TN military facility shooting

[mroped]

If that is what they can think of doing as "the best they can do" or that is their calling, I have no problem with Jim Jones and his crowd demise.

I cannot understand what in God's green earth would determine someone to declare himself/herself sovereign or deny the legitimacy of an elected governing body.
Is that because they cannot ascend to a better social life/position or just simply because they don't like paying taxes?
Nobody likes paying taxes but we understand or try to, that is a necessary evil and we deal with the best we can.
Uprising and opposing a government for a good reason, I'm all for it but when you are talking about a number of people so small that in great scheme of things is about negligible it just doesn't make sense.
And on top of everything, all these so called movement leaders are nothing but scam artists.
Unfortunately there are plenty that can be drawn to such individuals and we can blame that on ignorance.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

As Ratchets said, not all military personnel need to walk around armed. Bases are protected by military police.

[Deleted]

I agree that they don't "need" to... but they should be "allowed" to.

[billisonboard]

Jul 23, 2015 20:17:02 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

As Ratchets said, not all military personnel need to walk around armed. Bases are protected by military police.

Jul 24, 2015 17:58:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I agree that they don't "need" to... but they should be "allowed" to.

Would this be individual choice?

[Deleted]

Yes. Individual choice.

ETA: That's if they don't want to make it mandatory. I'd be o.k. with it being just another uniform requirement like their rank insignia, ribbons, or belt... but if not required, at least let them have the option.

They volunteered to protect our rights, shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves if they want to?

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Jul 24, 2015 18:34:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Yes. Individual choice.

ETA: That's if they don't want to make it mandatory. I'd be o.k. with it being just another uniform requirement like their rank insignia, ribbons, or belt... but if not required, at least let them have the option.

They volunteered to protect our rights, shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves if they want to?

No it isn't their choice.

The rules are guided by a 1993 Pentagon regulation that dictates that weapons on military bases are only allowed to be carried for official purposes like law enforcement or sentry duty, prohibiting “the carrying of non-Government owned or issued weapons or ammunition."

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2015 19:37:05 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Jul 24, 2015 18:34:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Yes. Individual choice.

ETA: That's if they don't want to make it mandatory. I'd be o.k. with it being just another uniform requirement like their rank insignia, ribbons, or belt... but if not required, at least let them have the option.

They volunteered to protect our rights, shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves if they want to?

No it isn't their choice.

The rules are guided by a 1993 Pentagon regulation that dictates that weapons on military bases are only allowed to be carried for official purposes like law enforcement or sentry duty, prohibiting “the carrying of non-Government owned or issued weapons or ammunition."

No kidding. We already know that's the rules NOW. We are discussing what they SHOULD BE.