Trump's First Year: An Amazing Success

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Now that there were four of them, something tells me they weren't that well trained...

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-...anti-gun.html#

Apparently they had an agenda to fulfill as well.

Not true. There was only one armed person, Scott Peterson, at the school when the attack occurred. The other 3 arrived afterwards.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/24/these-...hool-shooting/

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Not true. There was only one armed person, Scott Peterson, at the school when the attack occurred. The other 3 arrived afterwards.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/24/these-...hool-shooting/

Didn't follow the link in your own story, eh?

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/four-s...hool-shooting/

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Didn't follow the link in your own story, eh?

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/four-s...hool-shooting/

The article says NOTHING as to when the 3 Broward County Sheriff's deputies arrived on the scene of the shooting. Peterson was the ONLY armed person assigned to the school and present on the school campus when the shooting began. Shootings began at 2:21 pm. The 3 deputies arrived at 2:53 pm.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/24...-timeline.html

[Austin Dude]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I was in the military and the last thing I would have wanted to see was soldiers being allowed to carry guns on the base. Most soldiers who live on the base are more than slightly inebriated on Friday and Saturday nights. Alcohol and access to handguns do not mix very well.

And Obama had NOTHING to do with the banning of handguns on military bases. Not even close.

"It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive was eventually implemented through a regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office."

Source: https://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/baseguns.asp

Classic Trump/his followers. Make a false/baseless claim against Obama. It's proven to be a lie. And like classless, gutless, assholes... they don't apologize, own to the mistake or walk it back. They just don't mention it again and pretend they didn't just lie about a person again.

[Austin Ellen]

I did get that wrong. It was Bush.

And yes, soldiers do like to let off steam in a military base but for the most part- most are responsible gun owners.

They are also combat trained.

Here's a story about a survivor from the Luby's shooting
in Killeen that happened a few years prior to the Ft. Hood shooting. We didn't learn the lesson.

https://youtu.be/6sEYGcXSmpQ

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I was in the military and the last thing I would have wanted to see was soldiers being allowed to carry guns on the base. Most soldiers who live on the base are more than slightly inebriated on Friday and Saturday nights. Alcohol and access to handguns do not mix very well.

And Obama had NOTHING to do with the banning of handguns on military bases. Not even close.

"It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive was eventually implemented through a regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office."

Source: https://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/baseguns.asp

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The article says NOTHING as to when the 3 Broward County Sheriff's deputies arrived on the scene of the shooting. Peterson was the ONLY armed person assigned to the school and present on the school campus when the shooting began. Shootings began at 2:21 pm. The 3 deputies arrived at 2:53 pm.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/24...-timeline.html

None of that matters, nor does it make anything I said untrue. What matters is what the Coral Springs police saw when they arrived...

"Sources from Coral Springs, Fla., Police Department tell CNN that when its officers arrived on the scene Wednesday, they were shocked to find three Broward County Sheriff’s deputies behind their cars with weapons drawn."

"Not one but four sheriff’s deputies hid behind cars instead of storming Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Fla., during Wednesday’s school shooting, police claimed Friday"

A stand down order came from somewhere. An investigation will find out from where.

"In an official statement Friday, the police department said only that “any actions or inactions that negatively affected the response will be investigated.”

In the end, I suspect Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel will find himself in a shit pile of legal trouble.

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Teachers graduate from college with a teaching degree. They go into the teaching field because they love the profession. They do not sign up to protect children in their classroom

Yeah, they do. I think you'd be surprised at how many teachers would like to be able to carry, but they're stuck in a "gun free" zone and can't. I heard one Friday in a radio interview. In Austin of all places!

"Gun free" zones are like magnets for these nut cases. Schools have to be made a more hardened target. At least as hardened as airports. Armed guards and metal detectors are just the beginning.

Nobody shows up at an airport brandishing a weapon anymore. Gee! I wonder why???

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by Groovy Johnson

Hey Libtards !

If only Ft Hood had a good guy with a gun, a tragedy could have been averted.

Trump/LaPierre 2020

There is a reason the services don't allow their soldiers, marines and sailors to have ammunition for their weapons until they are deployed. It's because these kids are dangerous. History has shown that a bunch of soldiers in peacetime with arms leads to shootings when drunk, shootings over card games, shootings over girlfriends, and the like. The Army doesn't allow these kids to have ammunition until they absolutely have too. Read some books about what happened in Germany and Japan during the American occupations there after the war and you'll see all the Americans who were killed by other Americans because of drunken antics and just plain mistakes. SOME of the kids in the military are just not mature enough to responsibly handle fire arms. Most are but a few are not.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

I did get that wrong. It was Bush.

And yes, soldiers do like to let off steam in a military base but for the most part- most are responsible gun owners.

They are also combat trained.

Here's a story about a survivor from the Luby's shooting
in Killeen that happened a few years prior to the Ft. Hood shooting. We didn't learn the lesson.

https://youtu.be/6sEYGcXSmpQ

You say you come from a military family but you don't seem to know much about the realities of life in the military.

Most soldiers are NOT responsible gun owners because only a handful, if any, are gun owners. Since you can't have a gun on a military base, no one who lives there is a responsible gun owner. The only time I saw a gun which might be loaded was on the firing range under strict supervision and a handgun worn by the Officer of the Day. And I don't know if his gun was actually loaded.

Most soldiers on a military base are NOT combat trained. When I was in basic training I fired an M-16 maybe 5 times. After basic I fired the M-16 twice in 2 years to re-qualify. I was hardly combat trained. And the same could be said for most others on my post since it was primarily a training grounds for the quartermaster corp.

Yes, I've seen that u-tube post many times. The shooting at Luby's is the main reason why a concealed handgun law was passed in the state of Texas. That does NOT mean that private establishments, such as Luby's, cannot outlaw guns from their premises. There are 10s of thousands of establishments in this country that are gun-free zones. It is only when there is a tragedy in a gun-free zone that people get enraged and say that all gun-free zones should be abolished.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

None of that matters, nor does it make anything I said untrue. What matters is what the Coral Springs police saw when they arrived...

And nothing you said made my original statement untrue.

Not true. There was only one armed person, Scott Peterson, at the school when the attack occurred. The other 3 arrived afterwards.

Yet after posting that you asked if I had read the very article I had posted. Which did nothing to contradict what I had posted.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Yeah, they do. I think you'd be surprised at how many teachers would like to be able to carry, but they're stuck in a "gun free" zone and can't. I heard one Friday in a radio interview. In Austin of all places!

"Gun free" zones are like magnets for these nut cases. Schools have to be made a more hardened target. At least as hardened as airports. Armed guards and metal detectors are just the beginning.

Nobody shows up at an airport brandishing a weapon anymore. Gee! I wonder why???

Your last statement is BS. In 2016 a record 3,391 firearms were found in carry-on luggage at U.S. airports with 83% of them being loaded. And in 2017 that record was broken when the total was 3,957.

Yes, some teachers have no problem with carrying guns in a school. A small minority. It comes down to making the decision as to what policy is best for ALL.

I used to work in an office building complex which was a gun free zone. In the 50 years that the complex has existed there has not been a single incidence of a person with a gun entering the building. Like I replied to Ellen, there are 10s of thousands of gun free zones in this country and every day they work. It's impossible to say what might happen if these locations were NOT gun free zones. How would you like to fire an employee knowing he might be carrying a gun?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

There is a reason the services don't allow their soldiers, marines and sailors to have ammunition for their weapons until they are deployed. It's because these kids are dangerous. History has shown that a bunch of soldiers in peacetime with arms leads to shootings when drunk, shootings over card games, shootings over girlfriends, and the like. The Army doesn't allow these kids to have ammunition until they absolutely have too. Read some books about what happened in Germany and Japan during the American occupations there after the war and you'll see all the Americans who were killed by other Americans because of drunken antics and just plain mistakes. SOME of the kids in the military are just not mature enough to responsibly handle fire arms. Most are but a few are not.

I think for the first time I agree with you 100%. Saturday nights in the barracks were exciting enough without having to worry about one of the drunks having access to a handgun.

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Nobody shows up at an airport brandishing a weapon anymore. Gee! I wonder why???

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your last statement is BS. In 2016 a record 3,391 firearms were found in carry-on luggage at U.S. airports with 83% of them being loaded. And in 2017 that record was broken when the total was 3,957.

I would hardly call that "brandishing"...

bran·dish
ˈbrandiSH/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: brandishing
wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.
synonyms: flourish, wave, shake, wield;

[Austin Ellen]

That was not my experience. Every person I grew up with had guns in the house. And they were locked up. All active military personal. Like I said there were some that would let off some steam but nobody flipped the fuck out and went on a killing spree.
IDK, there's something different in society that is causing this.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You say you come from a military family but you don't seem to know much about the realities of life in the military.

Most soldiers are NOT responsible gun owners because only a handful, if any, are gun owners. Since you can't have a gun on a military base, no one who lives there is a responsible gun owner. The only time I saw a gun which might be loaded was on the firing range under strict supervision and a handgun worn by the Officer of the Day. And I don't know if his gun was actually loaded.

Most soldiers on a military base are NOT combat trained. When I was in basic training I fired an M-16 maybe 5 times. After basic I fired the M-16 twice in 2 years to re-qualify. I was hardly combat trained. And the same could be said for most others on my post since it was primarily a training grounds for the quartermaster corp.

Yes, I've seen that u-tube post many times. The shooting at Luby's is the main reason why a concealed handgun law was passed in the state of Texas. That does NOT mean that private establishments, such as Luby's, cannot outlaw guns from their premises. There are 10s of thousands of establishments in this country that are gun-free zones. It is only when there is a tragedy in a gun-free zone that people get enraged and say that all gun-free zones should be abolished.

[assfucker]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

That was not my experience. Every person I grew up with had guns in the house. And they were locked up. All active military personal. Like I said there were some that would let off some steam but nobody flipped the fuck out and went on a killing spree.
IDK, there's something different in society that is causing this.

I know you're a Trumpsucker, so math and logic aren't your strong suit. You're 56. The regs keeping guns off post were put in place in '92. You see anything that makes you rethink your experience?

And yes. American capitalism's inequality is causing this.