Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This Is Why Most Military Personnel Arenít Armed on Military Bases ó and Itís Not Clintonís Fault
The Blaze ^ | Sept 17, 2013 | Oliver Darcy

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]

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

Not according to what we found.

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

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

WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 17: A police officer stands guard at the front gate of the Washington Naval Yard September 17, 2013 in Washington, DC. Yesterday a defense contractor named Aaron Alexis allegedly killed at least 13 people during a shooting rampage at the Navy Yard before being killed by police. (Credit: Getty Images)

The controversial directive states that “it is DoD Policy” to “limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel.”

“The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried,” it says.

The policy, however, adds, “DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed.” A former member of the Air Force, with experience in base security, thus, told the Washington Post that he would guess there were “no more than a couple of dozen weapons on the Navy Yard.”

It appears DoD Directive 5210.56 was reissued in April 2011 by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III.

Some outlets are citing Army Regulation 190-14, a policy implemented in 1993 that changed policy regarding carrying firearms on the Army’s military bases, to cast blame on Clinton.

However, that policy specifically notes part of its purpose is aimed at implementing “applicable portions of Department of Defense Directive 5210.56,” which, as previously stated, was put into effect by Bush Sr.’s deputy secretary of defense:

This is Why Most Military Personnel Are Disarmed on Military Bases — and Its Not Clintons Fault

Army regulation 190-14 actually implements a policy put in under George H.W. Bush, meaning Bill Clinton is not responsible for a lack of armed personnel on military bases. Additionally, the DoD told TheBlaze the Army regulation wouldn’t apply to other branches of the military like the Navy. (Source: Army regulation 190-14)

Further, DoD spokesman Mark Wright told TheBlaze Army Regulation 190-14 would not apply to other bases under different branches of the military, including the site of Monday’s shooting, Washington Navy Yard.

“No, it would not apply,” he said Tuesday afternoon.

Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel, also told TheBlaze Tuesday afternoon that Clinton is not to blame.

“I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military,” said Bucci, when asked if Clinton was responsible. “I think that’s kind of a bogus story.”

“We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones,” he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority.

TheBlaze reached out to members of both the Senate and House Armed Services Committee to see if the policy will be revisited in light of Monday’s shooting. At the time of publication, no one was available for comment.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: bush; control; disarm; eliteagenda; guns; military; nwo; oneparty; regulations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
hmmm....
1 posted on 09/17/2013 3:03:33 PM PDT by Lucky9teen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
“We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones,” he added

So? What do you say we change that? Terrorists have already targeted Americans on American soil, and American military bases. Our service personnel deserve the ability to protect themselves, or at least have that option.

2 posted on 09/17/2013 3:07:16 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

What a joke this must appear to the rest of the world. The mighty American military, at a major headquarters, full of brass, in the nation’s capital, succumbs to a punk with a shotgun and goes into a swoon. Congress runs into the “safe tunnels” like little girls.

Hey, we’re in a world a war. Consider it our luck that this lone lunatic wanted to play “first person shooter” from the balcony over the food-court atrium, instead of heading to the Admirals’ offices. Along with a dozen of his pals at different bases at the same time. Because it could have been done easily. It still can be, as long as our bases are PC “gun free zones.”


3 posted on 09/17/2013 3:12:16 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
“We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones,” he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority.

I don't know how far back that goes, but I suspect quite a ways. I was in the army at a missile repair base out in the desert, back in the early 1960s. We were never armed, except when we were on "guard duty," stationed around the perimeter with its chain-linked fence and barbed wire. I put "guard duty" in parentheses, because we were issued rifles, but no ammunition.

And, yes, the MPs were armed, presumably so they could bring in any troublemakers when necessary. Their usual duty in my experience was dealing with drunks or speeders.

It's an old custom in most military organizations to keep the weapons in an armory, and only issue them when a battle is anticipated.

4 posted on 09/17/2013 3:12:52 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

What if the guy had to consider that even a small number of his intended victims were armed with no more than a .38 snub revolver?


5 posted on 09/17/2013 3:12:52 PM PDT by OKSooner (What's the NCAA gonna do, suspend OSU from the first half of its first game next season?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

I went to Ft. Knox for basic in 1960, and no one had ammunition.

I served 8 year in the Md. National Guard and no one had ammunition—at least not officially.

As far as I know it has always been the policy of the military not to issue ammunition unless it’s considered needed.


6 posted on 09/17/2013 3:13:59 PM PDT by Venturer ( cowardice posturing as tolerance =political correctness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
“We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones,” he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority.

And in the Navy and Air Force only a very small percentage of the personnel are trained in the use of firearms beyond very basic training, and very few are even issued, or need to be issued any sort of weapon to do their job.

A higher percentage in the Army and Marine Corps would be trained and have weapons issued, but that would still be a minority unless in a combat zone.

The answer is probably increased security, or more military police who are armed and trained in police tactics.

7 posted on 09/17/2013 3:19:12 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

This was always done to prevent accidental discharges. People back then could not conceive of soldiers just going on mass shooting sprees. Times are different now. The military should lift its restrictions on concealed carry and personal guns on base.


8 posted on 09/17/2013 3:21:31 PM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters for Freedom and Rededicaton to the Principles of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
This is all crap re-direction.
The question isn't why more military members aren't issued weapons while on base - it's why those in the military who are CHL carriers are not allow to carry their own weapons on base.

I imagine that would arm a small army right there.

9 posted on 09/17/2013 3:21:59 PM PDT by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Makes me sick ...... Can’t wait till an adult is back in charge of this circus.

Stay safe ..


10 posted on 09/17/2013 3:23:41 PM PDT by Squantos ( Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I know guys who served in the USAF in SAC in the 60’s, and they assure me that their weapons were loaded on base. All of them, all the time.

And anyone who tried to bully or ram their way onto a SAC base was to be shot dead, no questions or hesitation allowed. Anyone who was already on-base, in uniform, who approached the “dead line” surrounding the B-52’s and B-58’s on the flight line who was alone would probably have been shot as well. They told me they took base security very seriously, and signs were posted as to the lethality of their standing orders.


11 posted on 09/17/2013 3:24:06 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Of course, I still blame draft-dodging, American-hating, serial-lying Clinton. He was aware of the threats and nevertheless deliberately and intentionally chose inaction on the matter.


12 posted on 09/17/2013 3:25:49 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Why are we dying in “no gun zones”?


13 posted on 09/17/2013 3:26:02 PM PDT by OwenKellogg (Fundamental transformation is really starting to suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

B-58s !!!

Dude that was old school.


14 posted on 09/17/2013 3:27:03 PM PDT by OwenKellogg (Fundamental transformation is really starting to suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Actually, there’s nothing like getting “jacked up” by an 18 year old sky cop.


15 posted on 09/17/2013 3:28:08 PM PDT by OwenKellogg (Fundamental transformation is really starting to suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OKSooner

Officers should always have loaded sidearms...for authority.


16 posted on 09/17/2013 3:30:00 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I don't know how far back that goes, but I suspect quite a ways.

Sometime following WWI. But IIRC the officers were still allowed to carry side arms.

17 posted on 09/17/2013 3:30:23 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Revenge is a dish best served with pinto beans and muffins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

When I was on guard duty in Germany we carried 90 rounds.

That was in 1960.


18 posted on 09/17/2013 3:32:22 PM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Will88
The answer is probably increased security, or more military police who are armed and trained in police tactics.

Or allow concealed/open carry of privately owned firearms.

19 posted on 09/17/2013 3:34:39 PM PDT by Washi (She was Hannah Montana when Bush was president. Thanks a lot Barack Obama! :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

“Hey, we’re in a world a war. Consider it our luck that this lone lunatic wanted to play “first person shooter” from the balcony over the food-court atrium, instead of heading to the Admirals’ offices. Along with a dozen of his pals at different bases at the same time. Because it could have been done easily. It still can be, as long as our bases are PC “gun free zones.”

It would have been better for America if this poor soul had shot some staff officers of high rank because they would immediately have changed their idiotic policies regarding firearms on bases.


20 posted on 09/17/2013 3:39:12 PM PDT by WMarshal (Free citizen, never a subject or a civilian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Here`s how they do it in Pakistan.

They got nuts n` terrorists there, we got `em here-

WHAT`S THE DIFFERENCE??!!

21 posted on 09/17/2013 3:45:32 PM PDT by bunkerhill7 (("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Washi
Or allow concealed/open carry of privately owned firearms.

The military largely has its own rules to be followed on military bases. I doubt they would honor carry permits issued by civilian authorities and doubt they should.

Any increased security and carry permits on base should stay under the jurisdiction of the military.

22 posted on 09/17/2013 3:47:48 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

That was SAC.

Old SAC.

Real SAC.

Curt LeMay SAC.

Times have changed.


23 posted on 09/17/2013 3:49:36 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

When I was in OCS, we trained on 45s....
Why? Just for fun? Cripes, train ‘em, let ‘em use ‘em.....


24 posted on 09/17/2013 3:51:11 PM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
“gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W.

Oh the Bush dynasty??

Could you post this in the "Day in the Life" thread?

The fans, or fanatics, will really appreciate it...

Be sure to describe the clothing he and Ms. Bush were wearing at the time, and post some attractive pics along with it.

Thanks!!!

25 posted on 09/17/2013 3:51:25 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
It's an old custom in most military organizations to keep the weapons in an armory, and only issue them when a battle is anticipated.

Bingo. Traditionally, soldiers were "the scum of the earth, enlisted for drink." And sailors were no better.

Officers were always a great deal more concerned about their own soldiers or seamen staging a mutiny than they were about somebody shooting up the base or ship. So access to weapons and ammunition was always tightly controlled. This is the actual origin of Marines, soldiers kept on board and at odds with the sailors. The Marines were armed to keep the sailors under control.

Of course, in the old days muzzle loading firearms made it very difficult for one person or a small group to shoot a bunch of people.

26 posted on 09/17/2013 3:54:24 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
I went to Ft. Knox for basic in 1960, and no one had ammunition.

BS

27 posted on 09/17/2013 3:54:45 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
Army regulation 190-14 actually implements a policy put in under George H.W. Bush, meaning Bill Clinton is not responsible for a lack of armed personnel on military bases.

This is only meaningful it this policy was a significant change from the previous policy, which is unlikely. More likely just a restatement.

Until somebody posts something showing that previous policy allowed or required soldiers to be armed on base.

28 posted on 09/17/2013 3:56:28 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Somebody should ask what happened to all the MPs that were relied upon after these orders to disarm the soldiers were issued. They’re not there because they’re in Afghanistan, teaching Afghans how to shoot our MPs in the back.


29 posted on 09/17/2013 4:01:21 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88; Travis McGee

I went through USN gunnery and missle school at Great Lakes from 86-88. Also located on base was Nuclear Propulsion school...and Fire controlman school for the Aegis. All had full scale working models of the equipment being learned about.

I walked many a “Balls to Four”perimeter watch armed with a loaded 1911(Many infantry had already changed to the Beretta). One had to qualify for this at the range and had to take classes on use of deadly force. But, there was no mistake if I had encountered a strange person who did not heed my order to halt...I would of shot them dead.


30 posted on 09/17/2013 4:02:28 PM PDT by Vigilantcitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Yes and those armed airmen on SAC bases were authorized security police, both law enforcement, guards and SAT teams. They were protecting the nukes. Whenever I was on duty as a missile officer I was armed. Whenever I flew on the SAC Looking Glass, I was armed. Whenever I transported nuclear release codes or two person control materials I was armed. This is not the same as letting everyone walk about with issued armed weapons.

As an enlisted Marine before that we never had loaded field weapons day to day. Those were maintained in the armory and ammunition was issued at the ranges or as required. Troops stopped carrying their issued weapons with them, even when moving to a new base, sometime back in the early-mid 50s and even then and during WWII they were not issued ammunition unless they were on guard duty or in a combat zone. Living in the barracks, there is not a good way to control stupid individuals and/or drunken individuals. There were incidents where trained personnel accidently or on purpose shot themselves or each other in garrison. We had two guys whom I knew who were MPs, bored in the middle of the night at one of the gates and they decided to play quick draw with their M1911s. On about the 5th quick draw one guy was puzzled that it sounded like a gunshot while his partner was standing there holding his side shouting “You shot me you stupid M*$ke&t%@+er”. We disarmed another drunk Marine who brought a weapon into the club to take care of the guy who supposedly stole his girlfriend. That is why everyone on base is not issued a weapon and ammunition for daily carry/use.


31 posted on 09/17/2013 4:02:58 PM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Officers should always have loaded sidearms...for authority.

The French NCOs and officers couldn't believe that the pistols that ours carried were unloaded, and said that it was no wonder we had problems with control like we did during the race troubles of the late 1960s and the 1970s.

32 posted on 09/17/2013 4:05:32 PM PDT by ansel12 ( 'I'm on That New Obama Diet... Every Day I Let Vladimir Putin Eat My Lunch' .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

Yep, you too compadre.


33 posted on 09/17/2013 4:06:32 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Vigilantcitizen

I’m sure that personnel actually standing perimeter watches at any sensitive installation and military police are armed and trained in the use of arms.

But some here are talking about people carrying weapons on base who have civilian issued carry permits, and some even are saying all personnel should carry their weapons on base.

I was in the USNR and served at Little Creek and was often at the main base in Norfolk and never saw anyone armed but military police, and maybe gate guards. I ‘stood’ watches in a building onshore and I don’t think my command even had any weapons. I sure never saw nor heard about any.

The idea that there has been a time in recent memory where large numbers of military personnel walked around on base carrying a weapon and live ammo is nonsense. I agree there should be increased security, but it should come from trained personnel and any carry permits should be issued by the military, and civilian carry permits should not be honored on base.


34 posted on 09/17/2013 4:15:00 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Not true in the least. Are you not familiar with the venerable blunderbuss? Or portable pintle-mounted “swivel guns” that fired a pound of lead balls like a reloadable Claymore?

And that was in an era when relative to the available medical care, a wound—any wound—was far more deadly. Any lunatic could have mowed down the church picnic in 1680 with a blunderbuss. They didn’t. What changed was not firearms, but culture.


35 posted on 09/17/2013 4:15:30 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

36 posted on 09/17/2013 4:24:36 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Will88

My son was in the Navy, and he said they had Marines on board ships with guns cause no one trusted a sailor with one


37 posted on 09/17/2013 4:42:14 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

Really?? You were there and know better.

The only time we got ammunition was at the firing range, The weapons were locked in storage each night and gotten out in the morning, No one had ammunition for them.


38 posted on 09/17/2013 4:45:17 PM PDT by Venturer ( cowardice posturing as tolerance =political correctness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Not enough?

Bush's homeland security boss Chertoff, was found to have people who entered the country illegally, wandering around the inside of his private residence....During war time.

39 posted on 09/17/2013 4:45:27 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

On guard duty at the Missile base we had 14 rounds and an M-1 Carbine. We passed the ammunition to the guy that relieved us.


40 posted on 09/17/2013 4:46:41 PM PDT by Venturer ( cowardice posturing as tolerance =political correctness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Yes I assume some bases were more apt to give ammunition to troops than others. I can only attest to my own experience.


41 posted on 09/17/2013 4:48:00 PM PDT by Venturer ( cowardice posturing as tolerance =political correctness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I was there and I know better.

Any other questions?


42 posted on 09/17/2013 4:50:26 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

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.


43 posted on 09/17/2013 4:54:41 PM PDT by FLAMING DEATH (I'm not racist - I hate Biden too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

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.


44 posted on 09/17/2013 5:00:39 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Hey, look! It’s Bush’s fault!


45 posted on 09/17/2013 5:19:03 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

No matter who issued it, it’s bad policy. Yesterday’s horror proves that.


46 posted on 09/17/2013 5:21:07 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
“We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones,”

Since 9/11/01, the entire United States is a combat zone.

47 posted on 09/17/2013 5:22:26 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
No matter who issued it, it’s bad policy.

Once it's discovered it's part of the Bush dynasty...it no longer matters....gak

48 posted on 09/17/2013 5:22:29 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Squantos
"What changed was not firearms, but culture."

Very true, which comment reminds me of...

"Alas, Brave New Babylon" new fiction by Matt Bracken
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3058882/posts

Well done! Continuing study is a great thing.

To add a trivial point, contemporary iron casting in our western countries is a very high speed and complicated technology compared to methods and equipment of the past. If much interrupted, it wouldn't recover for a very long time. I had a look at it while learning older casting methods. [For the young folks. I probably won't be around long enough for any personal gain from that or other custom work.]

Howdy, Squantos! Hope you got some of this rain down there.


49 posted on 09/17/2013 5:22:49 PM PDT by familyop (Demo ranges suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
Our service personnel deserve the ability to protect themselves, or at least have that option.

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.

50 posted on 09/17/2013 5:27:50 PM PDT by Rome2000 (THE WASHINGTONIANS AND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ARE THE ENEMY -ROTATE THE CAPITAL AMONGST THE STATES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson