Notice Time to change your legislation regarding carrying weapons

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by Blazer4ever, Feb 15, 2018.

  1. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,060
    Likes Received:
    9,014
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush states that “it is DoD Policy” to “limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel.” “The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried,”
    DoD Directive 5210.56 was reissued in April 2011 by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III.
    Army Regulation 190-14, a policy implemented in 1993 that changed policy regarding carrying firearms on the Army’s military bases
     
  2. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    32,719
    Likes Received:
    22,775
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Cool, thanks for the info.

    barfo
     
    BrianFromWA likes this.
  3. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,060
    Likes Received:
    9,014
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the "worldview" point...I feel that, if the world did "disarm all guns", that there would be people dying with arrows or swords or sticks or bombs or.... b/c people are inherently evil and selfish and generally go through a "self-preservation" mode check before doing something that would hurt others. In your scenario, I'd ask what would happen in Taipei if a Taliban member decided girls shouldn't go to school and came in with a suicide vest? Or a machete? I'm happy that it hasn't (to my knowledge) happened in Taipei. But I'd say that, for better or worse, and due to many things Calvin and others are pointing out, it is happening here just like it is in AFG, not like it is in Taipei.
     
  4. riverman

    riverman Writing Team

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    66,382
    Likes Received:
    64,535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Taiwanese National Guard and Taipei Police and Swat team would deal with it full force....happened with a kidnapped celebrity case back in the 90s....gangsters...nobody is stabbing students in Taipei schools....one mentally ill guy stabbed 4 people on the subway years back. You can walk anywhere anytime of night in the city unarmed and it would be extremely rare to feel unsafe...citizens don't have guns or feel a need for them..
     
  5. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,060
    Likes Received:
    9,014
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's awesome that there's an armed force to deal with this (just as there's a Columbine Police Dept, an Aurora PD, a Sandy Hook SWAT team)...but what happens in the 5-30 minutes it takes those guys to show up? In FL this week a bunch of students and teachers were killed because it took almost half an hour for armed personnel to show up. Those trying to protect children were killed due to being unarmed. Some students said they were hiding in a closet for hours.

    If Parkland HS had been in the middle of Taipei, do you think that Nicolas Cruz would've killed as many as he did? Or would the similar lag time of 911 call-to-police/SWAT/NG arrival would've meant about the same # would've died, and the Taiwanese are just lucky that they don't have mentally unstable people walking around?
     
  6. riverman

    riverman Writing Team

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    66,382
    Likes Received:
    64,535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That 19 year old would not have been able to purchase a gun or ammo in Taiwan...that's what would happen..they have mentally unstable people like everywhere else...but not guns
     
  7. MarAzul

    MarAzul LongShip

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,370
    Likes Received:
    7,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Life is good!
    Location:
    Near Bandon Oregon
    Oh shit! Think on that one!
     
  8. MarAzul

    MarAzul LongShip

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,370
    Likes Received:
    7,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Life is good!
    Location:
    Near Bandon Oregon
    I would not.
     
  9. riverman

    riverman Writing Team

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    66,382
    Likes Received:
    64,535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    in order for that to work, you wouldn't have a choice in the matter..no one would..otherwise it's just status quo standoffs for eternity...war ever stops being a world sport....we might actually do some good on this planet for a change
     
  10. MarAzul

    MarAzul LongShip

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,370
    Likes Received:
    7,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Life is good!
    Location:
    Near Bandon Oregon

    Actually river, if I would change my position, I think you would lose.
     
  11. riverman

    riverman Writing Team

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    66,382
    Likes Received:
    64,535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nah...we'd all win if we didn't need weapons to coexist...I understand that's against the Neanderthal code but at some point humanity will stop dragging it's knuckles across the landscape and pursue greater accomplishments than conflict.....
     
  12. MarAzul

    MarAzul LongShip

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,370
    Likes Received:
    7,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Life is good!
    Location:
    Near Bandon Oregon
    90% already have. The other 10% never will.
     

Share This Page