It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Shooting at Fort Hood; Multiple Injuries UPDATE2: Four dead, 16 injured...

page: 23
140
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawg61
 

Same scenario could play itself out anywhere. Imagine 10 or 12 guys organized and cutting loose in Manhattan.




posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Feltrick

diggindirt

curme
reply to post by NickDC202
 


What would you have him do? I'm really curious. Fly to Ft Hood and observe the investigation? Go back to the Oval Office and be updated there?


After his bold statement, "I have a pen and I have a phone." I'd expect him to immediately use that pen to write out an executive order allowing all trained personnel on military bases to be allowed to carry the weapons they're trained to use.


Odd, I would expect him to take out the pen and sign an Executive Order taking away all firearms from soldiers and veterans. I'd expect him to use the phone to call a press conference to explain how he's solved "soldier on soldier" violence.


You expect a lot from a guy that has difficulty with words on a teleprompter.



"Corpsman"



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


The so called 'logical fallacy' is this.

The police,swat,FBI, DHS, and every other alphabet government agency in this country carries guns.

Even the GD IRS.

But soldiers are not 'allowed'.


edit on 2-4-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ausername
 


Workplace violence? That's sooo 2000! If you think about it, war is essentially a soldier on soldier dispute.

As I've stated already, Soldier on Soldier dispute sounds better than workplace violence. This is a soldier killing other soldiers which means this could be a soldier who had a dispute with other soldiers in his squad, platoon or company. Another poster proposed that perhaps the soldier just lost it.

I'm sure we'll find out what set this in motion but, until then, all we can do is speculate...just like the evil MSM or LSM depending on your political bent.
edit on 2-4-2014 by Feltrick because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   

opethPA

Daedalus

opethPA
Show me a president that has responded that way?


George Washington.


Good thing the world hasn't changed since he was alive.


if you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions...

back on topic now?



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Lieutenant Colonel Allen West on Fox News with Megyn Kelly... Reason and intelligence is now in play...



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Daedalus
if you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions...
back on topic now?


Since your answer really isn't applicable to the modern world I agree..lets get back on topic.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ausername
 


Well, I never said HE wrote the Executive Order or dialed the phone. I just said he signed it and called the press. I'm sure he's got plenty of folks to do the writing and dialing!



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

Go think for a minute about WHY they are not allowed. You have clearly never lived or worked at a military base, particularly one where people have been in combat on multiple tours. This all may have happened because someone apparently didn't follow protocol. very likely someone with some type of issues from being in combat.

ETA: As you probably won't look for it yourself, here you go, from 1992: www.dtic.mil...


edit on 4/2/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
With so many shootings in the USA it does kind of make me glad that we have tighter gun control here in the UK, I do completely understand why people do not want to or should not have to give up their arms, but maybe more control would help.
(I know it was on a military base, but even here people would not have open access to guns and ammunition)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I suggest someone think about this.

Soldiers are GOVERNMENT employees who job is to shoot at people for a living.

So they can be trusted when they are shoveled off 10,000 miles away, but they can't be 'trusted' when they are here.

And that makes 'sense'.

WOW.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Funny how many mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

No one said everyone needs a gun. They had a MASSS SHOOTING INCIDENT IN 2009!!!

Returning tours would logically have a time where they were assimilated back into "normal" society before carrying a sidearm.

Jeeze!




posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
"All Clear" has been announced... The lock down is no longer in effect.

The forensic aspect of this incident will now begin in earnest...



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We are going to change format a bit tonight and talk about this on the Reality Remix show tonight. Please feel free to listen or call and express your thoughts and send your prayers.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


No it doesn't make sense Neo. What it says to me is, our own government trusts them armed 10,000 miles away. But not on U.S. soil.

Something is very wrong with this attitude.

Des



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


www.dtic.mil...

I'm done with you now.
edit on 4/2/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

opethPA

Daedalus
if you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions...
back on topic now?


Since your answer really isn't applicable to the modern world I agree..lets get back on topic.


jesus h christ, you challenged me to name a president who reacted that way, and i named one...now you're gonna get picky over goddamn time period? grow up.

just for reference, washington took command of a 13,000 man militia force during the whiskey rebellion....he led his troops into Pennsylvania, to quell said rebellion....a far more ballsy act than simply going to a place..
edit on 2-4-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by zetnom
 


Check out "fast and furious" where our own Government was caught running guns. They want the good people disarmed and they readily supply the criminals.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I suggest someone think about this.

Soldiers are GOVERNMENT employees who job is to shoot at people for a living.

So they can be trusted when they are shoveled off 10,000 miles away, but they can't be 'trusted' when they are here.

And that makes 'sense'.

WOW.


Think about this, we trust some really crazy people with guns and even give them a badge, a car, and pay them to go out and harass people, raid their homes and property, and from time to time murder them....



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Daedalus
just for reference, washington took command of a 13,000 man militia force during the whiskey rebellion....he led his troops into Pennsylvania, to quell the whiskey rebellion....a far more ballsy act than simply going to a place..


I know right..I'm being overly picky , it's not like it has been over 200 years since Washington was President.

If you really think what he did is comparable to the modern world then more power to you.



edit on 2014pAmerica/Chicago3009ppm by opethPA because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
140
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join