quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

Completely irrelevant. RTFC.

I'm curious. Why do you think a private entity can, as you say, on their property, but Uncle Sam can't on HIS property? I'm wondering about your thought process.

I think that refers to the fact that when you enter the service you sign paperwork agreeing to follow orders and that on most bases the orders are that only MPs/SPs are authorized to run about the base carrying weapons.
That may have changed on a lot of bases though since the Fort Hood incident. It's up to the base commander to set that sort of policy, but it has been traditionally prohibited on base whenever we were not in active wartime conditions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

Completely irrelevant. RTFC.

I'm curious. Why do you think a private entity can, as you say, on their property, but Uncle Sam can't on HIS property? I'm wondering about your thought process.

I think that refers to the fact that when you enter the service you sign paperwork agreeing to follow orders and that on most bases the orders are that only MPs/SPs are authorized to run about the base carrying weapons.
That may have changed on a lot of bases though since the Fort Hood incident. It's up to the base commander to set that sort of policy, but it has been traditionally prohibited on base whenever we were not in active wartime conditions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

Completely irrelevant. RTFC.

I'm curious. Why do you think a private entity can, as you say, on their property, but Uncle Sam can't on HIS property? I'm wondering about your thought process.

I think that refers to the fact that when you enter the service you sign paperwork agreeing to follow orders and that on most bases the orders are that only MPs/SPs are authorized to run about the base carrying weapons.
That may have changed on a lot of bases though since the Fort Hood incident. It's up to the base commander to set that sort of policy, but it has been traditionally prohibited on base whenever we were not in active wartime conditions.

I remember that I learned how to swim on the Davis Monthan Air Base and was told I was born on the air base in Rome, New York. I'm pretty sure that while I never signed any papers to follow Air Force orders they would have frowned on me carrying a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

i don't disagree that the left bases their decisions more on feelings than on rational thought and that's one of the things that makes conversing with them absolutely maddening.

however that said, at some point, if one never progresses much past "because feelings" we remain perpetually mired in a state akin to a teen-age girl going through puberty.

Laughable bollocks coming from someone who wants to get people banned because they have hurt his feelings.

Bounty, forever akin to a teenage girl going through puberty. ( Sexist crap if ever I saw it )

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

Completely irrelevant. RTFC.

I'm curious. Why do you think a private entity can, as you say, on their property, but Uncle Sam can't on HIS property? I'm wondering about your thought process.

I think that refers to the fact that when you enter the service you sign paperwork agreeing to follow orders and that on most bases the orders are that only MPs/SPs are authorized to run about the base carrying weapons.
That may have changed on a lot of bases though since the Fort Hood incident. It's up to the base commander to set that sort of policy, but it has been traditionally prohibited on base whenever we were not in active wartime conditions.

I remember that I learned how to swim on the Davis Monthan Air Base and was told I was born on the air base in Rome, New York. I'm pretty sure that while I never signed any papers to follow Air Force orders they would have frowned on me carrying a gun.

While you didn't sign the papers your parents who did were obligated to see to it you followed base regs that affected you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I have to point out that the United States of America is just about the only place in the world that it is deemed acceptable to bring offensive weapons to a public march.

I know that you guys have a unique perspective on this subject, and I respect that, but almost everywhere in the world that the rule of law holds being part of an armed group on the streets would practically guarantee a forceful police or military response. I'm not a big fan of private citizens carrying guns, except when hunting or involved in sport, but when it is as part of an armed group claiming to be demonstrating peacefully it seems a bit absurd. Carrying a gun for self protection is very different from making it clear that you are armed while you are demonstrating.

Just one other thought. A car rams into a crowd of people with the explicit intent of causing serious injury in Europe and it is terrorism. I am struggling to see why this is any different.

I've legally carried guns for years. I believe the city, county, state has every right to exclude carrying guns at any gathering they permit. Well, unless it was a Faternal Order of Police picnic. I have no problem with them checking of guns among protesters. I have no problem with your concept of the rule of law of armed groups on the streets. Anyone that wanted an armed group for a demonstration then could decide whether or not to attend the "peaceful" demonstration. As an aside, where I live, if the sheriff showed up on my property and expected me not to be armed he'd be foolish.

well then you have a fucked up belief system since the gubmint has no rights what so ever, they have 'authority' granted by the people, not one spec more.

So you are part of the problem not the solution, and promote the destruction of the constitution for some unknown whatever you think is better with complete disregard to the fact that the bill of rights is fire tested over thousands of years how to prevent the overlords from taking over, and you just hand it to them on a platter.

The second applies liberty, thqat is the carrying of arms outside your property.

Well, igit, did you notice where I said city, county or state? Did you read that part of the constitution that says powers not enumerated to the Feds belong to the states? Are you aware of the state laws that delicate to cities and counties? Can you tell me how anything you said has anything to do with the powers of city, counties or states?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

Completely irrelevant. RTFC.

I'm curious. Why do you think a private entity can, as you say, on their property, but Uncle Sam can't on HIS property? I'm wondering about your thought process.

I think that refers to the fact that when you enter the service you sign paperwork agreeing to follow orders and that on most bases the orders are that only MPs/SPs are authorized to run about the base carrying weapons.
That may have changed on a lot of bases though since the Fort Hood incident. It's up to the base commander to set that sort of policy, but it has been traditionally prohibited on base whenever we were not in active wartime conditions.

I remember that I learned how to swim on the Davis Monthan Air Base and was told I was born on the air base in Rome, New York. I'm pretty sure that while I never signed any papers to follow Air Force orders they would have frowned on me carrying a gun.

While you didn't sign the papers your parents who did were obligated to see to it you followed base regs that affected you.

I'm not sure that back then they made a decent holster that fit over diapers anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I have to point out that the United States of America is just about the only place in the world that it is deemed acceptable to bring offensive weapons to a public march.

I know that you guys have a unique perspective on this subject, and I respect that, but almost everywhere in the world that the rule of law holds being part of an armed group on the streets would practically guarantee a forceful police or military response. I'm not a big fan of private citizens carrying guns, except when hunting or involved in sport, but when it is as part of an armed group claiming to be demonstrating peacefully it seems a bit absurd. Carrying a gun for self protection is very different from making it clear that you are armed while you are demonstrating.

Just one other thought. A car rams into a crowd of people with the explicit intent of causing serious injury in Europe and it is terrorism. I am struggling to see why this is any different.

I've legally carried guns for years. I believe the city, county, state has every right to exclude carrying guns at any gathering they permit. Well, unless it was a Faternal Order of Police picnic. I have no problem with them checking of guns among protesters. I have no problem with your concept of the rule of law of armed groups on the streets. Anyone that wanted an armed group for a demonstration then could decide whether or not to attend the "peaceful" demonstration. As an aside, where I live, if the sheriff showed up on my property and expected me not to be armed he'd be foolish.

well then you have a fucked up belief system since the gubmint has no rights what so ever, they have 'authority' granted by the people, not one spec more.

So you are part of the problem not the solution, and promote the destruction of the constitution for some unknown whatever you think is better with complete disregard to the fact that the bill of rights is fire tested over thousands of years how to prevent the overlords from taking over, and you just hand it to them on a platter.

The second applies liberty, thqat is the carrying of arms outside your property.

Well, igit, did you notice where I said city, county or state? Did you read that part of the constitution that says powers not enumerated to the Feds belong to the states? Are you aware of the state laws that delicate to cities and counties? Can you tell me how anything you said has anything to do with the powers of city, counties or states?

igit? Now thems some purty strong words thar pilgrim, you got the balls to back it up?

Well then, lets start at the top, what powers do 'you' believe we are talking about here?

quote:

How To Know You’re In a Mass Hysteria Bubble

Posted August 17th, 2017 @ 12:36pm

History is full of examples of Mass Hysterias. They happen fairly often. The cool thing about mass hysterias is that you don’t know when you are in one. But sometimes the people who are not experiencing the mass hysteria can recognize when others are experiencing one, if they know what to look for.

I’ll teach you what to look for.

A mass hysteria happens when the public gets a wrong idea about something that has strong emotional content and it triggers cognitive dissonance that is often supported by confirmation bias. In other words, people spontaneously hallucinate a whole new (and usually crazy-sounding) reality and believe they see plenty of evidence for it. The Salem Witch Trials are the best-known example of mass hysteria. The McMartin Pre-School case and the Tulip Bulb hysteria are others. The dotcom bubble probably qualifies. We might soon learn that the Russian Collusion story was mass hysteria in hindsight. The curious lack of solid evidence for Russian collusion is a red flag. But we’ll see how that plays out.

The most visible Mass Hysteria of the moment involves the idea that the United States intentionally elected a racist President. If that statement just triggered you, it might mean you are in the Mass Hysteria bubble. The cool part is that you can’t fact-check my claim you are hallucinating if you are actually hallucinating. But you can read my description of the signs of mass hysteria and see if you check off the boxes.

If you’re in the mass hysteria, recognizing you have all the symptoms of hysteria won’t help you be aware you are in it. That’s not how hallucinations work. Instead, your hallucination will automatically rewrite itself to expel any new data that conflicts with its illusions.

But if you are not experiencing mass hysteria, you might be totally confused by the actions of the people who are. They appear to be irrational, but in ways that are hard to define. You can’t tell if they are stupid, unscrupulous, ignorant, mentally ill, emotionally unstable or what. It just looks frickin’ crazy.

The reason you can’t easily identify what-the-hell is going on in the country right now is that a powerful mass hysteria is in play. If you see the signs after I point them out, you’re probably not in the hysteria bubble. If you read this and do NOT see the signs, it probably means you’re trapped inside the mass hysteria bubble.

Here are some signs of mass hysteria. This is my own take on it, but I welcome you to fact-check it with experts on mass hysteria.

1. The trigger event for cognitive dissonance

On November 8th of 2016, half the country learned that everything they believed to be both true and obvious turned out to be wrong. The people who thought Trump had no chance of winning were under the impression they were smart people who understood their country, and politics, and how things work in general. When Trump won, they learned they were wrong. They were so very wrong that they reflexively (because this is how all brains work) rewrote the scripts they were seeing in their minds until it all made sense again. The wrong-about-everything crowd decided that the only way their world made sense, with their egos intact, is that either the Russians helped Trump win or there are far more racists in the country than they imagined, and he is their king. Those were the seeds of the two mass hysterias we witness today.

Trump supporters experienced no trigger event for cognitive dissonance when Trump won. Their worldview was confirmed by observed events.

2. The Ridiculousness of it

One sign of a good mass hysteria is that it sounds bonkers to anyone who is not experiencing it. Imagine your neighbor telling you he thinks the other neighbor is a witch. Or imagine someone saying the local daycare provider is a satanic temple in disguise. Or imagine someone telling you tulip bulbs are more valuable than gold. Crazy stuff.

Compare that to the idea that our president is a Russian puppet. Or that the country accidentally elected a racist who thinks the KKK and Nazis are “fine people.” Crazy stuff.

If you think those examples don’t sound crazy – regardless of the reality – you are probably inside the mass hysteria bubble.

3. The Confirmation Bias

If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, you probably interpreted President Trump’s initial statement on Charlottesville – which was politically imperfect to say the least – as proof-positive he is a damned racist.

If you are outside the mass hysteria bubble you might have noticed that President Trump never campaigned to be our moral leader. He presented himself as – in his own words “no angel” – with a set of skills he offered to use in the public’s interest. He was big on law and order, and equal justice under the law. But he never offered moral leadership. Voters elected him with that knowledge. Evidently, Republicans don’t depend on politicians for moral leadership. That’s probably a good call.

When the horror in Charlottesville shocked the country, citizens instinctively looked to their president for moral leadership. The president instead provided a generic law and order statement. Under pressure, he later named specific groups and disavowed the racists. He was clearly uncomfortable being our moral lighthouse. That’s probably why he never described his moral leadership as an asset when running for office. We observe that he has never been shy about any other skill he brings to the job, so it probably isn’t an accident when he avoids mentioning any ambitions for moral leadership. If he wanted us to know he would provide that service, I think he would have mentioned it by now.

If you already believed President Trump is a racist, his weak statement about Charlottesville seems like confirmation. But if you believe he never offered moral leadership, only equal treatment under the law, that’s what you saw instead. And you made up your own mind about the morality.

The tricky part here is that any interpretation of what happened could be confirmation bias. But ask yourself which one of these versions sounds less crazy:

1. A sitting president, who is a branding expert, thought it would be a good idea to go easy on murderous Nazis as a way to improve his popularity.

or…

2. The country elected a racist leader who is winking to the KKK and White Supremacists that they have a free pass to start a race war now.

or…

3. A mentally unstable racist clown with conman skills (mostly just lying) eviscerated the Republican primary field and won the presidency. He keeps doing crazy, impulsive racist stuff. But for some reason, the economy is going well, jobs are looking good, North Korea blinked, ISIS is on the ropes, and the Supreme Court got a qualified judge. It was mostly luck.

or…

4. The guy who didn’t offer to be your moral leader didn’t offer any moral leadership, just law and order, applied equally. His critics cleverly and predictably framed it as being soft on Nazis.

One of those narratives is less crazy-sounding than the others. That doesn’t mean the less-crazy one has to be true. But normal stuff happens far more often than crazy stuff. And critics will frame normal stuff as crazy whenever they get a chance.

4. The Oversized Reaction

It would be hard to overreact to a Nazi murder, or to racists marching in the streets with torches. That stuff demands a strong reaction. But if a Republican agrees with you that Nazis are the worst, and you threaten to punch that Republican for not agreeing with you exactly the right way, that might be an oversized reaction.

5. The Insult without supporting argument

When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.

For the past two days I have been disavowing Nazis on Twitter. The most common response from the people who agree with me is that my comic strip sucks and I am ugly.

The mass hysteria signals I described here are not settled science, or anything like it. This is only my take on the topic, based on personal observation and years of experience with hypnosis and other forms of persuasion. I present this filter on the situation as the first step in dissolving the mass hysteria. It isn’t enough, but more persuasion is coming. If you are outside the mass hysteria bubble, you might see what I am doing in this blog as a valuable public service. If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, I look like a Nazi collaborator.

How do I look to you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I have to point out that the United States of America is just about the only place in the world that it is deemed acceptable to bring offensive weapons to a public march.

I know that you guys have a unique perspective on this subject, and I respect that, but almost everywhere in the world that the rule of law holds being part of an armed group on the streets would practically guarantee a forceful police or military response. I'm not a big fan of private citizens carrying guns, except when hunting or involved in sport, but when it is as part of an armed group claiming to be demonstrating peacefully it seems a bit absurd. Carrying a gun for self protection is very different from making it clear that you are armed while you are demonstrating.

Just one other thought. A car rams into a crowd of people with the explicit intent of causing serious injury in Europe and it is terrorism. I am struggling to see why this is any different.

I've legally carried guns for years. I believe the city, county, state has every right to exclude carrying guns at any gathering they permit. Well, unless it was a Faternal Order of Police picnic. I have no problem with them checking of guns among protesters. I have no problem with your concept of the rule of law of armed groups on the streets. Anyone that wanted an armed group for a demonstration then could decide whether or not to attend the "peaceful" demonstration. As an aside, where I live, if the sheriff showed up on my property and expected me not to be armed he'd be foolish.

well then you have a fucked up belief system since the gubmint has no rights what so ever, they have 'authority' granted by the people, not one spec more.

So you are part of the problem not the solution, and promote the destruction of the constitution for some unknown whatever you think is better with complete disregard to the fact that the bill of rights is fire tested over thousands of years how to prevent the overlords from taking over, and you just hand it to them on a platter.

The second applies liberty, thqat is the carrying of arms outside your property.

Well, igit, did you notice where I said city, county or state? Did you read that part of the constitution that says powers not enumerated to the Feds belong to the states? Are you aware of the state laws that delicate to cities and counties? Can you tell me how anything you said has anything to do with the powers of city, counties or states?

igit? Now thems some purty strong words thar pilgrim, you got the balls to back it up?

Well then, lets start at the top, what powers do 'you' believe we are talking about here?

You don't need to ask that question, the answer is clearly stated in my original post. If you have a comment regarding it, you may state it without trying to lead me toward your argument or ignoring a clear statement already made. In terms you seem to prefer, lawyer speak, Asked and Answered.

n lawyer speak, 42 U.S. § 1983 pilgrim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey
I think that refers to the fact that when you enter the service you sign paperwork agreeing to follow orders and that on most bases the orders are that only MPs/SPs are authorized to run about the base carrying weapons.
That may have changed on a lot of bases though since the Fort Hood incident. It's up to the base commander to set that sort of policy, but it has been traditionally prohibited on base whenever we were not in active wartime conditions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

Completely irrelevant. RTFC.

I'm curious. Why do you think a private entity can, as you say, on their property, but Uncle Sam can't on HIS property? I'm wondering about your thought process.

I think that refers to the fact that when you enter the service you sign paperwork agreeing to follow orders and that on most bases the orders are that only MPs/SPs are authorized to run about the base carrying weapons.
That may have changed on a lot of bases though since the Fort Hood incident. It's up to the base commander to set that sort of policy, but it has been traditionally prohibited on base whenever we were not in active wartime conditions.

I remember that I learned how to swim on the Davis Monthan Air Base and was told I was born on the air base in Rome, New York. I'm pretty sure that while I never signed any papers to follow Air Force orders they would have frowned on me carrying a gun.

While you didn't sign the papers your parents who did were obligated to see to it you followed base regs that affected you.

I'm not sure that back then they made a decent holster that fit over diapers anyway.

If you are young enough for diapers you shouldn't carry anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I have to point out that the United States of America is just about the only place in the world that it is deemed acceptable to bring offensive weapons to a public march.

I know that you guys have a unique perspective on this subject, and I respect that, but almost everywhere in the world that the rule of law holds being part of an armed group on the streets would practically guarantee a forceful police or military response. I'm not a big fan of private citizens carrying guns, except when hunting or involved in sport, but when it is as part of an armed group claiming to be demonstrating peacefully it seems a bit absurd. Carrying a gun for self protection is very different from making it clear that you are armed while you are demonstrating.

Just one other thought. A car rams into a crowd of people with the explicit intent of causing serious injury in Europe and it is terrorism. I am struggling to see why this is any different.

I've legally carried guns for years. I believe the city, county, state has every right to exclude carrying guns at any gathering they permit. Well, unless it was a Faternal Order of Police picnic. I have no problem with them checking of guns among protesters. I have no problem with your concept of the rule of law of armed groups on the streets. Anyone that wanted an armed group for a demonstration then could decide whether or not to attend the "peaceful" demonstration. As an aside, where I live, if the sheriff showed up on my property and expected me not to be armed he'd be foolish.

well then you have a fucked up belief system since the gubmint has no rights what so ever, they have 'authority' granted by the people, not one spec more.

So you are part of the problem not the solution, and promote the destruction of the constitution for some unknown whatever you think is better with complete disregard to the fact that the bill of rights is fire tested over thousands of years how to prevent the overlords from taking over, and you just hand it to them on a platter.

The second applies liberty, thqat is the carrying of arms outside your property.

Well, igit, did you notice where I said city, county or state? Did you read that part of the constitution that says powers not enumerated to the Feds belong to the states? Are you aware of the state laws that delicate to cities and counties? Can you tell me how anything you said has anything to do with the powers of city, counties or states?

igit? Now thems some purty strong words thar pilgrim, you got the balls to back it up?

Well then, lets start at the top, what powers do 'you' believe we are talking about here?

You don't need to ask that question, the answer is clearly stated in my original post. If you have a comment regarding it, you may state it without trying to lead me toward your argument or ignoring a clear statement already made. In terms you seem to prefer, lawyer speak, Asked and Answered.

in lawyer speak, 42 U.S. § 1983 pilgrim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

Completely irrelevant. RTFC.

I'm curious. Why do you think a private entity can, as you say, on their property, but Uncle Sam can't on HIS property? I'm wondering about your thought process.

I think that refers to the fact that when you enter the service you sign paperwork agreeing to follow orders and that on most bases the orders are that only MPs/SPs are authorized to run about the base carrying weapons.
That may have changed on a lot of bases though since the Fort Hood incident. It's up to the base commander to set that sort of policy, but it has been traditionally prohibited on base whenever we were not in active wartime conditions.

I remember that I learned how to swim on the Davis Monthan Air Base and was told I was born on the air base in Rome, New York. I'm pretty sure that while I never signed any papers to follow Air Force orders they would have frowned on me carrying a gun.

While you didn't sign the papers your parents who did were obligated to see to it you followed base regs that affected you.

I'm not sure that back then they made a decent holster that fit over diapers anyway.

If you are young enough for diapers you shouldn't carry anyway.

Bama...it's kidding. But it makes a point that civilians are often visitors on base without having enlisted first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

Completely irrelevant. RTFC.

I'm curious. Why do you think a private entity can, as you say, on their property, but Uncle Sam can't on HIS property? I'm wondering about your thought process.

I think that refers to the fact that when you enter the service you sign paperwork agreeing to follow orders and that on most bases the orders are that only MPs/SPs are authorized to run about the base carrying weapons.
That may have changed on a lot of bases though since the Fort Hood incident. It's up to the base commander to set that sort of policy, but it has been traditionally prohibited on base whenever we were not in active wartime conditions.

I remember that I learned how to swim on the Davis Monthan Air Base and was told I was born on the air base in Rome, New York. I'm pretty sure that while I never signed any papers to follow Air Force orders they would have frowned on me carrying a gun.

While you didn't sign the papers your parents who did were obligated to see to it you followed base regs that affected you.

I'm not sure that back then they made a decent holster that fit over diapers anyway.

If you are young enough for diapers you shouldn't carry anyway.

Bama...it's kidding. But it makes a point that civilians are often visitors on base without having enlisted first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

Completely irrelevant. RTFC.

I'm curious. Why do you think a private entity can, as you say, on their property, but Uncle Sam can't on HIS property? I'm wondering about your thought process.

I think that refers to the fact that when you enter the service you sign paperwork agreeing to follow orders and that on most bases the orders are that only MPs/SPs are authorized to run about the base carrying weapons.
That may have changed on a lot of bases though since the Fort Hood incident. It's up to the base commander to set that sort of policy, but it has been traditionally prohibited on base whenever we were not in active wartime conditions.

I remember that I learned how to swim on the Davis Monthan Air Base and was told I was born on the air base in Rome, New York. I'm pretty sure that while I never signed any papers to follow Air Force orders they would have frowned on me carrying a gun.

While you didn't sign the papers your parents who did were obligated to see to it you followed base regs that affected you.

I'm not sure that back then they made a decent holster that fit over diapers anyway.

If you are young enough for diapers you shouldn't carry anyway.

Bama...it's kidding. But it makes a point that civilians are often visitors on base without having enlisted first.

Most bases require civilians to surrender any firearms in their possession at the gate before entering, and then pick them up on the way out if the base has a no firearms policy. Otherwise you are invited to turn about and not enter the base.