Community Chat

[raven-blackbird]

Until the investigation is complete........it's pudent to be suspect of any information........you have an article that says two..........I read one that said ONE

And the heart thing, that's just odd..................................raven

[dooBdoo]

---

raven-blackbird wrote:

Until the investigation is complete........it's pudent to be suspect of any information........you have an article that says two..........I read one that said ONE

And the heart thing, that's just odd..................................raven

---

I always question things, always have, always will.  Your information probably came before the official FBI release, and it's understandable that the facts are changing as more of the details are made public.  Hey, raven, no harm, no foul.

And as I said, I'm able to talk one-on-one with folks here locally who are involved in this tragic incident and the subsequent investigations.

The heart thing only takes time to grow accustomed to as with all the similar features on other social media.  (I wanted to add that I'm beginning to think those who are unfamiliar with using the other similar features I mentioned might be those who don't use other social media, so the concept seems strange to them.)   I think, as I've posted before, it only holds worrisome weight or meaning if we, personally, allow it to.  Most of us post replies to "ITAs," probably always will.  Not rocket science, that's for sure.(eta:  With many posts missing some of this makes less sense now.)

[dooBdoo]

---

dooBdoo wrote:

---

kittywhipped wrote:

doo....I find it a little confusing because of the following quote from the article in the news article I posted in my opening post but I of course believe what you are saying.

The Defense Department and the Army prohibit weapons from being inside recruiting offices. The Army Recruiting Battalion said via email, “In light of the attack, the Army will increase vigilance and review security measures, in particular at stand alone sites.”

---

Thanks, @kittywhipped.  I've been more personally involved in this event than I ever would've hoped to be.

There are numerous sources, but this is from the most recent press comments by the FBI:

"Two guns belonging to service members were recovered at the scene, he said; shots were fired from at least one. It's unclear if the gunman was hit by one of those weapons, Reinhold said. The military will investigate whether the service members were authorized to have those weapons."

(source:  http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/jul/22/live-updates-press-conference-chattanooga...

---

Again, my apologies for so much O/T, @foundinlv. 

I'll bring this foward to continue your valuable discussion.

[YorkieonmyPillow]

[PamfromCT]

Wanting to arm recruitment centers with volunteers is a flawed solution.

How are volunteers recruited?  what is the selection criteria?  How is this person to be trained in tactical matters?  What type of weapon do they intend to use?  How are their actual shooting skills measured?  Do they intend to commit to constant training as do many police?  As a civilian. Are they truly prepared to give up their life in a fight where they are outgunned?  What about their survivors?  Obviously, this type of service would void void any life insurance policy-how would survivors be compensated?  What if the volunteer is seriously wounded and needs lifelong care?  

What happens if the volunteer is armed with a Glock, and the shooter shows up wearing body armor and carrying a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle?  A really fast killing machine.  Please don't tell me volunteers will be using this combat type of weapon.  Hey, Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, managed to take out 26 souls in about 10 minutes with this weapon.  

I realize all mean well here.  No one can doubt our motives.  But I rather think the military should be allowed to carry whatever is appropriate, and to be further trained in this type of potential situation.  Beware of very simple solutions to very complex problems!

[Lila Belle]

The Army considers these "defenders" a security risk and has ordered that any interaction with the vigilantes is not permitted. They  have ordered the recuiters to inform police if anyone with a gun shows up to "protect" them.

Some of these people are Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters as well as members of other militia groups.

While some may cheer these folks as patriotic the US Army does not view it that way.

[Kachina624]

---

ITA!

There is a federal law that PROHIBITS soldiers from having weapons on US soil. It's the Posse Comitatus Act .

Either the law has to be changed, or STATE professional security can guard them.

BTW - one of the Navy men did have a weapon (a Glock) and fired back. He was very brave, drawing fire to keep other people safe. RIP.

---

That is  why we have highly trained police.  Are we going to put guards outside of every public business establishment in the U.S. Who knows where some nut will decide to shoot next?  I hear there was another movie theater shooting this evening.  Should all theaters have armed guards?  Schools? Malls? Universities?  Grocery stores?  Where does it end?  Cops can't be everywhere; we don't have enough and couldn't afford to pay them all.  Do we want a police state?

That sailor with the Glock is probably in big trouble, as he should be for disobeying orders