SCENE: Washington DC, April, 1861. Heather Martens is being interviewed on the upcoming secession over slavery: “if abolishing slavery were a good idea, the government would’ve already done it”
SCENE: Honolulu, Hawaii, November, 1941. Heather Martens is being interviewed by the Washington Post or guarding complaints about the security at Pearl Harbor: “If there was anything to worry about at Pearl Harbor, I’m sure the government would’ve already taken care of it.”
SCENE: quote from Heather Martens, heard this morning on the Jack and Andrew show, on the lesser talk station: “I’m sure if arming military personnel were a good idea, the military would’ve already done it”
Only one of the quotes above is “real” in the literal sense of the term. But in another way, they’re all still perfectly accurate…
Shorter Mitch: “I’m sure if Heather Martins had an actual brain, she’d already have used it.”
Nerd +1
Ah, the acrid odor of revisionist history. Try to be more honest… or is that what you resort to when you don’t really have a factually honest criticism?
I saw what Heather Martins said about private weapons and the guard, and it is nothing like what you wrote. Factual history would include events like the 2014 Fort Hood mass shooting……ah but THAT you leave out? Or do you contend that the Guard is not as legitimate a branch of the military as the other services, and therefore different?
President Bush (Sr.) knew what he was doing when he issued the orders as commander in chief to stop soldiers carrying personal firearms. As noted from Snopes in their debunking that it was Clinton who disarmed the military
Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel,…””I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military,” said Bucci, …”We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones,” he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority.
Conservative from the Heritage Foundation. Not anti-gun. And a member of the actual military, unlike you.
The military wisely, under Republican administrations, decided against allowing personal firearms on bases and other installations. That decision arose because of problems with service people carrying. I would point out the most recent mass shooting on a military base, by military personnel, with private weapon — by one of your supposed “good guys with a gun”: Fort Hood, resulting in 4 dead (including the shooter) and 16 injured. The greatest frequency of incidents like this and other shootings is……males in the age group that predominates in our military.
On top of that are the issues that many locations present, where the military rents the property instead of owning it, like the recruitment locations. Private and corporate owners have insurance issues with guns on the premises.
As Heather Martins noted, there is no screening in place for weapons comparable to concealed carry permits — domestic violence, criminal background, etc. — that should apply. Since Dubya damaged our military by his failed war choices, we have problems with issues like PTSD among our military personnel (LOTS OF THEM) and we have issues with our military standards having been lowered significantly to recruit those who are less desirable individuals, including convicted felons. There is also the issue of the high incidence of rape in the military, and that includes male on male rape.
So it is not REALLY like we can trust that every member of the military is an equally good choice to carry a private gun. If more guns were an effective solution, then Louisiana wouldn’t have the worst record for gun violence per 100,000 in the nation (and compare unfavorably to other countries and states with better gun control).
There is no evidence so far that either of the two military who shot at the Chattanooga shooter hit either the shooter or even his vehicle. In contrast, one of the crackpot civilian ‘guards’ who showed up armed demonstrated he was unsafe and incompetent with his firearm and was thrown off the property at the request of the property owners.
If you want to see recruitment centers and other locations protected, then put MPs there. Otherwise there is no evidence this is a good idea, or that the military agrees with it.
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/army-to-recruiters-treat-armed-citizens-as-security-threat-1.359134
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/times/story/2015/jul/24/gunning-safetymilitary-leaders-say-no/316221/
Doesn’t really matter what you want if the military doesn’t want it….and they don’t apparently.
If the military wants to keep service members from carrying guns on the job, that’s their decision. It may affect recruiting, but they are downsizing now anyhow. People in the military are allowed to keep guns off-base and off-hours (quite a few guardsmen have side jobs in the police or security). Since the bad guys know this, they will continue to attack recruiters in their offices because they represent the US military, they are unarmed, and they are in public spaces.
“if the military doesn’t want it”.
Apparently two marines and a sailor did want it, carrying sidearms against policy, and returning fire. And I’ve gone on record predicting that that return fire was what ended the shooting. No proof yet – but it’ll come.
And the part of “the military” that makes policy statements from their secure offices at the DOD frequently has no idea what actual troops in the field need, much less want.
I’m gonna guess there’s a lot of samizdat Glocks hidden in pockets around the US military. More now than ever.
What steaming pile of bonkers did DG ingest recently? She’s been commenting here more than usual lately, although the content is her typical keyboard mashing ridiculousness.
revisionist history.
Neither you nor Penigma have ever really grasped the idea of “satire”, have you?
I saw what Heather Martins said about private weapons and the guard, and it is nothing like what you wrote
Perhaps.
But what I wrote was a direct quote of what she said on the radio.
Sorry, DG. Truth, in the long run, always curves right towards my mitt.
But what I wrote was a direct quote of what she said on the radio.
I heard it, too, around 6:30 a.m., as I was slogging my way through South Minneapolis on 35W during the morning deluge.
Speaking of the deluge, someone should probably do a welfare check on Heather and DG. Neither of them has the sense to pour rain out of their boot unless you print Kos/Bloomberg talking points on the heel.
Dog:
If you had major cases where a person shows up and uses a gun thinking that they won’t encounter armed resisstence because there are gun free zones it only invites another attack which is stupid. If we had learned our lesson from Fort Hood fewer people will be dead.
not to mention Mitch has already reported that three people with guns firing back at the shooter is what saved lives.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
One might have thought DG would have her flaps in an uproar over the impending demise of her favorite butcher shop.
Looks like even she is smart enough to see Planned Infanticide is toast.
“Ah, the acrid odor of …. “
Say DG if there’s an acrid odor following you around, maybe its you.
When I wrote “If the military wants to keep service members from carrying guns on the job, that’s their decision”, I meant that the brass had made that decision. That’s the system we have. My gut tells me that we are far from the “fighting generals” of WW2 (Patton . . and Lemay!). Today we seem to have generals who are about as gutsy as the CEO’s of mediocre corporations. So be it.