Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on July 16, 2015, 03:44:34 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-confirmed-tennessee-navy/story?id=32494050
This happened at a recruiting office and military support center. The shooter is one of the fatalities. Some of the injured and dead include local police and US Marines.
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-police-officer-shot-near-tennessee-army-recruiting-center/
Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke said five people died in all, including the gunman. Two law enforcement sources told CBS News that the shooting suspect was identified as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.
Thoughts and prayers for the victims and their loved ones.
-
Five total deaths including the shooter, the other four are Marines.
http://www.newschannel9.com/news/top-stories/stories/officer-injured-active-shooter-incident-near-riverside-park-18770.shtml
-
Two law enforcement sources told CBS News that the shooting suspect was identified as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Carnac.jpg)
Sounds like some workplace violence to me.
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-police-officer-shot-near-tennessee-army-recruiting-center/
Guy with an Arabic-sounding name shoots up a couple of Armed Forces facilities, resulting in four dead plus the shooter.
U.S. Attorney Bill Killian said officials were treating the attacks as an "act of domestic terrorism," though FBI Special Agent in Charge Ed Reinhold said authorities were still investigating a motive. The first shooting happened around 10:45 a.m.; the attacks were over within a half-hour.
Translation: The fed.gov is looking for a plausible cover story so they can officially label it something other than terrorism.
-
Merged dupes, moved to politics.
RIP Marines.
-
Horrible...RIP Marines
Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.
But, but, but, Religion Of Peace!
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4FJnXy2.jpg&hash=cf1fb3c27c8904452adce4e3326d7cfe5ac214fc)
=( Another sad case of paper armor failing to stop bullets.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4FJnXy2.jpg&hash=cf1fb3c27c8904452adce4e3326d7cfe5ac214fc)
=( Another sad case of paper armor failing to stop bullets.
The signs worked. He didn't bring the gun inside :angel:
They need to add a sign:
Shooting bullets through this window prohibited.
-
Mr. Abdulazeez is 24 years old, born in Kuwait and lives in Hixson, Tennessee. It is not yet known if he is a citizen of Kuwait.
-
RIP Devil Dogs.
We will be having a serious talk at work on Monday about force protection measures. Some of the head in the sand jagoffs might even get a knife hand. As soon as these wanna be martyrs realize what a soft target the US .mil is in garrison it'll get sporty.
-
In a victim disarmament zone, right?
-
In a victim disarmament zone, right?
Yeah. Pretty much all military facilities are GFZ's
-
Shooter's high school yearbook photo.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnmo.coveritlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fimage%2F201507%2Fphpfzjjceb3dba644-c83e-4aa7-a418-ab4af874fb4e.jpeg&hash=ba39d439e20aa15b57a9576c2a18129a98b143d5)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcbsnews1.cbsistatic.com%2Fhub%2Fi%2Fr%2F2015%2F07%2F16%2F4587e424-e2dd-4cc8-8412-c163839de6d0%2Fthumbnail%2F270x150%2F77f86019956d160b19bee957a2881b49%2Fmuhammad-youssef-abdulazeez.jpg&hash=a56b9cba70fb68865d5111801b48c846cd615241)
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/jul/16/breaking-shots-fired-tennessee-riverpark-chattanooga/314944/
The shooter also was killed. Law enforcement sources told CBS News that the shooting suspect was identified as 24-year-old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez. According to a U.S. law enforcement source, Abdulazeez was born in Kuwait and came to the United States in 1996. It's unclear if and when he became an American citizen.
-
Thought it's been taken down since, his sister's facebook page included a lot of BS Palestinian propaganda. His dad (step dad?) is from the West Bank.
-
http://www.inquisitr.com/2257852/chattanooga-shooting-isis-twitter-account-warned-of-attack-minutes-before-shooting-authorities-calling-it-terrorism/
Nothing to see here. Move along.
-
Confederate flags must have made him do it.
Hey! Just in time to divert the attention away from planned parenthood and the democrats non response to their pet issue!
-
http://www.inquisitr.com/2257852/chattanooga-shooting-isis-twitter-account-warned-of-attack-minutes-before-shooting-authorities-calling-it-terrorism/
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Article title in the link is incorrect, that tweet was sent after the attack by about an hour.
-
Article title in the link is incorrect, that tweet was sent after the attack by about an hour.
Several sources are confirming it was posted afterwards, just read that.
-
Just for the record--I'm not going to go get all shooty.
but this stuff puts me in a killing mood.
-
Just for the record--I'm not going to go get all shooty.
but this stuff puts me in a killing mood.
This.
Very angry.
-
Practical effect on US military personnel? After the earlier spring threatcon increase and now this I will be extra sure to make sure my car is squeaky clean when I report to drill in August. I was already skipping this month just because. So, 250 miles from home, 4 days away, travelling at odd hours, lock all my guns up at home. The only upside is lately things have been so busy they have been putting me up in the Hilton off base instead of the CBQ on base. So, guns come along. But in reality is now we will just search more of the people who are the targets.
-
When the shooter is white and spouts racist and southern ideology, we must race to blame mental illness while simultaneously accusing the media of unfairly tarring the confederate flag and its admirers.
When the shooter is brown and spouts Islamic radical ideology, we must race to immediately blame Islam and all cultures vaguely connected to it. Mental illness or personal factors are just media bias.
This is because white racism is somehow different from Islamic radicalism. Key difference being that whites, southerners and gun owners are targeted when hysteria about racism goes wild.
-
When the shooter is white and spouts racist and southern ideology, we must race to blame mental illness while simultaneously accusing the media of unfairly tarring the confederate flag and its admirers.
When the shooter is brown and spouts Islamic radical ideology, we must race to immediately blame Islam and all cultures vaguely connected to it. Mental illness or personal factors are just media bias.
This is because white racism is somehow different from Islamic radicalism. Key difference being that whites, southerners and gun owners are targeted when hysteria about racism goes wild.
Jesus Christ, this again... Do you really want to compare random white racists to radical Muslims? Please say yes, because I'd like nothing more than to compare those stats. Lets start with beheadings and religiously motivated shootings.
-
When the shooter is white and spouts racist and southern ideology, we must race to blame mental illness while simultaneously accusing the media of unfairly tarring the confederate flag and its admirers.
When the shooter is brown and spouts Islamic radical ideology, we must race to immediately blame Islam and all cultures vaguely connected to it. Mental illness or personal factors are just media bias.
This is because white racism is somehow different from Islamic radicalism. Key difference being that whites, southerners and gun owners are targeted when hysteria about racism goes wild.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
When the shooter is white and spouts racist and southern ideology, we must race to blame mental illness while simultaneously accusing the media of unfairly tarring the confederate flag and its admirers.
When the shooter is brown and spouts Islamic radical ideology, we must race to immediately blame Islam and all cultures vaguely connected to it. Mental illness or personal factors are just media bias.
This is because white racism is somehow different from Islamic radicalism. Key difference being that whites, southerners and gun owners are targeted when hysteria about racism goes wild.
I missed the part where it was the rednecks performing multiple mass shootings, bombings, flying airplanes full of people into buildings full of people, throwing gays off of buildings, burning people alive, beheadings, stoning people to death, etc.
You know, you and the other "peaceful majority of Muslims" might want to start wiping out your radicals (or at least putting an honest effort towards it) instead of spouting off excuses. Right now the people of the US have shown an INCREDIBLE amount of restraint by trying to coexist peacefully with Muslims in the US. It could very easily go the other way when the patience runs out.
-
When the shooter is white and spouts racist and southern ideology, we must race to blame mental illness while simultaneously accusing the media of unfairly tarring the confederate flag and its admirers.
When the shooter is brown and spouts Islamic radical ideology, we must race to immediately blame Islam and all cultures vaguely connected to it. Mental illness or personal factors are just media bias.
This is because white racism is somehow different from Islamic radicalism. Key difference being that whites, southerners and gun owners are targeted when hysteria about racism goes wild.
What an inane statement. More like when the shooter is white we must rush to blame 80 million gun owners who have nothing in common with the shooter except for having filled out a 4473. When the shooter is muslim we must rush to figure out how to still blame those gun owners and lie our asses off about it not being terrorism or an act of war.
The Roof shooting response is surreal. The attack dogs knew they could get no traction on the gun angle since we rednecks callously ignored Sandy Hook, so they decided to attack something easier.
Yes we can blame islamic radicalism. There is no international white redneck caliphate preaching death to the brown people. Well, there may be one in the mind of Morris Dees, but that don't count. There is an islamic caliphate preaching for this exact same kind of attack and praising it on twitter. I think it's safe to blame this one on radical islam. If muslims have 3% 'er types that's about 30 million people worldwide that would be up for a good old jihad death to America fest. I guess if you're a moderate muslim culture who doesn't want to be judged by those 3% you might want to do what we need to do. Shoot on sight.
-
A. What in sam hill is "southern ideology"?
Also, very few mass killings have much to do with racism. If memory serves, most of them are either about Islam, leftist ideology, or just random crazy.
-
Trolled again gents.
-
I missed the part where it was the rednecks performing multiple mass shootings, bombings, flying airplanes full of people into buildings full of people, throwing gays off of buildings, burning people alive, beheadings, stoning people to death, etc.
You know, you and the other "peaceful majority of Muslims" might want to start wiping out your radicals (or at least putting an honest effort towards it) instead of spouting off excuses. Right now the people of the US have shown an INCREDIBLE amount of restraint by trying to coexist peacefully with Muslims in the US. It could very easily go the other way when the patience runs out.
Ayup. Police your own or get lumped in with them when the majority wakes up cranky.
There is no good reason to let these folks into our country. We need to rojnd them up and send them to the 55 or so majority muslim ciuntries.
-
Trolled again gents.
This.
-
When the shooter is white and spouts racist and southern ideology, we must race to blame mental illness while simultaneously accusing the media of unfairly tarring the confederate flag and its admirers.
When the shooter is brown and spouts Islamic radical ideology, we must race to immediately blame Islam and all cultures vaguely connected to it. Mental illness or personal factors are just media bias.
This is because white racism is somehow different from Islamic radicalism. Key difference being that whites, southerners and gun owners are targeted when hysteria about racism goes wild.
Hey. You.
I'm trying to decide whether to chalk this up to your usual aversion to facts or your childlike naievete. Let me know, so I can figure out how big a truth bomb to drop on you, or whether to call your mommy and have her revoke your internet privileges.
I know that's a petty and insulting thing to say, but you just insulted the collective intelligence of APS with that comment. So go *expletive deleted*ck yourself.
Also, I know it must hurt your brain terribly much that we unrepentant southern white people refuse to accept responsibility for Roof and his heinous crimes.
That's because unlike the Islamic community, which not only protects but encourages and fundraises for terrorism with "legitimate" front groups, we whites make it a habit to take out our own trash whenever the opportunity presents itself. A fact which the statistics will corroborate.
Maybe you're just trolling. Maybe you just like getting your jollies by making APS mad. That's OK. In person I'm sure we'd have a nice laugh about it and roll on. But if you're trolling on the internet you're being an annoying little *expletive deleted*it, and that's just plain bad manners.
So again, unless I wasn't clear the first time.
Go *expletive deleted*ck yourself.
-
The point was that we seem to be happy with group blame, ie, collective guilt when it's other groups. And there's always some justification like "but they actually ARE part of a billion person conspiracy and we are not!"
Much gnashing of teeth follows from even the mere suggestion that how you are behaving towards Muslims is how liberals behave towards you. But the facts are there. I don't need to cite hyperbole about conservative memes, lack of all rational thought, or add in anything else personal to make the point.
In a very simple, couple of sentence comparison to Roof (not named in my posts to now), you understood exactly what I meant. That says something.
Edit: to be crystal clear, the point I am making is that you shouldn't try to make all Muslims responsible for this, just like you shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of crazed gun toting racists. Not the other way round.
-
The point was that we seem to be happy with group blame, ie, collective guilt when it's other groups. And there's always some justification like "but they actually ARE part of a billion person conspiracy and we are not!"
Much gnashing of teeth follows from even the mere suggestion that how you are behaving towards Muslims is how liberals behave towards you. But the facts are there. I don't need to cite hyperbole about conservative memes, lack of all rational thought, or add in anything else personal to make the point.
In a very simple, couple of sentence comparison to Roof (not named in my posts to now), you understood exactly what I meant. That says something.
Edit: to be crystal clear, the point I am making is that you shouldn't try to make all Muslims responsible for this, just like you shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of crazed gun toting racists. Not the other way round.
I've only seen people in this thread blame islamic radicalism, which given the information coming out, is fairly accurate. With roof, we saw blame hit an entire culture of people, which has now manifested in calls to relocate long dead soldiers, destroy monuments, and do other ISIS-like cultural cleansing.
That's the key difference. I don't see anyone in here blaming islam as a whole, unless i've missed it.
Theres also a pretty significant difference in degree. How often do we see white supremacist groups doing these type of things? Because, radical islam's occurrence of horrendous atrocities is fairly high.
-
He's not even trying to hide the trolling now.
But really, can you go jerk off in another thread instead of crapping in one about dead Marines?
-
Wow.
This has been extra special, even by De Selby standards.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I've only seen people in this thread blame islamic radicalism, which given the information coming out, is fairly accurate. With roof, we saw blame hit an entire culture of people, which has now manifested in calls to relocate long dead soldiers, destroy monuments, and do other ISIS-like cultural cleansing.
That's the key difference. I don't see anyone in here blaming islam as a whole, unless i've missed it.
Theres also a pretty significant difference in degree. How often do we see white supremacist groups doing these type of things? Because, radical islam's occurrence of horrendous atrocities is fairly high.
Well, let's see
You know, you and the other "peaceful majority of Muslims" might want to start wiping out your radicals (or at least putting an honest effort towards it) instead of spouting off excuses. Right now the people of the US have shown an INCREDIBLE amount of restraint by trying to coexist peacefully with Muslims in the US. It could very easily go the other way when the patience runs out
Looks like blaming all Muslims for this problem to me. Exactly what we said was wrong when applied to gun owners and whites following the roof shooting...I didn't see anyone on aps demanding that whites identify and oust racists in their midst.
-
Well, let's see
Looks like blaming all Muslims for this problem to me. Exactly what we said was wrong when applied to gun owners and whites following the roof shooting...I didn't see anyone on aps demanding that whites identify and oust racists in their midst.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb398%2FFLHRI-OK%2Fiq%2520of%2520hotdog.jpg&hash=efc992766636a1b47f87429549d08f7f150b16bb) (http://s23.photobucket.com/user/FLHRI-OK/media/iq%20of%20hotdog.jpg.html)
-
Well, let's see
Looks like blaming all Muslims for this problem to me. Exactly what we said was wrong when applied to gun owners and whites following the roof shooting...I didn't see anyone on aps demanding that whites identify and oust racists in their midst.
No where in his statement does he blame all Muslims. What he stated, since reading comprehension fails you, is that Muslims need to start cleaning up there own if they are so peaceful.
My take on this is that, yes more than likely since these Marines were ambushed, if they had been able to have been armed wouldn't have made a difference, but I think it is way beyond time to allow Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coasties to carry a damn firearm just as LEO's are, any damn time and any damn place they wish. Most of them have just as much if not more and better training than a lot of LEO's.
-
The smear that gun owners and white folks object to is that by owning guns or being white we somehow share the same philosophical system and assumptions as mass murderers or white supremacists.
What DeSelby seems to be implying is that all Muslims don't share the same philosophical/religious system or assumptions as radical Islamists.
The problem for me is that while a majority don't act on it Islam as a system seems to not only bless acts of violence but in some instances require acts of violence.
I'm not sure if a westernized neutered Islam born in the states can be exported to the middle east.
-
I think you guys are forgetting what's important here. This is another brilliant success by our government in keeping us safe, by constant, Big Brother surveillance, combined with a policy of keeping stateside Marines safely unarmed. A round of applause...
-
I think you guys are forgetting what's important here. This is another brilliant success by our government in keeping us safe, by constant, Big Brother surveillance, combined with a policy of keeping stateside Marines safely unarmed.
The disarming of soldiers on base IIRC happened under the first Bush.
-
I think you guys are forgetting what's important here. This is another brilliant success by our government in keeping us safe, by constant, Big Brother surveillance, combined with a policy of keeping stateside Marines safely unarmed. A round of applause...
We can always depend on Fistful to point out the upside in everything.
-
The disarming of soldiers on base IIRC happened under the first Bush.
I'm thinking it goes back quite a bit farther than that.
-
When the shooter is white and spouts racist and southern ideology, we must race to blame mental illness while simultaneously accusing the media of unfairly tarring the confederate flag and its admirers.
When the shooter is brown and spouts Islamic radical ideology, we must race to immediately blame Islam and all cultures vaguely connected to it. Mental illness or personal factors are just media bias.
Nobody that I'm aware of thinks southern crackers want to take over the world and impose sharia.
-
Can we stop using the term 'radical islam' already?
The so-called 'radical islamists' are the ones who are following ol' mo's concept of a social/military/political philosophy wrapped in the disguise of a religeon perfectly.
Catholics have a term for 'Catholics' who like the idea of being catholics while picking and choosing what parts of the religeon they will follow - commonly ignoring the church's stance on birth control, abortion, and cohabitation- cafeteria catholics.
-
I'm thinking it goes back quite a bit farther than that.
Back when I started wearing a uniform, Reagan was in the White House. Only firearms not locked away in the armory were in the possession of the MPs.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that during WWII, US forces not in combat zones were not authorized to have loaded firearms. I remember chuckling when I read how many guys were carrying unauthorized handguns concealed in the European theater because they weren't allowed to carry their rifles around on base. If that was the attitude during an active war, you think it's going to change much because of this? We know the easy solution would be to authorize sidearms for .mil personnel, but can you imagine the tin foil types if suddenly every guy in uniform starts wearing a duty belt with an M9 here at home? Even if they authorized concealed carry, the tin foil crowd is going to scream about martial law.
-
The disarming of soldiers on base IIRC happened under the first Bush.
I refuse to blame Bush, due to my irrational need to blame all Muslims for everything, despite white racists being responsible for everything in the world that is bad.
-
I refuse to blame Bush, due to my irrational need to blame all Muslims for everything, despite white racists being responsible for everything in the world that is bad.
I like to blame Muslims for contemporary country music and the dearth of Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, and Hank Williams Sr. on the radio. And Hormel Chili.
-
Until we as a country decide to eradicate Islam, topics like this is pointless. Islam has not, will not progress as a religion. If we do anything right now that would make a difference tomorrow I submit that .mil immediately allow any service member that has a current CCW to carry at work if they choose, in states that have constitutional carry, let them carry. PERIOD.
Soldiers not being able to carry is stupid. It goes back farther than I can remember. As an MP, later criminal investigator when I was in, I was authorized to carry my issued weapon anywhere. When in W Germany, I had, for lack of a better term, a permit from the Army. My weapons card stayed with me, and on the reverse in German and English stated the person on this card is authorized to carry the listed weapon anywhere in W Germany. All MPI and CID had this. I mention this because there was a system in place then, in the 80s and 90s. So it should not be too damn hard for .mil to quickly make policy that allows for service members to carry per state laws. In states that have no CCW, allow NCOs to be armed, E5/E6 and above. And if this doesn't happen for christ sake put in a weapons locker inside recruiting offices with quick access for these guys. I don't like the weapons locker idea, it's better than nothing.
-
But if we let military folk carry loaded weapons all willy-nilly, there might be a ND and some officer might get a poor rating. Better
four...
2009 – Fort Hood, 13 killed, 29 wounded–many permanently disabled
2009 – Arkansas recruiting station, one killed, a second wounded
2010 – Pentagon shooting by a 9/11 truther, two wounded
2013 – Washington Navy Yard shooting, 13 killed, three injured
2014 – Norfolk Naval Base, one killed
2014 – Fort Hood AGAIN–three killed, 14 injured
2015 – Chattanooga, 4 Marines at the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center killed, two others wounded at a local recruiting station
...uh, seven, er, eight, um (carry the one) twenty-one, twenty-two, THIRTY-FIVE military folks get murdered than one officer's evaluation get dinged.
Because every time an officer gets a ding because one of his men has a ND, God kills a kitten. THINK ABOUT THE KITTENS1111!!!!.
-
The disarming of soldiers on base IIRC happened under the first Bush.
Clinton actually.
-
Clinton actually.
Dunno ...
I was listening to a talk-radio program while eating breakfast this morning and while I do recall Clinton passing some EO about soldiers not carrying guns, a caller phoned in who'd served back in the 1960s and stated that even then, as a soldier you just did not walk around the base, or the local town/city/whatever with a 1911 strapped to your hip.
I think some degree of military disarmament has been standard for way longer than Clinton or Bush.
-
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/16/statement-president-occasion-eid-ul-fitr
Good to see FBHO's priorities are in order.
-
On the topic of who started the disarmament, perhaps there is a difference between the policies of individual bases, and the rules of the branches, and units within those branches, versus top-down, military-wide policies imposed by a presidential administration.
As far as eradicating Islam, good luck with that.
-
As far as eradicating Islam, good luck with that.
That's what the Druids said.
-
Clinton actually.
That policy is absolutely ancient. We were not allowed to carry on base in the '70s, either duty or personal weapons. I'm sure it even predates that period.
-
When the shooter is white and spouts racist and southern ideology, we must race to blame mental illness while simultaneously accusing the media of unfairly tarring the confederate flag and its admirers.
When the shooter is brown and spouts Islamic radical ideology, we must race to immediately blame Islam and all cultures vaguely connected to it. Mental illness or personal factors are just media bias.
This is because white racism is somehow different from Islamic radicalism. Key difference being that whites, southerners and gun owners are targeted when hysteria about racism goes wild.
De Selby, folks are getting real tired of cleaning up your mess each time you waltz in here and rhetorically piss on the carpet.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/
It was Clinton that ended it but more so he enhanced the policy. I was in beginning in 88 and got out in 93, and I remember not being able to have my POW at Carson.
Maybe before Clinton it was more of a post commander's decision.
Myself being in the Guard I can CCW or OC here in Oklahoma while not in uniform as long as I follow state and local laws. There are a lot of us that have our CCW and to be honest a lot of us ignore the policy about being armed in uniform. Kind of an out of sight, out of mind policy, just don't be stupid.
-
I like to blame Muslims for contemporary country music and the dearth of Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, and Hank Williams Sr. on the radio. And Hormel Chili.
So, you blame Mulsims and Hormel Chili for that list, or you blame Muslims for your list including Hormel Chili?
I'd be OK with it either way.
-
So, you blame Mulsims and Hormel Chili for that list, or you blame Muslims for your list including Hormel Chili?
I'd be OK with it either way.
In the spirit of blaming things on Muslims, the Muslims shoulder the entire burden. To include the availability of Hormel Chili. Hormel Chili is innocent of all wrongdoing, save impersonation of chili.
-
Stupid bitch. :mad:
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11752492_10202941581939647_2717232421167818097_n.jpg?oh=3bb7440f1e0f68cea8f998a8920e3f08&oe=564DD753)
-
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11701134_10204370587048060_3940120393394467425_n.jpg?oh=8d396a37ce9bc3dae01072f023c7a825&oe=56192069)
Ever notice that there is no mention of Catholics becoming "Radicalized", or Lutherans, Protestants, Buddhists, Jews, or even Hindus...
Funny that...
-
Stupid bitch. :mad:
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11752492_10202941581939647_2717232421167818097_n.jpg?oh=3bb7440f1e0f68cea8f998a8920e3f08&oe=564DD753)
I notice any posts from more recently than 10 days ago are missing from her timeline now.
-
The point was that we seem to be happy with group blame, ie, collective guilt when it's other groups. And there's always some justification like "but they actually ARE part of a billion person conspiracy and we are not!"
Much gnashing of teeth follows from even the mere suggestion that how you are behaving towards Muslims is how liberals behave towards you. But the facts are there. I don't need to cite hyperbole about conservative memes, lack of all rational thought, or add in anything else personal to make the point.
In a very simple, couple of sentence comparison to Roof (not named in my posts to now), you understood exactly what I meant. That says something.
Edit: to be crystal clear, the point I am making is that you shouldn't try to make all Muslims responsible for this, just like you shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of crazed gun toting racists. Not the other way round.
I have sooooooo wanted to use one of these:
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11737932_10152813680386504_8080675710603678503_n.jpg?oh=5ad033e131dc9b6a2223a69a17ed874d&oe=5654CC71)
-
Stupid bitch. :mad:
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11752492_10202941581939647_2717232421167818097_n.jpg?oh=3bb7440f1e0f68cea8f998a8920e3f08&oe=564DD753)
I'm dumber for having read that.
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/chattanooga-shooting/chattanooga-shooting-attacker-had-least-three-guns-authorities-say-n394046
A law enforcement official told NBC News says the three weapons that Abdulazziz had were an AK-47-type assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun, and a 9 mm pistol.
Perhaps he got lost on his way to a three-gun match competition.
-
I thought De Selby (note I'm calling him De Selby) might like to know that the Fox News hourly newsbreak guy on the radio this afternoon said
Islam was to blame investigators are still searching for a motive.
-
I thought De Selby (note I'm calling him De Selby) might like to know that the Fox News hourly newsbreak guy on the radio this afternoon said Islam was to blame investigators are still searching for a motive.
[/quote
I suspect he longed so desperately for the pluralistic freedom and cultural diversity of his native Kuwait, and was so heartbroken by being trapped in the bellicose and repressive United States, he just snapped.
-
Some folks have decided the recruiting offices need additional protection:
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/29572644/hiram-watch
-
Don't get me wrong, but I think things are out of whack. I think that's it's absolutely terrible that four Marines were killed.
Yet, For all the money we've spent on monitoring communications in the US, we have another instance of some "radicalized" nutjob getting all shootie, and the investigating authorities have promised to leave no stone unturned to find out "why". They should be able to quickly replay the tapes and know the "why".
Also, I caught part of the news conference. Maybe it was the parade of officials to include the BATFEIO, or perhaps the US District Attorney that said it was "A Terrorist" investigation, which was the highest level of investigation or somesuch and that they would spare no expense to investigate. (Umm, hey there Sparky, but the shooter is dead. Good idea to find who he associated with and the like, but otherwise not much to investigate. )
Now, there are driveby shootings like this in Chicago every weekend. One, two, three, four, five or more people being killed, yet the FBI, BATFEIO, et al aren't drug into those investigations. And of the pathetic number of arrests made, how many are for "Felon in Possession" ?? And of that pathetic number how many are actually convicted of FIP and sent away to serve long, long terms ? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?
It just struck me that we've really gone through the looking glass. It would appear that our security theater is complete. The .gov is no longer concerned with protecting the people. It's concerned with protecting the .gov and ordinary people getting killed are just "Little things" (http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/07/17/rep-luis-guti-rrez-calls-murder-kate-steinle-little-thing) that are an inconvenience on their way to building better worlds.
-
Don't get me wrong, but I think things are out of whack. I think that's it's absolutely terrible that four Marines were killed.
Yet, For all the money we've spent on monitoring communications in the US, we have another instance of some "radicalized" nutjob getting all shootie, and the investigating authorities have promised to leave no stone unturned to find out "why". They should be able to quickly replay the tapes and know the "why".
Also, I caught part of the news conference. Maybe it was the parade of officials to include the BATFEIO, or perhaps the US District Attorney that said it was "A Terrorist" investigation, which was the highest level of investigation or somesuch and that they would spare no expense to investigate. (Umm, hey there Sparky, but the shooter is dead. Good idea to find who he associated with and the like, but otherwise not much to investigate. )
Now, there are driveby shootings like this in Chicago every weekend. One, two, three, four, five or more people being killed, yet the FBI, BATFEIO, et al aren't drug into those investigations. And of the pathetic number of arrests made, how many are for "Felon in Possession" ?? And of that pathetic number how many are actually convicted of FIP and sent away to serve long, long terms ? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?
It just struck me that we've really gone through the looking glass. It would appear that our security theater is complete. The .gov is no longer concerned with protecting the people. It's concerned with protecting the .gov and ordinary people getting killed are just "Little things" (http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/07/17/rep-luis-guti-rrez-calls-murder-kate-steinle-little-thing) that are an inconvenience on their way to building better worlds.
Well said.
-
How would APSers reconcile military personnel being armed (duty issue weapons) while in uniform/on duty with the philosophical aversion of an armed standing army wandering around off base?
Has the threat level reached the equivalent of, for instance, Israel, where they carry their duty weapons (but with no magazine inserted)? Are we going to turn our troops loose to deal with the (organized?) criminal element, side by side with the civilian police, like Mexico?
If the threat level is sufficiently high I do not think .mil personnel should have to shoulder the cost of arming themselves while on duty. Once they are off duty the game changes to be more like you or I carrying for self defense.
stay safe.
-
How would APSers reconcile military personnel being armed (duty issue weapons) while in uniform/on duty with the philosophical aversion of an armed standing army wandering around off base?
Has the threat level reached the equivalent of, for instance, Israel, where they carry their duty weapons (but with no magazine inserted)? Are we going to turn our troops loose to deal with the (organized?) criminal element, side by side with the civilian police, like Mexico?
If the threat level is sufficiently high I do not think .mil personnel should have to shoulder the cost of arming themselves while on duty. Once they are off duty the game changes to be more like you or I carrying for self defense.
stay safe.
Concealed means concealed.
-
The .gov is no longer concerned with protecting the people. It's concerned with protecting the .gov and ordinary people getting killed are just "Little things" (http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/07/17/rep-luis-guti-rrez-calls-murder-kate-steinle-little-thing) that are an inconvenience on their way to building better worlds.
Actually, it was the high profile of the Chattanooga incident that brings on the press conference, and the tough talk by the Feds. They don't care about the "government people" that were killed, obviously. The Marines are, to them, just Red-staters that couldn't get real jobs. Kate Steinle's murder, though it's gotten a certain share of press attention, is too embarrassing for them, and counters their narrative.
How would APSers reconcile military personnel being armed (duty issue weapons) while in uniform/on duty with the philosophical aversion of an armed standing army wandering around off base?
No contradiction there, at all. We already have the standing army, and that's not likely to change. We also have armed police, that have much more of a presence than the military, and have both the authority and the tendency to infringe on our liberties. Whether some of the military standing army get to have sidearms to protect themselves, just like the rest of us are allowed to do, will not affect my personal liberties.
-
No contradiction there, at all. We already have the standing army, and that's not likely to change. We also have armed police, that have much more of a presence than the military, and have both the authority and the tendency to infringe on our liberties. Whether some of the military standing army get to have sidearms to protect themselves, just like the rest of us are allowed to do, will not affect my personal liberties.
This exactly.
-
Interesting comment by the Chief of Staff of the Army:
Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters that arming troops in those offices could cause more problems than it might solve.
"I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/17/army-chief-urges-caution-on-calls-to-arm-more-us-soldiers-in-wake-fatal/
-
"Wild West Blood in the Streets or Offices or whatever. !!"
-
How would APSers reconcile military personnel being armed (duty issue weapons) while in uniform/on duty with the philosophical aversion of an armed standing army wandering around off base?
Has the threat level reached the equivalent of, for instance, Israel, where they carry their duty weapons (but with no magazine inserted)? Are we going to turn our troops loose to deal with the (organized?) criminal element, side by side with the civilian police, like Mexico?
If the threat level is sufficiently high I do not think .mil personnel should have to shoulder the cost of arming themselves while on duty. Once they are off duty the game changes to be more like you or I carrying for self defense.
stay safe.
Well, I've been thinking about that for the last day or so.
Let me first be clear: While I am a Soldier, I in no way speak for the Army, the DOD, or my COC. These are my personal opinions. No one quote me.
After some thought, I don't feel we should issue duty weapons and ammo to US Military state side. Here's why:
1. Those are controlled weapons. Civilians can't have M16's, M4's and M-249's to "protect" themselves. Military members are not special.
2. The US Military is not a police force, we suck at it when we try, and giving us duty weapons is a step a lot closer to using us as a domestic police force then I am comfortable with. (See Mexico)
3. As skid mentioned, our threat level is orders of magnitude below Israel, and they don't even get to load their weapons. Carrying an unloaded machine gun is stupid, and security theater and I don't support it.
4. Having the US military walk around loaded would be too much of a temptation to politicians the next time some Boston Bomber event happens and we go all "Martial Law". Except that it really would be that time.
In short, while I mourn my brothers in arms, the actual, considered threat level of lone wolf ISIS douches is not worth the negatives of the US military loading up 24/7 when they are off base.
That said, there is a real residual risk to making service members such soft targets. I would support, and think we should, remove any restrictions at the federal law, and DOD policy level of troops carrying weapons in any way that would be legal for a civilian in the state you are stationed in. In an OC state (and have a holster that complies with 670-1); OC. CC state and have a permit? CC. Stationed in Cali or Chicago? Sorry. Maybe we can work on Imminent Danger Pay. Treat weapons like our knives, multi-tools or cell phones. You can have your civilian one as long as you carry it in a fashion that works with the uniform regs. (Sorry MSG in the motor pool, you can't have a lowslung gunfighter rig the same way you need to take that *expletive deleted*ing keychain off your belt).
I want to double tap Item 1 above. Military Members are NOT a special class of citizens. We get cool toys, in clearly defined roles, because we volunteered for a semi nasty job. A job that we get paid decently for, I might add. I absolutely DO NOT support carving exemptions out of law for military members unless it's required for our job. i.e. unless we are expecting ACTUAL COMBAT, the combat toys stay put away. Sorry folks, being a victim of a crime, even a politically motivated crime, isn't combat. Having seen first hand the real results of modern combat, I am not willing to unleash the dogs of war in this country (ala Mexico). I almost don't care how many lone wolves show up.
-
Interesting comment by the Chief of Staff of the Army:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/17/army-chief-urges-caution-on-calls-to-arm-more-us-soldiers-in-wake-fatal/
Simultaneously astounding yet not surprising. We send military personnel into combat theaters carrying loaded weapons, often with highly restrictive ROEs, but those same personnel aren't to be trusted with weapons in domestic facilities.
"Paging Mr. George Orwell, please come to collect your prize for conceiving doublespeak."
ETA: dogmush, we cross-posted. I take your points. What about .mil carrying on .gov property while state licensed, or having designated individuals armed specifically for force protection/
-
Simultaneously astounding yet not surprising. We send military personnel into combat theaters carrying loaded weapons, often with highly restrictive ROEs, but those same personnel aren't to be trusted with weapons in domestic facilities.
"Paging Mr. George Orwell, please come to collect your prize for conceiving doublespeak."
ETA: dogmush, we cross-posted. I take your points. What about .mil carrying on .gov property while state licensed, or having designated individuals armed specifically for force protection/
That's what I was talking about when I said "remove restrictions at the federal law level". Make Federal installations much like the recent national parks. Conform to the laws of the state they are in. It's, of course, a little more complicated then that, as commanders have wide latitude under the UCMJ to do things that you couldn't in the civilian law, and many would still restrict firearms just to be contrary, or out of an aversion to risk. But it'd be a start.
-
Very well said Dogmush.
I don't want to see the military walking around with weapons I can't have during normal stateside duties, and I think that's one of the Founding Fathers points for the Second Amendment. On the other hand, it's ridiculous that military personnel (and others in "gun free zones") can be sitting ducks. CC, OC, even a weapons locker with a couple of M4goreys or combat shotguns would seem to be common sense.
Instead, I predict that if anything is done, it will be adding a force protection person (or even contract security) to military offices outside of bases, just like the security guard at the bank, or else bars and a buzzer at the recruiting offices. I also expect more military folks will embrace "concealed means concealed" in the vein of, "better to be tried by twelve...", though I guess for the military, that would be, "Better Courts Martial than Arlington."
-
How would APSers reconcile military personnel being armed (duty issue weapons) while in uniform/on duty with the philosophical aversion of an armed standing army wandering around off base?
Has the threat level reached the equivalent of, for instance, Israel, where they carry their duty weapons (but with no magazine inserted)? Are we going to turn our troops loose to deal with the (organized?) criminal element, side by side with the civilian police, like Mexico?
If the threat level is sufficiently high I do not think .mil personnel should have to shoulder the cost of arming themselves while on duty. Once they are off duty the game changes to be more like you or I carrying for self defense.
stay safe.
I have no problem with the idea of the military being armed.
IMHO they all should be allowed a standard sidearm of the type in service if on duty. Off duty, either that or some comparable handgun.
I don't think submachineguns or M-4s should be "standard issue" and regularly carried, but equiping recruitment offices and other facilities with a gunsafe with some longarms (military style) would be fine.
If the idea is for the defense of these men, then fine, and I don't think that violates posse comitatus at all.
-
Interesting comment by the Chief of Staff of the Army:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/17/army-chief-urges-caution-on-calls-to-arm-more-us-soldiers-in-wake-fatal/
I'm not sure how interesting it is. It's the same logic that has kept our military bases gun-free zones for decades, and has kept our military folks from having loaded weapons in other places where they ought to have them. He's just saying what the brass has been saying (or thinking) for a long time now.
Also, I agree with all of Dogmush's points.
I have no problem with the idea of the military being armed.
IMHO they all should be allowed a standard sidearm of the type in service if on duty. Off duty, either that or some comparable handgun.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you want the military to supply sidearms to every service member, while on duty, then I think you're talking about way more pistols than our military (or probably any military) has ever fielded before. I doubt the military has enough pistols to do that. But it would be money better spent there than on PBS and Planned Parenthood. Also, they would have to train every service member on pistol shooting, which they aren't doing now, and have them qualify regularly, as well.
If you mean they should be allowed to carry their own weapon, as long as it is a Beretta 92FS, then I could see that being a reasonable rule for OC. For concealed carry, it seems like an unnecessary restriction, and a gun that some people would have a hard time concealing, or would not want to carry every day.
Edit to add: I know magazine/ammo interchangeability would be kinda cool, but I doubt it would ever matter for this kind of short-term self-defense application.
-
I'm not sure how interesting it is. It's the same logic that has kept our military bases gun-free zones for decades, and has kept our military folks from having loaded weapons in other places where they ought to have them. He's just saying what the brass has been saying (or thinking) for a long time now.
Well, interesting to me in that he's taking the, "we can't trust these knuckleheads with guns" approach as a public talking point (versus an internal to DoD talking point). While public perception might swing that way when talking about civilians, most of the public (I think) thinks anyone in a uniform is a firearms expert. This is of course not the case, as you point out in your reply to Tommy.
-
Stationed in Cali or Chicago? Sorry.
For those that didn't get the memo, Illinois passed CCW back in 2013 (effective 1 Jan 2014). It included pre-emption, so if you have an Illinois CCW permit, you can carry in Chicago. (I would think more folks here would have noticed hell freezing over.) :P
But yes, I agree, the issue weapons need to remain in the arms room. However, if you have a permit (if required) that the state you are currently in recognizes, then you should be able to CCW, or OC, if your CoC permits OC and you have a holster which complies with 670-1.
And no coon-fingering the damn thing. Put it on in the morning, and take it off at night. No loading and unloading everytime you walk through a door.
And I'm whole-heartedly against longguns in some type of vault in recruiting stations. Then they become nothing more then a target for theives. (The cost of installing triple barrier protection in a bunch of strip malls across the country, along with all the BS Physical Security reporting requirements would be money better spent of more and better pistol training.)
-
........I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you want the military to supply sidearms to every service member, while on duty, then I think you're talking about way more pistols than our military (or probably any military) has ever fielded before. I doubt the military has enough pistols to do that. But it would be money better spent there than on PBS and Planned Parenthood. Also, they would have to train every service member on pistol shooting, which they aren't doing now, and have them qualify regularly, as well.
If you mean they should be allowed to carry their own weapon, as long as it is a Beretta 92FS, then I could see that being a reasonable rule for OC. For concealed carry, it seems like an unnecessary restriction, and a gun that some people would have a hard time concealing, or would not want to carry every day.
Edit to add: I know magazine/ammo interchangeability would be kinda cool, but I doubt it would ever matter for this kind of short-term self-defense application.
Perhaps I didn't express myself very well.
I wasn't concerned with whether the gun was .gov property or personal property. Ok, the military doesn't have enough handguns. It can be personal guns then.
I really don't care what caliber but whatever caliber the service was using would be fine , ability to use .gov ammo or personal stuff would be a plus.
-
I have sooooooo wanted to use one of these:
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11737932_10152813680386504_8080675710603678503_n.jpg?oh=5ad033e131dc9b6a2223a69a17ed874d&oe=5654CC71)
Could you elaborate on that part about being ejected with prejudice? =)
-
Could you elaborate on that part about being ejected with prejudice? =)
Fired. From a cannon.
-
Fired. From a cannon.
I keep finding more and more occasions where I'm really missing a "Like" button.
-
I suspect this tool and Roof have more in common than we'd like to admit. Easy enough to just blanket label him a terrorist, and it's pretty clear that he was probably influenced by jihadi ideology, but I seriously doubt that he was immersed in being an IS jihadi.
I'm having trouble finding the report now but read last night where it was being reported by friends and family that he was "depressed".
Where our esteemed trolling counselor is wrong is in that there isn't some large, wide spread movement among white Americans to kill blacks. Radical racism is on the down trend. There IS a widespread movement among the Islamic population to change the world through terrorism and fear, and to initiate the caliphate. And even much of the "moderate" islamic world is at a minimum silent over their barbaric acts. Hell, even the stormfronters condemned Roof's church killing. After 9/11?
https://youtu.be/G-p1LEBAujE
-
For those that didn't get the memo, Illinois passed CCW back in 2013 (effective 1 Jan 2014). It included pre-emption, so if you have an Illinois CCW permit, you can carry in Chicago. (I would think more folks here would have noticed hell freezing over.) :P
Unless you're actual residence is out of state, in which case you're (essentially) SOL. Last numbers I saw, I think less than ten IL non-resident permits have been issued.
-
Actually, if the OIC of recruiting in Illinois issued an order, then that would circumvent the CCW law.
-
Edit: to be crystal clear, the point I am making is that you shouldn't try to make all Muslims responsible for this, just like you shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of crazed gun toting racists. Not the other way round.
But we are trying to do something about crazed, gun-toting racists (if such exist).
What are the millions of purportedly moderate Muslims around the world doing to counter the threat of Islamist fundamentalists? Answer: nothing. They're like our police "thin blue line." Talk a good game about how terrorism is bad, yada, yada, but when some Islamist fanatic (or group thereof) starts killing people and then recruiting the young to swell the ranks ... what ARE you doing to (a) persuade young Muslims (and potential converts) that mass killing is not truly the way of Islam, and (b) try to wean some of those who are already militant fundamentalists back to the moderate stream?
-
But we are trying to do something about crazed, gun-toting racists (if such exist).
What are the millions of purportedly moderate Muslims around the world doing to counter the threat of Islamist fundamentalists? Answer: nothing. They're like our police "thin blue line." Talk a good game about how terrorism is bad, yada, yada, but when some Islamist fanatic (or group thereof) starts killing people and then recruiting the young to swell the ranks ... what ARE you doing to (a) persuade young Muslims (and potential converts) that mass killing is not truly the way of Islam, and (b) try to wean some of those who are already militant fundamentalists back to the moderate stream?
To be fair, I've read that some Muslims are appalled at this shooting.
We lived in town back on 9-11-2001, and there was a Middle Eastern doctor and his family lived two doors up from us. I was actually keeping a real close eye on them, to make sure no idiot rednecks* from our little town tried to fark with them. I figured one armed guy that could shoot back might back down a bunch of cowards. A day or two later, I saw his wife on the street and waved at her. You should have seen her smile :angel:
* as opposed to a smart redneck like me :laugh:
-
We need to support and protect our American Muslim moderates without a doubt.
Unfortunately from my reading on the subject I don't think they really would be considered "orthodox" (borrowing a term used in Christianity) in theological practice.
Fortunately the majority are currently choosing to live in that state of cognitive dissonance.
-
state of cognitive dissonance
It's one of the fifty-seven ;)
-
philosophical aversion of an armed standing army wandering around off base?
The current population of the military does not worry me at all in that regard.
It's when the politicians change the makeup of the military to their "ideals" that does worry me. Kind of how like they push affirmative action into effect in the civilian side of government employees. That's when you get the kinds of drones that are dedicated to the leftists that will happily attempt to enact martial law (or worse).
-
The story popped back up in my feed
http://news.yahoo.com/family-spokesman-mental-issues-dogged-shooter-killed-5-223709844.html#
Mental issues, drugs, depression. Sound familiar?
Made him an easy target for radicalization anyway.
-
Well so far a lot of the Southern state governors, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana are the first ones to come to mind have given the state TAG's permission to grant authority to certain National Guard members to carry while on duty on state property.
So far nothing has been put in writing here in Oklahoma but one thing I do know is that it won't mean that I can strap on and go onto an active duty post.
As for any other time, while out of uniform I have to abide by state laws. While in uniform it so far sounds like it might become an out of sight, out of mind, concealed means concealed policy.
As of now I'm just taking a wait and see approach.
-
The story popped back up in my feed
http://news.yahoo.com/family-spokesman-mental-issues-dogged-shooter-killed-5-223709844.html#
Mental issues, drugs, depression. Sound familiar?
Made him an easy target for radicalization anyway.
Yeah, that's just the sort of fellow that the Redneck Extremists target. Start plying him with reruns of Dukes of Hazzard and we have a crazed killer. ;)
=D
-
Ever notice that there is no mention of Catholics becoming "Radicalized", or Lutherans, Protestants, Buddhists, Jews, or even Hindus...
Well, it gets reported that way on the occasion that one of those religions gets tired of being attacked by Muslims and fights back.
-
After some thought, I don't feel we should issue duty weapons and ammo to US Military state side. Here's why:
1. Those are controlled weapons. Civilians can't have M16's, M4's and M-249's to "protect" themselves. Military members are not special.
2. The US Military is not a police force, we suck at it when we try, and giving us duty weapons is a step a lot closer to using us as a domestic police force then I am comfortable with. (See Mexico)
I don't think anybody was really pushing to have every random soldier lugging a -249 into Taco Bell, or playing cop. More like an M9 on the hip, for defense of self and others only when deadly force is truly necessary. Fixed installations like the recruiting offices might also have a SA rifle or two tucked away somewhere, but not carried.
-
I don't think anybody was really pushing to have every random soldier lugging a -249 into Taco Bell, or playing cop. More like an M9 on the hip, for defense of self and others only when deadly force is truly necessary. Fixed installations like the recruiting offices might also have a SA rifle or two tucked away somewhere, but not carried.
But the were. They just didn't know it.
The VAST majority of individual weapons are m16/m4's. There are more troops issued -249's then there are issued M9s. When folks say "issue soldiers their weapons" they are talking long guns. That's what we actually have.
To my knowledge there are no semi auto rifles in the Army inventory. It's possible there are a couple some where, but even the DMR rifles I've seen are auto.
You can forget about a "vault" with .mil weapons in a station in a mall. The stoarage requirements for AA&E preclude any feasibility of that.
-
But the were. They just didn't know it.
The VAST majority of individual weapons are m16/m4's. There are more troops issued -249's then there are issued M9s. When folks say "issue soldiers their weapons" they are talking long guns. That's what we actually have.
I think the majority of us are just talking about opening military installations and offices, recruiting offices, etc, to civilian-style concealed carry.
-
Thinking this through, I know that there are JAG types screaming about the liability concerns of issuing sidearms, or even authorizing standard CCW. Allow everyone to carry, and a ND occurs, and suddenly .gov will be sued for millions. From a pure cost/money analysis, it is cheaper to keep the guys as unarmed targets than to lose a lawsuit when some O2 shows off to a potential recruit and fires a round through the nail salon next door.
-
You can forget about a "vault" with .mil weapons in a station in a mall. The stoarage requirements for AA&E preclude any feasibility of that.
Why? Are you thinking about mall requirements or military requirements?
I've seen enough gun stores in malls that that can't be a universal difficulty, as for the military side all that really needs is the appropriate GSA rated container.
And yes, when I figure on arming our soldiers for self defense, I'm picturing an M-9 most of the time.
Worst case, give the soldiers some rules on what they can carry and how, and let those that care figure it out.
Now, I'm something of a traditionalist, so 'open carry while in uniform' would be a thing, but other than that I'm pretty open.
-
Why? Are you thinking about mall requirements or military requirements?
I've seen enough gun stores in malls that that can't be a universal difficulty, as for the military side all that really needs is the appropriate GSA rated container.
And yes, when I figure on arming our soldiers for self defense, I'm picturing an M-9 most of the time.
Worst case, give the soldiers some rules on what they can carry and how, and let those that care figure it out.
Now, I'm something of a traditionalist, so 'open carry while in uniform' would be a thing, but other than that I'm pretty open.
.mil requirements. Container, and IDS. Expensive and monitored.
We don't have that many M9's.
"Carry your own piece" I'm all in favor of, as long as civi's can carry the same thing.
-
Why? Are you thinking about mall requirements or military requirements?
I've seen enough gun stores in malls that that can't be a universal difficulty, as for the military side all that really needs is the appropriate GSA rated container.
And yes, when I figure on arming our soldiers for self defense, I'm picturing an M-9 most of the time.
Worst case, give the soldiers some rules on what they can carry and how, and let those that care figure it out.
Now, I'm something of a traditionalist, so 'open carry while in uniform' would be a thing, but other than that I'm pretty open.
Goes beyond a GSA container. They have to have an alarm, be monitored 24x7, there's all kinds of other regs
bah. Dogmush beat me
-
Well, six states have armed their National Guard Recruiting Center personnel. Are there many (or any) Recruiting Centers that have a mix that includes NG, or are Guard centers separate? Arming the Guard recruiters in a mixed office could be one workaround. I know when I was in High School and the recruiters were looking for fresh meat, the local Recruiting Center was a single office with Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. I can't remember if there was any National Guard.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/states-arm-national-guard-members-in-wake-chattanooga-tragedy/
-
Most cost effective solution is a cop. Federal budget feed the state the salary for one full-time cop for every locality that has a recruiting office. Sit there armed, eat donuts, swap war stories with the recruiters. Way cheaper than the burden of arming recruiters, dealing with lawsuits, whatever. Assign limited duty Marines or soldiers to security details for MEPS centers.
-
Or as Sen. Frank Nicely puts it: “In a twist to recent controversies, Southern States’ militias arming quickly to defend Federal (Union) troops.”
-
Most cost effective solution is a cop.
I agree a cop, or private security like at base gates, would probably be the most cost effective (of any solution our .gov could come up with anyway) but I can't help but want to be a smart guy and ask where my personal cop is.
-
I agree a cop, or private security like at base gates, would probably be the most cost effective (of any solution our .gov could come up with anyway) but I can't help but want to be a smart guy and ask where my personal cop is.
At least here in Seattle if you pay for them you can essentially have your own cop. The large buildings hire cops to direct traffic in and out at peak times.
-
At least here in Seattle if you pay for them you can essentially have your own cop. The large buildings hire cops to direct traffic in and out at peak times.
It's an old tradition in many areas - for cops to earn a little more money they can take a private security gig where they retain their uniform and full police powers. Something 'mere' armed security can't match.
I think they're still covered under the police healthcare system as well, so no need for separate worker's comp insurance either.
-
Very common, that's how a lot of small racetracks manage security and EMS. Slip them $100 and some cheeseburgers.
-
This is the first I've read of it, but one of the marines may have been armed:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/20/marine-may-have-been-armed-during-chattanooga-attack/?intcmp=trending
-
Well, six states have armed their National Guard Recruiting Center personnel. Are there many (or any) Recruiting Centers that have a mix that includes NG, or are Guard centers separate? Arming the Guard recruiters in a mixed office could be one workaround. I know when I was in High School and the recruiters were looking for fresh meat, the local Recruiting Center was a single office with Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. I can't remember if there was any National Guard.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/states-arm-national-guard-members-in-wake-chattanooga-tragedy/
To answer your question: Yes, the recruiting stations also have National Guard (Army and Air) recruiters there in the same station with the full-time recruiters. So yes, they would be/could be armed in the station when they are there.
-
, in the 48 hours since Chattanooga there were 2 they going to the negligent discharges by recruiters who decide to carry a gun in their pocket Outasight
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
I think the majority of us are just talking about opening military installations and offices, recruiting offices, etc, to civilian-style concealed carry.
I wasn't. I was under the impression that most "troops" (at least Army) are now issued an M9 pistol along with the M16 or M4 long gun. My thought was to allow carrying the M9 at all times. If deployment of the M9 is not as widespread as I believed, then some other strategy is called for.
-
This is the first I've read of it, but one of the marines may have been armed:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/20/marine-may-have-been-armed-during-chattanooga-attack/?intcmp=trending
From the article:
U.S. military officials have said security at recruiting and reserve centers will be reviewed, but the Army's top officer, Gen. Ray Odierno, said it's too early to say whether the facilities should have security guards or other increased protection.
My local Social Security office has armed security. It doesn't make me feel very secure. It's a middle-aged rent-a-cop wearing a revolver. There doesn't seem to be any particular awareness of threat potential and the individuals who have been on duty when I have visited seem to be there mostly to direct people to the electronic sign-in kiosk. Mostly he just sits there and reads the newspaper.
-
I wasn't. I was under the impression that most "troops" (at least Army) are now issued an M9 pistol along with the M16 or M4 long gun. My thought was to allow carrying the M9 at all times. If deployment of the M9 is not as widespread as I believed, then some other strategy is called for.
We wished, usually reserved for staff officers, medics, mortars, sniper teams, and company leadership. A company might get bumped up on the number of M9's they can issued on a deployment situation and then NCO's might get issued one.
-
Pistols are worthless anyway. So what if they all have M9s? This guy rolled up with a battle rifle. M9s would do about as much good as the gunbuster sign. Defending against this particular threat would require someone or 2 equally armed and vigilant persons with good defensible positions and decent lanes of fire. I hate to join the side of the anti-arm-them camp, but sidearms would not have acted as magic talismans to keep everyone safe. Issue PDWs and you are getting close.
-
Pistols are worthless anyway. So what if they all have M9s? This guy rolled up with a battle rifle. M9s would do about as much good as the gunbuster sign. Defending against this particular threat would require someone or 2 equally armed and vigilant persons with good defensible positions and decent lanes of fire. I hate to join the side of the anti-arm-them camp, but sidearms would not have acted as magic talismans to keep everyone safe. Issue PDWs and you are getting close.
Is that sarcasm?
-
Pistols are worthless anyway. So what if they all have M9s? This guy rolled up with a battle rifle. M9s would do about as much good as the gunbuster sign. Defending against this particular threat would require someone or 2 equally armed and vigilant persons with good defensible positions and decent lanes of fire. I hate to join the side of the anti-arm-them camp, but sidearms would not have acted as magic talismans to keep everyone safe. Issue PDWs and you are getting close.
St. James Massacre
-
Is that sarcasm?
He's got a point.
-
Pistols are worthless anyway. So what if they all have M9s? This guy rolled up with a battle rifle. M9s would do about as much good as the gunbuster sign. Defending against this particular threat would require someone or 2 equally armed and vigilant persons with good defensible positions and decent lanes of fire. I hate to join the side of the anti-arm-them camp, but sidearms would not have acted as magic talismans to keep everyone safe. Issue PDWs and you are getting close.
I'm sorry, was he wearing body armor? A helmet?
Pistols are a less than ideal defense weapon, yes. However, the firepower he brought is almost completely unrelated to the usefulness of pistols as a response. ESPECIALLY if we are talking multiple pistols that can be brought to bear if all the servicemen were armed.
If we're talking Hollywood shootout, then, yes pistols are ineffective.
If it's some random Jihadi hopping around in street clothes screaming "Allahu Akbar!", pistols are just as effective against him if he's using a pistol or a rifle.
Further, the best gun to have in a gun fight is the one you have with you. A pistol is far greater than a stapler "no guns allowed" sign for defending oneself.
-
To my knowledge there are no semi auto rifles in the Army inventory. It's possible there are a couple some where, but even the DMR rifles I've seen are auto.
Since when has DOD ever been reluctant to spend our money on something they don't have yet?
-
He's got a point.
Only on the top of his head. Of course pistol vs rifle puts one at a disadvantage. I thought we were all aware of basic stuff, like the pistol is just a stand-in, because you can't carry a rifle all of the time. Maybe I can't expect all of us to know that. Regardless, a pistol is a heck of a lot more firepower than no gun at all.
Besides, the next jihadi might not have an AK. He might have a machete, like the guy who chopped up a soldier in England a while back.
Also, I thought the two attackers in Garland, TX had rifles. Weren't they put down by guys with pistols, or do I disremember?
-
Is that sarcasm?
I doubt it.
The piece of protoplasm was capping off an AK-ish rifle from 100 yards away. With a pistol I'm fair at 25 yards (all inside the 6 ring and 75% inside the 8 ring), and at 50 yards can hit inside the target outline about 50% of the time. At 100 yards I need a scope (old eyes). You young whippersnappers may be a tad bit better.
stay safe.
-
This pretty much covers it.
So, the idea that military leaders have their hands tied is nonsense – the governing directives and regulations expressly allow senior leaders to arm their troops when there is a threat. And there is a threat – as we saw in Chattanooga, as we saw at Fort Hood. These freaks are not picking military personnel at random. They are continuing the radical Islamic war against America here on our soil, and our warriors remain stubbornly disarmed and defenseless.
So why would a commander not order troops who have qualified on their M9 pistols to draw sidearms and ammo and carry them during their duties, at least until this crisis passes? Perhaps their discretion has been withdrawn from higher command – that’s possible, especially with this toxic administration. But more likely it’s because of fear.
It’s the fear that some solider is going to have an “incident” carrying a weapon, and that that incident is going to lead to questions, and in an environment where the Armed Forces are shrinking, the mention of an incident on an officer’s annual evaluation report can mean the difference between a career and a pink slip. It’s the same zero defects mentality that is keeping our military leadership from being an audacious, aggressive band of warriors and morphing it instead into a timid, passive pack of timeservers.
Yeah, troops do dumb things sometimes. During my 27 years leading soldiers, I was consistently amazed by their creativity both in solving problems and in getting into trouble. But while real issues are rare – negligent discharges, lost weapons – they do happen. I dealt with them myself. But that risk is the price of doing business, and when our men and women are being shot down in the street without even a chance to defend themselves, it’s not too high a price to pay.
You train your troops and then you trust them. You punish the knucklehead who screwed up and then you drive on. You don’t turn everyone in uniform into a sitting duck because you don’t want to have to explain to the two-star why Private Snuffy misplaced his Beretta.
Regarding armed citizens guarding recruiting stations:
Doing the jobs American soldiers and Marines aren’t allowed to do.
-
In this situation, I agree that being issued M9's wouldn't have helped much. Hell having a couple M4's stashed under the desk probably wouldn't have helped very much by the time they could have reacted.
But just because the specifics of this one event wouldn't have allowed a pistol to be of much use doesn't change previous events, like ft hood, where they could have been useful. At the very least they should be allowed to carry a personally owned firearm.
-
In the context of concealed carry, how many times have we visited the notion that the presence of a firearm elevates one's situational awareness? This is also about mindset. If a pistol in a lockbox or M4 in a rack doesn't change Condition White thinking, it's a moot point. If it does, then security posture is enhanced.
-
In this situation, I agree that being issued M9's wouldn't have helped much. Hell having a couple M4's stashed under the desk probably wouldn't have helped very much by the time they could have reacted.
But just because the specifics of this one event wouldn't have allowed a pistol to be of much use doesn't change previous events, like ft hood, where they could have been useful. At the very least they should be allowed to carry a personally owned firearm.
I think the issue of armed security/resistance comes down to the psychological dynamics of the shooter. Is he in 100% ideological/ISIS mode? Then yes, the armed response matters little, at least in terms of repelling the initial attack, because the advantage goes to the aggressor, although it could still shorten the attack, and/or reign in collateral damage.
Is he in your more basic mass-shooter mode? All the angst and low self-esteem issues fueling things? And ISIS/Sudden-Jihad-Syndrome just a facade? In that case, armed resistance/security indeed will work. Because most of the low self-esteem/loser shooters fold like a cheap suit at the first armed resistance.
-
I wasn't. I was under the impression that most "troops" (at least Army) are now issued an M9 pistol along with the M16 or M4 long gun. My thought was to allow carrying the M9 at all times. If deployment of the M9 is not as widespread as I believed, then some other strategy is called for.
In my unit in Iraq we didn't even have enough M9's for every turret gunner and truck leader to have one.
-
As far as armed security goes, going back to my training back in the day, some basic hardening of recruitment facilities could do quite a bit.
While sandbags would be 'cheap' and effective, they're rather obvious. However, there are films that, while not protective enough to prevent 5.56 going through it in the space needed to reach a driver, will still drastically deflect and deform any bullets passing through it. These can be applied more or less discretely, so a shooter that opens fire from outside will find his fire mostly ineffective, which gives the marines time enough to find better cover(heavy metal & wood desks, perhaps?), and assume defensive positions in case the shooter tries to come in.
A 9mm on their hips with 'discretely' placed rifles will give them all the firepower they need.
Oh, and an IDS isn't that hard or expensive - it's basically a burglar alarm.
-
The piece of protoplasm was capping off an AK-ish rifle from 100 yards away. With a pistol I'm fair at 25 yards (all inside the 6 ring and 75% inside the 8 ring), and at 50 yards can hit inside the target outline about 50% of the time. At 100 yards I need a scope (old eyes). You young whippersnappers may be a tad bit better.
How well can you shoot a rifle if someone's lobbing rounds back your way with a pistol? Even if they're not hitting you, it's going to be hard to overcome the urge to duck.
-
I think the issue of armed security/resistance comes down to the psychological dynamics of the shooter. Is he in 100% ideological/ISIS mode? Then yes, the armed response matters little, at least in terms of repelling the initial attack, because the advantage goes to the aggressor, although it could still shorten the attack, and/or reign in collateral damage.
Is he in your more basic mass-shooter mode? All the angst and low self-esteem issues fueling things? And ISIS/Sudden-Jihad-Syndrome just a facade? In that case, armed resistance/security indeed will work. Because most of the low self-esteem/loser shooters fold like a cheap suit at the first armed resistance.
thats my point. I've seen a lot of "it wouldn't have helped in this situation!" I agree with that. I also know there are many situations where it would help, even if a few details of this attack had been slightly different being armed would have helped.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I doubt it.
The piece of protoplasm was capping off an AK-ish rifle from 100 yards away. With a pistol I'm fair at 25 yards (all inside the 6 ring and 75% inside the 8 ring), and at 50 yards can hit inside the target outline about 50% of the time. At 100 yards I need a scope (old eyes). You young whippersnappers may be a tad bit better.
stay safe.
That's why we have lasers.
-
"Breaking news" was reporting on my twitter feed last night that two service members at the second location responded with (apparently illegally carried) pistols. A Lt. Commander and one of the Marines who was killed. Be interesting to see what the followup investigation shows.
-
That is interesting.
I carefully haven't asked any of my guys, but I'd assume that the cars out front probably require DOT 1.3C placards to be road legal.
-
"Breaking news" was reporting on my twitter feed last night that two service members at the second location responded with (apparently illegally carried) pistols. A Lt. Commander and one of the Marines who was killed. Be interesting to see what the followup investigation shows.
Prepare for new DoD policy, mandatory powerpoint training, and metal detectors at all military facilities
-
"Breaking news" was reporting on my twitter feed last night that two service members at the second location responded with (apparently illegally carried) pistols. A Lt. Commander and one of the Marines who was killed. Be interesting to see what the followup investigation shows.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/21/sources-navy-officer-marine-shot-chattanooga-gunman/30426817/
Navy Times put a name and a face on the Lt. Commander. Said he had a personal sidearm, and also indicates that the Marine may have been carrying a Glock 9mm.
-
I think a certain LCDR's Naval career is over despite his heroic behavior. At the very least, he has attained the highest rank of his career, no matter its length.
-
I think a certain LCDR's Naval career is over despite his heroic behavior. At the very least, he has attained the highest rank of his career, no matter its length.
But he's alive to be discharged. I suspect the others (and especially their families) would prefer that over their current condition.
-
I think a certain LCDR's Naval career is over despite his heroic behavior. At the very least, he has attained the highest rank of his career, no matter its length.
Anybody want to place a bet on whether or not there will be the equivalent of a court martial for the Marine that was armed? Can't let his family collect USGLI and other benefits after he violated all those laws and rules and policies and such-like, can we?
stay safe.
-
Anybody want to place a bet on whether or not there will be the equivalent of a court martial for the Marine that was armed? Can't let his family collect USGLI and other benefits after he violated all those laws and rules and policies and such-like, can we?
stay safe.
Not sure about that. PR backlash may be too painful... That may give the Lt. Cmdr a chance as well.
-
Clearly, they had just disarmed some Confederate flag-waving terrorist with an assault Bible, but hadn't had time to write up the report or turn in the weapons they secured from him when the poor misunderstood upstanding citizen's rifle went off by itself several times outside.
-
But he's alive to be discharged. I suspect the others (and especially their families) would prefer that over their current condition.
Absolutely. At the end of the day, this is the most important outcome.
-
Absolutely. At the end of the day, this is the most important outcome.
The armed forces / fed.gov are not worthy of the sacrifices our men & women make while enlisted/commissioned.
-
Well, I kind of figured it would happen...
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/07/23/lancaster-ohio-civilian-guard-protecting-lancaster-recruiting-center-accidentally-fires-weapon.html
Long story short, a "civilian" volunteer guard touched off a round outside a recruiting center.
:facepalm:
-
Long story short, a "civilian" volunteer guard touched off a round outside a recruiting center.
So where did the bullet end up? If in the dirt within a couple feet of the shooter, (or in some other safe backstop the gun was intentionally pointed at) then the redundancy of the safety rules worked.
-
Lancaster Police tell 10TV 28-year-old Christopher Reed fired an AR-15 rifle while attempting to clear the ammunition from the weapon
Well, technically speaking, he did successfully clear the firearm of the chambered round....
-
If we're not supposed to fire into the clearing barrel, then why are they designed to take a round?
???
=D
-
Well, I kind of figured it would happen...
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/07/23/lancaster-ohio-civilian-guard-protecting-lancaster-recruiting-center-accidentally-fires-weapon.html
Long story short, a "civilian" volunteer guard touched off a round outside a recruiting center.
:facepalm:
He is hoping everyone taking this stance is also reviewing the rules on the safe way to discharge a firearm.
Another reporter trying to use firearms lingo. :facepalm:
So why would anyone be clearing a weapon in this situation? Does Ohio law require long guns to be transported with empty chambers?
-
Another reporter trying to use firearms lingo. :facepalm:
So why would anyone be clearing a weapon in this situation? Does Ohio law require long guns to be transported with empty chambers?
Some dude wanted to play with it and he was trying to clear it before handing it over. http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=49024.0
-
If we're not supposed to fire into the clearing barrel, then why are they designed to take a round?
???
=D
We had two soldiers kill the clearing barrel when I was in Germany. The first one was an E-2 (and not my solider). I thought the company commander was going to lose her mind when I suggested that he get maxed out on his Article 15, pulled from any DLO duty and given to the 1SG for a month to be his CQ runner (one day on, one day for 30 days). I didn't think it was that big of a deal. I mean he killed the clearing barrel, that's what it is for. You wouldn't even have to say a word. It would get around, and then everyone would see that poor bastard being the 1SG's bitch for a month and then be reminded to be extra careful as they passed by Sad Sack and his unending hell of CQ.
Apparently the V Corps and USAREUR Provost Marshals wanted this kid's head on a pike.
Couple years later one of the Platoon Sergeants, again not mine, killed the clearing barrel not once, not twice but three times. We were short junior NCO's so we had to put E-7's on as patrol supervisors. He was so surprised it went off, he had to do it two more times just to be sure.
That's when USAREUR pulled the magazines from the guns. :facepalm: :facepalm: Plus if you were duty officer you had to go over to the arms room and and watch them issue weapons, then go back and watch turn in. So three shifts, that's six trips over to the arms room and stand by the clearing barrel do the job of a CPL/SGT/SSG. :mad: :mad: :mad: All because the TPTB had a zero defects mentality.
-
Were your clearing barrels at least full of fluffy sand?
Prison guard wounded himself, another guard, and the inmate they were transporting when he ND'd into a barrel that had been standing outside, unattended, for years if not decades.*
Within the hour there was a prisoner work detail with picks and pry bars trying to break up the sand that had taken on all the characteristics of concrete. And only because a near-retirement maintenance guy (not correctional officer, not firearms certified) saw what happened and took it on himself to fix the problem.
stay safe.
* - How do you ND a S&W Model 10 with the cylinder swung out? 'Cause tje guy who did it swore the cylinder was out. :facepalm:
-
Well, I kind of figured it would happen...
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/07/23/lancaster-ohio-civilian-guard-protecting-lancaster-recruiting-center-accidentally-fires-weapon.html
Long story short, a "civilian" volunteer guard touched off a round outside a recruiting center.
:facepalm:
That did not take long.
-
Were your clearing barrels at least full of fluffy sand?
Top half of a fifty-five gallon half barrel angled into the ground at a 45° angle. 6"x6" hole cut into the top where you would put the muzzle in. About 6-8" inches started a whole lot of nice fluffy German dirt.
=D =D
-
We had two soldiers kill the clearing barrel when I was in Germany. The first one was an E-2 (and not my solider). I thought the company commander was going to lose her mind when I suggested that he get maxed out on his Article 15, pulled from any DLO duty and given to the 1SG for a month to be his CQ runner (one day on, one day for 30 days). I didn't think it was that big of a deal. I mean he killed the clearing barrel, that's what it is for. You wouldn't even have to say a word. It would get around, and then everyone would see that poor bastard being the 1SG's bitch for a month and then be reminded to be extra careful as they passed by Sad Sack and his unending hell of CQ.
Apparently the V Corps and USAREUR Provost Marshals wanted this kid's head on a pike.
Couple years later one of the Platoon Sergeants, again not mine, killed the clearing barrel not once, not twice but three times. We were short junior NCO's so we had to put E-7's on as patrol supervisors. He was so surprised it went off, he had to do it two more times just to be sure.
That's when USAREUR pulled the magazines from the guns. :facepalm: :facepalm: Plus if you were duty officer you had to go over to the arms room and and watch them issue weapons, then go back and watch turn in. So three shifts, that's six trips over to the arms room and stand by the clearing barrel do the job of a CPL/SGT/SSG. :mad: :mad: :mad: All because the TPTB had a zero defects mentality.
When the wife and I moved into housing in Yuma, I had to wait a few days to check my guns in. You could keep them in your base housing but they had to be registered on base, transported unloaded and locked. ;/
The reason for the delay? Some Lance Coolie was checking a new Gunny into base housing and went to clear one of the Gunny's sidearms into the clearing barrel. It was loaded and he discharged it. :rofl: Apparently PMO had to have a 3 day safety stand-down because of the stupidity.
-
* - How do you ND a S&W Model 10 with the cylinder swung out? 'Cause tje guy who did it swore the cylinder was out.
Pretty sure they won't do anything with the cylinder swung out.
As in, the action won't work.
Couple years later one of the Platoon Sergeants, again not mine, killed the clearing barrel not once, not twice but three times. We were short junior NCO's so we had to put E-7's on as patrol supervisors. He was so surprised it went off, he had to do it two more times just to be sure.
Well, you gotta make sure all the rounds are really out.
-
What's a cleaning barrel for, anyway - if not to shoot into ???
:P
-
* - How do you ND a S&W Model 10 with the cylinder swung out? 'Cause tje guy who did it swore the cylinder was out. :facepalm:
That reminds me of the story of a forest service ranger who, after he retired, they had to pound the cartridges out of his revolver. The same cartridges and revolver he had been issued when he entered the service.
Apparently PMO had to have a 3 day safety stand-down because of the stupidity.
Let's see, a demerit to the gunny for transporting loaded firearms, demerit to the lance for attempting to clear a firearm he wasn't trained/certified/familiar with, and a demerit to whoever told the lance to clear it.
-
Army tells recruiters to treat armed civilians as a security threat:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/22/army-to-recruiters-treat-armed-citizens-as-security-threat.html
-
Army tells recruiters to treat armed civilians as a security threat:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/22/army-to-recruiters-treat-armed-citizens-as-security-threat.html
"The friend of my friend is my enemy.." Wait, I'm confused...
-
http://staghounds.blogspot.com/2015/08/in-navy-2005.html
As that starts to grow legs there is bound to be more than a few chapped butts going around with hurt feelings.
Can't tell - is that macro-aggression or mega-aggression?
stay safe.