TexasCHLforum.com

BaldEagle... FYI.. Looks like your reply was posted to the DMN site in it's entirety..

baldeagle
7:16 PM on 6/19/2011

bronco78 wrote:

jimlongley wrote:My reply:

You hit the nail right on the head, unfortunately it was one sentence buried way toward the end of the article: "Due to Army rules, he had every reason to believe no one else would be armed." In other words, he was alone in a target rich environment, a shooting gallery sponsored by the US Army.

again, no sir i respectfully disagree.. again, still, this is not an ARMY policy, but a presidential one.

Note that I was referring to HER statement, not agreeing with her or saying it was true. Read a little more carefully, all I did was restate her statement "in other words."

bronco78 wrote:

jimlongley wrote:
As an officer, Hassam was required to regularly qualify with the service handgun,

No sir, as an officer in general he would have been required to qualify at most annually, no more, and that is with a basic rifle OR M9 not specifically a M9 only. I have many officers in our DIV HQ that are issued only an M16 or M4.

Secondarily as a Doc, he would not in general been required to do even that unless deploying. Im aware of what the regs say, annual, regardless of rank, enlistments, officer or duty position. I also know from 25 years of contiguous service reality is, most DOC's, and many officers in general of flag rank and higher, do not bother qualifying annually.

Note that I said "required" which IS what the regs say. If they ignore the regs, then that's another issue, but the regs say it, so I did not misstate anything except maybe the "service handgun" part, which, considering her own lack of veracity, is acceptable hyperbole.

bronco78 wrote:

jimlongley wrote: As a military officer, Hassan would have been exempt from the restrictions imposed on civilians.

No sir, Military members in no way have ever been given an exception from any state or federal law when it comes to weapons control, restriction.
So unless your talking about military weapons available from an Arms room (something that is very controlled and would not have gotten him a weapon to use in this manner) than your mistaken

Actually I know of several state laws that exempt active duty military from state firearms laws, which was how I got away with carrying a .45 on the streets of Manhattan while stopping for coffee during a trip from Brooklyn to NJ. NY just changed its law, in the last couple of years, to include the phrase "in pursuit of official duty or when duly authorized by federal law, regulation or order to possess the same." where it used to merely state "(d) Persons in the military or other service of the United States" thereby closing a loophole that never really existed.

"High capacity" magazines were exempted under the late, unlamented "Assault Weapons Ban" for police and military. Once again, my statement to her was based on her own article, not the absolute facts, which, as I pointed out, would have led to a longer missive, much less likely to be even read, much less published. My objective was not only to let her know that she was erroneous in several respects, but to try to get the letter published, which means that it must be size limited and stick generally to a single facet of the article mentioned.

bronco78 wrote:

jimlongley wrote:


It didn't matter which gun Hassan used, he would have killed many, and he deserves to be stood in front of a firing squad.

Jim Longley

Absolutely agree.

To Jim Longley and others who read this reply, nothing I said above is meant as a flame, just trying to keep misconceptions or other mistaken opinion from clouding the issue. In this very thread we have cast stones on a publication which made mistakes in there "facts" I figured we should strive for the same error free reply's as possible.

I will refrain from starting a flame war pointing out your own errors.

tacticool wrote:It's interesting that some people think the tool used is more important than his religious or other motivations.

This is not a truck forum, but I think most people here are logical enough not to focus on the make and model of the vehicle used for the UNC terrorist attack.

See I knew we need to ban SUV's. Any felon can get one of these at any car show and kill dozens. When will we pass common sense laws !!

WE NEED TO CLOSE THE CAR SHOW LOOPHOLE NOW!

Ed4032 wrote:

tacticool wrote:It's interesting that some people think the tool used is more important than his religious or other motivations.

This is not a truck forum, but I think most people here are logical enough not to focus on the make and model of the vehicle used for the UNC terrorist attack.

See I knew we need to ban SUV's. Any felon can get one of these at any car show and kill dozens. When will we pass common sense laws !!

Nobody NEEDS a high capacity death machine...I mean high occupancy car.

You know, that's not too far off from what the enviro-whackos are saying.

RoyGBiv wrote:BaldEagle... FYI.. Looks like your reply was posted to the DMN site in it's entirety..

baldeagle
7:16 PM on 6/19/2011

I did that myself. I'm hoping that the letter will be printed in the paper as well, but I suspect that even if it is it will be edited down to almost nothing.