http://forums.atvconnection.com This forum is for political and open discussions only. Do not enter here unless you are willing to disagree with the statements made. What happens in this forum stays in this forum. en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:13:00 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forums.atvconnection.com/images/genesis/misc/rss.jpg http://forums.atvconnection.com http://forums.atvconnection.com/ohv-riders-rights-also-politics/320584-why-couldnt-soldiers-shoot-back.html Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:21:40 GMT Maybe I'm a bit odd in that I wondered why the soldiers had to be defended at Fort Hood by 2 public police officers. (One of whom was wounded) There is an interesting editorial that explains the situation and similar shootings where many people get killed by whackos of whatever persuasion. EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times Some of the points made in the editorial follow: Nidal Hasan's murderous rampage at Fort Hood stopped only when two armed civilian police officers put four rounds into him. One of those officers was shot in the leg herself. But this begs the question: Why weren't American soldiers able to defend themselves?

Because in 1993, upon taking office, President Bill Clinton imposed regulations that forbid military personnel from carrying personal firearms on base and make it nearly impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers. Generally, only military police carry firearms on base.

In other words, as absurd as it may seem, Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed 1st Cavalry Division, is practically a "gun free" zone. The base now joins an infamous list of such "gun free" zones in which murderers were left alone with their guns, free to do their worst -- including Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University and Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, among others. According to The Washington Times, "All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned."

The wife of one of the wounded soldiers certainly understood the implications of disarming service personnel. When asked how she felt about her husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan, she replied, "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?"

It's a sad day when active military personnel can't carry firearms on a military base. It doesn't border on ridiculous. It is ridiculous. I feel the same way about off-duty police officers that are made to leave their service firearm at the police station in areas where gun bans are in effect. It's lunacy. ]]> OHV Riders Rights and also Politics MooseHenden http://forums.atvconnection.com/ohv-riders-rights-also-politics/320584-why-couldnt-soldiers-shoot-back.html http://forums.atvconnection.com/ohv-riders-rights-also-politics/320511-cyber-attacks-whom.html Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:26:20 GMT I'm wondering who would spend time and energy waging the "cyber attacks" against this website? What is a cyber attack anyway? ]]> OHV Riders Rights and also Politics Deeplaker60 http://forums.atvconnection.com/ohv-riders-rights-also-politics/320511-cyber-attacks-whom.html http://forums.atvconnection.com/ohv-riders-rights-also-politics/320074-you-paying.html Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:22:58 GMT I had thought I saw an ad for this watching the news one day. It's a government program to give away cell phones with 70 minutes per month. More money out of our pockets. I can just picture the drug dealers saying they qualify for this.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/home.aspx ]]> OHV Riders Rights and also Politics MooseHenden http://forums.atvconnection.com/ohv-riders-rights-also-politics/320074-you-paying.html