yeah. like the south park episode satirizing the insanity of 'duck and cover'. or George Carlin's bit on making kids hide curled up under their school desks when a nuke siren went off, during the Cold War, in the fifties and sixties.

one more thing to illustrate the bizarre surreal nature of the '93 Clinton ban on weapons on military bases....... consider this: a soldier in Fort Hood who lives in Texas; who has a civilian carry permit; cannot carry a firearm when on the military base, but when he goes off base to see a movie with his girlfriend he can carry his private firearm! 

are you for real?
"Arguing procedures, policies, and politics is plain stupid."?
"Responsibility for what happened rests squarely on the shooter, Ivan Lopez."?
what bubble do you live in?

If you knew Kate, you probably wouldn't be spewing your vitriol then feign respect. Don't be fooled by her drunk college pic....Her "bubble" is that of a well educated soldier who knows military law, Army regs, policies, and procedures.  But seeing as only a few took issue enough to comment on what she wrote...Perhaps you've completely misinterpreted or just don't understand. I read it as arguing or politicizing the matter is pointless. And I'd have to agree because capitalizing on a tragedy to push an agenda is despicable. It is tactic better left to the gun grabbers, we are better than that.

And just FYI: Policies and restrictions on the personally owned firearms of service members has been an installation commanders prerogative long before 1993.  Clinton only standardized directives that started in the mid/late '80's.

If you knew Kate, you probably wouldn't be spewing your vitriol then feign respect. Don't be fooled by her drunk college pic....Her "bubble" is that of a well educated soldier who knows military law, Army regs, policies, and procedures.  But seeing as only a few took issue enough to comment on what she wrote...Perhaps you've completely misinterpreted or just don't understand. I read it as arguing or politicizing the matter is pointless. And I'd have to agree because capitalizing on a tragedy to push an agenda is despicable. It is tactic better left to the gun grabbers, we are better than that.

And just FYI: Policies and restrictions on the personally owned firearms of service members has been an installation commanders prerogative long before 1993.  Clinton only standardized directives that started in the mid/late '80's.

spewing vitriol? 
feign respect?
take it easy with the hyperbolic melodrama.

1) I'm using tapatalk so I dont see her pic nor her gender; my comments were based solely on the content of the post. 

2) The only vitriol spewed was towards politicians and lawmakers; not towards the poster; unless you consider colloquially asking someone if they live in a bubble, vitriolic. 

3) regarding the bubble.........presumably, anyone on a forum dedicated to preservation of the Second Amendment should be acutely aware of how gun-control politicians, lawmakers and lobbyists collectively create circumstances in which murderers can commit their crimes against people who have been rendered defenseless by the gun-control agenda.

therefore, someone on this forum stating that the shooter at Fort Hood is solely responsible, and that someone like me, also blaming politicians et al is "stupid", must be either stupid themselves; grotesquely naïve; or just a trolling bleeding heart liberal statist, trying to circle the wagons to protect those who are additionally responsible for these acts.

considering all those possible options, I concluded 'the poster' was naïve. and a naive person - one who refuses to recognize uncomfortable realities; one who is unaware of how the gun-control agenda is precisely why people are left defenseless against mass shooters - is someone you might say lives in a bubble. if that's not the case they should've spoken more carefully. I can only response to what was said.

anyways, three recent mass murders on domestic military bases; one ironically stopped by a civilian police officer; all because of DOD bureaucrats' policies; and I'm stupid to point that out? 

and American soldiers - in a friggin war zone - murdered by 'friendlies' because of the same DOD bureaucrats' policies; and I should only blame the shooter - lest I be stupid - as she clearly stated?  please.

4) if the poster is as educated and knowledgeable as you say, and didn't mean what they wrote, then once again, they should've written something different; they should've chosen their words more thoughtfully.

5) contrary to what you said, I didn't misunderstand her at all; I read what she wrote and responded to precisely that. you on the other hand are presuming to read between the lines and extract a different meaning from her otherwise very clear post.

6) stating that I am politicizing a tragedy - as liberals do - is wrong and out-of-place emotionalization. if you both think that pointing out the gun-control insanity of disarming soldiers on a military base, and essentially telling them to hide under their school desks when the shit hits the fan, is just "despicable / politicizing / capitalizing" on a tragedy, you are BOTH naïve - if that is more palatable then "living in a bubble".

saying what I did....to a victims family member? that would be out of place. but saying it here; on a 2a forum; where people go specifically to intelligently voice their disgust at the pervasive, deadly effects of the gun-control agenda?  that is precisely appropriate.  I don't react to these events by platitudinously suggesting we ignore the 'cause', and rather gather in a circle to hold hands and pray in a candle-lit vigil - I get infuriated at those who force us into victimhood.

7) curiously, you even want to split hairs to seemingly defend the indefensible effects of the gun-control agenda in our military: you said Clinton only standardized directives that were started in the 80s regarding "personally owned firearms". for the record the idea dates to the last year of Bush #1, but it was a lefty gun-control idea and was codified explicitly by/under Clinton. his DOD forbade soldiers from carrying personal ('civilian') weapons on military bases; from freely carrying their military issued weapons; and even made it virtually impossible for commanders to issue weapons to soldiers for personal defense. The DOD language even includes similar insane gun-control bullshit you hear in HRS requirements;  words like "...unless a credible and specific threat against personnel in that region..." read it!

not withstanding being 'called' stupid, when I said "with all due respect", that was not feigned; that was genuine.  I didn't know anything about the poster; I didn't think they were being malicious or offensive; I thought the statements were coming from a person with a good heart; but were nonetheless naïve and inexplicable from someone on a pro-Second Amendment forum.

again.....with all due respect.

.

I'm used to dealing with random ignorance in the 2A community but appreciate your trying to respond on my behalf.

3) regarding the bubble.........presumably, anyone on a forum dedicated to preservation of the Second Amendment should be acutely aware of how gun-control politicians, lawmakers and lobbyists collectively create circumstances in which murderers can commit their crimes against people who have been rendered defenseless by the gun-control agenda.

therefore, someone on this forum stating that the shooter at Fort Hood is solely responsible, and that someone like me, also blaming politicians et al is "stupid", must be either stupid themselves; grotesquely naïve; or just a trolling bleeding heart liberal statist, trying to circle the wagons to protect those who are additionally responsible for these acts.

considering all those possible options, I concluded 'the poster' was naïve. and a naive person - one who refuses to recognize uncomfortable realities; one who is unaware of how the gun-control agenda is precisely why people are left defenseless against mass shooters - is someone you might say lives in a bubble. if that's not the case they should've spoken more carefully. I can only response to what was said.

I'm a very direct person. If I'm going to call someone stupid, it would've included a quote followed by a "YOU ARE STUPID " just so there is no mistaking to whom a comment is directed. However since that is not what was written, perhaps you should attempt reading with an understanding and open mind. Assuming an offensive mindset every time you read something you don't like is one of the biggest problems with online socialization. This is a 2A forum. We are adults and (should) at least have that common interest, so I don't see why one would go around attacking others for any reason.

You're reading into things. I wrote 3 very clear statements.  And a lack of comprehension made you get a wild hair up wherever. From your history, it seems to be a common issue so perhaps the problem isn't that others?

4) if the poster is as educated and knowledgeable as you say, and didn't mean what they wrote, then once again, they should've written something different; they should've chosen their words more thoughtfully.

I meant every word of my 3 sentences. It was simple and to the point, there is no hidden meaning. So it is really not my fault you have problems understanding.

5) contrary to what you said, I didn't misunderstand her at all; I read what she wrote and responded to precisely that. you on the other hand are presuming to read between the lines and extract a different meaning from her otherwise very clear post.

A combination of definitions from 2 sources (Cambridge and Merriam-Webster)
stu·pid adj \ˈstü-pəd, ˈstyü-\
1. lacking though or intelligence, having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things
2. insensible or not logical; pointless
3. unable to think normally because you are drunk, tired, etc.

You presumed the meaning from what was a "otherwise very clear post."

saying what I did....to a victims family member? that would be out of place. but saying it here; on a 2a forum; where people go specifically to intelligently voice their disgust at the pervasive, deadly effects of the gun-control agenda?  that is precisely appropriate.  I don't react to these events by platitudinously suggesting we ignore the 'cause', and rather gather in a circle to hold hands and pray in a candle-lit vigil - I get infuriated at those who force us into victimhood.

And here is the problem of it all. That is exactly what you did here. My brother was one of the 32 that survived the 2009 attack.  Back then I didn't give a damn about the "shoulda, coulda, woulda's" of keyboard politicians/policy makers who rambled about what would "fix" things.  And I still don't now.  Of course you couldn't have known, then again, this is an accessible public forum and you should know better.
 
Note that I never used the word "victim", nor would I ever when referring to American Soldier (or Marine, Sailor, Airman). Doing so dishonors our service and the core of "who we are and why we do".  You obviously would not understand because if I had to guess you have never served.


I don't know why I bothered responding. From your post history, you are clearly one of those irrational types with online rage issues who allows a hatred for some politicians or policies to blind you into thinking everything you say or feel is right and everyone else is just wrong (Yes, my degrees qualify me to make the assessment). But you have a right to your opinions and can carry on if you wish. This topic is closed for me.

.