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.
Background currents, those spoken about by psychiatrists but which don't make their way into the media because no one wants to risk legal action from companies like Merck, indicate
serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) can alter one's mental faculties. Sometimes it's mild. Sometimes it's severe. At times it seems to reduce the threshold people have with respect to how they treat others.
It isn't really a DoD policy, it is federal law.
Actually, DoD regulations authorize installation commanders to establish the rules on their installation with respect to firearms. DoD policy either encourages them or requires them to restrict firearms on base to a serious extent.
You cannot bring a firearm into a federal facility unless it is for lawful purposes.
Well, IHOP is not a federal facility! Seriously, though, while bases fall under federal, they're DoD, so a different set of rules apply than for, say, the local IRS office.
The issue goes back to DoD policy whereby active duty military are not allowed to carry while in uniform. I suspect the same is true of Guard and Reserve. That puts our military servicemen at unnecessary risk.
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...
That commander FAILS at knowing the UCMJ. The idea that people forfeit their rights when they join the military is wrong. It's an oft-repeated fallacy designed to whip people into line and cow-tow them into never stepping out of line.
In fact, you retain 100% of your rights. There are some things you agree to do, however. You take an oath and agree get the job done, even if it requires your life. Time and again, however, the courts continue to affirm the rights of servicemen, much to the chagrin of poorly-informed commanders.
Since9, this isn't so much commanders at fault. It is our law makers. I believe it is US CODE Title 18 Chapter 4
What part? It goes Title, Part, Chapter, etc. The only Chapter 4 (under Part 1) no longer exists.
So that applies to you and I, but I don't know about the laws for these gaurd troops on a state owned base.
Many guard/reserve bases share space with active duty units on federal land.
In this post-9/11 world, it's absolutely asinine for uniformed military personnel to go unarmed.
I agree, but I'd say pre/post doesn't make a hill of beans bit of difference with respect to honoring our 2A rights.
And that's really what this boils down to: Is the Military willing to Honor our Constitution, the same document ALL members of the military swear to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, or has the oath of office merely become lip service and by their actions they're dishonoring it, even to the point of having become that enemy?
If we followed the US Const, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the "people" are the militia and their 2A rights are clearly protected.
Well, it's clear to us. Then again, we can read English.
