DC Navy Yard's Marine Barracks soldiers had their weapons ready... but no ammo???

[Little-Acorn]

This one has me baffled. Or maybe "flabbergasted" is the right word. The Marines stationed at the Marine Barracks in the Washington Naval Yard, had their weapons with them... but were not allowed to have ammo?

I am at a complete loss to understand how anybody could have considered that a good policy.

Yet it was done.

-----------------------------------------

?If We Had the Ammunition, We Could?ve Cleared that Building,? Son at Navy Yard Told Dad | CNS News

(snip)

In the wake of the horrific shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, one individual made an interesting point about yesterday's mass shooting at the Navy Yard in the nation's capital:

"I know a lot of people are concerned about guns these days, but you know if everybody had arms, then there wouldn't be these problems.

"My son was at Marine Barracks -- at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn't have ammunition. And they said, 'We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could've cleared that building.' Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could've stopped the rest of it."

(snip)

Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments "gun-free zones." As a result, the policy banned "military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to economist John Lott.

Additionally, Lott discovered that "every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

The answer is simple. Murderers pick places where they know their victims will be unarmed. It's time we debate having concealed carry on military bases. After all, there's no evidence showing that firearms owners are more irresponsible than the police....

 

[Black_Label]

There were armed personal at the facility that the shooter killed, took their weapons, and used them to kill more people. Stop spreading radical right wing BS.

 

[R.C. Christian]

They probably had to give away their Ammo to the NOAA or the Department of Education's SWAT teams.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There were armed personal at the facility that the shooter killed, took their weapons, and used them to kill more people. Stop spreading radical right wing BS.

Back to the subject:
There were apparently a large number of U.S. Marines right on the facility, combat ready, and aware that someone was shooting people.

But the Marines weren't allowed to have ammo, and so they weren't able to do anything.

Is there anyplace to lay the blame for at least half those deaths, besides at the feet of the person who decided that the Marines should not be able to fire their weapons?

A U.S. Navy facility, which includes Marines (as many do). And they're not allowed to defend the facility. (shaking head in disbelief)

 

[R.C. Christian]

There were armed personal at the facility that the shooter killed, took their weapons, and used them to kill more people. Stop spreading radical right wing BS.

Go back to that rock or ghetto you crawled out from you pathetic little piss ant.

 

[Pete7469]

Sounds like a democrook policy.

 

[Black_Label]

There were armed personal at the facility that the shooter killed, took their weapons, and used them to kill more people. Stop spreading radical right wing BS.

Go back to that rock or ghetto you crawled out from you pathetic little piss ant.

Typical for right wing shitheads like you to resort to childish name calling when you've got nothing to respond with, and know i'm right

 

[Little-Acorn]

I wonder if, had the Navy Yard's building caught fire instead of being invaded by a whacko mass murderer, would they have sent a fire truck with no water in its firefighting tanks and none in the local fire hydrants?

The stupidity of having Marines on station with no ammo, boggles the mind.

 

[Black_Label]

I wonder if, had the Navy Yard's building caught fire instead of being invaded by a whacko mass murderer, would they have sent a fire truck with no water in its firefighting tanks and none in the local fire hydrants?

The stupidity of having Marines on station with no ammo, boggles the mind.

That isn't their job to guard the facility, that is what the MP's are for, which some got killed, their guns taken, and used to kill more people.

 

[Luissa]

This one has me baffled. Or maybe "flabbergasted" is the right word. The Marines stationed at the Marine Barracks in the Washington Naval Yard, had their weapons with them... but were not allowed to have ammo?

I am at a complete loss to understand how anybody could have considered that a good policy.

Yet it was done.

-----------------------------------------

?If We Had the Ammunition, We Could?ve Cleared that Building,? Son at Navy Yard Told Dad | CNS News

(snip)

In the wake of the horrific shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, one individual made an interesting point about yesterday's mass shooting at the Navy Yard in the nation's capital:

"I know a lot of people are concerned about guns these days, but you know if everybody had arms, then there wouldn't be these problems.

"My son was at Marine Barracks -- at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn't have ammunition. And they said, 'We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could've cleared that building.' Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could've stopped the rest of it."

(snip)

Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments "gun-free zones." As a result, the policy banned "military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to economist John Lott.

Additionally, Lott discovered that "every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

The answer is simple. Murderers pick places where they know their victims will be unarmed. It's time we debate having concealed carry on military bases. After all, there's no evidence showing that firearms owners are more irresponsible than the police....

"Moreover, while conservatives are blaming Clinton for the Army regulation, The New Republic's Ryan Kearney points out that the rule was actually established in response to a 1992 Department of Defense directive, issued during the presidency of George H. W. Bush."
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog...ng-myth-of-mass-shootings-and-gun-free/195927

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf


You should try blaming HW first, then maybe Clinton and W for not repealing it.

 

[Edgetho]

I went to the link.

All I saw was a study on

SUBJECT:
Use of Deadly Force and the Carrying of Firearms by DoD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement and Security Duties

Would Media Mutters lie through their fucking nose?

Every minute of every day of every week of every month of every year for all of eternity

 

[Black_Label]

Would Media Mutters lie through their fucking nose?

Absolutely not. They debunk the lies spread by the right wing propaganda machine that is spewed day in and day out.

 

[R.C. Christian]

There were armed personal at the facility that the shooter killed, took their weapons, and used them to kill more people. Stop spreading radical right wing BS.

Go back to that rock or ghetto you crawled out from you pathetic little piss ant.

Typical for right wing shitheads like you to resort to childish name calling when you've got nothing to respond with, and know i'm right

Don't make Johnny shithead get his axe!

I'd don't waste my time giving logical responses to trollish partisans with equally childish avatars.

 

[whitehall]

What kind of ammo did Ft. Hood MP's carry? The same as the Navy Yard?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There were armed personal at the facility that the shooter killed, took their weapons, and used them to kill more people. Stop spreading radical right wing BS.

Didn't you insist that the guy had an AR-15 that he legally bought?

 

[g5000]

Murderers pick places where they know their victims will be unarmed.

Bullshit. I can think of a thousand other locations where it is more likely the victims would be unarmed than at a military installation.

The shooter picked that target for an entirely different reason. In fact, he may have been counting on being shot to death.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Murderers pick places where they know their victims will be unarmed.

Bullshit. I can think of a thousand other locations where it is more likely the victims would be unarmed than at a military installation.

The shooter picked that target for an entirely different reason. In fact, he may have been counting on being shot to death.

I bet you can't.

 

[Black_Label]

There were armed personal at the facility that the shooter killed, took their weapons, and used them to kill more people. Stop spreading radical right wing BS.

Didn't you insist that the guy had an AR-15 that he legally bought?

No, he had a shotgun he legally bought, then obtained handguns from the guards he shot.

 

[Rozman]

Why would Democrats want guns to have ammo...
That would make them work...
Democrats don't like guns that work...

 

[MikeK]

This one has me baffled. Or maybe "flabbergasted" is the right word. The Marines stationed at the Marine Barracks in the Washington Naval Yard, had their weapons with them... but were not allowed to have ammo?

I am at a complete loss to understand how anybody could have considered that a good policy.

Yet it was done.

[...]

I can't say that has always been policy in the Corps but it was the rule back in the fifties. In fact I had a buddy who did five days brig time for getting caught with a clip of eight (for the M-1 Garand).

While it was generally believed the reason for the ban was to prevent escalated violence because barracks fistfights were not uncommon. But we had such things as K-Bar knives and bayonets, which I never heard of being used in a barracks fight.