Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At one time soldiers were allowed to carry a side arm on base. Then Bill Clinton was elected US President.
"At one time soldiers were allowed to carry side arms on base" was pre-Civil War. I think you mean Grant, not Clinton.
I enlisted during the Nixon administration and served through the Clinton administration, but I was an Army brat living on post all the way back to the Eisenhower administration--and soldiers were not routinely under arms on stateside installations during any of that time, not even during the mid-80s spate of "Euro-terrorism."
It's unfair to put the blame on him for "not taking care of himself". Based on the news coming out, he was being treated for depression and anxiety while being evaluated for PTSD. He had a brain injury while in Iraq in 2011. You may consider yourself an expert on the military but you don't have any idea as to how serious his problems were or how long he was under treatment. If his treatment was ongoing since his head injury then maybe the doctors missed something? Maybe they were giving him a cocktail of pills? Some things can't be fixed or cured with a cocktail of pills, but could exasperate mental conditions and he seemed to have been going through quite a few mental problems. Very sad.
The military doctors are overwhelmed with those who serve and served that suffer from PTSD.
Never said I was an expert at the military, I'm just retired...
You have to be willing to help yourself, even while under medical attention, if not then no medical attention will work for you.
Think of it like this, lets say you are an a know drunk.....you go to AA, get done with your nightly AA meeting...then go to a bar....
Well, the bad guys know (from the previous example) that Ft. Hood is a place where the soldiers aren't allowed to carry guns. All weapons must be turned in and locked down, with no access permitted unless they are being used for active training or etc.
What better place to go, if you want to shoot a bunch of people who can't shoot back?
Yeah, soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen/women are not allowed to carry weapons on a MILITARY BASE because of rules and regulations initiated by and approved by the Clinton Administration!!!
In other words, in places where men and women are TRAINED in to care and use of firearms, they are prohibited from carry them on their persons.
One cannot miss what will come next. The anti-gun crowd will rant and rave and blame it all on people being allowed to purchase those horrible, terrible, awful GUNS.
Absolutely ignoring the fact that the military is so damned traumatized by the ridiculous Political Correctness crap going on that they're afraid to say anything about someone they think or know to be a powder keg waiting to explode!!!
Yeah, soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen/women are not allowed to carry weapons on a MILITARY BASE because of rules and regulations initiated by and approved by the Clinton Administration!!!
Where are you people getting that tripe from? Soldiers have not been routinely under arms on stateside military installations since the Grant administration. Soldiers are under arms only when on duty and as a duty requirement. All other times, their arms are secured. That is not a Clinton requirement.
Never said I was an expert at the military, I'm just retired...
You have to be willing to help yourself, even while under medical attention, if not then no medical attention will work for you.
Think of it like this, lets say you are an a know drunk.....you go to AA, get done with your nightly AA meeting...then go to a bar....
Point is, it's all speculation right now....
Of course it's speculation. He was helping himself - he was in treatment. He was putting himself and his trust in the hands of a doctor(s) to help him. Maybe he was doing everything asked of him by the doctors, as in taking his medication and seeing a psychiatrist (which he did last month), and it's possible the doctors screwed up (over prescribed various medications), and missed something? He had various issues and was probably given a prescription for each issue being addressed. We are a medicated society.
I may **** a lot of people off with what I'm about to say...
But I'm glad A LOT of Soldiers are NOT allowed to carry all the time.
Let me explain, not all Soldiers know how to shoot, in my 21 years I have sent many Soldiers home form the range un-qualified. Hell, I have sent people home who could not even zero their weapon, much less qualify.
Also, not every Soldeir gets a pistol to qualify with, most are just ARs.
Some Soldiers are not smart, period....you don't like me saying that, to bad....When I send a Soldier home for not passing an open book test....yea, I said open book....
This is not every Soldier, I understand that...but as I said before....I would not want some Soldiers to even have a weapon...period....
Of course it's speculation. He was helping himself - he was in treatment. He was putting himself and his trust in the hands of a doctor(s) to help him. Maybe he was doing everything asked of him by the doctors, as in taking his medication and seeing a psychiatrist (which he did last month), and it's possible the doctors screwed up (over prescribed various medications), and missed something? He had various issues and was probably given a prescription for each issue being addressed. We are a medicated society.
And maybe he took his medication with a 5th of whiskey....
I guess I missed all that "leftie media news" since I don't glue myself to the TV channel surfing the different media outlets. If I recall the first claim was that it was a Muslim. Should I assume it was a republican who made that claim seeing as how republicans suffer from Islamophobia?
I think he's talking about ABC saying James Holmes was a Tea Party member within hours of the Colorado shooting, and MSNBC saying the Boston bombers were most likely right wing extremist. And that the Gifford's shooter was a Palin follower. All of which was proven to be completely false.
Did someone on the national media claim this person was a Muslim? I haven't seen that. But there have been plenty of examples in the past of the media rushing to try to tie tragedies to the right wing, and then just moving on when they found out those perps were actually left wing people. Why would ABC go looking through the Tea Party websites just a few hours after a mass shooting? Political bias is the only answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
