Yachtie
Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman quote:
ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman I was in the service in the Reagan administration and military posts were considered "gun-free" zones. Something about that just, just,,, Hey, all I know is, when we hit the gates, we had to lock up our shootin' arns, usually for the duration. Unless some idiot wanted 'realism' and made us install BFAs and issue blanks. We were a friggin' arty unit, half the time we kept our rifles cased so they wouldn't get dusty on the range. Most of us also carried SNS's or derringers with shot loads against the rattlers downrange. I fully realize that what I'm about to say will be taken by many as absolutely ridiculous. There is though, a similarity. In Vietnam soldiers did not keep their weapons locked up. They knew there were those out there who's sole object was to harm / kill them. Some of the bad guys wore uniforms, some not. Some bad guys even actually lived amongst the soldiers, in various camps, etc. So, what's so different here? It's quite evident there are those who desire to harm / kill people. Happens daily in Chicago. Yes, much is due to gang elements but that does not reduce the danger posed to Chicago's non-combatants. A military base as a gun free zone, as oxmoronic as that sounds, is an open invitation as much as an unarmed populace can be. Imagine if our troops, when in a danger zone, had to keep their weapons locked up. Well, it's quite apparent that's exactly what happened. Just because an area is designated Gun Free does not render it so.
_____________________________
“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell
|