Advertisements
Home

USA Today Editors: Carrying Guns Won’t Make Military Safer

1 Comment

This is from Guns Save Lives.

The editorial staff f from Pravda U.S.A Today is a bunch of hysterical wussies and chicken littles.

They use many of the anti gun crowds buzzwords.

Like these fistfights escalating to gunfire more suicides.

The only thing left out was blood running in the streets.

 

It’s been my opinion, as well as the overwhelming opinion of our readers (see our poll on the issue) that military personnel should be able to carry firearms while working on US soil.

Military personnel are allowed to carry firearms when off-duty and off base as long as they adhere to local laws, so why not when they are most vulnerable – at work?

Several service members have spoken out in favor of carry, as well as one mother a Fort Hood soldier.

However, the editorial staff at USA Today thinks that idea is crazy and will only result in more deaths. According to an editorial on their website entitled, “Guns galore won’t make military bases safer: Our view“:

The overriding concern of those who wrote the rule was safety — the idea that ubiquitous guns, mixed with young soldiers in stressful conditions, could lead not just to accidental shootings but also to fistfights escalating to gunfire, or to more suicides, which already plague the military.

As horrific as mass shootings are at military installations, they’re rare. Starting with the 2009 spree at Fort Hood by Maj. Nidal Hasan, there have been three in five years…

…If the goal is more guns in capable hands, the military could arm soldiers willing to go through the same sort of training MPs have to undergo. That would be expensive, time consuming and steal attention from other duties. But it would be far safer than arming everyone all the time, and in some situations, it might work.

What do you think? Do you agree with the USA Today editorial team?

Advertisements

GOP Rep. Stockman Urges House to Repeal Gun Ban on Military Bases

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.

William Jefferson Clinton has as much of the dead from the Ft.Hood shootings as does the shooters.

We train military personnel how to use and maintain weapons  under combat conditions.

Yet on stateside military bases we disarm them.

 

The grievous shooting at Fort Hood Wednesday claimed three innocent lives and left 16 wounded—the deaths occurred in a gun-free zone due to former president Clinton’s 1993 policy to disarm soldiers on military bases.

The attack at Fort Hood lasted 15 minutes before military police arrived and exchanged fire with the shooter who then shot himself, according to theWall Street Journal.

“Only the most out-of-touch radical would try to disarm soldiers,” Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) noted in a press release. He urged House members Thursday to repeal the ban and support his “Safe Military Bases Act.”

 

 This is the third mass shooting on a military base in five years, and it’s because our trained soldiers aren’t allowed to carry defensive weapons. Anti-gun activists have turned our military bases into soft targets for killers. 

Only the most out-of-touch radical would try to disarm soldiers. It’s time to repeal this deadly anti-gun law before it creates another mass killing. This is another tragedy created by anti-gun activists. If members of Congress are protected by loaded automatic weapons in the Capitol they have no right to deny that right to trained soldiers on base.

In 1991, just six miles from Fort Hood, we suffered a mass shooting at a Luby’s cafeteria of civilians who by law had to leave their guns in their cars. Texas responded to this tragedy by passing a concealed carry bill allowing civilians to defend themselves in public. It’s time for Congress to allow soldiers to defend themselves on base before this happens again.

Stockman’s bill would repeal two military gun control regulations and nullify any additional provisions which prohibit trained military personnel from carrying “officially issued or personally owned firearms on military bases.”

It would also bar the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of military departments from reinforcing these types of regulations and bar the President from issuing an executive order.

As Emily Miller wrote in 2009 after the first Fort Hood shooting:

 

 It ishard to believe that we don’t trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton’s deadly rules even disarmed officers, the most trusted members of the military charged with leading enlisted soldiers in combat. 

What will it take for legislators to understand that allowing individuals (particularly highly trained military serviceman) to protect themselves is the surest way to promote safety and save lives?

 

Breaking News Another Ft.Hood Shooter

Leave a comment

This is from NBC5 DFW.

Is this another terrorist shouting allah at the snack bar?

Please Pray for the people who are the victims and their families.

 

Fort Hood locked down; everyone ordered to shelter in place.

 

Multiple people have been injured and the search for the gunman is underway after a shooting at Fort Hood Wednesday afternoon.

Reports of an active shooter triggered a lockdown at Fort Hood with local sheriff’s deputies and the FBI responding to the threat.

A U.S. Army official at Fort Hood confirms that a shooting has occurred at the base, though the number of people injured and the severity of their injuries has not been confirmed.

NBC News reports as many as eight people may be injured.

KCEN reports at least one person has been transported to an area hospital in an unknown condition and that possibly three others have been injured.

The shooting is believed to have taken place at the Medical Brigade Building. KCEN-TV reports there are also reports of victims at the Battle Simulation Center.

The shooter is believed to be at-large and the base is on lock down.  Just after 5 p.m., the base tweeted that all personnel are being asked to shelter in place, close doors and stay away from windows.

Additionally, the campus of Central Texas College has been evacuated due to the emergency at the Army post.  All personnel and students are asked to leave and all classes are canceled.

In November 2009, 13 people were killed and more than 30 others injured when Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire on dozens of people at the base. Hasan was paralyzed during an exchange of gunfire and, in late 2013, was sentenced to death.  He is currently awaiting execution.

 

In February, officials at the Central Texas Army post said the site of the 2009 massacre, a processing center also known as Building 42003, had been razed.

 

 

Obama’s military contempt: The outrageous treatment of Clint Lorance

1 Comment

This is from The Washington Times Communities.

Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance takes charge of his platoon

after his commander was killed.

He does what he needs to do by taking out a threat of being

set up for a motar attack.

Yet some dumbassed paper schuffler make up Bravo Serria

rules about combat to protect the enemy.

These morons have never fired a shot in combat of have even

been close to combat.

But they dictate the rules of combat.

 

A recent case against a young Army soldier shows once again how our military is under fire from all sides here at home.

Photo: Defend Veteran Lorance Organization

WASHINGTON, October 14, 2013 – If the fact that the Obama Administration has blocked aging veterans from visiting the World War II memorial and denied death gratuity benefits for fallen warriors doesn’t seem to indicate contempt for our military, how about this most recent story?

Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, a 28-year-old combat leader in the 82d Airborne Division from Celeste, Texas was recently found guilty of two counts of murder in Afghanistan and sentenced to 20 years in Ft. Leavenworth.


SEE RELATED: Fort Hood: The difference between Nidal Hasan and Aaron Nemelka


The story of First Lieutenant Lorance has not been covered by a single major media source.

In July 2012, Lorance was ordered to take command of a platoon in the southern Afghanistan province of Kandahar, a region where I also spent two and a half years training and advising the Afghan National Army. The platoon Lorance now commanded had lost its previous leader to enemy attack.

During a patrol in enemy territory, Lorance ordered a marksman to engage two unarmed Taliban fighters on a motorcycle operating as scout spotters.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, a common enemy tactic is for unarmed fighters on motorcycles with cell phones to track unit movements. In fact, enemy combatants had previously used the tactics against this same platoon.


SEE RELATED: Nidal Hasan: Let the law apply


Lorance, who was operating in a combat zone, saw the scout spotters and assessed them as a threat to his platoon. Aerial surveillance later backed up Lorance’s on-the-ground assessment.

It seems obvious that enemy scouts reporting a unit position and movements in order to facilitate an ambush would define “hostile intent.” But not according to the watered-down Rules of Engagement with which our warriors must contend.

In little more than a year, First Lieutenant Lorance was tried and sentenced to prison. Swift justice to be sure, but why then did it take four years to try and convict Nidal Malik Hasan, who fatally shot 13 and wounded more than 30 during his 2009 rampage at Ft Hood Texas?

The irony of the dilemma currently facing our troops, those who have volunteered to protect and defend our freedoms, is appalling. Shall they fight and kill the enemy but then risk imprisonment because of insidious rules by lawyers?


SEE RELATED: Obama’s actions make him unworthy of Commander in Chief title


Or shall they be killed and denied their rightful benefits for their families, because of insidious declarations by lawyers and politicians?

We are sending the wrong message to our enemies, and we are clearly sending the wrong message to those who would sacrifice their lives for our nation.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/allen-west-out-foxhole/2013/oct/14/more-outrageous-treatment-our-military/#ixzz2hwjlIfVw
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

MOMS DEMAND ACTION ATTEMPTS TO SHAME STAPLES TO BAN GUNS

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

They should call themselves Moms in Brown Shirts err Brown Skirts.

These broads need to get a life.

 

After their original letter to Staples CEO Ron Sargent fell on deaf ears, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is stepping up their efforts to shame Staples into banning guns in their stores.

As Breitbart News reported on September 26, Moms Demand Action tried to follow up on Starbucks‘ quasi-ban on open carry of firearms with a plea for Staples to ban guns altogether. But nothing has come of these efforts to date.

Digital Journal reports that Moms Demand Action is now stepping up their efforts. The gun control group has cited how “an accidental shooting in Staples earlier this year demonstrated just how dangerous the presence of guns can be” to call for a store-wide ban.

What Moms Demand Action does not say is that the “accidental shooting” was not a crime–no one in the store was injured other than the gun owner who shot herself in the hand, and the police filed no criminal charges.

Nevertheless, Moms Demand Action remains focused on Staples. They are calling on the office supply retail chain “to immediately” become a gun free zone by “[enacting] a policy to ban guns from all of its stores nationwide.”

This demand ignores the danger law-abiding citizens face when placed in a situation where they are required to be disarmed; see Ft. Hood, the Aurora movie theater, and the D.C. Navy Yard. In such gun-free zones, criminals know they face no opposition and no threat of facing a victim who is capable of defending himself or herself.

 

Politicians and Gun Free Zones To Blame For Another Tragedy

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

Gun Free Zones mean a target rich environment.

Dumb assed laws like passed by Bill Clinton make are military personnel targets.

What a dumb ass our military unarmed on base. 

 

Though the investigation continues, there are several things we already know  about this shooting: It happened in a ‘Gun Free Zone’, it was carried out by a  disturbed individual and finally of course, the liberal left and the media are  demanding more ‘gun-control’, the very thing that contributed to the deaths of  some 12 innocent people.

You would think that after the terrorist attack at Fort Hood when a devout  Muslim Major Nidal Hasan, walked into a U.S. Army pre-deployment center and  conducted his own personal jihad against uniformed service members; 12 murdered,  31 wounded, we would have learned from our mistakes. We did not, in fact our  government made conditions worse.

In his September 13, 2011, TheTacticalWire.com article titled : Voices  From the Field — Domestic Terrorist vs. Our Troops: They don’t stand a  chance, Paul G. Markel laid it on the line with his biting commentary about  how political correctness had contributed to the numbers of innocents killed.  Markel became a United States Marine in 1987. He has spent his entire adult life  in the service of this nation during times of war and peace as a Marine, Police  Officer, and Small Arms and Tactics instructor.

‘In the aftermath the nation was in shock. Many of my family members and  acquaintances were stunned to learn that Hasan was able to walk through the  crowded hall unchecked and fire shot after shot. “How could this happen?” a  family member asked me. “Why didn’t the soldiers shoot back?” The answer was  shocking to those outside of military circles but patently obvious to those of  us who have been there. Every soldier in the center was unarmed. Hasan’s murder  spree was only stopped after two CIVILIAN security officers arrived on scene and  shot him…Disarming the warriors is not a new trend. It has been ongoing since  long before I earned the Eagle, Globe and Anchor. While on active duty I was a  member of the Marine Security Forces Battalion. We were tasked with overseeing  the security of nuclear weapons both on land and sea. As a Corporal of the Guard  I was in charge of the Detachment Armory that contained M-60 machine-guns, M-16  and M-14 rifles, M203 grenade launchers and thousands of rounds of  ammunition.

During duty hours I wore a loaded sidearm and issued pistols, shotgun, and  rifles to my troops. Nonetheless, we were forbidden to possess personally owned  firearms and even our personally owned Ka-Bar fighting knives had to be locked  in a safe in the 1st Sergeants office. Yes, I was trusted with the security of  myriad nuclear weapons but could not be trusted to keep a fighting knife in my  locker.

In the year 2011 with an ongoing war against terrorists worldwide you’d think  the situation would have changed and that every service member would be trained  and armed to fight off attack at any time. Having spent three years (2007 to  2010) teaching small arms and tactics to troops preparing for overseas  deployment to combat I can testify to the fact that is at least as bad if not  worse.’ – Markel

Another contributing factor brought to light by a news organization:  Aaron Alexis, the ex-Navy reservist who killed 12 in the massacre at  Washington Navy Yard, had been treated for mental issues including paranoia, a  sleep disorder and had been hearing voices. Politicians choose to ignore  the part mental illness plays in these mass killings, unless the murderer fits  their profile, and it would be politically advantageous to point it out. For  example, there have been numerous cases in the past where the media has  incorrectly reported that the shooter was: Christian, white, veteran, NRA  supporter, conservative…not the typical profile of one of these mass  murderers.

Then there is the villianization of the gun; but not just any gun, it’s that  evil AR-15! Just to be clear, Alexis did NOT carry an AR with him to the killing  spree: A shotgun and two handguns were recovered.

Washington, D.C. has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country,  yet they did absolutely nothing to stop the killing. Regardless of this, right  on cue, politicians and anti-gun pundits demand more ‘gun-control’, disarming  law-abiding citizens and allowing killers to wrack up the body counts. We don’t  need more gun-control, we as Americans want our God-given right to  self-defense!

Read more: KODM.com

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/politicians-gun-free-zones-blame-another-tragedy/#2xxQZXH2EIAjGqR7.99

 

Are “Smart” Guns, a “Smart” Idea?

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

Smart guns are being tested under ideal conditions.

These smart guns needs to be tested under the conditions that

happen in real life.

Rain,snow,sleet dirt,mud and blood.

A JPFO alert from 2000 also relates to this subject in considerable detail.
Read “Dead Batteries Make Dead People“.
Plus, a related item from 1996 – “Smart Gun – Dumb Idea

Analysis and interrogatory by Charles Heller,
Executive Director, JPFO, 7/17/13

Writer Megan Neal, of motherboard.vice.com blog, bemoans the fact that there is no U.S. Market, for “smart” guns. One must be left to wonder why that is… Let’s delve into it a little…

Her first assertion is that “the technology is here.” Yes, there are “working models” available, but is the technology really “here?”

Is that technology as reliable as a revolver? The manufacturer of the “Trigger Smart Technology,” which she quotes and to which she leaves us the url, demonstrates his technology installed on semi-automatics. Is there a such thing as one for revolvers?

Would any of the massacres in Tucson, Virginia Tech, Newtown, or Fort Hood, been any less accomplishable with several revolvers, and a few speed loaders? (A speed loader allows one to reload a revolver at about the same rate as a semi-automatic.)

Next, the manufacturer demonstrates his technology using an external device containing an RFID chip, which must be placed against the gun in order to release the safety. Said chip can be embedded into a ring, or possibly installed under the skin. Now what if the ring or the chip is in the left hand, and you need to shoot right-handed? What if the hand with the RFID chi is encumbered in the fight of your life to fend off your opponent in a deadly force encounter? Will you ask him to attack from your non-gun side?

OK, ok, so we need TWO RFID chips. Well, that’s understandable.

Have any of the people reading this article, ever needed to hand a gun to someone else, for any legitimate purpose? Are any of the people reading this article, firearms instructors who lend their guns to students? Does anyone reading this, teach firearms safety to children? If someone walks off with the gun, do you want that person to also walk off with the key to it? How do you control the chip, and still control the gun at the same time?

The technology runs on a battery-powered chip. All well and good; modern batteries last a long time, and as long as you remember to change the batteries once a year, that should not pose a problem. Hopefully….

Have any of you ever fallen into a significant amount of water, with your battery powered cell phone? What happens to the electronics? Are all self-defense situations in dry, hospitable climates? What happens to your battery-powered device in a marine or snowy environment, when you take your inevitable spill?

One of the alleged “selling features” of the device, is that “the system has the ability to create ‘safe zones’ in certain areas such as schools where smart guns coming into the area will be disabled remotely.” An RFID transmitter could “turn off your gun.”

The idea here is that schools and “sensitive” areas, would have RFID transmitters installed to shut off your gun. So let’s say you have a permit that allows you to be in a school with said gun, and a madman attacks. The “crazy” person was just sane enough to disconnect the wires of the device in HIS gun, so the school’s RFID transmitter does not affect his, but yours is disabled. Or the bad guy just switches to a baseball bat, which is far more lethal than a handgun, and you have what, a 2 lb Smith and Wesson short club? Hmmmm.

Let me ask a literate audience a question: if illegal handguns are fairly easy to obtain, almost anywhere in the country, how hard would it be to acquire an RFID chip to unlock said guns? For that matter, how hard would it be to steal a gun with its chip in the box, thereby totally defeating the system?

As a gun owner, do you find it troubling at all, that a signal could “turn off your gun?” Why is it right now that only 15% of people in this country trust their government to do the right thing? – (CNN Poll: Trust in government at all time low). Really, what could possibly go wrong with a government plan to shut off the civilians’ guns? After all, isn’t this “for the children?”

OK, ok, so maybe the RFID chip isn’t the be all and end all of this technology. Let’s look at biometric identifiers. Let’s say that we develop technology that “knows your hand.” Ah, there’sthe ticket!

Miss Neal speaks of “sensors that identify fingerprints, hand geometry, eye scans and biological features to authenticate the owner of a gun a la James Bond’s gun in “Skyfall” that’s been coded to his palm print.”

Ahem. Even in “Skyfall“, a significant number of good guys get iced, because they could not defend themselves properly. Part of the reason for that in the movie, is that a knowledgeable bad guy, hacks the system. Nah, THAT could never happen.

In “Skyfall“, the agents who are killed, are all highly trained. They die because they could not use their weapons to defend themselves, and the bad guys pose as good guys. Now you want to complicate their weaponry? Nah, that could never happen either. OK, let’s bring it back to reality with an example that more people are familiar with.

Evidence shows that George Zimmerman was being held to the ground and beaten by Trayvon Martin when Zimmerman shot Martin, in an act of legal self-defense. During that scuffle, if Mr. Zimmerman’s gun had become full of dirt and grass, would the biometric telemetry, still have read his palm print? Some say that that would have been a better result if it didn’t, but would it have been so for the criminal assailant, or the victim?

This writer has been teaching the legal use of force in self-defense in state certified classes for almost 18 years. As such, many cases of the use of force have come under study. How often in a life or death struggle, does the defender not have a firm grip on his defensive tool while he is fighting for his or her life?

There have been many malfunctions of semi-autos, as people grapple with another and cannot obtain a firm purchase on the piece. Will that same loose grip, cause the biometric identifier not to work? When the defender is forced to shoot by the actions of his assailant, what would be the consequences of a “click,” instead of a “bang?” Would the now deactivated gun, make a good battering ram against the head of the defender when the enraged perpetrator removes it from the custody of its owner, after a technology induced malfunction?

Next Miss Neal asserts that, “Some people argue that even if all guns came equipped with the latest personal lock technology, it would only make a tiny dent in gun violence, since the vast majority of gun deaths aren’t caused by accidents, but by people firing their legal weapon.”

That statement is an act of journalistic malfeasance, bordering on an outright lie. The truth is so discoverable. Look at the FBI’s statistics in the Uniform Crime Reports. Look at the Bureau of Justice Statistics figures. People with an existing felony record, or with a gun that was not obtained legally, commit the VAST majority of felony crimes in the U.S. Many such crimes are committed by people who are not of age to legally own a gun.

Compare that to the crime record of people who take the legal steps necessary to own and carry guns. You will find out that a VERY small percentage of people who jump through the legal hoops, ever do anything wrong.

Near the end of her article, Miss Neal states, “If the gun industry won’t budge, it could take a government mandate to get people to buy personalized guns.” Well why not??? After all, it took a government mandate to get them to buy the health care that they did not want. What could possibly go wrong???

(See related article) Personalized weaponry
Hardly Anyone Is Buying ‘Smart Guns’
By Meghan Neal

Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors

Leave a comment

This is from The New York Post.

Bravery and a pair of scissors will not stop a bad guy with a gun.

You stop a bad guy with a gun have having a good guy with a gun.

 

WASHINGTON — Is your workplace getting shot up by a crazed gunman?

No problem — just grab a pair of scissors and fight back!

That’s some of the helpful advice in a new instructional video from the Department of Homeland Security that was posted on the agency’s Web site just a month after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

“If you are caught out in the open and cannot conceal yourself or take cover, you might consider trying to overpower the shooter with whatever means are available,” says the narrator in the video, which shows an office worker pulling scissors out of a desk drawer.

DUCK AND CUTTER: A Homeland Security video shows these scenes as helpful advice to workers on what to do if a mass killer strikes their office — grab any weapon at hand, and hide under a desk.

DUCK AND CUTTER: A Homeland Security video shows these scenes as helpful advice to workers on what to do if a mass killer strikes their office — grab any weapon at hand, and hide under a desk.

The video, titled “Options for Consideration,” also advises that people who get caught in an “active shooter” situation should run away, hide under a desk or take cover out of the line of fire.

The nearly four-minute-long video opens with chilling scenes from the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, and the 2011 attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.

But the video quickly shifts to hokey footage of office workers scampering under desks, crouching in corners and racing into closets to hide from a rampaging gunman on the loose.

“To protect your hiding place, lock the door if you can. Block the door with heavy furniture,” recommends the male narrator, speaking in measured, authoritative tones.

Other survival strategies promoted in the video include hiding “behind large items such as cabinets or desks. Remain quiet. Silence your cellphone or pager. Even the vibration setting can give away a hiding position.”

Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, said he has a better option for consideration than a pair of scissors when confronting an armed mass murderer — a legal firearm.

“That’s why I prefer a gun, and I usually do carry a gun when it is lawful to do so,” said Feldman. “Clearly, you use whatever you can” to fight for your life, he said.

So if scissors are all you’ve got, grab them by all means.

The video is part of the Obama administration’s ongoing campaign to reduce firearm violence in the wake of the horrific mass murder last month of 20 children and six teachers in Newtown, Conn., said a Homeland Security official.

Homeland Security has operated an active-shooter preparedness-training program for years, and the “Options for Consideration” video was in production prior to the Dec. 14 shooting in Newtown.

The video was released to coincide with President Obama’s sweeping proposals to curb gun violence in America, said the official.

Obama’s most controversial proposals include a ban on military-style assault rifles and high-capacity ammo clips, as well as expanded background checks for firearm purchases.

Security consultant Andrew Scott called the information in the video “adequate.”

He conceded that Homeland Security was correct in recommending that people use scissors to attack a gunman but only in a “last, worst-case scenario.”

“Just the suggestion [to fight back] is a positive move,” said Scott, a former SWAT commander in North Miami Beach. “You don’t want to be sheep for the slaughter.”

But if you do arm yourself with shears, the narrator warns you to drop them when cops arrive.

“Put down any items. Immediately raise your hands,” is the closing advice.

 

OBAMA DOCTRINE: FT. HOOD WAS NOT TERRORISM, WOUNDED SOLDIERS GET NO BENEFITS

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbart’s Big Peace.

It is real simple Obama does not believe Muslims are not terrorist.

Obama thinks only Americans commit terrorism.

Obama thinks only Americans are hate filled.

He feels his bother Muslims are peaceful followers of the Koran.

When is actuality Muslims are murdering seventh century savages.

The victims at Fort Hood are being victimized twice.

First by this Muslim scumbag and second by the government.

Victims of the Nov. 2009 Ft. Hood shooting are being denied benefits commensurate with combat injuries because the Obama administration refuses to label the attack an act of terrorism.

Instead, the shooting Maj. Nidal Hasan carried out after screaming “Allahu Akbar” it is still being labeled “workplace violence.”

The difference between labeling the incident “workplace violence” and “terrorism” is not only the rightful recognition 13 of our troops deserve for being killed in service to their country on Nov. 5, 2009, but also ongoing benefits that would help survivors pay for the physical therapy, and other medical and psychological treatments that might be necessary to a full recovery.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has openly stated that the shooting, which took place in his state, was an act of terrorism and that the president such recognize it as such. He said, “President Obama’s refusal to call it an act of terror is a shining example of this administration’s devotion to political correctness over the defense of our men and women in uniform.”

 

 

Army soldier tries to cure hiccups, shoots friend

1 Comment

This is from Yahoo News.

Patrick Myers is a dumb ass.

He forgot the basic rules of firearms safety.

His friend Issac Young is dead.

Patrick is headed for prison.

Two live ruined.

Jeff Cooper‘s Rules of Gun Safety

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

An attempt to cure a case of hiccups has left one U.S. Army soldier dead and another behind bars.

According to the Killeen Daily Herald, 22-year-old Pfc. Isaac Lawrence Young  was hiccuping while watching football on Sunday night with fellow soldier Spc. Patrick Edward Myers, 27.

In an apparent attempt to scare him and make the hiccups go away, Myers allegedly pointed a handgun at Young’s face and pulled the trigger. The newspaper said Myers told police he thought the gun was loaded with dummy rounds.

Young, a motor transport operator from Missouri, was struck in the eye and died en route to the hospital.

“Weapons are nothing to be played with, especially handguns, and when that happens, it doesn’t come out good,” Carroll Smith of the Killeen Police Department told KXXV-TV in Waco. “Unfortunately somebody lost their life over this.”

Police said the men had been drinking alcohol before the shooting. Myers was charged with manslaughter. A judge set his bond at $1 million.

Both men were stationed at Fort Hood in Central Texas.

Young had been a soldier for 16 months. The Army says his awards and decorations include the National Defense Service Medal and Army Service Ribbon.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: