# Our Military Is Being Killed On American Soil



## Lon (Jul 16, 2015)

It is one thing for our military to be killed fighting abroad in Middle East Hot Spots, but to be killed on American soil by a Isis inspired Muslim radical is unacceptable. At least they are armed in the Middle East and can defend themselves. In the absence of any one else being able to protect them on American soil, let them carry their arms an at least be able to try and protect themselves.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 16, 2015)

We are far too generous in our admitting people from the middle East as long as the present mindset exists there.  This guy was born in Kuwait.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 16, 2015)

I absolutely agree Lon, all these shooting take place in gun-free zones.  There is no reason whatsoever that our military cannot carry a firearm, and take action against these radicals before so many lives are lost.  Seems like they never learn, not the first shooting to take place here at military facilities.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 16, 2015)

My sympathies to all Americans on this sad day.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jul 16, 2015)

The jihadist had been here since 1996.  Naturalized citizen.  Dad work for the City of Chattanoga.  Seemed like a pretty well grounded young man.... until.....   Apparently he was recruited/turned against the U.S. through on-line Islamic terrorist organizations.  We continue to read of seemingly good kids recruited to fight with ISIS in the Mid-East or to commit acts of terror on American soil.

This is a tough issue that faces every citizen of free countries today.  How can you stop these kids from accessing the internet?  You can't.  How can you stop radical jihadists from creating blogs and recruitment sites?  I assume therein lies the answer.  How to effectively accomplish that is a challenge free world governments need to commit whatever resources are needed to solve.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 16, 2015)

My deepest condolences to all Americans for this tragedy.


----------



## Kitties (Jul 16, 2015)

Woke up, turned on CNN. Sad sad news.


----------



## Don M. (Jul 16, 2015)

The FBI was all concerned about an attack on the 4th of July.  When that date passed uneventfully, I suspect they let down their guard.  These Jihadists are cunning, and will attack when and where least expected.  The government is making a good effort to track the Internet traffic to try to spot these fanatics, but their efforts seem to be marginally effective.  There may be a better answer already in place to spot these lunatics before they act.  Google, for example, has set up massive data centers where virtually every key stroke made on the Internet is tracked.  Perhaps the government should enlist the aid of Google to spot key words and phrases being used, and better key in on these idiots that are being influenced by ISIS and other radical Muslim groups.  

At some point, Political Correctness is going to have to become a secondary consideration if our people are going to be rid of this Pestilence.


----------



## oldman (Jul 17, 2015)

I keep hearing that there are more good mid-Easterners than there are bad ones. But, how many times now have these people caused havoc and taken lives of Americans and American soldiers? Enough is enough. I am a Marine and take exception to the fact when Marines are killed, especially by supposedly friendly fire. How do we stop this from continuing? Maybe we should put a moratorium on allowing mid-Easterners to enter the military, but I guess that would be a violation of their civil rights.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 17, 2015)

oldman said:


> I keep hearing that there are more good mid-Easterners than there are bad ones. But, how many times now have these people caused havoc and taken lives of Americans and American soldiers? Enough is enough. I am a Marine and take exception to the fact when Marines are killed, especially by supposedly friendly fire. How do we stop this from continuing? Maybe we should put a moratorium on allowing mid-Easterners to enter the military, but I guess that would be a violation of their civil rights.



Seriously?   There are so many Americans of Middle Eastern descent.. just like all of us who can trace our ancestors back to foreign countries.. How can you say they should not serve their country?   That would be like telling my father he could not serve in WWII because his parents were born in Germany..    Not sure how that can be justified..

Although I must say that Radical Islam has been able to influence many young Americans of ME heritage..  How to stop that?  I have no clue... Better surveillance and monitoring of telephones and social media?  Then we have those who will be screaming about government overreach and violation of the constitution and yada yada yada..   I say.. listen to my phone calls and read my emails if you feel there is reason to suspect me of anything..  I don't mind that loss of privacy if it will stop those that really are involved in doing harm


----------



## Don M. (Jul 17, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Seriously?   There are so many Americans of Middle Eastern descent.. just like all of us who can trace our ancestors back to foreign countries.. How can you say they should not serve their country?   That would be like telling my father he could not serve in WWII because his parents were born in Germany..    Not sure how that can be justified..
> 
> Although I must say that Radical Islam has been able to influence many young Americans of ME heritage..  How to stop that?  I have no clue... Better surveillance and monitoring of telephones and social media?  Then we have those who will be screaming about government overreach and violation of the constitution and yada yada yada..   I say.. listen to my phone calls and read my emails if you feel there is reason to suspect me of anything..  I don't mind that loss of privacy if it will stop those that really are involved in doing harm



I agree.  Privacy Must take a back seat when we are under constant threat from these Radical Idiots.  The government can monitor my phone calls and Internet activity all they want.  The Only ones who have anything to fear about such surveillance are those who have something to hide...and They Need to be monitored, if we are ever going to stop this kind of violence.  The internet providers and cell phone companies have access to this type of information, and they should be working with the FBI, etc., to intercept this activity.  Heck, even This Forum is being tracked....according to my Anti-tracking software.


----------



## Lon (Jul 17, 2015)

Perhaps imposing a Moratorium on Immigration of ANY MUSLIMS should be considered. This would not affect any Muslims that are already in the U.S. and are American citizens unless it can be proved that they are involved in subversive activities,


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 17, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> We are far too generous in our admitting people from the middle East as long as the present mindset exists there.  This guy was born in Kuwait.



We are admitting people from ANYWHERE in this world....Welcome To America....
What do we do about the bad ones? Absolutely nothing.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 17, 2015)

Sooooooo is Obama going to the marines funerals.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jul 17, 2015)

Columbine, Sandy Hook, Colorado Theater, Oklahoma City, Charleston church... how many more plus daily 'drive by shooting' taking innocent lives.  How many of those were at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists?  
Fort Hood, Boston Marathon, and now these Marines... what others by radical jihadists?  

It does appear the current culture of a growing segment of those who adhere to the religion of Islam are being radicalized.  Yes, we MUST employ every means possible to find the threats and mitigate them before more lives are taken.  So, some are suggesting prohibiting firearm ownership for Muslims.  How would that have stopped the Boston bombers??  How would taking arms away from Islamic citizens have prevented Sandy Hook, the recent Southern Church massacre, or have prevented the deranged idiot found guilty in the Colorado theater shootings?

Today in America we cannot initiate a conversation about how to keep firearms and explosives out of the hands of those intent on taking innocent lives.  The far right continues to dump millions of dollars in the lap of the NRA in order to prevent such discussion.  How many more lives will be taken here on American soil before we have the courage to stand up to those whose wealth is sustained by keeping the citizenry agitated against common sense.  Those who continue to shout "2nd Amendment Rights" close their eyes and refuse to read "a WELL REGULATED militia".  

The Colorado theater killer is a redhead.  Do we add a restriction to firearm ownership that prohibits redheads from owning guns?  Makes just about as much sense as attempting to disarm every law-abiding citizen of the United States who professes to be a Muslim.


----------



## BobF (Jul 17, 2015)

Some years back our military could have fire arms and wear uniforms.   But a particular government put an end to that sort of stuff.   I think we should put the arms back into the hands of the military when in their work stations.   Then they would have a defense against these run in and shoot people.   No reason to not allow military to have weapons, they are trained and should be able to defend themselves when at work.   The occasional wild active military person would be up against his fellow military folks that are also armed.  The big shoot out in the army mess would not have been so abusive if the others were already armed.

When I was in the service I carried a 45.   But it was not allowed to be loaded.   I never did but I know that many would load after they started to work and unload before the end of shift weapons inspections.

I just think we have gone too far with this no guns stuff.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 17, 2015)

What in the hell are you talking about?  Who is "a particular government" are you describing?


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 17, 2015)

I'm old enough to remember  the trouble the IRA caused the English. 
This was real and very effective terrorism that had its causes in Irish history and in UK policy/policing in Ulster.


These guys were real terrorists  but they had their supporters and financial backers in many countries, including the USA. Counter terrorists were just as bloody in their oppression of the IRA and their families.

The supporters were drawn from the ranks of catholics who saw their cause as just, ignoring all of the teachings of Christ who did not endorse violence, much less murder of innocents. Am I the only one who sees this comparison with the problem of the Middle East and jihadi terrorists?

Perhaps we should learn from the history of the road to peace in Ireland. It began with Ulster women, catholic and protestant, calling for peace and gradually adding more voices to their cause. Then the protagonists began to talk. Ceasefires were begun and failed and were attempted again. Slowly, painfully but eventually a fragile peace was established, then consolidated. This process took decades but the Queen and Prince Charles have now been to Ireland to demonstrate that peace and forgiveness can triumph over terror and hate.

There is no quick solution. All the surveillance of the population will be but a bandaid unless something happens in the troubled Middle East countries to bring the warring elements face to face in a common desire for an end to the carnage. Only then will countries like the US and Australia be free from jihadi attacks.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jul 17, 2015)

BobF said:


> Some years back our military could have fire arms and wear uniforms.   But a particular government put an end to that sort of stuff.   I think we should put the arms back into the hands of the military when in their work stations.   Then they would have a defense against these run in and shoot people.   No reason to not allow military to have weapons, they are trained and should be able to defend themselves when at work.   The occasional wild active military person would be up against his fellow military folks that are also armed.  The big shoot out in the army mess would not have been so abusive if the others were already armed.
> 
> When I was in the service I carried a 45.   But it was not allowed to be loaded.   I never did but I know that many would load after they started to work and unload before the end of shift weapons inspections.
> 
> I just think we have gone too far with this no guns stuff.



Yes, I'd like to be "educated" by you as to what government put an end to military personnel carrying firearms while performing desk duty, doing maintenance work, etc... or off duty while still in uniform.  I've been around military installations for almost 70 years.  I don't ever remember military personnel in recruiting offices being armed or anyone except MPs and CID people carrying off base.  On base the only time personnel were armed was on range or in the field.  Did this change and I missed seeing the open carry of military issue firearms by recruiters?  Maybe during the Reagan administration carrying was banned after his agreement/treaty with the USSR and the Berlin Wall came down.  
I'm waiting in anticipation of this history lesson.......


----------



## BobF (Jul 17, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Yes, I'd like to be "educated" by you as to what government put an end to military personnel carrying firearms while performing desk duty, doing maintenance work, etc... or off duty while still in uniform.  I've been around military installations for almost 70 years.  I don't ever remember military personnel in recruiting offices being armed or anyone except MPs and CID people carrying off base.  On base the only time personnel were armed was on range or in the field.  Did this change and I missed seeing the open carry of military issue firearms by recruiters?  Maybe during the Reagan administration carrying was banned after his agreement/treaty with the USSR and the Berlin Wall came down.
> I'm waiting in anticipation of this history lesson.......



I believe you to be generally correct on the lack of arms to the off duty service people.    I was in the military police and then we could have our 45's but technically we could not load the clip while on duty.   Which I always thought was not so smart at all.   In case of a sudden showdown you lose.   It takes time to open you clip case, get the gun raised so you can insert the clip, and then point and pull trigger.    A lot of bullets from the challenger would have gone through you before you could get the clip out.  Really some strange things do happen to our military.    Unless you discount basic training where we always had our rifles with us most of the time.   But ammo issue was only done on the range.

My response to what is happening today is to change some of these strange rules and allow all military to have loaded weapons with them when on duty, especially those inviting outsiders into their work space.   And why not on military bases too?   Like it or not, we are at war with a lot of sneaky and nasty folks these days.   The US is no longer a threat free nation as it was for many years.

My comment about a certain government that hated military was the Clinton years.   Hillary just did not want all those parties and meetings and what ever the had in the White House filled with military folks in uniform.   So formal was not military it meant formal citizens attire.   I do expect some nasty responses to that comment is why I chose to speak of a certain government to avoid all the possible challenges to my comment.   I try to be discreet but likely not allowed as you are the second that wanted to know what I meant.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 17, 2015)

"I try to be discreet but likely not allowed as you are the second that wanted to know what I meant."  Bob discreet would be to post facts, not fiction.  If you want to be really discreet, don't post it at all.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 17, 2015)

Poor Bob, he gets picked on no matter what. I may not agree with your politics, Bob, but I admire and respect your toughness in standing up for what you believe.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 17, 2015)

"Don't post at all" ? I once got reprimanded for taking posters to task for ignoring the distress of a poster who had recently lost her son in very painful circumstances. I used the :stop1:  icon and was told that only the mods have that authority. After that I sentenced myself to 2 weeks in Coventry to get my balance back.

Think about that, Jim, before the next time you respond to Bob. We don't have the right or the authority to attempt to silence any member of the forum. Nor they us.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 17, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> "Don't post at all" ? I once got reprimanded for taking posters to task for ignoring the distress of a poster who had recently lost her son in very painful circumstances. I used the :stop1:  icon and was told that only the mods have that authority. After that I sentenced myself to 2 weeks in Coventry to get my balance back.
> 
> Think about that, Jim, before the next time you respond to Bob. We don't have the right or the authority to attempt to silence any member of the forum. Nor they us.



I think you misunderstand.  Bob made some references and said he was trying to be discreet about who he meant.  I posted in part "If you want to be really discreet, don't post it at all."  I did not suggest he not post at all.  I merely said he should either tell us who he refers to or not post *IT* at all.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 17, 2015)

Thanks for the clarification. It's a subtle point though and obviously can pass over the heads of people reading your post.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 17, 2015)

I suppose.  One word in a sentence can make a difference.  I'm sorry you misread it.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jul 18, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Poor Bob, he gets picked on no matter what. I may not agree with your politics, Bob, but I admire and respect your toughness in standing up for what you believe.



BobF deserves no pity.  Certainly won't get any from me.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 18, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> BobF deserves no pity.  Certainly won't get any from me.



Nor from me...  It's tiresome being accused of being "twisted" and "nasty" simply for disagreeing with him..  I find it better not engage him at all..  but sometimes one simply has to put the correct facts out there..


----------



## BobF (Jul 18, 2015)

Unfortunately on this forum it makes no difference if I post facts or just imply facts.   I get bashed by the one minded folks that think they do control this forum.   I often use documents to back my comments and then the documents get pushed aside or ignored.   Not really smart of those that ignore printed history or comments from the past.   When I see 'facts' published in political driven documents I see biased information and often not facts as some claim.

I see often that I am called a liar but no proofs of what I said is a lie.   Why not proofs of lies if you really think so?   Just a tough forum to exist on these days.   Facts don't mean anything so I tried to avoid any personal attacks.   Now I am being challenged for not making direct charges.

Depending on which type of documents you choose, Hillary did argue about uniforms in the White House, or she did not.   Take your pick, as I do remember seeing her on TV and saying things about uniforms should not be in the White House when her husband Bill Clinton first became President.   I don't know if she ever got any rules set or not.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 18, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I'm old enough to remember  the trouble the IRA caused the English.
> This was real and very effective terrorism that had its causes in Irish history and in UK policy/policing in Ulster.
> 
> 
> ...




The IRA is a perfect example of the time & persistence involved and needed on both sides of an issue. The IRA created & exploited a movement and cause. When determined these organizations are extremely dangerous because in their mind their tactics are the last and final option. Maybe the IRA wasn't willing to die for their cause/one mission but in the end they knew they were on a one way trip until they were caught or killed.

What puzzles me with the Boston bomber and the Tenn shooter they were young and experienced life in the US/much more modern world than relatives in the homeland. If nothing else you would figure they would try to get them back here rather than take up their cause. Even more frustrating was the Ft Hood shooter who not only had a lot of time here but was a medical professional so he had to violate a government and professional oath.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 18, 2015)

When one makes statements of a political nature here or elsewhere he must be prepared to be rebutted.  Provocative post titles indicating the President is a communist is an example.  In this post you suggest that some vague figure suddenly disarmed our military personnel, you suggested it was Clinton.  Absolutely untrue.  At no time have our military men and women walked our streets armed.  Bob, I have no designs on controlling this forum and it is insulting that blow back on your posts here in the political arena results in your charges of that.  If you don't want rebuttal to your posts, stick to the truth.  BTW I never saw you called a liar.  I even did an advanced search and still found no such thing.


----------



## BobF (Jul 18, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> When one makes statements of a political nature here or elsewhere he must be prepared to be rebutted.  Provocative post titles indicating the President is a communist is an example.  In this post you suggest that some vague figure suddenly disarmed our military personnel, you suggested it was Clinton.  Absolutely untrue.  At no time have our military men and women walked our streets armed.  Bob, I have no designs on controlling this forum and it is insulting that blow back on your posts here in the political arena results in your charges of that.  If you don't want rebuttal to your posts, stick to the truth.  BTW I never saw you called a liar.  I even did an advanced search and still found no such thing.



Jim, this post is a total distortion of what I have posted and that makes it a big LIE.   Get honest for once.

I never said the President was a communist.   In fact I actually said the opposite for the President.   Go back and read my early on posts.

I did not say some vague person disarmed our military.   Show some proof of that statement mister distorter.

I do stick to the truth and often post supporting articles.   

I does not have to be the word liar as many insult get folded into the words  presented.

Now I did use the word lie for this post you put up.   As it is just more junk posting and not at all facts.   Can you post facts for your claims?    I don't  think so.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 18, 2015)

BobF said:


> Jim, this post is a total distortion of what I have posted and that makes it a big LIE.   Get honest for once.
> 
> I never said the President was a communist.   In fact I actually said the opposite for the President.   Go back and read my early on posts.
> 
> ...



Bob, there is absolutely no point in debating with you.


----------



## BobF (Jul 18, 2015)

Why not show proofs that you are right.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 18, 2015)

Your own words in your post ARE my proof.


----------



## BobF (Jul 18, 2015)

Then post them as your proofs.    Unable to do so and your post is pure crap.


----------



## BobF (Jul 18, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> When one makes statements of a political nature here or elsewhere he must be prepared to be rebutted.  Provocative post titles indicating the President is a communist is an example.  In this post you suggest that some vague figure suddenly disarmed our military personnel, you suggested it was Clinton.  Absolutely untrue.  At no time have our military men and women walked our streets armed.  Bob, I have no designs on controlling this forum and it is insulting that blow back on your posts here in the political arena results in your charges of that.  If you don't want rebuttal to your posts, stick to the truth.  BTW I never saw you called a liar.  I even did an advanced search and still found no such thing.



Jim, this post is a total distortion of what I have posted and that makes it a big LIE.   Get honest for once.

*Provocative post titles indicating the President is a communist is an example.   
*
What I posted is:

Obama has never stood and called himself a communist that I know of, but  the Communist Party United States America sure thinks he is fully a  communist. 

*In this post you suggest that some vague figure suddenly disarmed our military personnel, you suggested it was Clinton.
*
What I posted:

"But a particular government put an end to that sort of stuff."   From a different thread entirely.   So does not count in this thread.   It has been discussed several times with several folks on that thread.   

I did not want to post names and got chewed.   So I post names and got chewed again.   Apparently wrong about the weapons, but not about the uniforms in the White House.   I remember seeing and hearing Hillary say that early in Bill Clinton's first term.   I tried to verify this and got two responses.   One said this never happened and one supported the idea.   I think it will all depend on the political leanings of the authors.   So believe as you wish.


----------



## RadishRose (Jul 18, 2015)

I promised myself I wouldn't do this, but I will... just once. there seems to be a kind of "disconnect". 
Bob-

 #16 , you say:
Some years back our military could have fire arms and wear uniforms. But a particular government put an end to that sort of stuff.

# 20, you say:
My comment about a certain government that hated military was the Clinton years. Hillary just did not want all those parties and meetings and what ever the had in the White House filled with military folks in uniform. So formal was not military it meant formal citizens attire.

   Your comment in post # 16 was NOT about a certain government that hated the military and or military attire, #16  stated a particular government put an end to the firearms and wearing uniforms .

So,  what particular government PUT AN END TO FIREARMS?


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jul 18, 2015)

There is this cut & paste.  There is also a long discussion about the myth of banning military uniforms in the White House on Snopes forum.

_"However, the allegation that Hillary Clinton imposed a ban on the wearing of military uniforms in the White House was reported as early as April 1, 1993, in a Washington Post article (accessed through Nexis) that referred to "[a] whole series of apocryphal anecdotes [that] have made the rounds and fed military disaffection" with the Clinton administration. With regard to "the one about Hillary Rodham Clinton's ban on uniforms in the White House," the Post reported that it "didn't happen."_
_Similarly, Newsweek reported in December 2005 that "[t]here are still soldiers who swear by the myth that she [Clinton] banned uniforms at the White House."
_
According to the Snopes forum thread, there are about 2,200 active duty military who work in and around the White House.  Many of these are assignments where the wearing of a military uniform would make them stand out and less able to blend in and perform the duty they are responsible for.  

There seems to be no factual basis that I can find which would support the myth of Ms. Clinton banning the wearing of military uniforms in the White House.  Even if that one facility... the White House... insisted on civilian attire in lieu of military uniforms I don't see where this had anything to do with the original topic of the 5, now, who lost their lives to another active shooter.  There is no ban on the wearing of uniforms in recruiting stations.
Similar to somehow placing the blame for this tragedy on the Clinton administration for banning uniforms in the White House... even though an unproven myth... our son just returned from a 6-month deployment to the Mid-East.  During that entire deployment, he wore his uniform ONE day.  The rest of the time he was in civilian attire.  His mission was a "psy-Ops" mission whereby he needed to blend in with the locals of that specific country and not call attention to himself.  There most certainly are assignments and missions specific to our military where the wearing of a uniform could put them even more in harm's way.  
I'm still having trouble understanding the relationship with the wearing of uniforms and a deranged jihadist intent on taking American lives in Tennessee.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 18, 2015)

Bob feels I pick on him because I demand that he stick to verifiable facts when he is pontificating.  For that reason and because he can never be debated with without him coming up with convoluted diatribes that makes continuing futile, I have given up on him.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 18, 2015)

Will you 2 get a room or something and DROP the subject, you're both acting like a couple of nitwits.
Use private mail and yell all you want.....we don't need that here.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 18, 2015)

We can't discuss politics here Davey?  Really?  I guess you can't just ignore us, huh?  Sorry but I intend to continue to answer inflammatory posts here until such time as it is ruled against forum rules.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 18, 2015)

BobF said:


> Some years back our military could have fire arms and wear uniforms.   But a particular government put an end to that sort of stuff.   I think we should put the arms back into the hands of the military when in their work stations.



Bob, I agree with you that the military should be allowed to carry firearms in their work stations if they prefer to.  From what I understand, it wasn't any particular government,  but it was directives issued by the Department of the Army in March of 1993, in conjunction with directives issued by the Department of Defense in April of 2011.  I don't know much about these regulations, care to comment?


Army Regulation 1993:

http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r190_14/main.asp 



Department of Defense Directive 2011:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf


----------



## BobF (Jul 18, 2015)

RadishRose said:


> I promised myself I wouldn't do this, but I will... just once. there seems to be a kind of "disconnect".
> Bob-
> 
> #16 , you say:
> ...



Apparently you did not read my post just above your post.   I admitted that I was wrong.   *Apparently wrong about the weapons*   Not good enough for some I guess.   So now I am confused about what confused you.


----------



## BobF (Jul 18, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Bob feels I pick on him because I demand that he stick to verifiable facts when he is pontificating.  For that reason and because he can never be debated with without him coming up with convoluted diatribes that makes continuing futile, I have given up on him.



You don't even have the courage to post the facts as I challenged you to do.   So I took the time to post how wrong you were in your claims that I was wrong.   Some day you need to grow up as other posters have asked you to do.   Some no longer post on here because of some very obnoxious posters.   Only one truth in their view.   But the far far left political stances will just take us to where the Greeks are today.   Which means that I am more right than most on this forum.   And that means I am able to vote for some Democrat ideas but not the far far left.   I think that is why Hillary will do OK.   She is left for sure but not as bad as Obama.   I am allowed to have an opinion and do it without calling Obama to be a communist.


----------



## RadishRose (Jul 18, 2015)

BobF said:


> Apparently you did not read my post just above your post.   I admitted that I was wrong.   *Apparently wrong about the weapons*   Not good enough for some I guess.   So now I am confused about what confused you.




Aha! Cool beans Bob, I now see that in your post where I did not previously. Thanks!


----------



## BobF (Jul 18, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Bob, I agree with you that the military should be allowed to carry firearms in their work stations if they prefer to.  From what I understand, it wasn't any particular government,  but it was directives issued by the Department of the Army in March of 1993, in conjunction with directives issued by the Department of Defense in April of 2011.  I don't know much about these regulations, care to comment?
> 
> 
> Army Regulation 1993:
> ...



I have copied off those two links.   Lots of reading in these two papers.    I guess I will need to get some rest and then go to view these articles.   Both are well after I left as I was Korean material till the truce happened.   So thanks for what will likely be educational to me.


----------



## BobF (Jul 19, 2015)

SeaBreeze, I just finished browsing the two documents.    I won't claim to have READ them as they sound too much like lawyer style of documents.   Very boring, very repetitive, very detailed, etc.   Anyway, they both sound much like the way it was when I was in the service.   

But for me, all the background and concerns really need adjusted to our current situation of folks with guns threatening our military doing their jobs.   More should be assigned with permission to have weapons at hand and ready to use.   They would be protecting military personnel and property and guests into those premises.  Those guests would be volunteers interested in joining the services, for example.   Or contractors and businessmen and others needing to interface with military.

I restate my position that we are at war with these killers that have no problem with being killed.   We should help them to reach their goal.   But if they surrender then let them face the courts and punish them well, as we have with some already.


----------

