Ft. Hood again

..sigh..

Another pos who took the cowards way out!
_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Thank you GWB and all the Democrats that supported his bullshit efforts in Iraq, including the nation building in Afghanistan. You have seriously fucked up a generation of young people(and older) for what?

SS...Thoughts on this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/fort-hood-shooting-repeat-renews-calls-for-ending-gun-restrictions-on-base/
_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
Thank you GWB and all the Democrats that supported his bullshit efforts in Iraq, including the nation building in Afghanistan. You have seriously fucked up a generation of young people(and older) for what?

Puntang!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really want to see a generation of fucked up young people? Go down to the inner-cities.

While we are on dumb fuck Presidents, do you think Obama is a complete fucking idiot poking the nuclear power Russia or just fucking nuts?

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
Thank you GWB and all the Democrats that supported his bullshit efforts in Iraq, including the nation building in Afghanistan. You have seriously fucked up a generation of young people(and older) for what?

Puntang!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really want to see a generation of fucked up young people? Go down to the inner-cities.

While we are on dumb fuck Presidents, do you think Obama is a complete fucking idiot poking the nuclear power Russia or just fucking nuts?

I think he's beyond his depth. He is an amateur and everyone knows it, Putin has called his phony ass out multiple times. We have no real power or authority to prevent Russia from going into Ukraine, but he keeps making silly assertions that he can't possibly make good on. Not only that, but weren't we just in a little country called Iraq doing the same thing; protecting our nations interests(oil/energy)? How can he say anything about Ukraine with a straight face?

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
Thank you GWB and all the Democrats that supported his bullshit efforts in Iraq, including the nation building in Afghanistan. You have seriously fucked up a generation of young people(and older) for what?

Puntang!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really want to see a generation of fucked up young people? Go down to the inner-cities.

While we are on dumb fuck Presidents, do you think Obama is a complete fucking idiot poking the nuclear power Russia or just fucking nuts?

I think he's beyond his depth. He is an amateur and everyone knows it, Putin has called his phony ass out multiple times. We have no real power or authority to prevent Russia from going into Ukraine, but he keeps making silly assertions that he can't possibly make good on. Not only that, but weren't we just in a little country called Iraq doing the same thing; protecting our nations interests(oil/energy)? How can he say anything about Ukraine with a straight face?

Obama hasn't given Putin anything to call a bluff on. Obama has purposely done, almost literally, nothing. Why? Because its none of our fucking business what Russia and Ukraine do. If we invade Cuba to "quell a rebellion" and "protect the citizens there" (just examples of rhetoric), and Russia landed forces there to stop us or made other threats against us, how would you feel about that?

You'd tell them to get fucked, cause 'Murica, thats why.
--------------

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
a dead Muslim is a peaceful Muslim. Works for me

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
SS...Thoughts on this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/fort-hood-shooting-repeat-renews-calls-for-ending-gun-restrictions-on-base/

I've never understood why we can arm our men and women to walk around in foreign lands but not allow it here at home, especially because the 2A clearly states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If the Armed Forces arent a well regulated militia, then what is?

This doesnt mean that they should always be walking around with machine guns either. I understand heavy weapons need to be secured and thats not what I am talking about. I know what a pain in the ass it is to keep a personal weapon on base since you have to register it with the provost marshal's office.

I lay the blame mostly on the pussification of America where people freak out over seeing people carry guns. In other words, punk bitch democrats.

Originally posted by: EclipseSix

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
Thank you GWB and all the Democrats that supported his bullshit efforts in Iraq, including the nation building in Afghanistan. You have seriously fucked up a generation of young people(and older) for what?

Puntang!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really want to see a generation of fucked up young people? Go down to the inner-cities.

While we are on dumb fuck Presidents, do you think Obama is a complete fucking idiot poking the nuclear power Russia or just fucking nuts?

I think he's beyond his depth. He is an amateur and everyone knows it, Putin has called his phony ass out multiple times. We have no real power or authority to prevent Russia from going into Ukraine, but he keeps making silly assertions that he can't possibly make good on. Not only that, but weren't we just in a little country called Iraq doing the same thing; protecting our nations interests(oil/energy)? How can he say anything about Ukraine with a straight face?

Obama hasn't given Putin anything to call a bluff on. Obama has purposely done, almost literally, nothing. Why? Because its none of our fucking business what Russia and Ukraine do. If we invade Cuba to "quell a rebellion" and "protect the citizens there" (just examples of rhetoric), and Russia landed forces there to stop us or made other threats against us, how would you feel about that?

You'd tell them to get fucked, cause 'Murica, thats why.

I'm talking about his presidency as a whole, but primarily Syria and Ukraine(Sanctions on Russia). He's made Obama look like a chump. I don't think the US should be involved with Ukraine, it isn't our business(I totally agree with you).

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
SS...Thoughts on this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/fort-hood-shooting-repeat-renews-calls-for-ending-gun-restrictions-on-base/

I've never understood why we can arm our men and women to walk around in foreign lands but not allow it here at home, especially because the 2A clearly states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If the Armed Forces arent a well regulated militia, then what is?

This doesnt mean that they should always be walking around with machine guns either. I understand heavy weapons need to be secured and thats not what I am talking about. I know what a pain in the ass it is to keep a personal weapon on base since you have to register it with the provost marshal's office.

I lay the blame mostly on the pussification of America where people freak out over seeing people carry guns. In other words, punk bitch democrats.

It must be East, South and Western Democrats, because here in my state, a ton of Democrats hunt. Maybe it'd be more accurate to say city Democrats(Read: Liberals).

Eclipse defending the pres he voted for


_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Eclipse defending the pres he voted for

hey, whats not to like?

http://nypost.com/2014/04/03/obamas-laughable-stand-up-routine/

Originally posted by: EclipseSix
Obama has purposely done, almost literally, nothing.

You have to admit, Obama is one bad ass mother fucker when he imposes sanctions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dumb enough to say let's go to war with Russia over the fact that our country perpetrated a coup in Ukraine. The tough talk by this administration and Europe has had very little effect on what Russia will do.

Every time Obama says something, it is ignored or laughed at by Russia. Just yesterday this administration told China it better not make land grabs like Russia or else we are going to hurt them economically with sanctions.

I don't know why America is funding certain people around the world to create instability, but Obama seems to be caught in the middle of it. I certainly don't see him trying to prevent these stupid entanglements. So, by doing nothing, he is actually creating bigger problems.

Pretty much sums his entire jobs program, nothing.

Originally posted by: Cocytus
Just yesterday this administration told China it better not make land grabs like Russia or else we are going to hurt them economically with sanctions.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/story/2012-04-03/us-homes-lure-chinese-buyers/53977638/1

In the U.S., the Chinese are now the second-largest foreign buyers of homes, behind Canadians, accounting for $7.4 billion of sales in the 12 months ended March 2011, up 24% from the previous 12 months, according to the National Association of Realtors. Buyers from China and Hong Kong also spent $1.71 billion on commercial property in the U.S. in 2011, more than quadruple their investment in 2008, says Real Capital Analytics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2012/08/10/real-estate-tourism-whos-really-buying-americas-homes/

Chinese are also shopping in the U.S. in growing numbers. Buyers from mainland China and Hong Kong account for over $7 billion in sales annually, or 11% of international sales activity in the year to March, according to NAR, making them the second-largest foreign buyers of U.S. homes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/26/chinese-firms-and-gulf-sheiks-are-grabbing-farmland-worldwide-why/

And so, in response, a slew of countries and investors — from Chinese state corporations to Gulf sheiks to Wall Street firms — have started buying up farmland overseas, in an apparent attempt to acquire as much precious soil and water as possible. This phenomenon is known as "land grabbing," and it has been accelerating ever since the massive surge in grain prices back in 2007.

too late....

this admin lost again on that front as well.

like we are in any position to sanction them without punishing ourselves. they only manufacture everything and loan us all our money.

this would be analogous to a spoiled child threatening not to suckle their parents titty anymore.
Post edited by Mockery at 4/4/2014 1:17:17 PM

Oh Mockery, you fucking asshole!



I think they mean land grabs where they don't pay for property.

Wow you two are just racist assholes towards our King!
_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Originally posted by: Cocytus
Oh Mockery, you fucking asshole!



I think they mean land grabs where they don't pay for property.

with 17 trillion+ in debt who are we to say they didn't pay for everything they ever wanted and then some?



not their fault we are shitty at price negotiation.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Wow you two are just racist assholes towards our King!

King is done on 01/20/2017.

Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
Barak Obama
Hilary Clinton?

What a list.
Post edited by Cocytus at 4/4/2014 1:52:44 PM

Ronald Reagan (The Great One®)
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush
Jeb Bush?

An equally terrible list of human garbage.

_________________
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things. Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all. Peace builds. War destroys.
-Lew Rockwell

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest
Ronald Reagan (The Great One®)
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush
Jeb Bush?

An equally terrible list of human garbage.

The Republican party hasn't won a Presidency without a Bush somewhere on the ticket since Richard Nixon.

That should tell us a lot about the Republican Party and the types of dog shit candidates they keep pumping out.

They had the audacity to run Rmoney, who lost to McStain, who lost Owebummer back in '08 ffs.

this is the level of derp we are dealing with today. I can't wait for them to run Chris Christie against Hitlary in '16. She will mop the floor with him and further ruin this disastrous nation for another 8 years.

She will also be the bag of garbage that ran against, and lost to, the current sack of shit we have still occupying the White House since '08. That was before she became Secretary of State under him, and now that position is filled with the walking dead dolt who lost to GW back in '04.




Forty years later still a blubber mouth useless idiot.

This is like a sad movie. One where the same characters never leave, never go anywhere, and no matter how big of a joke we all see them for the idiots in America somehow keep putting them back in power. Proving, in my opinion, our government isn't to blame.....our people are. They are destined for serfdom, it is their natural state. We deeply crave subjugation. An overlord oligarchy of ruling political elite are sure to be the trick. ever since we broke away from the crown in England, many American's have been day dreaming about getting a monarchy back here again.



Luckily for humanity that dream is more achievable than ever before in our nations history.
Post edited by Mockery at 4/4/2014 4:05:25 PM

BTW HI NBF!!!!!!!!

i have no idea why of all places, soldiers can't carry arms on base. makes zero sense to me.

how long has that policy been in place? was it always like that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
SS...Thoughts on this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/fort-hood-shooting-repeat-renews-calls-for-ending-gun-restrictions-on-base/

I've never understood why we can arm our men and women to walk around in foreign lands but not allow it here at home, especially because the 2A clearly states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If the Armed Forces arent a well regulated militia, then what is?

This doesnt mean that they should always be walking around with machine guns either. I understand heavy weapons need to be secured and thats not what I am talking about. I know what a pain in the ass it is to keep a personal weapon on base since you have to register it with the provost marshal's office.

I lay the blame mostly on the pussification of America where people freak out over seeing people carry guns. In other words, punk bitch democrats.

i agree with your assessment of guns on bases and posted as such. however, you blaming democrats is off base.

the military is run primarily by republicans who have had plenty of chances with a republican president and congress to change it.

do you want to guess where that rule started?

signed into effect in 1992 under the presidency of bush 1, and signed by a Donald J Atwood.

"Monday’s deadly shooting at the Washington Navy Yard has renewed interest in why most military personnel are forbidden from carrying firearms on military bases. In the aftermath, some have pointed fingers at former President Bill Clinton, but is he really to blame?

Not according to what we found.

The question of why military members aren’t armed on base garnered attention back in November 2009 when Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at Ft. Hood and killed 13 people. He was sentenced to death on August 28. Now, nearly four years later, many are asking the same question.

So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/


the actual directive is linked at that site.

turns out it was punk bitch republicans that started that stupid policy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
SS...Thoughts on this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/fort-hood-shooting-repeat-renews-calls-for-ending-gun-restrictions-on-base/

I've never understood why we can arm our men and women to walk around in foreign lands but not allow it here at home, especially because the 2A clearly states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If the Armed Forces arent a well regulated militia, then what is?

This doesnt mean that they should always be walking around with machine guns either. I understand heavy weapons need to be secured and thats not what I am talking about. I know what a pain in the ass it is to keep a personal weapon on base since you have to register it with the provost marshal's office.

I lay the blame mostly on the pussification of America where people freak out over seeing people carry guns. In other words, punk bitch democrats.

i agree with your assessment of guns on bases and posted as such. however, you blaming democrats is off base.

the military is run primarily by republicans who have had plenty of chances with a republican president and congress to change it.

do you want to guess where that rule started?

signed into effect in 1992 under the presidency of bush 1, and signed by a Donald J Atwood.

"Monday’s deadly shooting at the Washington Navy Yard has renewed interest in why most military personnel are forbidden from carrying firearms on military bases. In the aftermath, some have pointed fingers at former President Bill Clinton, but is he really to blame?

Not according to what we found.

The question of why military members aren’t armed on base garnered attention back in November 2009 when Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at Ft. Hood and killed 13 people. He was sentenced to death on August 28. Now, nearly four years later, many are asking the same question.

So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/


the actual directive is linked at that site.

turns out it was punk bitch republicans that started that stupid policy.

the military has been led by dipshit liberals and their leader called Obama for many years! Are that fucking dumb Pixel?

It's hilarious how pixel will honestly say democrats are pro-gun since the DOD determines who can be armed its comical how after the first incident in 2009 that the libtards running the military didn't arm more essential personnel. Or did you miss that part?

It gotta say the laughs I get from this tool are priceless.
Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 4/4/2014 6:31:05 PM

_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
SS...Thoughts on this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/fort-hood-shooting-repeat-renews-calls-for-ending-gun-restrictions-on-base/

I've never understood why we can arm our men and women to walk around in foreign lands but not allow it here at home, especially because the 2A clearly states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If the Armed Forces arent a well regulated militia, then what is?

This doesnt mean that they should always be walking around with machine guns either. I understand heavy weapons need to be secured and thats not what I am talking about. I know what a pain in the ass it is to keep a personal weapon on base since you have to register it with the provost marshal's office.

I lay the blame mostly on the pussification of America where people freak out over seeing people carry guns. In other words, punk bitch democrats.

i agree with your assessment of guns on bases and posted as such. however, you blaming democrats is off base.

the military is run primarily by republicans who have had plenty of chances with a republican president and congress to change it.

do you want to guess where that rule started?

signed into effect in 1992 under the presidency of bush 1, and signed by a Donald J Atwood.

"Monday’s deadly shooting at the Washington Navy Yard has renewed interest in why most military personnel are forbidden from carrying firearms on military bases. In the aftermath, some have pointed fingers at former President Bill Clinton, but is he really to blame?

Not according to what we found.

The question of why military members aren’t armed on base garnered attention back in November 2009 when Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at Ft. Hood and killed 13 people. He was sentenced to death on August 28. Now, nearly four years later, many are asking the same question.

So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/


the actual directive is linked at that site.

turns out it was punk bitch republicans that started that stupid policy.

the military has been led by dipshit liberals and their leader called Obama for many years! Are that fucking dumb Pixel?

It's hilarious how pixel will honestly say democrats are pro-gun since the DOD determines who can be armed its comical how after the first incident in 2009 that the libtards running the military didn't arm more essential personnel. Or did you miss that part?

It gotta say the laughs I get from this tool are priceless.

you know because your hard-on for me is such a raging one, you just look more and more stupid because the article and evidence i posted just proves that all your drivel is fuckin irrelevant.

you can blame dems if and when some of them are against arming military personnel on base. so post proof. as far as when and HOW it started? under Bush. so suck it up dipshit

keep on keepin on. i don't mind you constantly making yourself look like an idiot.
Post edited by Pixel at 4/4/2014 6:35:07 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

You proved you lack understanding of the topic since the article CLARIFIES the DoD can choose who can be armed. Who is runs the DoD dumbfuck?

Thanks again for showing how dumb you are. I always enjoy the stupidity in every post you make

_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
You proved you lack understanding of the topic since the article CLARIFIES the DoD can choose who can be armed. Who is runs the DoD dumbfuck?

Thanks again for showing how dumb you are. I always enjoy the stupidity in every post you make

the DOD directive that IMPLEMENTED that policy was done by Bush. no matter how you try to talk your retard talk, you can't change that. i read the directive signed by bush's deputy defense secretary. but since you have retard reading comprehension, it's no surprise you still don't get it.

and the DOD had 8 years under Bush2 between democratic presidencies WITH control of congress during part of that time to change it. explain that one away dipshit.


Post edited by Pixel at 4/4/2014 6:44:22 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Don't whine because I called you out and you look like the typical retard you are in real life. Next time read the whole article.
Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 4/4/2014 6:49:22 PM

_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

anyways, we can ignore the drivel of Snake and actually have an intelligent discussion.

i'm with you SS on possibly banning things like an assault rifle and heavier weapons, but any soldier on a base should be allowed to have a sidearm as standard protocol. civilian personnel should probably have to go through some sort of approval process - but military personnel should be able to wear a sidearm period. perhaps can add somethign in that if a soldier has been diagnosed with something like PTSD maybe they have to go through an approvals process?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

PTSD soldier needing permission to get access to a gun.



that's funny stuff

Originally posted by: Mockery
PTSD soldier needing permission to get access to a gun.



that's funny stuff

it's not simply access to a gun, obviously in legal and military events there is no reason for them not to have a gun. but for day to day carry on a domestic base while not on any kind of 'mission'

sure, funny stuff to someone with the same logical thought process as snake.

mockery you have become more and more like snake. perhaps because this forum has mostly become a circle jerk for righties without much actual debate, so why bother with being thoughtful? but seriously, you have become more stupid for the most part.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

u don't see the stupidity in your own statements. so i just fling shit in your direction.

a soldier asking permission to have access to a weapon that could potentially harm or hurt someone isn't by definition a soldier anymore. be it in battle, or even in their day to day lives and activities.

your statement came off to me as insanely idiotic as saying that an "angry cop" (defined by whom) should have to get written permission (from someone else) to carry a firearm when they are out on patrol......or when they are off duty.

yes, it is that laughable, because it is that silly of a statement to make.

ptsd is caused from a lot of things, most having to do with being subjected to high stress bullshit. if every solider subjected to this were suddenly disarmed, we wouldn't have any need for a military anymore.

As such it is another laughable leftist anti-solution to these types of events. it's just more pie in the sky derpage that fuels the modern regressives like u today.

the soldiers and cops can own guns.....just not the scary ones...or when they get angry
Post edited by Mockery at 4/4/2014 8:33:05 PM

Originally posted by: Pixel
anyways, we can ignore the drivel of Snake and actually have an intelligent discussion.

i'm with you SS on possibly banning things like an assault rifle and heavier weapons, but any soldier on a base should be allowed to have a sidearm as standard protocol. civilian personnel should probably have to go through some sort of approval process - but military personnel should be able to wear a sidearm period. perhaps can add somethign in that if a soldier has been diagnosed with something like PTSD maybe they have to go through an approvals process?

anything that you post in has no intellectual content. Do you forget who you are?


_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

in short....

I'm glad the only the government should be allowed to have guns argument......

is now only happy government soldiers/cops should be allowed to carry.

let the hilarity continue, please don't let me derail
Post edited by Mockery at 4/4/2014 8:31:53 PM

Originally posted by: Pixel


i agree with your assessment of guns on bases and posted as such. however, you blaming democrats is off base.

the military is run primarily by republicans who have had plenty of chances with a republican president and congress to change it.

do you want to guess where that rule started?

signed into effect in 1992 under the presidency of bush 1, and signed by a Donald J Atwood.

"Monday’s deadly shooting at the Washington Navy Yard has renewed interest in why most military personnel are forbidden from carrying firearms on military bases. In the aftermath, some have pointed fingers at former President Bill Clinton, but is he really to blame?

Not according to what we found.

The question of why military members aren’t armed on base garnered attention back in November 2009 when Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at Ft. Hood and killed 13 people. He was sentenced to death on August 28. Now, nearly four years later, many are asking the same question.

So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/


the actual directive is linked at that site.

turns out it was punk bitch republicans that started that stupid policy.

Yes, I found out it was H Bush who started it.

However, what I was alluding to was that our military is a microcosm of our society. Thats where our recruits come from and hence, my disdain for the progressive agenda (and the theocratic right). The military isnt all run by reps either... wesley clark is a democrat who was also SACEUR and had major influence in the Army.

I want to be clear: I do not support any ban on weapons on base. It's complicated with medium / heavy weapons because you will also have to carry ammo in order to defend those weapons -no point in making the troops targets for a gun grab by whoever. Then there are other factors such which cycle the major command is in. I wont state much, but if a unit is on support cycle, I dont want the troops carrying around M4's when they are supposed to be cleaning up the base. Though I dont think that carrying around a sidearm is unreasonable.

That should help clarify my position better.

Come on SS! You know three nades per soldier on base is the minimum requirement for juggling.

Originally posted by: Mockery
BTW HI NBF!!!!!!!!

*with my best Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington impersonation*

Hi there.

_________________
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things. Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all. Peace builds. War destroys.
-Lew Rockwell

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Pixel


i agree with your assessment of guns on bases and posted as such. however, you blaming democrats is off base.

the military is run primarily by republicans who have had plenty of chances with a republican president and congress to change it.

do you want to guess where that rule started?

signed into effect in 1992 under the presidency of bush 1, and signed by a Donald J Atwood.

"Monday’s deadly shooting at the Washington Navy Yard has renewed interest in why most military personnel are forbidden from carrying firearms on military bases. In the aftermath, some have pointed fingers at former President Bill Clinton, but is he really to blame?

Not according to what we found.

The question of why military members aren’t armed on base garnered attention back in November 2009 when Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at Ft. Hood and killed 13 people. He was sentenced to death on August 28. Now, nearly four years later, many are asking the same question.

So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/


the actual directive is linked at that site.

turns out it was punk bitch republicans that started that stupid policy.

Yes, I found out it was H Bush who started it.

However, what I was alluding to was that our military is a microcosm of our society. Thats where our recruits come from and hence, my disdain for the progressive agenda (and the theocratic right). The military isnt all run by reps either... wesley clark is a democrat who was also SACEUR and had major influence in the Army.

I want to be clear: I do not support any ban on weapons on base. It's complicated with medium / heavy weapons because you will also have to carry ammo in order to defend those weapons -no point in making the troops targets for a gun grab by whoever. Then there are other factors such which cycle the major command is in. I wont state much, but if a unit is on support cycle, I dont want the troops carrying around M4's when they are supposed to be cleaning up the base. Though I dont think that carrying around a sidearm is unreasonable.

That should help clarify my position better.

so we agree, sidearms for all combat personnel is a no brainer. what about having a secondary check for those shown to have a certain level of PTSD?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Hey Pixeltard. Define sidearm please? Are you ok with 18 rd magazines?


_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Hey Pixeltard. Define sidearm please? Are you ok with 18 rd magazines?

i'm ok with any round magazines as long as one bullet is reserved to shoot racist hick backward thinking fucks bringing this country down. like yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.