In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:43:26 -0600, Califbill wrote:

ESAD wrote:
On 12/21/12 9:09 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/21/2012 8:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/21/12 8:48 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:34:59 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 9:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
Let's not forget that Nadal Hassan shot 43 people, 13 fatally, at
Fort
Hood, a facility filled with armed and trained people.
Approximately 214
shots were fired (Hassan had another 177 rounds on him when
captured). He
was attacked by three different soldiers, all of whom he shot. It
was not
until a civilian police officer arrived some time later that
Hassan was
shot and wounded. If the army can't stop a guy like this, how is a
kindergarten teacher supposed to?

It was a gun control area. Nobody was allowed to carry weapons. The
people were trained, but not armed. Most bases in the states have
the
weapons in the armory. I was stationed on an airbase, Travis,
that had APs
at the gates and the only other armed people were the guards out
on B52
line.

That's interesting. All those trained people. More guns = more
safety... why don't they trust them?

Only Military Police/CID or equivalent carry weapons on a continuous
basis while on duty in military
installations, unless the installation is in a combat zone. The
weapons are kept in unit armories
and issued when necessary for training - or when needed for a
particular problem.

Why aren't they issued all the time? It could have something to do
with trust. The military does not
want a weapon stolen, misplaced, left unattended at home, or any of
the other things that can cause
accidents. There is always a dummy in every crowd, and the military
does have a thief or two in its
population. I look back at 'Project 100,000' and some of the folks
we got then, and I didn't even
want to issue some of those folks weapons for alerts or training.

So, there you have it.

But, like ESAD, if you see a chance to take a swipe at the military,
please go for it.



The real problem is military pukes like Herring either getting drunk or
****ed off and going on a shooting spree.

We have a problem with pukes like you going off and not paying your
taxes.



I don't recall alcohol being mentioned in "any" of the mass shooting
stories lately. But harry needs to insult folks daily to make himself
feel better for his miserable failures in life...


I know you aren't too bright, little guy, but we were discussing why most
military personnel on bases cannot carry firearms. One of the reasons is
the high degree of alcoholism among military personnel, along with
fighting, spousal abuse and other mental and emotional health issues the
military doesn't address very well, for various reasons.

There are lots cites regarding military alcoholism. Here is an interesting one:

http://www.examiner.com/article/gene...holic-military

There's also lots of spousal abuse. The military has a modest Family
Advocacy Program to try to deal with it.

There is a lot of pressure on military personnel. The pressure can be
handled in many ways, some productive, and others, like booze and wife
beating, not so much.

That is not a reason. In 3 years of Travis and most of a year at Keesler,
I never needed a weapon. I was not in a war zone, and I spent my time
either in school at Keesler or fixing airplanes at Travis. Weapons are
needed in most bases except for a few armed guards in areas that should be
secure. Probably none at Keesler.

Well, that *is* a reason if, like ESAD and Kevin, you want to make the military look bad. But, in
almost 30 in the Army, I never heard or gave any thought to the 'booze and wife-beating' problems
with regard to issuing weapons.

My biggest fear when issuing weapons, in a peacetime situation, was that one would get lost.

Because you would have to pay for it.

On 12/22/12 10:25 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:10:18 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/21/2012 8:55 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/21/2012 11:47 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 5:48 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:34:59 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 9:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
Let's not forget that Nadal Hassan shot 43 people, 13 fatally, at
Fort
Hood, a facility filled with armed and trained people.
Approximately 214
shots were fired (Hassan had another 177 rounds on him when
captured). He
was attacked by three different soldiers, all of whom he shot. It
was not
until a civilian police officer arrived some time later that Hassan
was
shot and wounded. If the army can't stop a guy like this, how is a
kindergarten teacher supposed to?

It was a gun control area. Nobody was allowed to carry weapons. The
people were trained, but not armed. Most bases in the states have the
weapons in the armory. I was stationed on an airbase, Travis, that
had APs
at the gates and the only other armed people were the guards out on
B52
line.

That's interesting. All those trained people. More guns = more
safety... why don't they trust them?

Only Military Police/CID or equivalent carry weapons on a continuous
basis while on duty in military
installations, unless the installation is in a combat zone. The
weapons are kept in unit armories
and issued when necessary for training - or when needed for a
particular problem.

Why aren't they issued all the time? It could have something to do
with trust. The military does not
want a weapon stolen, misplaced, left unattended at home, or any of
the other things that can cause
accidents. There is always a dummy in every crowd, and the military
does have a thief or two in its
population. I look back at 'Project 100,000' and some of the folks we
got then, and I didn't even
want to issue some of those folks weapons for alerts or training.

So, there you have it.

But, like ESAD, if you see a chance to take a swipe at the military,
please go for it.


On the contrary, the military seems to get it regarding weapon safety
and yet some of you want to flood the schools and shopping malls with
gun toting amateur security guards ostensibly in the belief it would
reduce injuries and deaths. Unless it's actually about selling more
guns?


You are losing all credibility here, even though I am more or less in
the middle on this one... Nobody at all here said anything about
"flooding schools.... *amateur security guards*". I am the only one here
who suggested armed guards and I specifically suggested seasoned,
trained, police officers in plain clothes, and I was very specific. If
you keep coming here and making up loogieisms as arguments, you are not
going to get anywhere.

You're right, I exaggerated to make a point and wasn't specifically
addressing you (this isn't about you or me).

I don't think they'll ever get anywhere near enough *qualified*
ex-police/military retirees to staff the nations schools with security
guards. Can you imagine a more boring and uneventful job? Do you
really think adding janitorial or cafeteria tasks will sweeten the pot?
Who's going to fund this by the way... the NRA.

Volunteers. I would gladly go to my local high school for, say, eight hours a week. I know I could
find half a dozen more retired military right in my neighborhood who would do the same thing.


It's doubtful the public schools in your area would want a bunch of
racist old perverts like you as guards.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:59:21 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:51:09 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:51:31 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/21/12 8:48 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:34:59 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 9:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
Let's not forget that Nadal Hassan shot 43 people, 13 fatally, at Fort
Hood, a facility filled with armed and trained people. Approximately 214
shots were fired (Hassan had another 177 rounds on him when captured). He
was attacked by three different soldiers, all of whom he shot. It was not
until a civilian police officer arrived some time later that Hassan was
shot and wounded. If the army can't stop a guy like this, how is a
kindergarten teacher supposed to?

It was a gun control area. Nobody was allowed to carry weapons. The
people were trained, but not armed. Most bases in the states have the
weapons in the armory. I was stationed on an airbase, Travis, that had APs
at the gates and the only other armed people were the guards out on B52
line.

That's interesting. All those trained people. More guns = more
safety... why don't they trust them?

Only Military Police/CID or equivalent carry weapons on a continuous basis while on duty in military
installations, unless the installation is in a combat zone. The weapons are kept in unit armories
and issued when necessary for training - or when needed for a particular problem.

Why aren't they issued all the time? It could have something to do with trust. The military does not
want a weapon stolen, misplaced, left unattended at home, or any of the other things that can cause
accidents. There is always a dummy in every crowd, and the military does have a thief or two in its
population. I look back at 'Project 100,000' and some of the folks we got then, and I didn't even
want to issue some of those folks weapons for alerts or training.

So, there you have it.

But, like ESAD, if you see a chance to take a swipe at the military, please go for it.



The real problem is military pukes like Herring either getting drunk or
****ed off and going on a shooting spree.

ESAD (Eatin' **** and Dyin'??) - it was folks me who had the keys to the armory.

It's a shame you ran and hid. You might have learned something.

But, take a swipe at the military any time you get a chance.

You really ought to pay your taxes.

Are you saying there isn't a bad alcoholism problem in the military?

Where?

You stupid old fool. Where the hell do you think?

Show me!

Are you REALLY so damned stupid that you don't know that there is a
problem??

http://tinyurl.com/cnpw2v6

http://tinyurl.com/89kr2ek

http://tinyurl.com/c5uoztd

http://tinyurl.com/dx6dbwo

http://tinyurl.com/ch8abzn

Did ANY of that hit your petrified brain or do you need more?

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:15:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/21/2012 2:23 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:47:49 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:48 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:34:59 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 9:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
Let's not forget that Nadal Hassan shot 43 people, 13 fatally, at Fort
Hood, a facility filled with armed and trained people. Approximately 214
shots were fired (Hassan had another 177 rounds on him when captured). He
was attacked by three different soldiers, all of whom he shot. It was not
until a civilian police officer arrived some time later that Hassan was
shot and wounded. If the army can't stop a guy like this, how is a
kindergarten teacher supposed to?

It was a gun control area. Nobody was allowed to carry weapons. The
people were trained, but not armed. Most bases in the states have the
weapons in the armory. I was stationed on an airbase, Travis, that had APs
at the gates and the only other armed people were the guards out on B52
line.

That's interesting. All those trained people. More guns = more
safety... why don't they trust them?

Only Military Police/CID or equivalent carry weapons on a continuous basis while on duty in military
installations, unless the installation is in a combat zone. The weapons are kept in unit armories
and issued when necessary for training - or when needed for a particular problem.

Why aren't they issued all the time? It could have something to do with trust. The military does not
want a weapon stolen, misplaced, left unattended at home, or any of the other things that can cause
accidents. There is always a dummy in every crowd, and the military does have a thief or two in its
population. I look back at 'Project 100,000' and some of the folks we got then, and I didn't even
want to issue some of those folks weapons for alerts or training.

So, there you have it.

But, like ESAD, if you see a chance to take a swipe at the military, please go for it.


On the contrary, the military seems to get it regarding weapon safety
and yet some of you want to flood the schools and shopping malls with
gun toting amateur security guards ostensibly in the belief it would
reduce injuries and deaths. Unless it's actually about selling more guns?

Some of who?

The NRA.

Are a lot of us NRA folks? I'm not. So, who is the 'you' to whom you refer?

He said "The NRA". Did you not here that moron LaPierre's speech???

http://tinyurl.com/c949nll

Damn you are thick headed. I think your brain must have torpid a long
time ago.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:10:18 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/21/2012 8:55 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/21/2012 11:47 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 5:48 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:34:59 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 9:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
Let's not forget that Nadal Hassan shot 43 people, 13 fatally, at
Fort
Hood, a facility filled with armed and trained people.
Approximately 214
shots were fired (Hassan had another 177 rounds on him when
captured). He
was attacked by three different soldiers, all of whom he shot. It
was not
until a civilian police officer arrived some time later that Hassan
was
shot and wounded. If the army can't stop a guy like this, how is a
kindergarten teacher supposed to?

It was a gun control area. Nobody was allowed to carry weapons. The
people were trained, but not armed. Most bases in the states have the
weapons in the armory. I was stationed on an airbase, Travis, that
had APs
at the gates and the only other armed people were the guards out on
B52
line.

That's interesting. All those trained people. More guns = more
safety... why don't they trust them?

Only Military Police/CID or equivalent carry weapons on a continuous
basis while on duty in military
installations, unless the installation is in a combat zone. The
weapons are kept in unit armories
and issued when necessary for training - or when needed for a
particular problem.

Why aren't they issued all the time? It could have something to do
with trust. The military does not
want a weapon stolen, misplaced, left unattended at home, or any of
the other things that can cause
accidents. There is always a dummy in every crowd, and the military
does have a thief or two in its
population. I look back at 'Project 100,000' and some of the folks we
got then, and I didn't even
want to issue some of those folks weapons for alerts or training.

So, there you have it.

But, like ESAD, if you see a chance to take a swipe at the military,
please go for it.


On the contrary, the military seems to get it regarding weapon safety
and yet some of you want to flood the schools and shopping malls with
gun toting amateur security guards ostensibly in the belief it would
reduce injuries and deaths. Unless it's actually about selling more
guns?


You are losing all credibility here, even though I am more or less in
the middle on this one... Nobody at all here said anything about
"flooding schools.... *amateur security guards*". I am the only one here
who suggested armed guards and I specifically suggested seasoned,
trained, police officers in plain clothes, and I was very specific. If
you keep coming here and making up loogieisms as arguments, you are not
going to get anywhere.

You're right, I exaggerated to make a point and wasn't specifically
addressing you (this isn't about you or me).

I don't think they'll ever get anywhere near enough *qualified*
ex-police/military retirees to staff the nations schools with security
guards. Can you imagine a more boring and uneventful job? Do you
really think adding janitorial or cafeteria tasks will sweeten the pot?
Who's going to fund this by the way... the NRA.

Volunteers. I would gladly go to my local high school for, say, eight hours a week. I know I could
find half a dozen more retired military right in my neighborhood who would do the same thing.

I'm also not impressed by the tactical skills or marksmanship of the
average police officer. Fire away...

And just what would that solve?

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 5:43 PM, Califbill wrote:
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 401073031377723076.686172bmckeenospam-
, says...

thumper wrote:
On 12/18/2012 9:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
Let's not forget that Nadal Hassan shot 43 people, 13 fatally, at
Fort
Hood, a facility filled with armed and trained people.
Approximately 214
shots were fired (Hassan had another 177 rounds on him when
captured). He
was attacked by three different soldiers, all of whom he shot. It
was not
until a civilian police officer arrived some time later that
Hassan was
shot and wounded. If the army can't stop a guy like this, how is a
kindergarten teacher supposed to?

It was a gun control area. Nobody was allowed to carry weapons.
The
people were trained, but not armed. Most bases in the states have
the
weapons in the armory. I was stationed on an airbase, Travis, that
had APs
at the gates and the only other armed people were the guards out on
B52
line.

That's interesting. All those trained people. More guns = more
safety... why don't they trust them?

We were not in a war zone. I sat in an electronics shop fixing radar
units, or was in an airplane wrenching on a radar unit. Did not need
the
tool, a weapon, in my job. Yes, we did go to the range and qualify
yearly.
But we were not in a combat situation. The APs on the flight line
for the
B52 were guarding nuclear armed planes. Was a retirement then. I
guess
you never were in the service, or had other than an assembly line job
where
you were not required to think. If I dad been in a war zone, I would
have
been issued a weapon and kept with me while wrenching on planes.

But we are talking about a whole, very large military base. Oh, and
one
that is home to a brigade of MP's!

So was Travis AFB. All military air traffic to the pacific basically
goes
via Travis. In the US and most Likely all other military bases not in
a
war zone, very few are armed.



But, but, but... It's a big army base with all little green army men.
Don't they all have bazookas and flack jackets to go to english class!!!

Really, you have explained it to him fourty times, just like I have
explained it to jon fourty times, they don't want to know cause they are
afraid of the answers...

Fort Hood is home to a full BRIGADE of MP's. Also there are MP's
everywhere on base, armed, just like cops in civilian life. Didn't seem
to help, did it?

Just like cops in civilian life. They are to catch the bad guy. Legal
rulings have held that cops are not liable for not stopping crimes.

"BAR" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:43:26 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

ESAD wrote:
On 12/21/12 9:09 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/21/2012 8:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/21/12 8:48 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:34:59 -0800, thumper
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 9:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
Let's not forget that Nadal Hassan shot 43 people, 13 fatally,
at
Fort
Hood, a facility filled with armed and trained people.
Approximately 214
shots were fired (Hassan had another 177 rounds on him when
captured). He
was attacked by three different soldiers, all of whom he shot.
It
was not
until a civilian police officer arrived some time later that
Hassan was
shot and wounded. If the army can't stop a guy like this, how
is a
kindergarten teacher supposed to?

It was a gun control area. Nobody was allowed to carry weapons.
The
people were trained, but not armed. Most bases in the states
have
the
weapons in the armory. I was stationed on an airbase, Travis,
that had APs
at the gates and the only other armed people were the guards out
on B52
line.

That's interesting. All those trained people. More guns = more
safety... why don't they trust them?

Only Military Police/CID or equivalent carry weapons on a
continuous
basis while on duty in military
installations, unless the installation is in a combat zone. The
weapons are kept in unit armories
and issued when necessary for training - or when needed for a
particular problem.

Why aren't they issued all the time? It could have something to do
with trust. The military does not
want a weapon stolen, misplaced, left unattended at home, or any
of
the other things that can cause
accidents. There is always a dummy in every crowd, and the
military
does have a thief or two in its
population. I look back at 'Project 100,000' and some of the folks
we got then, and I didn't even
want to issue some of those folks weapons for alerts or training.

So, there you have it.

But, like ESAD, if you see a chance to take a swipe at the
military,
please go for it.



The real problem is military pukes like Herring either getting
drunk or
****ed off and going on a shooting spree.

We have a problem with pukes like you going off and not paying your
taxes.



I don't recall alcohol being mentioned in "any" of the mass shooting
stories lately. But harry needs to insult folks daily to make himself
feel better for his miserable failures in life...


I know you aren't too bright, little guy, but we were discussing why
most
military personnel on bases cannot carry firearms. One of the reasons
is
the high degree of alcoholism among military personnel, along with
fighting, spousal abuse and other mental and emotional health issues
the
military doesn't address very well, for various reasons.

There are lots cites regarding military alcoholism. Here is an
interesting one:

http://www.examiner.com/article/gene...holic-military

There's also lots of spousal abuse. The military has a modest Family
Advocacy Program to try to deal with it.

There is a lot of pressure on military personnel. The pressure can be
handled in many ways, some productive, and others, like booze and wife
beating, not so much.

That is not a reason. In 3 years of Travis and most of a year at
Keesler,
I never needed a weapon. I was not in a war zone, and I spent my time
either in school at Keesler or fixing airplanes at Travis. Weapons are
needed in most bases except for a few armed guards in areas that should
be
secure. Probably none at Keesler.

Well, that *is* a reason if, like ESAD and Kevin, you want to make the
military look bad. But, in
almost 30 in the Army, I never heard or gave any thought to the 'booze
and wife-beating' problems
with regard to issuing weapons.

My biggest fear when issuing weapons, in a peacetime situation, was that
one would get lost.

Because you would have to pay for it.



More likely the mound of paperwork required.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...
In article 1953400547377848936.926560bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
Califbill wrote:
iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:51:31 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/21/12 8:48 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:34:59 -0800, thumper
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 9:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
Let's not forget that Nadal Hassan shot 43 people, 13 fatally,
at Fort
Hood, a facility filled with armed and trained people.
Approximately 214
shots were fired (Hassan had another 177 rounds on him when
captured). He
was attacked by three different soldiers, all of whom he shot.
It was not
until a civilian police officer arrived some time later that
Hassan was
shot and wounded. If the army can't stop a guy like this, how
is a
kindergarten teacher supposed to?

It was a gun control area. Nobody was allowed to carry weapons.
The
people were trained, but not armed. Most bases in the states
have the
weapons in the armory. I was stationed on an airbase, Travis,
that had APs
at the gates and the only other armed people were the guards out
on B52
line.

That's interesting. All those trained people. More guns = more
safety... why don't they trust them?

Only Military Police/CID or equivalent carry weapons on a
continuous
basis while on duty in military
installations, unless the installation is in a combat zone. The
weapons are kept in unit armories
and issued when necessary for training - or when needed for a
particular problem.

Why aren't they issued all the time? It could have something to do
with trust. The military does not
want a weapon stolen, misplaced, left unattended at home, or any
of
the other things that can cause
accidents. There is always a dummy in every crowd, and the
military
does have a thief or two in its
population. I look back at 'Project 100,000' and some of the folks
we
got then, and I didn't even
want to issue some of those folks weapons for alerts or training.

So, there you have it.

But, like ESAD, if you see a chance to take a swipe at the
military, please go for it.



The real problem is military pukes like Herring either getting
drunk or
****ed off and going on a shooting spree.

ESAD (Eatin' **** and Dyin'??) - it was folks me who had the keys to
the armory.

It's a shame you ran and hid. You might have learned something.

But, take a swipe at the military any time you get a chance.

You really ought to pay your taxes.

Are you saying there isn't a bad alcoholism problem in the military?

America has an alcoholism problem. Not limited to the military.

The rate in the military is much higher than in the civilian
population.

That is true,but it may also be because of drug testing makes alcohol the
drug of choice.

There's drug testing in most facets of civilian life anymore as well.

Has not seemed to decrease the drug problem. Military, has different rules,
and you do not get a pass on a bad test.

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...
In article 1953400547377848936.926560bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
Califbill wrote:
iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:51:31 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/21/12 8:48 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:34:59 -0800, thumper
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 9:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
Let's not forget that Nadal Hassan shot 43 people, 13 fatally,
at Fort
Hood, a facility filled with armed and trained people.
Approximately 214
shots were fired (Hassan had another 177 rounds on him when
captured). He
was attacked by three different soldiers, all of whom he shot.
It was not
until a civilian police officer arrived some time later that
Hassan was
shot and wounded. If the army can't stop a guy like this, how
is a
kindergarten teacher supposed to?

It was a gun control area. Nobody was allowed to carry weapons.
The
people were trained, but not armed. Most bases in the states
have the
weapons in the armory. I was stationed on an airbase, Travis,
that had APs
at the gates and the only other armed people were the guards out
on B52
line.

That's interesting. All those trained people. More guns = more
safety... why don't they trust them?

Only Military Police/CID or equivalent carry weapons on a
continuous
basis while on duty in military
installations, unless the installation is in a combat zone. The
weapons are kept in unit armories
and issued when necessary for training - or when needed for a
particular problem.

Why aren't they issued all the time? It could have something to do
with trust. The military does not
want a weapon stolen, misplaced, left unattended at home, or any
of
the other things that can cause
accidents. There is always a dummy in every crowd, and the
military
does have a thief or two in its
population. I look back at 'Project 100,000' and some of the folks
we
got then, and I didn't even
want to issue some of those folks weapons for alerts or training.

So, there you have it.

But, like ESAD, if you see a chance to take a swipe at the
military, please go for it.



The real problem is military pukes like Herring either getting
drunk or
****ed off and going on a shooting spree.

ESAD (Eatin' **** and Dyin'??) - it was folks me who had the keys to
the armory.

It's a shame you ran and hid. You might have learned something.

But, take a swipe at the military any time you get a chance.

You really ought to pay your taxes.

Are you saying there isn't a bad alcoholism problem in the military?

America has an alcoholism problem. Not limited to the military.

The rate in the military is much higher than in the civilian
population.

That is true,but it may also be because of drug testing makes alcohol the
drug of choice.

There's drug testing in most facets of civilian life anymore as well.

Has not seemed to decrease the drug problem. Military, has different rules,
and you do not get a pass on a bad test.

Back when I was in the reserves we had to take a **** test every
quarter. Everyone E-4 and above who came up positive got a COG discharge
immediately. We lost several captains and lieutenants and some NCOs.

On 12/22/2012 4:13 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/21/12 10:10 PM, thumper wrote:

I'm also not impressed by the tactical skills or marksmanship of the
average police officer. Fire away...

I'm afraid you are correct. I see "average" police officers at the
shooting range several times a month. A very few have extraordinary
handgun skills, but most are mediocre shots, even at the "typical"
defensive range of seven yards. Not enough paid time to practice?

And those are the ones at the range practicing.