How did the Tennessee gunman KNOW he could blast away with impunity?

[Little-Acorn]

The gunman could have picked any office, anywhere.

But apparently he wanted one where, even though it was staffed by U.S. Marines, he could just sit there and fire away without worrying about being stopped before he could rack up a large body count.

And he knew this office would suit his purposes.

How did he know?

Look at the sign on the door (now peppered with bullet holes):

Yep... a sign saying "Guns are forbidden here", or its equivalent.

The gunmen knew all law-abiding people inside would be disarmed and unable to shoot back, even though they were Marines.

Good job, whoever put up the sign. Did it accomplish what you wanted?

 

[DarkFury]

We just entered an islamic holiday, there WILL be more.

 

[OKTexas]

Guns are prohibited in all federal facilities, except for authorized armed guards.

 

[DarkFury]

Guns are prohibited in all federal facilities, except for authorized armed guards.

A military base OR center SHOULD be allowed to protect themselves. We spend good money training them how to handle weapons.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The gunman could have picked any office, anywhere.

But apparently he wanted one where, even though it was staffed by U.S. Marines, he could just sit there and fire away without worrying about being stopped before he could rack up a large body count.

And he knew this office would suit his purposes.

How did he know?

Look at the sign on the door (now peppered with bullet holes):

Yep... a sign saying "Guns are forbidden here", or its equivalent.

The gunmen knew all law-abiding people inside would be disarmed and unable to shoot back, even though they were Marines.

Good job, whoever put up the sign. Did it accomplish what you wanted?

He could easily have killed four armed me before being killed himself. How was he stopped? Perhaps by people with guns.

He chose an easy target, a lack of guns would have made no difference. How many bullets did he get off? With a decent gun it would have taken him 1 second to get off that many rounds and kill four people.

 

[DarkFury]

The gunman could have picked any office, anywhere.

But apparently he wanted one where, even though it was staffed by U.S. Marines, he could just sit there and fire away without worrying about being stopped before he could rack up a large body count.

And he knew this office would suit his purposes.

How did he know?

Look at the sign on the door (now peppered with bullet holes):

Yep... a sign saying "Guns are forbidden here", or its equivalent.

The gunmen knew all law-abiding people inside would be disarmed and unable to shoot back, even though they were Marines.

Good job, whoever put up the sign. Did it accomplish what you wanted?

He could easily have killed four armed me before being killed himself. How was he stopped? Perhaps by people with guns.

He chose an easy target, a lack of guns would have made no difference. How many bullets did he get off? With a decent gun it would have taken him 1 second to get off that many rounds and kill four people.

Four people in one second? Talking out you ass. Do you have any idea WHAT gun he used OR its cycle time?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The gunman could have picked any office, anywhere.

But apparently he wanted one where, even though it was staffed by U.S. Marines, he could just sit there and fire away without worrying about being stopped before he could rack up a large body count.

And he knew this office would suit his purposes.

How did he know?

Look at the sign on the door (now peppered with bullet holes):

Yep... a sign saying "Guns are forbidden here", or its equivalent.

The gunmen knew all law-abiding people inside would be disarmed and unable to shoot back, even though they were Marines.

Good job, whoever put up the sign. Did it accomplish what you wanted?

He could easily have killed four armed me before being killed himself. How was he stopped? Perhaps by people with guns.

He chose an easy target, a lack of guns would have made no difference. How many bullets did he get off? With a decent gun it would have taken him 1 second to get off that many rounds and kill four people.

Four people in one second? Talking out you ass. Do you have any idea WHAT gun he used OR its cycle time?

No. Do you? I mean, this whole thread was based on a lot of suppositions.

I was merely pointing out some potentials. I said "With a decent gun", did he have a decent gun? Dunno. So, that's why I used conditional sentences instead of pretending I know it all.

 

[DarkFury]

The gunman could have picked any office, anywhere.

But apparently he wanted one where, even though it was staffed by U.S. Marines, he could just sit there and fire away without worrying about being stopped before he could rack up a large body count.

And he knew this office would suit his purposes.

How did he know?

Look at the sign on the door (now peppered with bullet holes):

Yep... a sign saying "Guns are forbidden here", or its equivalent.

The gunmen knew all law-abiding people inside would be disarmed and unable to shoot back, even though they were Marines.

Good job, whoever put up the sign. Did it accomplish what you wanted?

He could easily have killed four armed me before being killed himself. How was he stopped? Perhaps by people with guns.

He chose an easy target, a lack of guns would have made no difference. How many bullets did he get off? With a decent gun it would have taken him 1 second to get off that many rounds and kill four people.

Four people in one second? Talking out you ass. Do you have any idea WHAT gun he used OR its cycle time?

No. Do you? I mean, this whole thread was based on a lot of suppositions.

I was merely pointing out some potentials. I said "With a decent gun", did he have a decent gun? Dunno. So, that's why I used conditional sentences instead of pretending I know it all.

One second? Hell I have a Wilson Combat 45 that will never be that fast and it was OVER 3k.
One second my ass. If they were lined up it would take longer then that. And four people ARE DEAD because FOUR HIGHLY TRAINED military are NOT permitted to have their SERVICE ARMS inside THEIR OWN damn center.

IF they had been armed you could most likely cut the number in half as far as dead. IDIOT.

 

[The Rabbi]

The gunman could have picked any office, anywhere.

But apparently he wanted one where, even though it was staffed by U.S. Marines, he could just sit there and fire away without worrying about being stopped before he could rack up a large body count.

And he knew this office would suit his purposes.

How did he know?

Look at the sign on the door (now peppered with bullet holes):

Yep... a sign saying "Guns are forbidden here", or its equivalent.

The gunmen knew all law-abiding people inside would be disarmed and unable to shoot back, even though they were Marines.

Good job, whoever put up the sign. Did it accomplish what you wanted?

He could easily have killed four armed me before being killed himself. How was he stopped? Perhaps by people with guns.

He chose an easy target, a lack of guns would have made no difference. How many bullets did he get off? With a decent gun it would have taken him 1 second to get off that many rounds and kill four people.

Four people in one second? Talking out you ass. Do you have any idea WHAT gun he used OR its cycle time?

No. Do you? I mean, this whole thread was based on a lot of suppositions.

I was merely pointing out some potentials. I said "With a decent gun", did he have a decent gun? Dunno. So, that's why I used conditional sentences instead of pretending I know it all.

AK47 type is what I've seen reported. And no he could not kill 4 people in one second.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One second? Hell I have a Wilson Combat 45 that will never be that fast and it was OVER 3k.
One second my ass. If they were lined up it would take longer then that. And four people ARE DEAD because FOUR HIGHLY TRAINED military are NOT permitted to have their SERVICE ARMS inside THEIR OWN damn center.

IF they had been armed you could most likely cut the number in half as far as dead. IDIOT.

Oh, someone's going for the insults. Bye.

 

[The Rabbi]

One second? Hell I have a Wilson Combat 45 that will never be that fast and it was OVER 3k.
One second my ass. If they were lined up it would take longer then that. And four people ARE DEAD because FOUR HIGHLY TRAINED military are NOT permitted to have their SERVICE ARMS inside THEIR OWN damn center.

IF they had been armed you could most likely cut the number in half as far as dead. IDIOT.

Oh, someone's going for the insults. Bye.

Thin skin?

 

[S.J.]

Guns are prohibited in all federal facilities, except for authorized armed guards.

Yep, in other words you're a sitting duck for any muslim or liberal with a gun and an ax to grind.

 

[Moonglow]

The gunman could have picked any office, anywhere.

But apparently he wanted one where, even though it was staffed by U.S. Marines, he could just sit there and fire away without worrying about being stopped before he could rack up a large body count.

And he knew this office would suit his purposes.

How did he know?

Look at the sign on the door (now peppered with bullet holes):

Yep... a sign saying "Guns are forbidden here", or its equivalent.

The gunmen knew all law-abiding people inside would be disarmed and unable to shoot back, even though they were Marines.

Good job, whoever put up the sign. Did it accomplish what you wanted?

He could easily have killed four armed me before being killed himself. How was he stopped? Perhaps by people with guns.

He chose an easy target, a lack of guns would have made no difference. How many bullets did he get off? With a decent gun it would have taken him 1 second to get off that many rounds and kill four people.

Four people in one second? Talking out you ass. Do you have any idea WHAT gun he used OR its cycle time?

No. Do you? I mean, this whole thread was based on a lot of suppositions.

I was merely pointing out some potentials. I said "With a decent gun", did he have a decent gun? Dunno. So, that's why I used conditional sentences instead of pretending I know it all.

One second? Hell I have a Wilson Combat 45 that will never be that fast and it was OVER 3k.
One second my ass. If they were lined up it would take longer then that. And four people ARE DEAD because FOUR HIGHLY TRAINED military are NOT permitted to have their SERVICE ARMS inside THEIR OWN damn center.

IF they had been armed you could most likely cut the number in half as far as dead. IDIOT.

Service arms are not checked out unless in training or on combat areas...

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama has relaxed America's terrorism posture to worse than it was before 911. Now, because of Political-Correctness, we are more unsafe than we were on 9/11/2001. Obama has made discussing Islamic Terrorism off limits to military personal and crossed it off of the FBI's training. It has been totally erased for all manuals. He essentially said during the debates before he was elected, that he would provide good "First Responders", not secure the border or prevent attacks. All he would do is make sure that government personnel would be there to sweep up the eyeballs.

Stop Hypocrisy on First Response
By SETH GITELL | May 15, 2007

The debate on homeland security in the 2008 presidential election will be that of prevention versus response.

Last week, law enforcement officials in New Jersey broke up an Albanian-Islamic plot to attack American soldiers at Fort Dix. The special agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Kelleghan, praised the law enforcement action as a model of how post-9/11 police work is supposed to work.

A clerk, dubbing a video onto a DVD, noticed the alarming image of people dressed in military garb, firing weapons, and shouting threatening slogans. The investigation commenced when the clerk notified the local police, which, in turn, informed the FBI.

Republicans are comfortable with encouraging citizens to come forward and report suspicious activity. Mitt Romney, for example, appeared in New Hampshire last month trumpeting cooperation between members of the public and local and national law enforcement authorities. Following a meeting with the Rockingham County Chiefs of Police, Mr. Romney stressed the need to build up and expand joint intelligence gathering efforts on the part of government officials. He also said he opposed efforts to sue so-called John Does who report suspicious activity to authorities if those reports are unfounded.

For Democrats, it is easier to focus on first response. In recent days, Senator Obama has been met with criticism for his answer during the first Democratic debate on how he would respond to the destruction of two American cities by terrorists. "Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans," Mr. Obama responded.

Mr. Obama's response has been interpreted as a mistake, flub, or sign of inexperience in presidential politics. Another answer might be that Mr. Obama could have been answering in accordance with his instincts, ones that are in-line with the need to attract Democratic primary voters. The answer Mr. Obama is trained to give to questions about disasters and terror attacks is likely one about how America should respond to the disaster. If that is the case, his answer, while probably too candid for an election forum, was not an unconscious flub but a flaw in his internal logic.

Six Democratic candidates marked the week of the foiling of the Fort Dix terror attack by paying homage to another aspect of homeland security — response to terror attacks. Senators Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Governor Richardson trekked to New Hampshire to speak to the International Association of Fire Fighters Convention, a powerful political group. Senator Obama addressed the gathering by phone.

Fire fighters still symbolize the best of heroism and the pinnacle of sacrifice on September 11. Their union has the ability to drape any Democratic candidate with a thick coat and helm to fend off criticism of being weak on terror.

Mrs. Clinton praised the heroism of the fire fighters she encountered as New York's senator after the September 11 attacks, invoked legislation lobbied for by the IAFF, and reminded them of her support for the 9/11 health care bill. "We're going to put together a package to take care of the people that are suffering from not just asthma and bronchitis … but of serious diseases of the lungs, where they can't breathe any more."

Mr. Biden talked about his plan to provide grants to local fire departments, the Biden COP program, interoperability, the ability of first responders working with different communication systems to speak to each other during an emergency, and the value of fire fighters in general. "We made a lot of promises to fire fighters after 9/11. And we haven't kept a whole lot of them," he said. "We don't get you more fire fighters … then, guess what? We're in real trouble when another Katrina or another 9/11 occurs." Left unmentioned in transcripts and news accounts of the event was any discussion of preventing terror attacks.

Both the break-up of the New Jersey terror attack and the visit of the Democrats to the fire fighter association demonstrate competing visions of homeland security. Since September 11, neither Democratic politicians nor law enforcement officials would be so unwise as to express criticism of the legalities of the successful prevention of an act of terror. Nevertheless, there is an obvious considerable distaste for the help needed to crack a terror case before it happens.

It's easy to imagine, say, a President Obama, placing more emphasis on the privacy rights of those like the customers at video stores than the imperative for citizens to report suspicious activity to authorities.

And, just below the level of the elected official, there is a layer of Democratic-leaning policy experts for whom the whole preventative aspect of homeland security borders upon civil rights violating alarmism.

Given the choice between alienating primary voters by pushing too hard on efforts to prevent terror attacks and winning the support of the fire fighters union that helped Senator Kerry win the Democratic Primary in 2004, it's a lot easier to call for more first response dollars. The problem is that American voters need both.

Mr. Gitell (gitell.com) is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.
Stop Hypocrisy on First Response - The New York Sun
​

Barack Obama telegraphed what would happen if he was elected president. These types of attacks would become commonplace. It was an absolute certainty.

​

 

[candycorn]

Obama has relaxed America's terrorism posture to worse than it was before 911. Now, because of Political-Correctness, we are more unsafe than we were on 9/11/2001. Obama has made discussing Islamic Terrorism off limits to military personal and crossed it off of the FBI's training. It has been totally erased for all manuals. He essentially said during the debates before he was elected, that he would provide good "First Responders", not secure the border or prevent attacks. All he would do is make sure that government personnel would be there to sweep up the eyeballs.

Stop Hypocrisy on First Response
By SETH GITELL | May 15, 2007

The debate on homeland security in the 2008 presidential election will be that of prevention versus response.

Last week, law enforcement officials in New Jersey broke up an Albanian-Islamic plot to attack American soldiers at Fort Dix. The special agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Kelleghan, praised the law enforcement action as a model of how post-9/11 police work is supposed to work.

A clerk, dubbing a video onto a DVD, noticed the alarming image of people dressed in military garb, firing weapons, and shouting threatening slogans. The investigation commenced when the clerk notified the local police, which, in turn, informed the FBI.

Republicans are comfortable with encouraging citizens to come forward and report suspicious activity. Mitt Romney, for example, appeared in New Hampshire last month trumpeting cooperation between members of the public and local and national law enforcement authorities. Following a meeting with the Rockingham County Chiefs of Police, Mr. Romney stressed the need to build up and expand joint intelligence gathering efforts on the part of government officials. He also said he opposed efforts to sue so-called John Does who report suspicious activity to authorities if those reports are unfounded.

For Democrats, it is easier to focus on first response. In recent days, Senator Obama has been met with criticism for his answer during the first Democratic debate on how he would respond to the destruction of two American cities by terrorists. "Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans," Mr. Obama responded.

Mr. Obama's response has been interpreted as a mistake, flub, or sign of inexperience in presidential politics. Another answer might be that Mr. Obama could have been answering in accordance with his instincts, ones that are in-line with the need to attract Democratic primary voters. The answer Mr. Obama is trained to give to questions about disasters and terror attacks is likely one about how America should respond to the disaster. If that is the case, his answer, while probably too candid for an election forum, was not an unconscious flub but a flaw in his internal logic.

Six Democratic candidates marked the week of the foiling of the Fort Dix terror attack by paying homage to another aspect of homeland security — response to terror attacks. Senators Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Governor Richardson trekked to New Hampshire to speak to the International Association of Fire Fighters Convention, a powerful political group. Senator Obama addressed the gathering by phone.

Fire fighters still symbolize the best of heroism and the pinnacle of sacrifice on September 11. Their union has the ability to drape any Democratic candidate with a thick coat and helm to fend off criticism of being weak on terror.

Mrs. Clinton praised the heroism of the fire fighters she encountered as New York's senator after the September 11 attacks, invoked legislation lobbied for by the IAFF, and reminded them of her support for the 9/11 health care bill. "We're going to put together a package to take care of the people that are suffering from not just asthma and bronchitis … but of serious diseases of the lungs, where they can't breathe any more."

Mr. Biden talked about his plan to provide grants to local fire departments, the Biden COP program, interoperability, the ability of first responders working with different communication systems to speak to each other during an emergency, and the value of fire fighters in general. "We made a lot of promises to fire fighters after 9/11. And we haven't kept a whole lot of them," he said. "We don't get you more fire fighters … then, guess what? We're in real trouble when another Katrina or another 9/11 occurs." Left unmentioned in transcripts and news accounts of the event was any discussion of preventing terror attacks.

Both the break-up of the New Jersey terror attack and the visit of the Democrats to the fire fighter association demonstrate competing visions of homeland security. Since September 11, neither Democratic politicians nor law enforcement officials would be so unwise as to express criticism of the legalities of the successful prevention of an act of terror. Nevertheless, there is an obvious considerable distaste for the help needed to crack a terror case before it happens.

It's easy to imagine, say, a President Obama, placing more emphasis on the privacy rights of those like the customers at video stores than the imperative for citizens to report suspicious activity to authorities.

And, just below the level of the elected official, there is a layer of Democratic-leaning policy experts for whom the whole preventative aspect of homeland security borders upon civil rights violating alarmism.

Given the choice between alienating primary voters by pushing too hard on efforts to prevent terror attacks and winning the support of the fire fighters union that helped Senator Kerry win the Democratic Primary in 2004, it's a lot easier to call for more first response dollars. The problem is that American voters need both.

Mr. Gitell (gitell.com) is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.
Stop Hypocrisy on First Response - The New York Sun
​

Barack Obama telegraphed what would happen if he was elected president. These types of attacks would become commonplace. It was an absolute certainty.

​

Oh shut the fuck up.

The 9/11 Hijackers--some of the guys who rode planes into buildings--had their visas approved renewed under Obama's predecessor in March 2002--6 months after the attacks.
INS Shuffle In Wake Of Visa Flap - CBS News

 

[Freewill]

If we learn nothing from this situation, one where apparently a Muslim commits mass murder, is that white Christian hate groups are the biggest threat to America and the world.

Considering what stopped the Islamic Jihad was an armed cop who had to respond to the situation it only makes sense that if the Marines were armed, and using guns is part of their training, then the death toll might have been less. Maybe not but certainly it would not have been more.

 

[gipper]

More blood on the hands of our corrupt government..from the White House on down...

 

[mudwhistle]

Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world
Pro’s and Con’s: Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world
Pro: We need to be more popular in the Muslim world. US policies are highly unpopular in the Muslim world and are blamed for most of the region’s ill. We need to be more popular with them.

Con: The Muslim world needs to be more popular with us. Who cares? They need to be more like us.

Pro: Obama will be uniquely positioned to deal with the foreign policy challenge of the century, the Muslim world. “I will go to Pakistan,” Obama might pledge. The dramatic gesture might tilt the balance in a close race. The newly inaugurated President Obama’s visit to Pakistan, where he scattered ashes from the World Trade Center at the footsteps of a mosque, is widely credited with the change in Pakistani sentiment that led to Bin Ladin’s capture in 2009.

Con: The principal foreign policy challenge of the early 21st century is China, and Obama brings nothing to the table there.

Source: Should Barack Obama be President, by F. Zimmerman, p. 70-71 Oct 17, 2006


Obama's Muslim heritage sure is working wonders for us, isn't it?

 

[Freewill]

Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world
Pro’s and Con’s: Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world
Pro: We need to be more popular in the Muslim world. US policies are highly unpopular in the Muslim world and are blamed for most of the region’s ill. We need to be more popular with them.

Con: The Muslim world needs to be more popular with us. Who cares? They need to be more like us.

Pro: Obama will be uniquely positioned to deal with the foreign policy challenge of the century, the Muslim world. “I will go to Pakistan,” Obama might pledge. The dramatic gesture might tilt the balance in a close race. The newly inaugurated President Obama’s visit to Pakistan, where he scattered ashes from the World Trade Center at the footsteps of a mosque, is widely credited with the change in Pakistani sentiment that led to Bin Ladin’s capture in 2009.

Con: The principal foreign policy challenge of the early 21st century is China, and Obama brings nothing to the table there.

Source: Should Barack Obama be President, by F. Zimmerman, p. 70-71 Oct 17, 2006


Obama's Muslim heritage sure is working wonders for us, isn't it?

Certainly has, as the Tenn. shooting has shown. White America is a danger and must be eliminated, thus the man was only doing the bidding of the liberal left.

 

[The VOR]

Obama has relaxed America's terrorism posture to worse than it was before 911. Now, because of Political-Correctness, we are more unsafe than we were on 9/11/2001. Obama has made discussing Islamic Terrorism off limits to military personal and crossed it off of the FBI's training. It has been totally erased for all manuals. He essentially said during the debates before he was elected, that he would provide good "First Responders", not secure the border or prevent attacks. All he would do is make sure that government personnel would be there to sweep up the eyeballs.

Barack Obama telegraphed what would happen if he was elected president. These types of attacks would become commonplace. It was an absolute certainty.

I was wondering how long it would take for some fucking idiot to blame it on the President, LOL. Actually, I am shocked it took this long for one of you loons. Page two? You nutters are slacking.