Gov. Sarah Palin Exercises Common Sense Again: Says Troops Should Be Armed On Bases

[HenryBHough]

Puzzling as to why anyone would call an ineligible person "president". But I guess, until America adopts Germany's child-naming regulations, a person could name an offspring "President Asshole Smith" to show their love for.......

 

[ABikerSailor]

Most retired military officers also resigned of their own accord as well. Doesn't change the common practice.

Keep on that point, though. It's super relevant to. . . anything.

It isn't really accurate to say Sarah Palin "retired" the same way a military officer "retires" after completing their service. She didn't complete her service. She took the job. She took the oath, then at some pointe she made a personal decision to quit. She abandoned her post. If that is the stuff of republican heroes, then go for it. However, she is the one who submitted the request not to be governor anymore.

What Palin did was very noble. After all she accomplished everything she set out to do for her fellow Alaskans achieving accomplishments the prior two governors were unable to do.

You're right.............military officers DO voluntarily retire, but only AFTER they've served the requisite amount of time (20 years or more). If an officer resigns their commission prior to their retirement eligible date? They are no longer an officer, and rarely do you ever hear of an officer who ISN'T retired ask to be referred to by their former rank.

Palin quit after only 1/2 term, meaning she didn't meet the minimum required to keep the title of Governor. If she'd completed a full term, THEN I would call her Governor.

 

[HenryBHough]

You're right.............military officers DO voluntarily retire, but only AFTER they've served the requisite amount of time (20 years or more). If an officer resigns their commission prior to their retirement eligible date? They are no longer an officer, and rarely do you ever hear of an officer who ISN'T retired ask to be referred to by their former rank.

Palin quit after only 1/2 term, meaning she didn't meet the minimum required to keep the title of Governor. If she'd completed a full term, THEN I would call her Governor.

And certainly nobody is required to. Note, please, that some use the title primarily because of the powerful diuretic effect it has on the most virulent of liberal hatemongers. While admittedly sadistic, is IS fun to watch them pissing all over themselves though on innocent bystanders, not so much.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And she is right again calling out a bad policy implemented by a democrat president. In Israel, ALL military are armed, off and on base..should be the same here..but of course the US has become wussified, especially under our latest putative president who is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the office. We wouldn't be having all these problems on U.S. bases if Palin was president. If she was she would revert back to the days when our military could carry sidearms on bases and defend themselves.



Sarah Palin: Allow troops to be armed on base - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com

You're right...........active duty military in Israel are armed at all times, but then again, they are also in a constant state of conflict on all their borders, a bit different than what it is here in the U.S., because we don't have any enemies on our borders, just allies. Yes, I've been to Israel (Haifa), and talked with some of their soldiers over there.

As far as military personnel being unarmed? Nope.................sorry.................wrong yet again. On ALL military bases, the gates are manned 24/7 by armed guards, usually carrying a 9mm with 2 extra magazines of ammo. Additionally, EVERY U.S. Navy warship has a messenger of the watch (E-3 and below, unarmed), a Petty Officer of the Watch (an E-4 through E-5, armed with a 9mm), and the OOD (E-6 and above, unarmed).

Then................there's the base police (all armed) as well as the Security Force (there to augment the base police force, all armed), and they patrol the base, stand guard at the gates and check ID's for people entering.

As far as what happened at Ft. Hood? You DO realize that the gunman was engaged by an MP, and she shot her weapon at him, right?

He declined to identify the MP or the chaplain, but said the military police officer was within 20 feet of Lopez when he put up his hands, and then reached for his gun.
"She engaged him with small arms fire at which time the shooter fire a self inflicted gunshot wound," he said. "She did fire her weapon," Milley said at another point.

Fort Hood General Cites 'Awful Lot of Heroism' During Shooting Rampage - ABC News

So, yeah..............personnel authorized to have weapons did have them, and the MP engaged the shooter from a distance of about 20 feet. After she shot at him, he then shot himself.

Sorry to break it to you right wing loons, but U.S. military personnel DO have armed people patrolling the bases. But, the only ones who are armed are the ones whose job it is to be armed and patrol the base.

 

[bodecea]

You and I may "prefer" to do one thing or another but others may "prefer" to do things another way. I'm not Governor Palin's number one fan but I would prefer Governor Palin over Barry Hussein.

And I prefer President Obama.

Why would you support a man who is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office?

^ Birther.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To be blunt about it: those of you who have not served, who have not lived on military bases ~ you have no idea about what you are talking.

Military bases are safer subject to the 1993 Bush directive.

 

[ABikerSailor]

To be blunt about it: those of you who have not served, who have not lived on military bases ~ you have no idea about what you are talking.

Military bases are safer subject to the 1993 Bush directive.

Correct. And..............while the general population of the base isn't armed, there ARE people who's job it is to guard and patrol the base that have weapons with them.

Sorry RW gun nuts, but our bases DO have armed guards and patrols.

 

[bodecea]

To be blunt about it: those of you who have not served, who have not lived on military bases ~ you have no idea about what you are talking.

Military bases are safer subject to the 1993 Bush directive.

Correct. And..............while the general population of the base isn't armed, there ARE people who's job it is to guard and patrol the base that have weapons with them.

Sorry RW gun nuts, but our bases DO have armed guards and patrols.

Just try to walk across that red painted line on any USAF base.

 

[HenryBHough]

Just try to walk across that red painted line on any USAF base.

You'd think America's Capitulator-in-Chief might glom onto some of that AF grade red paint for His little lines instead of His favorite watercolors. That would be a color that wouldn't run (or fade quiely away, though).

 

[ABikerSailor]

To be blunt about it: those of you who have not served, who have not lived on military bases ~ you have no idea about what you are talking.

Military bases are safer subject to the 1993 Bush directive.

Correct. And..............while the general population of the base isn't armed, there ARE people who's job it is to guard and patrol the base that have weapons with them.

Sorry RW gun nuts, but our bases DO have armed guards and patrols.

Just try to walk across that red painted line on any USAF base.

Exactly.

Those "deadly force authorized" signs aren't just there for show.

 

[Erand7899]

And she is right again calling out a bad policy implemented by a democrat president. In Israel, ALL military are armed, off and on base..should be the same here..but of course the US has become wussified, especially under our latest putative president who is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the office. We wouldn't be having all these problems on U.S. bases if Palin was president. If she was she would revert back to the days when our military could carry sidearms on bases and defend themselves.
Sarah Palin: Allow troops to be armed on base - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com

there you pathological liars go again, trying to pass off George HW Bush off as a Democrat. He's all yours and he implemented the policy Feb 25, 1992.

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

The unarmed military policy was in effect when i joined the US Navy in 1959. Even the old enfields we carried in boot camp were made inert by either removing the firing pins, or filling the barrels with lead. An unarmed military was not a bright idea then, and it is not a bright idea today. We guarded aircraft with a nightstick and a flashlight. Real effective against any determined attackers, although they might have tripped over our dead bodies as they rushed by.

Not all military need to be armed. But, all midlevel line officers and senior enlisted should be wearing a sidearm as part of their uniform while on duty, and/or on base. All military on guard duty should be armed with either a side arm or rifle. All of these weaposn need to be loaded and ready for use.

 

[HenryBHough]

Those "deadly force authorized" signs aren't just there for show.

And that's why there could not possibly have been any shootings on any military base!

How's that working out for the dead and wounded?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Those "deadly force authorized" signs aren't just there for show.

And that's why there could not possibly have been any shootings on any military base!

How's that working out for the dead and wounded?

Obviously you've never been on a military base, because those signs are posted in very specific areas for very specific reasons.

The place where the shootings occurred was somewhere that is open to all personnel and any visitors that my come on base.

The flight line is a totally different animal.

And......................I guess you missed the part of the news reporting that said the shooter was engaged by a female MP who got within 20 ft of him, shot at him, and it was after that, that he took his own life.

Sorry....................but the shooter WAS engaged by armed military personnel, but, just like it takes the police a bit of time to arrive at the scene of a crime, it also takes the MP's time to get from where they are at on base to where the crime is occurring.

Try again.

 

[HenryBHough]

Somehow that explains why a gun was allowed in a gun-free zone?

No, Really?

Don't people bent on violence cower in fear at the sight of those signs?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Somehow that explains why a gun was allowed in a gun-free zone?

No, Really?

Don't people bent on violence cower in fear at the sight of those signs?

There is a difference between areas where the signs are posted as gun free zones, and where they're posted as places where deadly force is authorized.

Just like there is a difference between the commissary and the flight line.

Like I said..................you've never been on a base, have you?

 

[HenryBHough]

I'm sure the families of the dead take great comfort in your faith in "signs".

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm sure the families of the dead take great comfort in your faith in "signs".

The gunman would have been shot if he'd tried to go into the flight line.

As far as the gun free zone signs, I'm sure they were posted around the schools where kids were shot, as well as posted at the entrance to the Aurora theater.

Crazy people are going to get guns and do bad things, and arming everyone else isn't going to be the solution.

And...................like I said...............the shooter WAS engaged by a base MP who fired her weapon at him.

 

[HenryBHough]

Impossible.

Nobody would violate the edict of a SIGN!

Where IS your faith???

 

[bluesman]

Most retired military officers also resigned of their own accord as well. Doesn't change the common practice.

Keep on that point, though. It's super relevant to. . . anything.

It isn't really accurate to say Sarah Palin "retired" the same way a military officer "retires" after completing their service. She didn't complete her service. She took the job. She took the oath, then at some pointe she made a personal decision to quit. She abandoned her post. If that is the stuff of republican heroes, then go for it. However, she is the one who submitted the request not to be governor anymore.

What Palin did was very noble. After all she accomplished everything she set out to do for her fellow Alaskans achieving accomplishments the prior two governors were unable to do.

I was talking about her decision to quit and not serve out her term. Was that "noble"?


Here is the oath she took:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as Governor to the best of my ability."


Do you think she did that?

 

[MikeK]

And she is right again calling out a bad policy implemented by a democrat president. In Israel, ALL military are armed, off and on base..should be the same here..but of course the US has become wussified, especially under our latest putative president who is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the office. We wouldn't be having all these problems on U.S. bases if Palin was president. If she was she would revert back to the days when our military could carry sidearms on bases and defend themselves.

All IDF troopers are Israeli Jews. Thus there is a strong factor of solidarity among them, not only within the IDF but within their relatively small nation in general. So comparing their situation to ours is not valid because the U.S. is a massive Nation with an increasingly divided population, with increasing levels of hostility existing between the various divisions -- as evidenced by rising internal violence statistics.

But I do agree with your position on allowing military troops to be armed while in garrison. And while I'm sure such a circumstance would result in some level of spontaneous violence the existing proscriptive personal arms policy is clearly unable to prevent random, psychopathic violence, so why not allow the peaceful to defend themselves during the occasional psychotic episode? There is sufficient evidence to show that the essential character of contemporary America is increasingly insane.

When I was in the Marine Corps (mid-1950s) we were forbidden even then to possess personal weapons. That proscription seemed rather redundant and pointless to me because every one of us had an M-1 Garand which either hung on our racks (beds) in straps or was stored in a collective rifle rack which stood in the middle of the barracks floor. And while we were forbidden to possess any live ammo I had a clip-of-eight stashed in my locker - and I wasn't the only one. One fellow I knew had a full bandolier. (Do today's troopers have similarly accessible possession of their M-16s?)

But I should add that I'd never heard of anything close to these Ft. Hood shootings taking place anywhere in the Corps -- or in the Army -- back then.

I suppose it was a different America back then.