Now Playing: a request by Ralph H.
Topic: General politics
I just received a link to what appears to be an Army document that is the supposed source of "why soldiers at Ft Hood were not armed." The rumour is that Herr Clinton banned firearms possession.
IF this document is correct, we have not solved one problem, we've created another, and a disaster is still not mitigated.
There is no such blanket prohibition in this document. Read it for yourself:
<http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_14.pdf
What the document establishes is application of existing DoD rules setting out:
1.) mandatory safety training within 12 months for those applying to carry a firearm.' They should ALREADY have that.
CORRECTION- (see below)
[[ 1.) mandatory training and proficiency testing within 12 months for those applying to carry a firearm.' ]]
2.) permit process to carry said firearm by those mentally competent (Obama should have to carry)
3.) Mandates possession of only Govt issued firearms and ammo
4.) provisions for those in a CI or enforcement role
5.) rules for aircraft possession (which are now contrary to TSA guidelines)
So unless Im missing something, the solders at Ft Hood either didnt want to be armed, or someone in chain of command had an anti gun agenda and wasnt issuing permits.
IT'S THE (ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, MARINES, pick one), THEY ALL SHOULD HAVE TO CARRY. Are they being trained to go overseas and NOT carry? Oops, theres that damned U.N. Peacekeeping role...
We must be vigilant to not allow this DoD thing to become a model for requiring training and permits in Free Constitutional Society. This may be the only thing good coming from the Ft Hood TERRORIST ATTACK, that the masses being unarmed were defenseless, even with physical conditioning and other training. Hands against guns is not effective.
This leads into what I haven't pontificated upon yet, because I'm still in the wrapping my brain around it stage, firearms laws. It's coming.
How can such a misunderstanding of a clearly written code happen? How could it be that even I had an incorrect belief on the subject? Simple, I was ignorant of the facts.
There are three hidden dangers here:
a.) is that common belief replaces law in peoples minds
b.) control mechanisms like these DoD policies, or unconstitutional firearms restrictions are made in the first place
c.) the false notions get implemented into law, which are further contrary to the Consitutions.
The current catalyst for c.) are outright Leftist lies about "guns kill people" and its fueled, maybe unintentionally, by other non-non 2A folk who have misconceptions about "the law says this an such about firearms."
Let's take the unConstitutional restrictions in WA State (and others) on 'concealed carry.'
The WA Legislature ignored the WA Constitution and enacted restrictions on concealed carry. THEY ARE FORBIDDEN BY THE WA CONSTITUTION TO DO SO. What part of 'thou shalt not infringe' is so hard to understand?
The current RCWs on concealed carry state several things:
1.) concealed carry (CCW) requires a permit ( enter the slippery slope)
2.) CCW means in a motor vehicle, hidden or not (illogical)
3.) CCW restrictions do not apply to those going to a shooting range(figure that one out)
4.) penalty for CCW without permit is ONLY a $250 fine and one CANNOT be arrested unless he cannot show I.D. - IT IS A CIVIL INFRACTION.
I have $250!
But this gets blown out of proportion by - get this - people who are PRO 2A. The list of folk tales about CCW are:
a .) concealed means concealed, no print, no show, when Law does not specify that,
b.) one can be arrested for CCW without a permit
c.) that possession of firearms is legal
d.) that the only carry is concealed carry, which implies two things:
1.) permit, training etc is required for open carry
2.) that CCW permit holders are part of the in-group- with superior rights to others.
Did you catch the importance of c.)?
Possession of firearms is NOT legal. Neither is it LEGAL. LAW HAS NO HOLD ON THE QUESTION. Or should not. The Constitutions stand is "HANDS OFF."
Theres the end game, to coerce, to force the question into the "law" arena where it can be manipulated away from the Constitutional limits.
The result is dead soldiers at Ft Hood.
EDIT-SHAME ON ME.
I just finished posting this and was mentally deriding one of the ads at the top of the blog page which reads:
Gun safety
"Keep Guns Safe!" Help protect "Special People"
www.raclocked.com
Even in critical thinking mode, it took a few moments for me to realize that I had fallen into the trap I just spent several paragraphs railing against:
"the Gun safety lie"
I'm not going to edit the Blog entry above to remove the error, its instructional, instead I'll copy it down here for your critical analysis.
At the top of this page, you'll find my statement:
"1.) mandatory safety training within 12 months for those applying to carry a firearm.' They should ALREADY have that."
I fell right into it - contradicted my own advice. See how ingrained it is?
There is no discussion of "safety training" in the Army document, it reads:
"
Section II
Conditions for Carrying Firearms
2–5. Eligibility requirements
To be considered eligible to carry firearms, personnel must have
satisfactorily completed mandatory training and proficiency testing
within the preceding 12 months.
a. Mandatory training must include—
(1) A thorough briefing on individual responsibilities.
(2) Use of deadly force training.
(3) Instructions on safety functions, capabilities, limitations, and
maintenance procedures for the firearm to be carried.
for written authorization to carry a firearm. "
The bleeding heart bleating of "safety" is so-o-o ingrained.
Correction to my ignorance is posted above in [[brackets]].
That's what I get for not accurately quoting the source, so that makes TWO errors committed in just a few paragraphs.
^ Firearms are NOT ABOUT SAFETY. They are about making HOLES in/through things.
^ Firearms possession an use are a RIGHT in America not to be infringed.
^ If said holes happen to be in an attacker, so be it. She started it.
(do you like the "she?" Thats using the Feminist games against them...: ) Read my Blog entry on subversive speech and realize that this game revolves around stereotyping/ingrouping positive things with females, and negative with males. Why are attackers always "he?")
