Patriot Mobile

Active Shooter on NAS Pensacola 6 Dec 2019

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • fl57caveman

    eclectic atavist
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages
    12,184
    Points
    113
    Location
    n.w. florida
    banning sales to the followers of islam works for me..esp non citizens
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Quote Originally Posted by SAWMAN View Post
    When we get into an all out war with China,what country will the Saudis stand behind ?? --- SAWMAN
    muslim ones i reckon'...

    The chinese are giving their Uyghur muslims in Xinjian a very hard time. But still the middle east Saudis might make a deal with them.
    How China Persuaded One Muslim Nation to Keep Silent on Xinjiang Camps
    A year ago, clerics here in the world’s largest Muslim-majority country expressed alarm over China’s treatment of ethnic-minority Muslims—around a million of whom have been detained in re-education camps, according to human-rights groups.
    More than a dozen top Indonesian religious leaders were taken to Xinjiang and visited re-education facilities. Tours for journalists and academics followed. Chinese authorities gave presentations on terrorist attacks by Uighurs and invited visitors to pray at local mosques. In the camps they visited classrooms where they were told students received training in everything from hotel management to animal husbandry.

    Views in Indonesia changed.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-ch...-to-keep-silent-on-xinjiang-camps-11576090976
     
    Last edited:

    dead-bird

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages
    760
    Points
    28
    Location
    Millview
    I don't believe that Ubers was confirmed as the seller. The message at the bottom of the video feed I watched said "alleged".

    The only question I had was with the hunting licence aspet. Had he not been in the military, he would have needed a hunter safety course to get the license because of his age. Being in the military, he was able to get it instantly.
     
    Last edited:

    mtbbrewer74

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 13, 2015
    Messages
    1,585
    Points
    63
    Location
    Milton
    I don't believe that Ubers was confirmed as the seller. The message at the bottom of th video feed I watched said "alleged".
    If not that is even more messed up the way the news is plastering them all over the place.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
     

    Daezee

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Joined
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages
    3,355
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton
    At first I agreed that a non immigrant should not be able to buy a handgun using the hunting license law. But then I thought more deeply about it. I believe the non immigrant buying for hunting law was put into place because some U.S. visitors do enter the U.S. to be able to hunt since their home countries do not allow hunting and/or firearms ownership/possession. Various states do have businesses that cater to such high $ clients with their "high fence" or other similar areas (Texas comes to mind). While the client is in the U.S. they get to own and shoot a firearm(s) that would otherwise be forbidden by their home country. I would think some also rent a firearm. There might even be a term such as "shooter tourism" or "hunting tourism" that covers those types of businesses. Undoubtedly the client takes a loss on the value of the firearm selling it back to the shop when they leave or giving it as a tip to the business owner/guide, but maybe they don't care about that minor cost compared to the cost of the trip and just consider that part of the cost of coming to the U.S. Of course in the NAS instance, the law was abused by an evil person.

    I then thought "who would carry a Glock or other pistol hunting?" until I remembered that people often carry a handgun even when hunting with a rifle. My night hunting partner always carries a Glock, and I've witnessed him kill a hog with it.

    Others do hunt with various handguns. While I don't normally post about this aspect of wild hogs, as this is Not hunting (and the hogs killed are not included in my records of hogs killed and with what cartridge), I've been helping a rancher with wild hogs on his ranch. 3 times now (in 2018) (38 hogs total) I was called to help kill trapped hogs and clean the killed hogs. I use a suppressed subsonic short bbl 300 Blackout AR with a red dot sighted on at 30' on trapped hogs (FWIW since December 2018, hogs will not enter either of the 2 traps; even though baited with corn/peanuts/bread/etc, the hogs just walk right past). The rancher uses a 45acp pistol, and another helper uses a 38 special. The 38 and 45 do fine on hog killing with head or neck/spine hits.
     

    reel_crazy

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    324
    Points
    28
    Location
    Pensacola
    First I apologize for labeling the ability of foreign nationals to purchase a firearm as long as they have a valid hunting license a loophole. It is not a loophole, and as others have noted it is / was an accommodation / privilege put in place for the avid sportsman from other countries to purchase hunting weapons while here for work, play etc.

    I was also unaware that while legal in the state of Florida a 9mm semi-auto handgun can be used for hunting deer and other game. Not sure I have seen any reports of deer taken by 9mm pistols... but it is legal to do so. Personally I do not see it as being an ethical way to harvest deer but that is just me.

    Apparently others, specifically foreign nationals are not as ignorant as me. Who knows how many have abused this privilege we grant them for purposes we never fathomed. Once again we are faced with all this "how can this happen" crap.

    Going forward the federal government needs to rescind this privilege for all foreign nationals. Its gonna suck for those sportsmen who come here specifically to hunt etc. but let them take their ire out on the friggin towel head/s that abused it. I know I have lost many privileges due to their actions.

    I would hope that in the interim that Gov Desantis would direct the fwc to list all hunting licenses purchased by foreign nationals, with various categories for country, current address etc. Then forward that info to batf who hopefully would focus on type of weapon purchased, current visa status etc.
     

    fl57caveman

    eclectic atavist
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages
    12,184
    Points
    113
    Location
    n.w. florida
    I am of the opinion if you ain't a citizen, you can't buy a gun. I really don't care about accommodating the desires to hunt over here while on vacation, or temp duty.. try going to france and buying any gun when not a citizen... it ain't happening... you want to hunt, go to a hunting club in texas & rent a gun...

    background check on non citizens is real dubious on accuracy...and for sure, non citizen military members of a foreign country, muslem ones especially, are a no go for me....not subject to our laws, not receiving our constitutional rights..

    jmho
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Relative to the shooting at NAS you will not trust the non-citizens with a gun but have no problem with them having access aircraft. remember the 9-11 saudis used no guns, just hijacked aircraft.

    This part of an account that I was email by a retired Navy Aviator with the rank of Capt that did finished his last years at NAS
    What is it like training an international student?
    Each nation is different, and it was interesting to see some stereotypes play out and interact with different cultures. The Swedish and Norwegians were your typical vikings. The Germans were often humorless, focused, and smart. The Singaporeans were incredibly disciplined, and this group of students policed itself in an impressive manner. Any Sing who did poorly on a flight or test would have the other students ensure they did well the next time around. I’d gladly fight alongside any of these guys any day of the week. I stay in touch with several of my students as their careers advance.
    The Saudi students have an entirely different reputation and structure to their training. While all of the other nations employ a form of meritocracy to be in the flight program, the Saudi students are typically the child of a Saudi sheik, politician, or member of a rich/important Saudi family. They all drive luxury vehicles, and flaunt their wealth to the other students and instructors. It isn’t unusual to see a Saudi student wearing designer shoes that cost thousands of dollars with their uniforms instead of their issued shoes or boots.
    The Saudis do not stand any of the squadron watches (Like assistant OOD (Officer of the Deck), where the flight schedule is executed), while other nations participate fully in squadron functions. The Saudis also have a cadre of senior officers in Pensacola, ostensibly to monitor and aid the progress of the students. They employ a number of former/retired (US) Navy pilots to serve as tutors to the Saudis, and also to provide instruction on how to properly interact with their US instructors and inside of American society. The retired officers also act as a liaison to the American command structure.
    Our instructors are told that we can only instruct the Saudis in flying. Issues regarding disciple, respect, or military bearing, etc all have to be referred to the liaisons. Those issues are rampant among the Saudi contingent, and are well known among the chain of command. While there are certainly some Saudi students who have been respectful and disciplined, the norm is an aloof, arrogant child who seemingly feels superior to his instructor.
    American and non-Saudi international students are expected to show up to the pre-flight briefs ready to explain all of the concepts required in the flight to the instructor (proof they study and paid attention in class). Saudi students often show up to briefs unprepared to meet that standard, and expect the material to be presented to them anew. The norm for the Saudis is to pass the student regardless of performance, unless they are simply a danger to themselves, then they get referred back through the liaisons.
    We are paid to move them through the pipeline and deliver them having completed the syllabus. We can’t make them study. One friend had a Saudi student refuse to recover an aircraft from a spin, and simply threw up his hands and stated “If Allah wills it, it will recover.” This was during out-of-control flight, with the aircraft falling several thousand feet per minute. The instructor took the controls, recovered from the spin, and returned to base. That student eventually graduated.
    I have had conversations over the last 3 days with at least a dozen current or former Navy flight instructors. Unanimously, the sentiment is that Saudis should be expelled from training in our program. Not only is there legitimate concern for personal safety and national security, there is a general feeling that they won’t be able to put their feeling aside and provide proper training.
    · Why did the Sheriff Department have to stop the shooting and not active duty watch-standers or military police?
    In short, because the Sailors at NAS Pensacola were failed by their leadership.

    Gun or no guns, these Saudis were not safe period.
     
    Last edited:

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    No additional laws/rules will detect or stop evil in someone's heart. It seems attractive to "close loopholes", but those "loopholes" may be the only recourse for legitimate personnel. No need to make things complicated.

    Let the responsible active-duty members carry openly in uniform on-base. Or concealed with a state permit in civvies. Or concealed (with extra military training) in uniform. If carrying in uniform, the weapon must be military issued (way too many reasons for that one). That would cover the options for a secondary check and leadership involvement.

    These cowards would think twice next time, and if they decided to proceed anyway, the body count would be lower due to the quicker armed response.

    I've heard this proposed many times, and the only reason I can come up with for not implementing it is that leadership does not truly trust those they lead to the extent they'll allow them to be armed. Even many deployed locations secure weapons in the armory and only issue when deemed necessary. Having served over 20 and still being employed civil service, I would appreciate being able to bring my legally/authorized CCW inside rather than leaving it in my vehicle. My personal action plan in the event of a significant threat is not to shelter in place unless forced to by circumstances. I plan on being out the door and to my vehicle where I have some better means of personal defense. I have no plan to re-enter and/or white knight. Would just rather be in the clear and armed than sitting in a room without windows hoping all goes well.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    I've heard this proposed many times, and the only reason I can come up with for not implementing it is that leadership does not truly trust those they lead to the extent they'll allow them to be armed. Even many deployed locations secure weapons in the armory and only issue when deemed necessary. Having served over 20 and still being employed civil service, I would appreciate being able to bring my legally/authorized CCW inside rather than leaving it in my vehicle. My personal action plan in the event of a significant threat is not to shelter in place unless forced to by circumstances. I plan on being out the door and to my vehicle where I have some better means of personal defense. I have no plan to re-enter and/or white knight. Would just rather be in the clear and armed than sitting in a room without windows hoping all goes well.
    i would like to see veterans organizations along with others hold the actual admiral etc that signed off on the gun bans responsible and put them out of the service. At least make their names and signatures public on these gun policies. Our military bases should not present safe working conditions for terrorists engaging in the killing of our service personnel.
    The fact that civilian law enforcement had to enter a base to neutralized a terrorist is shameful. Sounds like a team of terrorists could take over the entire base.
     

    MauserLarry

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages
    1,405
    Points
    113
    Location
    Crestview Florida
    " bring my legally/authorized CCW inside rather than leaving it in my vehicle."
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you work on a military base this is illegal also.
     

    M60Gunner

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages
    3,030
    Points
    113
    Wasn’t ccw on the bases outlawed by Bill Clinton in 1996? It wasn’t always illegal I don’t believe.
     

    MauserLarry

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages
    1,405
    Points
    113
    Location
    Crestview Florida
    I don't know when but it is considered a felony now. I know some folks that do carry in their POV's but I don't see taking a chance. Only time I've ever been searched was right after the 9-11 attack.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Some articles refer to a directive, post NAS Attack: directing increased security checks. I don't know if that includes more random vehicle searches. Too little too late and the odds of randomly stopping the exact vehicle and person(s) with evil intent are not on our side.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Wasn’t ccw on the bases outlawed by Bill Clinton in 1996? It wasn’t always illegal I don’t believe.
    For what ever it is worth:
    Claim: President Bill Clinton issued an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases.

    FALSE
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alarming-disarming/
    Origins: The wake of the September 2013 fatal shooting of 12 people by a civilian military contractor who went on a rampage at Washington Navy Yard saw the recirculation of a rumor that gained currency after the November 2009 fatal shooting of 13 people by a U.S. Army psychiatrist at

    Fort Hood, Texas: that one of the reasons these mass shooters had not been stopped earlier in their killing sprees was because President Bill Clinton had issued an executive order back in 1993 that prohibited personnel on military bases from carrying firearms while on duty.
    While there was at least a small kernel of real information underlying such claims, the gist of the rumor was wrong on two major counts.

    It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive was eventually implemented through a regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office.

    Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; rather, it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was “a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried”:
    a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms.

    b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.

    c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.

    Others noted that the change in policy likely had little actual effect on day-to-day base operations:



    Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel, also [said] that Clinton is not to blame.

    “I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military,” said Bucci, when asked if Clinton was responsible. “I think that’s kind of a bogus story.”
    “We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones,” he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority.

    Last updated: 16 July 2015

    Sources:



    Darcy, Oliver. “This Is Why Most Military Personnel Aren’t Armed on Military Bases.”

    The Blaze. 17 September 2013.
     

    FLT

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    May 15, 2017
    Messages
    3,849
    Points
    113
    Location
    Havana
    Snopes has been caught in more than a few falsehoods , most people with common sense take their data with a grain of salt.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Snopes has been caught in more than a few falsehoods , most people with common sense take their data with a grain of salt.

    Does anyone here have the details of the executive order signed by Clinton. Snopes did list a source for their claims which I have not read. Snopes is not the only one in this world that spreads things that are not true.
    If I can not get the facts I take all controversial claims with a grain of salt. Remember my evaluation of the snopes statement
    For what ever it is worth
     
    Top Bottom