Okay, but Bush doesn't own it, Clinton had it passed.
Does not matter, it's Clinton's baby no matter how much you want to make excuses.Had it passed??
Didn't Bush own both chambers for a time??
I hate this revision ****. Lets get it reversed. Veterans are a stong lobby.
I bet Landrieu would be a yes. And she will win.
Does not matter, it's Clinton's baby no matter how much you want to make excuses.
Look, Bush owns TARP, the DHS, and the Patriot Act, just like Nixon owns the EPA and everything that it has morphed into, Johnson owns welfare and all it's abuses. That's just reality, now, Obama can either take a look at the Clinton policy and change it or jump on the gun control bandwagon and risk further incidents, that's just the way it works.No excuses from me, just solutions like CC, with a reality check that Bush coulda/woulda/shoulda changed it.
Look, Bush owns TARP, the DHS, and the Patriot Act, just like Nixon owns the EPA and everything that it has morphed into, Johnson owns welfare and all it's abuses. That's just reality, now, Obama can either take a look at the Clinton policy and change it or jump on the gun control bandwagon and risk further incidents, that's just the way it works.
Look, Bush owns TARP, the DHS, and the Patriot Act, just like Nixon owns the EPA and everything that it has morphed into, Johnson owns welfare and all it's abuses. That's just reality, now, Obama can either take a look at the Clinton policy and change it or jump on the gun control bandwagon and risk further incidents, that's just the way it works.
Cool, my whole point is that it's not a direct attack on Clinton as much as his particular policy, sure, Bush should have revisited that and I really don't know why it wasn't dealt with, but now that we have two base massacres it should be.Alas, I will agree with you. It must be changed.
Cool, my whole point is that it's not a direct attack on Clinton as much as his particular policy, sure, Bush should have revisited that and I really don't know why it wasn't dealt with, but now that we have two base massacres it should be.
MPs and civilian police can carry, but as other posters have pointed out there aren't a lot of MPs on base and the police would only be there already under very rare circumstances, everyone else must have their weapons registered and checked into the armory and unfortunately under an active shooter it's a bad situation. Sorry about your father, but you can be proud of his service.As an Air Force brat, I can only imagine what my passed Dad would think.
I wasn't even aware of this.
All I can remember is "open-carry", which the MPs should have again.
MPs and civilian police can carry, but as other posters have pointed out there aren't a lot of MPs on base and the police would only be there already under very rare circumstances, everyone else must have their weapons registered and checked into the armory and unfortunately under an active shooter it's a bad situation. Sorry about your father, but you can be proud of his service.
Aren't the good guys with guns supposed too stop the bad guys with guns? That meme fell apart today.
We have four great Veterans' Homes in Illinois.
I love telling this story.
We first got him to Quincy, home of the Whigs, 4th oldest in the Nation-1884 for Civil war guys-both sides of course-205 acres-"city within the city"
Quincy was the only National Guard to go to Vietnam.
The image of POW-MIA flags on I-55 for the Guard is imprinted.
We got Dad back up north in Manteno where his Alzheimer's took its course. They are taking care of Mom in a civilian assisted.
She went through the bombing of London as an 8-YO.
The only National Guard unit to serve in Vietnam was from IN, as far as I can tell. Love to see the reference on Quincy if you have it.
The only National Guard unit to serve in Vietnam was from IN, as far as I can tell. Love to see the reference on Quincy if you have it.
Possibly meant Air National Guard? There were quite a few Army National Guard units activated at that time in Vietnam, but using helicopters as suppression/support vehicles was a new concept.National Guard Served Bravely In Vietnam - Hartford Courant
My mistake--there were several, not just one, my bad.
Including Indiana, but there is no actual quote about Illinois, though the word "others" was used.
Thanks for checking me. We all need it.
AR-15: CNN, Daily News Have Already Blown Their Gun Control Narrative
Tuesday's New York Daily News cover story is nothing more than a long-form editorial that attempts to make the AR-15 (a semiautomatic sport rifle) the bad guy in Monday's horrific Navy Yard shooting. Last night, CNN attempted to do the same through blowhard Piers Morgan. But there is just one problem: CNN and The Daily News are 100% wrong. The FBI has just confirmed that a shotgun and two pistols were recovered, and that the "gunman was NOT armed with [an] AR-15."
Well except that he didn't, sure.Um, military base. Clinton disarmed soldiers and sailors on-base, remember.
There is a lot of ignorance out there regarding guns and its dripping off people on both sides, but i would argue mostly off people on the pro-gun side. As a person that does not care much for guns, It really does not matter what type of gun was used. In fact, if I were to ban any kind of gun, I would ban handguns first because they are cheaper and easier to conceal. As we know, most of our gun violence is centered around low income areas in relation to drugs and gangs. Solving the mass shooting problem does little to nothing to solve the overall problem we have in regards to gun violence.
Well except that he didn't, sure.
Here's the directive which resulted in that ban ... note the date ...
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf
It's when it had the official force of law, Clinton is on record as signing it so that tells me that it was not in force until that signature. It could have been that it was proposed in the last months of H.W.'s term and not signed, thus not implemented and Clinton could have decided to sign the hold over and make it law. It's kind of like when Fast and Furious was attempted to be tied to W. Bush but the facts bore out that the W. administration shelved it because facts on the ground proved it to be a stupid idea, the actual implementation of the program was Holder/Obama.There are two dates on it. One header says Febuary 92, which would be HW Bush, other stamp however is Nov 08 1993, which would be after Clinton took office.
I'd heard it was a decision made by Clinton. Can we get some verification as to who implemented this?
Show me what Clinton signed?It's when it had the official force of law, Clinton is on record as signing it so that tells me that it was not in force until that signature. It could have been that it was proposed in the last months of H.W.'s term and not signed, thus not implemented and Clinton could have decided to sign the hold over and make it law. It's kind of like when Fast and Furious was attempted to be tied to W. Bush but the facts bore out that the W. administration shelved it because facts on the ground proved it to be a stupid idea, the actual implementation of the program was Holder/Obama.
There are two dates on it. One header says Febuary 92, which would be HW Bush, other stamp however is Nov 08 1993, which would be after Clinton took office.
I'd heard it was a decision made by Clinton. Can we get some verification as to who implemented this?
Well it clearly wasn't a decision by Clinton since it went into effect in February, 1992. I don't know what the later date is, but it's signed by Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense and it states it goes into effect immediately. I also read that gun-free bases were even older than 1992, but I haven't found a verifiable source yet to confirm it.There are two dates on it. One header says Febuary 92, which would be HW Bush, other stamp however is Nov 08 1993, which would be after Clinton took office.
I'd heard it was a decision made by Clinton. Can we get some verification as to who implemented this?
Either way it's a stupid policy.It was signed and made "effective immediately" by Don Atwood, Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense. Everything points to that date being 2/25/92; the 11/8/93 stamp is probably just a filing stamp.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?