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  23. #23
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Thanks for your service yale;

    now about your post, a lot of it is untrue and probably gossip you read in the Times magazines. I read through them a lot and most if it just seems like rumors and gossip. The registering of guns off post never went through with that unit if I remember correctly. I know many people who carry when we are off base/ off duty and the military has had no say in it. I did bring the problem up of not being able to have a gun in my car to my Group Commander and all he did was point at me and tell me I HAD NO RIGHTS and that if I was in a dangerous area to get a truck and move.... O_O

    Since9, this isn't so much commanders at fault. It is our law makers. I believe it is US CODE Title 18 Chapter 4 that prohibits firearms on federal installations. (So that applies to you and I, but I don't know about the laws for these gaurd troops on a state owned base)


    The funny thing is this law allows you to lawfully carry a gun on federal property..... but self defense is not lawful anymore I guess!
    Thanks for addressing that. While many of these regulations I mentioned were overturned it is a fact that some base commanders were working to impose the types of restrictions I spoke of. Bear with me a sec...
    From http://www.nrapublications.org/index...ical-report-2/ I copy& paste this.....
    The issue came to a head in 2010 because of a preposterous regulation imposed at Fort Riley, Kan. The Fort Riley regulation required troops stationed there to register privately owned firearms kept off base—as well as firearms owned by their family members residing anywhere in Kansas. It also prohibited soldiers with Right-to-Carry permits from carrying guns for protection off base and off duty, a restriction we’d also seen imposed a few years ago on soldiers stationed in Alaska. Finally, the Fort Riley rules authorized unit commanders to set arbitrary limits on the caliber of firearms and ammunition their troops could privately own.

    Similar regulations were imposed on other bases, and DOD was considering a similar rule department-wide. Under DOD’s national plan, military commanders would require troops to register all privately owned firearms kept off base, and would have authorized commanders to require troops living off base to keep privately owned firearms and ammunition locked in separate containers.
    The NRA had to step in and fight these base commanders policies. The fact that any commander would try to impose registration not only on the arms owned by a servicemember but those of his/her relatives is disgusting.
    As bad as it is that they don't want civilians and the soldiers to carry on post but then they are laying off the base police. See... http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/0...g-jobs-080811/ .
    FORT HOOD, Texas — Two civilian police officers credited as the first responders in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting massacre are losing their jobs as part of military budget cuts.

    The Austin American-Statesman reports Monday that officials on the Central Texas post say Kimberly Munley and Mark Todd are among officers hired year-to-year who will not have their employment renewed.

    Todd and Munley were the first law enforcement officers to arrive at a busy medical processing center after a gunman killed 13 people and wounded more than 30 others.
    Oh, and from one vet to another...Thanks for your service too, sir.

  24. #24
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276
    Nevada is an open carry state and the police understand it.

    The victims chose to walk around disarmed knowing that evil exists in the world.
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by 230therapy View Post
    Nevada is an open carry state and the police understand it.

    The victims chose to walk around disarmed knowing that evil exists in the world.
    Not the guardsmen. THEY were disarmed by policy, under threat of losing their position.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •