Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum > General Discussion > Open Discussion > Open Discussion - Politics and Religion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-22-2015, 11:57 AM
waterboarding w/medmech
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coming to your hometown
Posts: 7,683
Firing back at terror............

Good for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the slain Marine killed that POS.

Navy officer, Marine reportedly returned fire at Chattanooga gunman | Fox News
__________________
Сделать Америку великой Снова
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." Margaret Thatcher
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-22-2015, 01:41 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,207
I am sure they will run tests on the bullets to see who fired. We should know this soon.

I am also glad to see more places are being armed. This is one of those deals where not all of them are armed everyday but that is not the point.

I have been in junk yards where a sign was posted "Armed guard on duty three days a week. You guess which days."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-22-2015, 03:23 PM
Fold on dotted line
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SE Mich
Posts: 2,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Txjake View Post
Good for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the slain Marine killed that POS.

Navy officer, Marine reportedly returned fire at Chattanooga gunman | Fox News

I am amazed that the recruiting stations didn't have some kind of security previously.

Fortunately many governors, i.e. those with genuine care for their soldiers and the cojones to support them, have directed that soldiers carry weapons and that other work with state police department to obtain permits.

However, it is disappointing that US Army, US Navy and US Marine ACTIVE DUTY recruiters are still waiting for their generals to give them the authorization.

Are you going to wait until an assailant who survived tells the world " Oh yeah, we went after the Active Army recruiters because we knew they didn't carry weapons."

Then the Army will rush out with a million statements of "support."

Sadly, my advice to them is: Get a pair and take care of your people.
__________________
Strelnik
Invest in America: Buy a Congressman!

1950 170SD
1951 Citroen 11BN
1953 Citroen 11BNF limo
1953 220a project
1959 180D
1960 190D
1960 Borgward Isabella TS 2dr
1983 240D daily driver
1983 380SL
1990 350SDL daily driver alt
3 x Citroen DS21M, down from 5
3 x Citroen 2CV, down from 6
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-22-2015, 03:32 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,207
A few years ago the right wing media was aghast that Marines were not able to carry firearms on their bases. Of course it was all Obama's fault.

The furry died down when it was pointed out that the no firearms policy had been around since at least the 1890's due to some soldiers wanting to let their pistols to their talking when an officer was chewing them out.

It was not that long ago that 'fragging' was a thing when an enlisted man had been put through the wringer by an officer.

Would armed military members on base help to prevent shootings? Or would they increase while leaving a trail of wounded officers in their path?

That's what the Pentagon is working on. It has nothing to do with who is willing to pull the trigger on the decision.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-22-2015, 04:22 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 24,479
Good thing the furry died down.
__________________
'Government is like a baby:
An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and
no sense of responsibility at the other'
- Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-22-2015, 04:30 PM
Drago's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: White Oak Swamp
Posts: 2,318
When I was on recruiting duty we were strictly forbidden to have personal firearms... I kept a .45 Webley in my top desk drawer. When my ship was overseas we were forbidden to load our side arms, rifles or shotguns. I didn't pay attention to that either.
__________________
1993 MB 300D 245K died.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-22-2015, 04:34 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 24,479
When I was in the USN we were allowed to bring personal firearms aboard ship if they were turned-over to the Masters at Arms to be locked in a special armory. They could be checked out by the sailors and taken ashore if local laws allowed.
__________________
'Government is like a baby:
An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and
no sense of responsibility at the other'
- Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-22-2015, 04:46 PM
Drago's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: White Oak Swamp
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idle View Post
A few years ago the right wing media was aghast that Marines were not able to carry firearms on their bases. Of course it was all Obama's fault.

The furry died down when it was pointed out that the no firearms policy had been around since at least the 1890's due to some soldiers wanting to let their pistols to their talking when an officer was chewing them out.

It was not that long ago that 'fragging' was a thing when an enlisted man had been put through the wringer by an officer.

Would armed military members on base help to prevent shootings? Or would they increase while leaving a trail of wounded officers in their path?

That's what the Pentagon is working on. It has nothing to do with who is willing to pull the trigger on the decision.
We have an all volunteer force now which tends and I hate to say it, allows less unstable people in. Add to that military recruiters are Officers, Petty Officers and NCOs, the very people that more likely be a victim or a "fragging" and in the last twenty years I've only read about one and that was more of a terrorist/ ideology attack than a disgruntled service member
__________________
1993 MB 300D 245K died.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-22-2015, 04:49 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 24,479
... but we don't let reality get in the way of a virulent opinionator.
__________________
'Government is like a baby:
An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and
no sense of responsibility at the other'
- Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-22-2015, 07:43 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drago View Post
We have an all volunteer force now which tends and I hate to say it, allows less unstable people in. Add to that military recruiters are Officers, Petty Officers and NCOs, the very people that more likely be a victim or a "fragging" and in the last twenty years I've only read about one and that was more of a terrorist/ ideology attack than a disgruntled service member
Speak to a Viet-Nam Vet, someone who was there during the late 60's, about fragging incidents.

Take draftees, overbearing officers, the stress of one mission after another and the thought of your officer only wanting to get a promotion and not caring if you died in the process and you have the makings of someone who just goes nuts.

The military was aware of this and I knew some officers from that era that addressed it with their people. I think this was 100% against the rules but they did it anyway as they didn't want someone to go off the deep end and do who knows what with a spare claymore.

I did know people standing guard who shot at officers who came in late and thought they did not have to give the password. I don't know anyone who killed anyone this way but I have had people tell me they were tempted since they thought they could get away with it.

I did know one officer who was such a world class jerk that when he stepped on a mine and was blown into a million pieces his people were so busy laughing that they almost didn't see the NVA coming in to attack. That may sound harsh but from what I heard no one was crying over the guy's misfortune.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-22-2015, 07:48 PM
Drago's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: White Oak Swamp
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idle View Post
Speak to a Viet-Nam Vet, someone who was there during the late 60's, about fragging incidents.

Take draftees, overbearing officers, the stress of one mission after another and the thought of your officer only wanting to get a promotion and not caring if you died in the process and you have the makings of someone who just goes nuts.

The military was aware of this and I knew some officers from that era that addressed it with their people. I think this was 100% against the rules but they did it anyway as they didn't want someone to go off the deep end and do who knows what with a spare claymore.

I did know people standing guard who shot at officers who came in late and thought they did not have to give the password. I don't know anyone who killed anyone this way but I have had people tell me they were tempted since they thought they could get away with it.

I did know one officer who was such a world class jerk that when he stepped on a mine and was blown into a million pieces his people were so busy laughing that they almost didn't see the NVA coming in to attack. That may sound harsh but from what I heard no one was crying over the guy's misfortune.
Hell, we just dirtydick their coffee cups now.
__________________
1993 MB 300D 245K died.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-22-2015, 08:06 PM
MTI's Avatar
MTI MTI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 10,626
Drago, you have less than a couple dozen posts in Open Discussion . . . it's too late for most of us wretches, but you still have a chance to get back to the Diesel forums without too much damage . . . save yourself!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-22-2015, 08:21 PM
elchivito's Avatar
ĦAy Jodido!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rancho Disparates
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idle View Post
A few years ago the right wing media was aghast that Marines were not able to carry firearms on their bases. Of course it was all Obama's fault.

The furry died down when it was pointed out that the no firearms policy had been around since at least the 1890's due to some soldiers wanting to let their pistols to their talking when an officer was chewing them out.

It was not that long ago that 'fragging' was a thing when an enlisted man had been put through the wringer by an officer.

Would armed military members on base help to prevent shootings? Or would they increase while leaving a trail of wounded officers in their path?

That's what the Pentagon is working on. It has nothing to do with who is willing to pull the trigger on the decision.
Current rules were handed down by the DoD in 92 under GHWB, but there is no indication he was involved in the decision. A further clarification came two months after Clinton took office in 93. There is also no indication BC had anything to do with it, yet the Republican candidates are milking it for everything it's worth, blaming Clinton. I hope they lift it too. A soldier without a weapon seems to me about as useful as a gun without ammo.
__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-22-2015, 08:43 PM
MTI's Avatar
MTI MTI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 10,626
Quick to blame, tardy to praise.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-22-2015, 08:51 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by elchivito View Post
A soldier without a weapon seems to me about as useful as a gun without ammo.
I don't mind if they lift it. But, a soldier without a weapon is technically fine on US soil, since they're not generally authorized to play soldier on US soil. They're not acting as soldiers as much as administrators at the recruitment office.

Simplest solution would be to treat recruitment offices as any other public workplace and leave it up to state pistol permit laws whether they're authorized to carry or not.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2011 Pelican Parts - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page