Parenthood is a delicate ballet -- especially when the dance floor is covered in Lego pieces. Offer your kids some building...
Martha Stewart's dog GK wins at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show (photos) t.co/BDkfovN3
Time to remove ‘under God’ from Pledge of Allegiance? t.co/ikSZ1bol
Whitney Houston, the actress: a brief but successful chapter t.co/no3f9N6W
Examiner.com is the inside source for everything local. We are powered by Examiners, the largest pool of passionate contributors in the world.
Examiners provide unique and original content to enhance life in your local city wherever that may be. Examiners come from all walks of life and contribute original content to entertain, inform, and inspire.
Comments
And the key word, Howard, was 'superfluous'. They will spare no costs (including ilves) to justify their involvement.
Ten years ago, it was called being worried about being relevant (as in post Clinton-era politics).
Oh, and I forgot to mention: excellent observations, Howard.
The Federal Govt / Military Industrial Complex will not allow our "soldiers" to carry sidearms while on base!? They just created another killing ground where unarmed people would be helpless victims...just like beaurocrats and politicians have done to our churches, schools, etc etc where they refuse to allow concealed handguns for citizens. Should we wonder why the psychotic mass-murderers choose these places for their rampages? Because they know there will be no guns there for people to protect themselves with!!
If the Federal Govt doesnt want our "soldiers" to carry guns; they want them to be unarmed; then we can only imagine how the Federal Govt feels about "civilians" having the right to carry guns...cant we? This shows us all, for a fact...what the Federal Govt would do to our rights, if we let them get away with it. Every single citizen needs to get a license to carry a concealed handgun...RIGHT NOW...and get involved, before it is too late.
My license ironclad, is called the second amendment. That is all I need. That is all anyone should observe. And they should defend that with whatever force is required to prevail.
Currently most states (all time high of 40 from 10 in 1987) now have right to carry laws that support the legal carrying of a concealed firearm and firearms ownership has increased dramatically without an increase in crime but in fact lower in those areas that allow it. The honest armed citizen is not a threat to our safety but is rather a force multiplier in our local communities and serves the general public where it is needed most in our community.
Sincerely,
Chris Golden, U.S. Army-RET.
If the first responder to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's attack was an armed soldier in the same room the outcome would have been dramatically different. Don't infer that I recommend arming every soldier 24/7 but if only 10-20% of the force was "on duty" with a concealed weapon approved and trained by the post they serve it would be an honest step in doing something effective rather than a bunch of worthless words and writings. The same mind set that takes a soldier and trains him into a combat life saver/first responder (one with basic medical training and issued a medical set), that serves every combat squad or gun platoon and is integral to the unit should be applied with the use of lethal force.
I would like to refer back to "firearms ownership as a threat, rather than an asset". Most arguments for gun control completely ignore the positive effect of legal gun ownership. It's hard to quantify something that is often intangible, like the mere knowledge of a home, community or city that allows the legal right to gun ownership and insures it is not infringed by B.S. policies that only serve the needs of politicians who conceived them. The armed honest citizen is a powerful deterrent to criminal-lethal activity and as a last resort if the need should arise is a genuinely effective action to a lethal threat.
The opinion that more restrictions, policies and laws to further regulate and deny honest citizens their civil right to self defense leaves one to consider if they actually work and serve their purposed intent. I think both pro and con gun control advocates would admit that if an individual is not safe from a lethal attack on a closed post with an entire library of rules and regulations, then how could we infer that more restrictions would work better or in our own public communities. When the American ruling class perceives an armed honest American citizen exercising his civil right to firearms ownership as a threat, rather than an asset then we risk not only losing our 2nd amendment right but also our other civil rights such as the right to free speech, due process etc.
I have watched our own military being stripped of their civil rights, the same citizens who we entrust to protect our freedoms and civil rights. I have seen commanders issuing orders "for public safety and security" that violate civil law. I have watched the disarming of soldiers, when the situation required them to be armed and put the soldier and that of his fellow soldiers at harms risk. I have observed soldiers who died (machine gunned to death by terrorist) because for the good of the task force, ammo was withheld by command order despite being in a high risk area. At the same time those same commanders had several armed guards within arms reach nearly 24/7.
If you are an single officer (this varies at post for single officers) or a married soldier eligible for a government housing unit then all firearms must be registered at the Provost Marshall's office and the firearm maintained in the housing unit. The soldier is not allowed to transport the firearm, unless it is to be used in an "authorized" activity. Those activities include hunting and target shooting at an approved private weapons range (not all post have a private weapons range but most do). Personal defense outside of the individuals housing unit is not authorized and severe penalties can and will be initiated (loss of rank, loss of pay, dishonorable discharge or elimination from the military, and may include military jail time).
I'm a 22 year retired Army veteran. I have lived on Army installations since 1983-2004. At every closed post (limited public access) there has always been a post general order regarding privately owned weapons (POW's). Since my time in the service, post regulations are typically as follows; If you are a single soldier living in barracks (Dormitory type housing), no personal weapons are allowed and often includes knifes longer than just a few inches. However, if a single enlisted soldier has weapons he may register them, then be allowed to maintain them at the soldier's unit arms room. His access is often severely restricted and even if requested for approved activities, having an armor available at issue and turn in, when that soldier would typically require the weapon, it is often a limitation on available access.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!