Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!
Create a channel Learn morei never understood why these soldiers are trusted with the most advanced and destructive weapons on the front lines (talking artillery and such) yet are trusted with even a sidearm when stateside.
They got the shooter. Still waiting on the news for more info
i never understood why these soldiers are trusted with the most advanced and destructive weapons on the front lines (talking artillery and such) yet are trusted with even a sidearm when stateside.
Soldier on soldier violence is being reported. Im sure we will know more soon.
Please pardon my unfamiliarity with the terminology here... but WTF is "Soldier on Soldier" violence? Who euphemized that? Who the he** came up with "Soldier on Soldier?"
The guys shooting up bases and folks wearing uniforms have abdicated the title of soldier, haven't they? Either by pursuing fundamentalist religious beliefs that make them no longer U.S. soldiers... or because they are psycho or criminal. In which case, they don't deserve the title 'soldier.'
Then again, I suppose you can't say "Psycho on Soldier" violence, can you? It might make the Section-8's feel bad or something. And you can't say "Muslim terrorist on soldier," as it may imply something unseemly and un-PC about the durka-durka-Mohammad Jihad types.
But calling the Navy Yard or Hood Pt. 2 (if that's what it turns out to be) "Soldier on Soldier" violence is the worst kind of term imaginable. Worse, even, than calling an event "workplace violence." At least that doesn't imply that the person committing the act is a soldier. Because IMHO, the moment you go after a brother in arms, you lose the right to be called a soldier. Appalling.
Then again, newsies probably love the term.
Pardon my rant. But $##@@$%.
Sirhr
It makes a difference beacuse it says in once simple phrase what happened. It tells us that it was another soldier as the shooter and not some person who snuck on or was on base unauthorized. It also tells us it was not a civilian or contractor.
Soldier on Soldier..........probally over a piece of pussy, but who knows untill they release the details of the investigation.
Lieutenant General Mark A. Milley "I dont think soldiers should be able to carry on base" "Our law enforcement is highly trained and can deal with any threat"
Well GENERAL, with two mass shooting in less than 5 years on your base alone......maybe they can't deal with it. How many more do we need, 3 or 4 or 10 more shootings to get it through the head of these politican soldiers and decision makers that the ONLY thing that stops a bad dude with a gun, is another person with a gun.
But then again, they have full time PSD to protect them around the clock. E2 Johhny's life is not worth a General's life. He does not have the same right to self defense and self preservation as you do.
I just got home from work and my wife left the TV on, which was NBC news talking about this situation. What has me concerned is they are described as a "Smith and Wesson 45,... and it was not registered with the base". Not sure why the heck it matters if it was registered to the base or not, even if it was required to live on base, which I do not know whether he was or not, it does not change a thing, he still went off the deep end, resulting in a tragedy, and the gun is not the culprit, just the tool.
I don't think so, John Farnham sent this out on Monday:probally over a piece of pussy, but who knows untill they release the details of the investigation.
I just got home from work and my wife left the TV on, which was NBC news talking about this situation. What has me concerned is they are described as a "Smith and Wesson 45,... and it was not registered with the base". Not sure why the heck it matters if it was registered to the base or not, even if it was required to live on base, which I do not know whether he was or not, it does not change a thing, he still went off the deep end, resulting in a tragedy, and the gun is not the culprit, just the tool.
"Specialist Ivan Lopez went from one building at the sprawling Texas military base to a second, firing a .45-caliber handgun, killing three people and wounding 16 more." - CNN. Yes it later states it was a Smith and Wesson .45 and it wasn't registered. The reason why it's posted is because you are damned if you do, damned if you don't from a journalism perspective. You either make mention of it, get attacked, or you don't and leave it out only to get called out later for leaving out information relevant to the story.
I understand making sure they get all the information out that they can, but highlighting that the firearm was not registered, which in Texas is not required, not sure if he lived on base or not and what those requirements would have been, just makes all the gun grabbers see red now, and add to their fire from within to register all firearms, so that this would not happen again. It just seems that it was unnecessary statement that only benefits those who want to take our guns.
I understand making sure they get all the information out that they can, but highlighting that the firearm was not registered, which in Texas is not required, not sure if he lived on base or not and what those requirements would have been, just makes all the gun grabbers see red now, and add to their fire from within to register all firearms, so that this would not happen again. It just seems that it was unnecessary statement that only benefits those who want to take our guns.
I just got home from work and my wife left the TV on, which was NBC news talking about this situation. What has me concerned is they are described as a "Smith and Wesson 45,... and it was not registered with the base". Not sure why the heck it matters if it was registered to the base or not, even if it was required to live on base, which I do not know whether he was or not, it does not change a thing, he still went off the deep end, resulting in a tragedy, and the gun is not the culprit, just the tool.
I think the relavent part is "not registered with the base," which the poster above you suggests IS a requirement...
I don't think the answer is to have ppl carry. Like another poster said, service members and guns are a job not a hobby . Y'all that serve know especially if you're not in a combat send mos you hardly get to shoot a weapon .. Even though your supposed to qualify with it every year . Service members most of the times don't.
That's a shame on its own..
We have mp's that can handle these situations because they're trained to. They can't be everywhere but the same logic applies for people with concealed carry.
Let's be honest most soldiers are all talk about shooting and thinking they have the mental capacity to kill. These are also the same people that let harassment and rape go unreported
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gun-free zones are criminal empowerment victim creation zones. Period.
just another army grunt who was fucked up
Soldier first before mos
Im sure you would insult other non combat mos if you say their any less capable or susceptible to PTSD or combat skills, etc
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unless AKO has removed him, it looks like he is a fister, not a grunt.
Fister as in FA as in he is still combat arms. He was just saying he is a 13F not an 11B. it was not insult just letting everyone know he is infact FA.
Heh, I am not Mil, I don't know these terms though I can imagine . However, I edited "grunt" to soldier as was my original intention.
Lol, @ these military acronyms. I remember when my brother came back from basic years ago, my head almost exploded when he would talk to me about anything military.
Thanks.