In the old west they had to initiate the "no guns in town" laws to curb their high casualty/homicide rates. Lots of sources, newspaper articles from the day that spell this out.
So you're implying that 2015 military personnel in recruitment centers might start shooting each other if they were armed?
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
[Edited on 7/23/2015 by alloak41]
In the old west they had to initiate the "no guns in town" laws to curb their high casualty/homicide rates. Lots of sources, newspaper articles from the day that spell this out.
So you're implying that 2015 military personnel in recruitment centers might start shooting each other if they were armed?
It takes a special kind of mind to arrive at that conclusion from this post. Nothing is implied about military personnel; a fact is stated in response to this:.
Raises an interesting question...why did the practice of carrying sidearms in hip holsters all but end in the west? I know some people still do it, but it is rare to see in most places. I mean if it obviously makes everyone safer then why didn't it become the norm everywhere instead of falling by the wayside?
This type of stuff you throw out there is why people accuse you of trolling and not wanting to discuss anything.
You never did answer this question after I answered yours, so I'll ask it again.
"Do you believe that countries with strict gun laws and MUCH lower rates of firearm violence are somehow at risk for more gun related violence because they have fewer guns?"
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=139545
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
In the old west they had to initiate the "no guns in town" laws to curb their high casualty/homicide rates. Lots of sources, newspaper articles from the day that spell this out.
So you're implying that 2015 military personnel in recruitment centers might start shooting each other if they were armed?
It takes a special kind of mind to arrive at that conclusion from this post.
I'll stop you right there. Were you aware of the OP and link therein? My response to your wild west statement was in keeping with the topic at hand.
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
The dead bodies of unarmed civilian military personnel? Seems like pretty strong evidence.
In the old west they had to initiate the "no guns in town" laws to curb their high casualty/homicide rates. Lots of sources, newspaper articles from the day that spell this out.
So you're implying that 2015 military personnel in recruitment centers might start shooting each other if they were armed?
It takes a special kind of mind to arrive at that conclusion from this post.
I'll stop you right there. Were you aware of the OP and link therein? My response to your wild west statement was in keeping with the topic at hand.
That's absolutely wrong, and you as well as anybody who can read knows that. You're trying to twist something to fit your agenda, you got called on it, and are now trying to feign innocence. Next you'll accuse me of making this thread about you. Let's just skip that part, and since you don't want to actually discuss the issue, feel free to just keep throwing stuff out there and I will ignore you.
Beside the fact that the military recruiters on duty were prohibited from carrying a firearm.....If we were aware of threats being made, couldn't we have at least provided an armed policeman to keep an eye on things around the recruiting station?
In the old west they had to initiate the "no guns in town" laws to curb their high casualty/homicide rates. Lots of sources, newspaper articles from the day that spell this out.
So you're implying that 2015 military personnel in recruitment centers might start shooting each other if they were armed?
It takes a special kind of mind to arrive at that conclusion from this post.
I'll stop you right there. Were you aware of the OP and link therein? My response to your wild west statement was in keeping with the topic at hand.
That's absolutely wrong, and you as well as anybody who can read knows that. You're trying to twist something to fit your agenda, you got called on it, and are now trying to feign innocence. Next you'll accuse me of making this thread about you. Let's just skip that part, and since you don't want to actually discuss the issue, feel free to just keep throwing stuff out there and I will ignore you.
I haven't discussed anything BUT the issue, but suit yourself.
Now that you mention it, I grew up on air force bases as well and I don't remember anyone carrying weapons on base other than MPs and guards either. I don't remember anyone at my dad's office being armed, nor at the BX, bowling alley, barber shop, swimming pool, around base housing, church or anywhere else. This was certainly well before any ban on guns on bases.
Was this in the 2000's?
Obviously not, since I said it was before the ban, which would automatically mean before Bush the first.
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
The dead bodies of unarmed civilian military personnel? Seems like pretty strong evidence.
What is "civilian military personnel"?
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
The dead bodies of unarmed civilian military personnel? Seems like pretty strong evidence.
What is "civilian military personnel"?
I may be guilty of a mis-definition. Are recruiting personnel considered active duty? I honestly don't know.
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
The dead bodies of unarmed civilian military personnel? Seems like pretty strong evidence.
What is "civilian military personnel"?
I may be guilty of a mis-definition. Are recruiting personnel considered active duty? I honestly don't know.
And yet you comment.
uhmmm, no one at the civilian recruiting center were killed. at the other place they were armed and people still died. so far they believe there were no friendly fire injuries. over-riding what top military brass believes is weird. continuing the line of thought of this thread is strange considering those facts, but i am open to hearing better arguments.
uhmmm, no one at the civilian recruiting center were killed. at the other place they were armed and people still died. so far they believe there were no friendly fire injuries. over-riding what top military brass believes is weird. continuing the line of thought of this thread is strange considering those facts, but i am open to hearing better arguments.
Good luck with that. 
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
The dead bodies of unarmed civilian military personnel? Seems like pretty strong evidence.
What is "civilian military personnel"?
I may be guilty of a mis-definition. Are recruiting personnel considered active duty? I honestly don't know.
And yet you comment.
Absolutely. Is the point lost because of your question? I don't think it is.
lol
i have no idea what military trining these guys recieve for the job they are doing in these situations, but i do believe there is some training. most likely #1 is to take cover and identify the threat. after that i have no idea. having weapons will not always eliminate a threat in an ambush.
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
The dead bodies of unarmed civilian military personnel? Seems like pretty strong evidence.
What is "civilian military personnel"?
I may be guilty of a mis-definition. Are recruiting personnel considered active duty? I honestly don't know.
And yet you comment.
Absolutely. Is the point lost because of your question? I don't think it is.
I didn't ask a question. If I had, it would have had one of these ? at the end.
Now if it was Luke, it would have had a ; or a : or a / or something like that.
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
The dead bodies of unarmed civilian military personnel? Seems like pretty strong evidence.
What is "civilian military personnel"?
I may be guilty of a mis-definition. Are recruiting personnel considered active duty? I honestly don't know.
And yet you comment.
Absolutely. Is the point lost because of your question? I don't think it is.
I didn't ask a question. If I had, it would have had one of these ? at the end.
My bad. I thought that came from 2112.
All the questions!
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
The dead bodies of unarmed civilian military personnel? Seems like pretty strong evidence.
What is "civilian military personnel"?
I may be guilty of a mis-definition. Are recruiting personnel considered active duty? I honestly don't know.
And yet you comment.
Absolutely. Is the point lost because of your question? I don't think it is.
I didn't ask a question. If I had, it would have had one of these ? at the end.
My bad. I thought that came from 2112.
All the questions!
Hopefully, someday you will put some thought into your answers.
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
The dead bodies of unarmed civilian military personnel? Seems like pretty strong evidence.
What is "civilian military personnel"?
I may be guilty of a mis-definition. Are recruiting personnel considered active duty? I honestly don't know.
And yet you comment.
Absolutely. Is the point lost because of your question? I don't think it is.
I didn't ask a question. If I had, it would have had one of these ? at the end.
My bad. I thought that came from 2112.
All the questions!
Hopefully, someday you will put some thought into your answers.
What does that have to do with citizens guarding the military? Nice deflection.
What answers? I thought I didn't answer any of them.
Questions, questions, questions.......
[Edited on 7/23/2015 by alloak41]
Probably not, but they're talking about on base memories. MPs take care of all the law enforcement stuff on base, and they are armed. Gun free zones do not apply to them on base. The shooting of these servicemen in Tennessee were at recruiting stations in the civilian world. The Pentagon is reluctant to have active duty service men and women take on law enforcement duties in the civilian world, and with good reason.
The civilian world is precisely where ISIS is urging recruits and "lone wolfs" inside the country to strike military personnel and policemen and we have been aware of this. Despite this knowledge, the warnings were disregarded.
How do you know the warnings were disregarded?
The dead bodies of unarmed civilian military personnel? Seems like pretty strong evidence.
What is "civilian military personnel"?
I may be guilty of a mis-definition. Are recruiting personnel considered active duty? I honestly don't know.
And yet you comment.
Absolutely. Is the point lost because of your question? I don't think it is.
I didn't ask a question. If I had, it would have had one of these ? at the end.
My bad. I thought that came from 2112.
All the questions!
Hopefully, someday you will put some thought into your answers.
What does that have to do with citizens guarding the military? Nice deflection.
What answers? I thought I didn't answer any of them.
Questions, questions, questions.......
[Edited on 7/23/2015 by alloak41]
You make unfounded statements and then whine when people ask you to explain where you came up with them. I think that is fair, but you don't answer and then whine that the thread is not about you.
Have you noticed how many people don't want to talk to you anymore? Do you wonder why?
You make unfounded statements and then whine when people ask you to explain where you came up with them. I think that is fair, but you don't answer and then whine that the thread is not about you.
Have you noticed how many people don't want to talk to you anymore? Do you wonder why?
Nice swerve. What does this have to do with citizens guarding the military? If you disagree, refute the points. Making it about the poster is admitting defeat,
You make unfounded statements and then whine when people ask you to explain where you came up with them. I think that is fair, but you don't answer and then whine that the thread is not about you.
Have you noticed how many people don't want to talk to you anymore? Do you wonder why?
Nice swerve. What does this have to do with citizens guarding the military? If you disagree, refute the points. Making it about the poster is admitting defeat,
Swerve by alloak = ok
Swerve by others = bad.
Got it.
There were no credible threats that military recruiting offices were under a threat from terrorism.
So far, there is no evidence that this was a terrorist act choreographed by ISIS, al-Qaeda, Syria or Gina.
You make unfounded statements and then whine when people ask you to explain where you came up with them. I think that is fair, but you don't answer and then whine that the thread is not about you.
Have you noticed how many people don't want to talk to you anymore? Do you wonder why?
Nice swerve. What does this have to do with citizens guarding the military? If you disagree, refute the points. Making it about the poster is admitting defeat,
Swerve by alloak = ok
Swerve by others = bad.Got it.
There were no credible threats that military recruiting offices were under a threat from terrorism.
So far, there is no evidence that this was a terrorist act choreographed by ISIS, al-Qaeda, Syria or Gina.
Really? No Liberals on FOX News either, right?
http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/2014/09/isis-urging-jihad-attacks-soldiers-us-soil/
Yeah, those attacks just popped up out of the blue. We had no idea!
[Edited on 7/23/2015 by alloak41]
When you put up more links, try not to put the same link up twice 😛
So ISIS calls for lone wolf attacks. These are the same people who threaten to destroy our cities and kill us all. So maybe, and at this point it is a maybe, one person took them up on it. And now people like you are crying that we must arm all service people 24/7. Don't you think that is the overreaction that the terrorists want? A call for uncontrolled lone wolf attacks is not a credible threat. And tell me, since the guy never left his car, how could armed people respond? I know you will call this a swerve, but you sound just like the people who wanted to arm all teachers after Sandy Hook. If someone wants to kill people, they will.
I saw a picture online today of about 8 "militia men" standing outside of a recruiting office armed to the teeth. I wonder how many of them would be there if they really thought there was a chance of an attack. God help us if we have to depend on people like that to keep any of us safe.
Hey alloak... how can you say that threats are being disregarded when this country is spending billions, if not trillions on homeland security?
We don't even know how much we are spending because the budgets are top secret.
Didn't the FBI just report that they had stopped several attacks earlier in the month? Aren't we raining death on terrorists with our drones?
You really believe there is evidence that those threats have been "disregarded"?
You are entitled to your own thoughts but it does seem to me you are suspending reality in order to believe those thoughts.
Just an observation.
Lone wolf. When ISIS is calling on thousands to carry out attacks using a social media platform, I'm not sure that term is accurate.
Network of lone wolves?
You really believe there is evidence that those threats have been "disregarded"?
Again, dead bodies are pretty good evidence.
If ISIS had been urging attacks on mayors and councilmen of mid-sized cities for example, you think they would be provided armed protection? But suggest that military personnel in a recruiting center, prohibited from carrying a weapon, should receive the same consideration and it's written off as some kind of paranoid oddball idea.
IMO the oddball idea is scoffing at the desire to defend folks against a terror attack, and only proves that terrorism is "winning."
[Edited on 7/23/2015 by alloak41]
