Posted on 09/17/2013 3:03:33 PM PDT by Lucky9teen
Edited on 09/17/2013 3:59:49 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Yes I assume some bases were more apt to give ammunition to troops than others. I can only attest to my own experience.
I was there and I know better.
Any other questions?
I can remember visiting Ellsworth AFB in the late 80’s. We were being given a tour, when we stopped at a chain link fence just outside where they kept and serviced B-52’s. The tour guide invited us to take all the pics we wanted, but to not even think of crossing the fence.
“These planes are guarded by armed personnel around the clock,” he stated. “If you run out to get a closer look, you won’t make it,” he assured us.
I can handle a weapon better then most Air Force Security police.
Saw one have a negligent discharge in a mantrap, concrete and heavy metal on all sides. Fortunately all he had was blanks.
Hey, look! It’s Bush’s fault!
No matter who issued it, it’s bad policy. Yesterday’s horror proves that.
Since 9/11/01, the entire United States is a combat zone.
Once it's discovered it's part of the Bush dynasty...it no longer matters....gak
Yes they do, but they continue to be prohibited from doing so.
American service personnel are free, however, to be flaming queers, and apparently are encouraged to be such.
Bush 1 and every president since is responsible for keeping this policy in effect.
This thread brings back some memories, BTW. “Halt! Who goes there!” [familyop snaps his empty weapon to port arms for a rifle butt to an imaginary head.] LOL!
Not talking about being able to fire a single-shot weapon into a crowd. While this could be done at any time since the introduction of firearms, the perp would then immediately be beaten to death by the survivors of his attack, long before he could possibly reload. Guys used to compensate for this somewhat with multiple pistols, and double barrel pistols, but this strategy too obviously has severe limitations.
I agree that the culture has changed, resulting in more people, for whatever reason, with the desire to commit mass murder.
However, there is a huge difference in killing effect between a weapon that fires two rounds per minute, vs. one that fires 40 or 60 rounds per minute for basically unlimited minutes as long as ammo holds out.
How conservatives can say they need the rapid fire capability of an AR-15 in case they need to defend themselves against multiple attackers, while at the same time denying that this capability is equally useful for those who want to murder a lot of people quickly is beyond me.
I’m not in favor of additional restrictions on guns, but there are costs to everything. And that mass murder becomes easier is one of the costs of a society with relatively easy access to rapid-fire, easily reloaded weapons.
And yet, one would think Pearl Harbor might have changed all that. Obviously the easy way to take over any US military base is to take over the armory.
Yes, it used to make me nervous, out there patrolling the perimeter at night with an unloaded rifle.
One thing, though—they didn’t TELL people that the weapons were not loaded. No one could be sure.
What I thought at the time was a huge mistake was when Bill Clinton loudly and publicly TOLD everyone that they could count on all the weapons at military bases being purely for show. To a criminal, that makes it look as easy as shooting up a school.
I was there in 1960 and you are full of it.
I don’t care when you were there. Not all at Ft. Knox were unarmed. Maybe your were unarmed, but then again, that doesn’t means jack shit does it Mr. Venturer?
Hopefully they arm the soldiers at bases where they store WMD components.
Yeah I am sure the MP’s were armed jack.
I grew up on Army bases, from the early fifties to the mid sixties. I don’t recall ever seeing anyone except MPs openly carrying weapons on a regular basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.