After Years of Republican Neglect

[BSB]

"superior in knowledge"

When it comes to being around lots of people with loaded weapons my knowledge is superior. But the real superiority lies in the possession of common sense. I've never seen a group so devoid of common sense as you, BT, Plane, and CU4. It's tragic. I can't imagine trying to face the world as handicapped in that regard as you all are. Amazing.


BSB



 

[sirs]

"superior in knowledge"

When it comes to being around lots of people with loaded weapons my knowledge is superior. But the real superiority lies in the possession of common sense.

That's more about experience than knowledge, especially since your focus appears to be on accidents, as the reason folks should be disarmed.  Its no wonder we're your equal......you have so little practical grasp of it (common sense) and current reality, as it relates to gun crime, and how exponentially more often guns are used to save a life, than to take one......at least in this country

...and no answer to the last CCW holder that went "nutzo"?  Ahhhh, bummers

As I said, glad we had this conversation

[Xavier_Onassis]

The people that make the rules in the military are in this case infinitely smarter than the gun-obsessed sirs.

[sirs]

Strawman alert!!.....who's talking about military rules?  I'm talking about the Constitution.  I was merely asking why the military are seen as some 2nd rate persons, unworthy to be allowed to be armed on base.  And apparently the answer is they're one big bunch of keystone-cop like soldiers.

[Plane]

sirs' state is run by Democrats, ably governed by Jerry Brown. I doubt if sirs approves. He would prefer a governator or somesuch creature.

The military is wise to prevent soldiers, sailors and Marines to be universally armed on duty. While perhaps 99.9% of them would never fire a weapon, there is always the possibility that one unhinged member of that remaining .01% might do so. If no one is armed, there is a 100% chance that this will not happen, provided all follow the regulations, of course.

It would be a bad idea for every employee of the Pentagon to be packing heat, in my opinion.

You are beginning indeed to catch on.

Much better than 99% behave well whether armed or not and less than .1% make trouble armed or not.

But how does a rule against bearing arms handicap someone who wants to break the rules against violence?

Not at all of course, that .01% guy will arm himself and commit his violence and the rules to the contrary are not worth mentioning to him.

The singular thing accomplished is that one has made the common man vunerable to those rare individuals, that is 100% of the effect acheived.

[sirs]

touche', Plane       

[BSB]

"The singular thing accomplished is that one has made the common man vulnerable..."

In fact it's just the opposite. One of the main reasons you don't allow the common soldier to carry a loaded weapon apart from the firing range, or apart from the extremely rare live fire exercise, is to protect him from both himself and other good common soldiers. The fewer armed soldiers you have on a U.S. base the safer the common soldier is. But again, the military knows this. They are experts in the proper use of firearms. They have to be, weapons are a tool of their trade.

BSB

[sirs]

When in fact, reality says otherwise, in the U.S.  Mass murderers picking locations that are largely gun free zones, cities with the highest gun crimes also have the most restrictive gun ownership laws.  Exponentially more lives saved with a gun, than those taken by one.  Plane's point is reinforced across the country.  I mean, I realize how these facts completely tear down your template of "common sense" B, but that, I'm afraid, is the current reality, that you seem to be wholly attempting to avoid like the plague

[BSB]

This isn't a town moron, these are military bases where thousand of men and women are rubbing elbows 24 hours a day. They aren't going to change their weapons safety procedures because of one incident at Ft Hood. The military doesn't panic and go compound an error by making another one.

More shit from sirs.

BSB

[sirs]

Speaking of BS, one need only look at the latest deflective sludge.....I'm referring to THE COUNTRY, not specifically military bases.  I suppose I can see why the weak Xo-like effort to make it about military bases...tidal wave of facts, reality, and yes, commen sense, to the contrary of one's made up mind regarding guns, so, the best one can do is throw deflective BS, and make this about military bases.  When YOU yourself made it painfully clear the big issue is "accidents", as a reason to disarm folks.  The less people who have guns, the less accidents.  Here's a news flash, ACCIDENTS HAPPEN.  You don't deprive folks of their constitutional right based on what might accidentally happen.  At least not in this country

OR, is your deflective tact here an effort to advocate that we need to adopt a life of living on a military base.  Is that it?  Or do you want to make this strictly about people allowed to carry outside of their home, as in a CCW.  How's that search coming along for the last CCW holder who went postal??

[BSB]

Ha ha, but sirs this is about military bases, and you responded to a post about military bases.

Just more shit from sirs.



BSB

[sirs]

Military bases are not the U.S.  Rules on military bases are different than laws affecting civilians in the U.S.  You don't deprive folks of their constitutional right based on what might accidentally happen.  At least not in the U.S.

So, is your tact here an effort to advocate that we, as in the U.S. citizenry, need to adopt a life of living on a military base?  Or do you want to make this strictly about people allowed to carry outside of their home, as in a CCW?

[Plane]

The effect of rules like this are negative, not positive.

The people obeying the rules are more vunerable thereby.

The people who abandon the rules are handed an unearned advantage.

There may be an illusion produced of safety , but there is no evidence.

[Plane]

"The singular thing accomplished is that one has made the common man vulnerable..."

In fact it's just the opposite. One of the main reasons you don't allow the common soldier to carry a loaded weapon apart from the firing range, or apart from the extremely rare live fire exercise, is to protect him from both himself and other good common soldiers. The fewer armed soldiers you have on a U.S. base the safer the common soldier is. But again, the military knows this. They are experts in the proper use of firearms. They have to be, weapons are a tool of their trade.

BSB

I do not feel that you have refuted anything by just restating your opinion without any logical or factual underpinning.

Soldiers are necessacerily armed quite well for training and for combat, what makes them safe from themselves then?

People who can't be trusted by their comrades really should not be soldiers at all.

[BSB]

There's nothing to refute. The military doesn't allow for it and for good reason. You're just talking to yourself.


BSB