Avoiding a second Ft. Hood Shooting
Thanks to a Texas gun store employee:
Police in Killeen said their break in the case came from Guns Galore LLC — the same gun store where Maj. Nidal Hasan bought a pistol used in the 2009 attack. Store clerk Greg Ebert said the man arrived by taxi Tuesday and bought 6 pounds of smokeless gunpowder, three boxes of shotgun ammunition and a magazine for a semi-automatic pistol.
Ebert said he called authorities because he and his co-workers “felt uncomfortable with his overall demeanor and the fact he didn’t know what the hell he was buying.”
July 29th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Obviously the employee went to “authorities” other than the ATF…
July 29th, 2011 at 10:08 am
The best way to avoid another Ft. Hood shooting is to stop the disarming of military on the their own bases. As I’ve heard it reported, they were disarmed during the Clinton Administration, a policy continued by Bush and there is NO CHANGE with Obama.
If they think keeping our soldiers disarmed is such a good idea, then no armed protection for them either!
Only your enemy wants you disarmed.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Ron W, I do agree with you that to avoid another mass shooting it would be better to have the military armed on their own bases. However, it was normal practice on the stateside Marine Corps base I was stationed (1964-1966) to have the MP’s and possibly those assigned to guard duty armed. All other personnel may have had access to their rifle but did not have access to ammunition.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:32 am
“…it was normal practice on the stateside Marine Corps base I was stationed (1964-1966) to have the MP’s and possibly those assigned to guard duty armed.”–Jim Brack
Jim, Thanks for the clarification. They should at least do that. At Ft. Hood, they had to be easy target practice until a young female police officer from off-base came to the rescue.
If our military personnel on their own bases are to be easy targets for criminals and terrorists (that our government allows) then their commanders, all the way to the top, should be in the same condition.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Ron W, Jim is correct. I enlisted in 1986. Weapons are locked up in the arms room and access to ammo is simliarly restricted. It is not a new policy.
It is, however, a naive policy. Having officers and NCOs armed at all times is not a hard measure to implement. What if someone gets angry and goes on a shooting spree? BS on stilts. They will get shot by the other armed individuals so they had better have a death wish. Soldiers who have been shot at are not known for rationing return fire.
July 29th, 2011 at 11:13 am
If I were commander-in-chief-for-a-day, I’d issue a directive that any soldier unarmed when duties didn’t require it (crawling around under a tank, PT, etc) was out of uniform.
Then I’d extend it to the unorganized militia 🙂
July 29th, 2011 at 11:20 am
I couldn’t carry a Firearm on any Base I ever went to w/o it being part of my assigned duties. Privately owned Weapons were kept locked up at the Base’s Armory, and you could only access them during certain Hours, then you had to bring them back, or wait until the next day, and they better NOT have been in the Barracks. This was from 1976-1986, so this was Policy under Ford, Carter and Reagan. BTW, if you were married and lived off-Base, but were in Military Housing, you weren’t allowed to have a gun there either. So the Military effectively took away the 2A rights of those spouses who were Civilians. Their excuse was that no one was Forced to Live in Gov’t Housing, so feel free to live amongst the Civilians, even though you weren’t getting paid enough to cover the local utility bills, let alone the rent.
July 29th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Bubblehead Les,
So this evil policy goes back further than I thought.
If anyone should be disarmed, according to one of our nation’s founders, it should be elected officials and government agents. Let them be the same as they impose on our military personnel!
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
July 29th, 2011 at 11:35 am
A load of post-vietnam crap.
For two hundred years before that American soldiers owned whatever personal weapons they damned well pleased.
.22 rf pocket revolvers were very popular with Civil War troops. You couldn’t carry your issue rifle around with you when you were off duty.
July 29th, 2011 at 11:50 am
According to a Rand Corporation document which provides Review and Recommendations for Future Anti-Terror Path———> Disarm Vets:
“Restrict Access to Lethal Means Develop creative strategies to restrict access to lethal means among military service members or those indicated to be at risk of harming themselves. Firearms figure prominently in military suicides, so initiatives to restrict access to firearms should be considered. There is some precedent for firearm restrictions in both the Veterans Health Administration and DoD. In particular, strategies may include establishing policies or procedures in which access is restricted specifically among those identified as being at risk of harm- ing themselves.”
July 29th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Kristopher,
Your comments remind me of this quote:
“A goverment that fears arms in the hands of it people should also fear ROPE!” – CSA Gen., Nathan Bedford Forrest
July 29th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Kristopher,
Your comments remind me of this quote:
“A goverment that fears arms in the hands of it people should also fear the ROPE!” – CSA Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest
July 29th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
I think he new exactly what the hell he was buying… Else he probably would not have bought it… More than likely he did not know that gun powders vary depending on application…. I am curious to know if they would have reported him if had known the difference… I myself have enough problems buying things at gun shops without being turned in to the police for a perceived lack of knowledge….
July 29th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Markie Marxist sez: “We Marxists own the military; it’s ours as part of the government, so we certainly don’t want anyone in the military to have a gun, except for when we send them to shoot somebody.”
July 29th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I was wondering what was so suspicious about 6lbs of powder. Hell my typical buy is 20lbs at the time….
July 29th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
@aeronathon-I think it helps when you refer to what you are looking for, and not “the boomy explody s#it like that guy used.” Boomy explody is a definite red flag.
July 29th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Even old-fashioned elitist royalist armies let their officers go armed, at least. As far as I’m concerned, an officer in the United States Armed Forces can carry sword and/or pistol anywhere and anywhen, as can a civilian.
July 29th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I wonder what kind of powder he asked for. One would think that for kaboomieness you would want the fastest-burning kind, like Bullseye.
July 29th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Many people are ignorant of the difference between black powder and modern smokeless.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Justthisguy,
The reason they don’t is: ONLY YOUR ENEMY WANTS YOU DISARMED
July 30th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
aeronathan,
Yeah, but you don’t plop twenty random canisters of powder on the counter, snap “What’s smokeless powder?” at the clerk, and cop a ‘tude when he answers you.
It’s the same as when the guy comes into the gun store all mopey and sad-looking and asks me “So, which gun would blow someone’s head off for sure? I mean so quick they wouldn’t feel any pain?” and I didn’t sell him a gun because, hey, he may have a constitutional right to own a gun, but I don’t have a constitutional obligation to sell him one…