# Force Protection Condition raised on domestic bases



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Saw this come out a few minutes ago and thought I'd pass it along.



> The four-star commander who oversees U.S. military operations in North America ordered domestic military bases nationwide to increase their force protection measures amid heightened concern about terrorist threats.


http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/05/08/force-protection-bravo/26977641/


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Protection_Condition



> In United States security, *Force Protection Condition* (*FPCON* for short) is a terrorist threat system overseen by the Department of Defense directive, and describes the amount of measures needed to be taken by security agencies in response to various levels of terrorist threats against military facilities, as opposed to DEFCON, which assesses the amount of military forces needed to be deployed in a situation with a certain likelihood of attack against the civilian population.


----------



## trulytricia (Oct 11, 2002)

So have our borders been closed? Let me guess. NO.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

Truly, read what it says, they are worried about the bases security, not the citizens!, that would be defcon, no problems there, everything is fine??


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

*"The U.S. military has increased the threat level at bases across North America. Officials say the incremental boost will likely mean heightened vigilance and more random bag or vehicle checks..."*


http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/...ing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=1017189109

Warrant? We don't need no stinkin' warrant. What a reeking pile this is.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

trulytricia said:


> So have our borders been closed? Let me guess. NO.


What would be the point of closing the borders and paralyzing the nation? Wouldn't that be falling in line with exactly what terrorists want?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Fennick said:


> What would be the point of closing the borders and paralyzing the nation? Wouldn't that be falling in line with exactly what terrorists want?


Er, you suppose she means the same border where the guy dressed as bin laden was videoed walking back and forth across it? The same one millions of illegals have just walked across? The same one where they find korans and prayer rugs?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Er, you suppose she means the same border where the guy dressed as bin laden was videoed walking back and forth across it? The same one millions of illegals have just walked across? The same one where they find korans and prayer rugs?


So what? The question was, what would be the point of closing the borders? Closing the borders to whom? 

How will closing the borders make any difference to illegals who have already been crossing the border illegally anyway? Do you think they would stop doing that just because the official border crossing points are closed to everyone else? 

How can the borders be effectively closed without installing a wall or a string of several thousands of military troops standing in line side by side from one end of the border to the other?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Fennick said:


> So what? The question was, what would be the point of closing the borders? Closing the borders to whom?
> 
> How will closing the borders make any difference to illegals who have already been crossing the border illegally anyway? Do you think they would stop doing that just because the official border crossing points are closed to everyone else?
> 
> *How can the borders be effectively closed without installing a wall or a string of several thousands of military troops standing in line side by side from one end of the border to the other?*


I believe this is what is wanted by the fans of closing the border? Probably a wall with armed troops on top.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> *"The U.S. military has increased the threat level at bases across North America. Officials say the incremental boost will likely mean heightened vigilance and more random bag or vehicle checks..."*
> 
> 
> http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/08/us-military-bumps-up-threat-level-at-bases-in-north-america/21181238/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D1017189109
> ...


Since you have no need to drive onto a military base I am not understanding the problem with this? We have had barriers up at bases and random car checks and ID's needed, etc ever since 9/11. If you don't want to jump through the hoops just don't drive onto a military base. Military personnel already have to jump through these hoops anyways. My point being this isn't like a random checkpoint on a highway, I would agree with completely on that. This is just at Base entrances.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Is it a full moon? Or maybe some just need to slow down on the caffeine?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> I believe this is what is wanted by the fans of closing the border? Probably a wall with armed troops on top.


Works for me!!


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> Since you have no need to drive onto a military base I am not understanding the problem with this? We have had barriers up at bases and random car checks and ID's needed, etc ever since 9/11. If you don't want to jump through the hoops just don't drive onto a military base. Military personnel already have to jump through these hoops anyways. My point being this isn't like a random checkpoint on a highway, I would agree with completely on that. This is just at Base entrances.


That's kinda my opinion - if you work on a military base, they already do random ID and vehicle checks and the like; FPCON Bravo just basically means they step it up a bit.

I will disagree with one point, however - technically FPCON Bravo applies to the entire military installation - e.g., be aware of people on posts who look like they're way abnormal (sneaking around, trying to be secretive and the like, especially with large packages and vehicles). But the vast majority of the issues/changes will be felt by those who are driving on post, because an increase in force protection posture will invariably cause a bit more of a delay getting on post.

Therefore my solution: I leave about 15 minutes earlier. LOL


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Since you have no need to drive onto a military base I am not understanding the problem with this? We have had barriers up at bases and random car checks and ID's needed, etc ever since 9/11. If you don't want to jump through the hoops just don't drive onto a military base. Military personnel already have to jump through these hoops anyways. My point being this isn't like a random checkpoint on a highway, I would agree with completely on that. This is just at Base entrances.


If it stays on the base, That's fine...I have to wonder how far out from the base security begins. 

Ironically enough, open borders and all...I've seen border patrol more than 100 miles from the Canadian border.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Since you have no need to drive onto a military base I am not understanding the problem with this? We have had barriers up at bases and random car checks and ID's needed, etc ever since 9/11. If you don't want to jump through the hoops just don't drive onto a military base. Military personnel already have to jump through these hoops anyways. My point being this isn't like a random checkpoint on a highway, I would agree with completely on that. This is just at Base entrances.


They were doing it since WWII. I had my car searched in1980. The military has one inch outside of their base can have authority on..


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Let's hope they're not smart enough to have a secondary target. If they do, wouldn't the alert just make them target non-military targets?

I don't understand why the military announced this. Maybe it's to draw attention away from the royal screw-up the FBI made regarding the Texas attack.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

trulytricia said:


> So have our borders been closed? Let me guess. NO.


Post of the day award!!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> If it stays on the base, That's fine...I have to wonder how far out from the base security begins.
> 
> Ironically enough, open borders and all...I've seen border patrol more than 100 miles from the Canadian border.


Military base security starts at the gates

Border Patrol has nothing to do with the military


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Old Vet said:


> They were doing it since WWII. I had my car searched in1980. The military has one inch outside of their base can have authority on..



Interesting, I never had my car searched. Even during Desert Storm. I haven't seen anything previously that compared to post 9/11. Maybe something upped the threat level back in 1980?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Let's hope they're not smart enough to have a secondary target. If they do, wouldn't the alert just make them target non-military targets?
> 
> I don't understand why the military announced this. Maybe it's to draw attention away from the royal screw-up the FBI made regarding the Texas attack.


They always announce this.... Once again mandatory military service would be useful. Between this thread and the Jade Helm one I am really surprised by civilian attitudes and how shocked they are by normal ordinary things the military has done forever.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> They always announce this.... Once again mandatory military service would be useful. Between this thread and the Jade Helm one I am really surprised by civilian attitudes and how shocked they are by normal ordinary things the military has done forever.


So when was the last time we had a national fpcon beta?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> So when was the last time we had a national fpcon beta?


I believe last one was when bin Laden was killed.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Interesting, I never had my car searched. Even during Desert Storm. I haven't seen anything previously that compared to post 9/11. Maybe something upped the threat level back in 1980?


Yes their was it was because of the Cubans that were housed their.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> So when was the last time we had a national fpcon beta?


FPCON Bravo. 



> Since the U.S. Northern Command was established in October 2002, the threat level has reached Bravo on four occasions: Feb. 9, 2003, amid concerns al Qaeda was planning attacks on American targets; Dec. 21, 2003, when officials were concerned about attacks during the holiday season; May 1, 2011, in the aftermath of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden; and the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
> It reached Delta, its highest level, on Sept. 11, 2001, Pentagon officials told CNN at the time.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/force-protection-condition-level-bravo/index.html


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> FPCON Bravo.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/force-protection-condition-level-bravo/index.html


Thanks. I knew it was bravo, but my fingers typed beta.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2015)

Patriot Act expires in June and up for reinstatement,, no correlation there with all the media and government hype on terrorist activity do ya think....


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> Patriot Act expires in June and up for reinstatement,, no correlation there with all the media and government hype on terrorist activity do ya think....


 I guess the question would be do you think the group who started the contest to draw cartoons of Mohamed and the 2 terrorists who attacked them were in on it. Because that is what caused the threat alert to go up.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> I guess the question would be do you think the group who started the contest to draw cartoons of Mohamed and the 2 terrorists who attacked them were in on it. Because that is what caused the threat alert to go up.


Nope (at least in my opinion) but it will be capitalized on. Not stopping things that you have intel on from happening leaves one to wonder the bounds of culpability.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> I guess the question would be do you think the group who started the contest to draw cartoons of Mohamed and the 2 terrorists who attacked them were in on it. Because that is what caused the threat alert to go up.


Your logic escapes me. Why would the military put bases on alert if a private, civilian conference was attacked?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> Nope (at least in my opinion) but it will be capitalized on. *Not stopping things that you have intel on *from happening leaves one to wonder the bounds of culpability.


They had no specific details about any attack, and I seem to recall it WAS stopped as quickly as it began


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Your logic escapes me. Why would the military put bases on alert if a private, civilian conference was attacked?


Because military bases and troops are a high profile target
Terrorists like publicity


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because military bases and troops are a high profile target
> Terrorists like publicity


Not any more than they like civilian targets. Supposedly it was issued because of increase terrorist communication traffic with no specific target. If military raised the threat level, why didn't Homeland Security?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Not any more than they like civilian targets. Supposedly it was issued because of increase terrorist communication traffic with no specific target. If military raised the threat level, why didn't Homeland Security?


There's been a long term talk about specifically targeting military troops and their families

This is just one more event that raises an already high threat level

http://www.worldmag.com/2014/10/isis_orders_attacks_against_u_s_military_families

http://drmilitarymom.com/2015/03/24...predators-and-threats-to-the-military-family/

They can't order civilians to be more careful, and if they did some would say it's "martial law" or some other silly such notion


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's been a long term talk about specifically targeting military troops and their families
> 
> This is just one more event that raises an already high threat level
> 
> ...


Homeland Security did it several times under Bush. Remember the color codes?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Homeland Security did it several times under Bush. Remember the color codes?


They've done away with those, and they really didn't affect "civilians" much anyway

They too were aimed mainly at the military and LEO communities



> In the United States, the Homeland Security Advisory System was a color-coded terrorism threat advisory scale. The different levels triggered specific actions by federal agencies and state and local governments, and they affected the level of security at some airports and other public facilities.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They had no specific details about any attack, and I seem to recall it WAS stopped as quickly as it began


I guess sending an alert hours before the shooting to the local LE with photos and auto description just leaves to much wiggle room for competent security. You are right I failed to enter the inept formula into your precious organization.
But the point being the Patriot Act is back up for renewal and you will get your way and bind the country in shackles to numb your fears.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> I guess sending an alert hours before the shooting to the local LE with photos and auto description just leaves to much wiggle room for *competent security*. You are right I failed to enter *the inept formula into your precious organization.*
> But the point being the Patriot Act is back up for renewal and *you will get your way* and *bind the country in shackles to numb your fears*.


I'm not sure what you call "competent security", but they had more than enough to stop the attack.

What's the point in the meaningless rhetoric?


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

There is currently a list of 100 US servicemen and women who are being targeted by ISIS. They found their home addresses and other personal information and have sent it to their "operatives". These people are in real danger. They are not fighting overseas. They are here in the states. Also they must abide by state law of whichever state the base is located in. Which means the ones who live states restrictive CCW laws may not be able to defend themselves. 
If you don't want to be subject to additional searches don't go on military bases, but the military needs this. They're being targeted at their homes and at their work.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure what you call "competent security", but they had more than enough to stop the attack.
> 
> What's the point in the meaningless rhetoric?


Your failure to grasp the point is not a problem with me,,,have a wonderful day,,Shalom


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

This really has nothing to do with the generic civilian population. It's no different than if any business received a credible threat against its employees and hired additional security. The military isn't on alert, ready to jump off base guns blazing and repress the rights of the civilians. They are increasing security due to a credible threat against their lives and property.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

I wonder what threat exixts? I also wonder how double searching my walmart bag at the base gate has anything to do with anything, anyway.

9/11 Was an inside job. At least many folks believe this.

It appears that we have found the enemy, and it is us.:stars:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> I guess sending an alert hours before the shooting to the local LE with photos and auto description just leaves to much wiggle room for competent security. You are right I failed to enter the inept formula into your precious organization.
> But the point being the Patriot Act is back up for renewal and you will get your way and bind the country in shackles to numb your fears.


What does this have to do with the Patriot Act? 

I haven't seen any news reports about an alert, do you have a link? I just looked and didn't come up with anything.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

FutureFarm said:


> This really has nothing to do with the generic civilian population. It's no different than if any business received a credible threat against its employees and hired additional security. The military isn't on alert, ready to jump off base guns blazing and repress the rights of the civilians. They are increasing security due to a credible threat against their lives and property.


Where did you see that the threat was against them? The old threat has been out there for months and they didn't raise FPCon. 


> Military bases and installations in the United States have been ordered to raise their force protection condition status to Bravo (FPCON Bravo), due to general concerns about ISIS related threats, but not because of any specific threat or plot.


 abc


----------



## puddlejumper007 (Jan 12, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> They always announce this.... Once again mandatory military service would be useful. Between this thread and the Jade Helm one I am really surprised by civilian attitudes and how shocked they are by normal ordinary things the military has done forever.


maybe people are just now starting to pay more attention...


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

The military receives hundreds of threats each day and the FPCON rarely changes. I'm not in military intelligence, but the fact that FPCON was raised is a sure sign that this was not an average daily threat. I'm sure there is a specific threat and I'm sure that for operational security that specific threat would not be made public.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> What does this have to do with the Patriot Act?
> 
> *Justification (a talking point for politicians) for reinstatement maybe*
> 
> I haven't seen any news reports about an alert, do you have a link? I just looked and didn't come up with anything.


*I found it using google search here is one of many http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32632513, it was also reported by AP and Yahoo news. I guess the point is lost on you and there is no need to debate.*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> Your failure to grasp the point is not a problem with me,,,have a wonderful day,,Shalom


There is no point in mindless rhetoric
It's just empty words



> I guess the point is lost on you and there is no need to debate.


Parroting cliches isn't debating


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> *I found it using google search here is one of many http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32632513, it was also reported by AP and Yahoo news. I guess the point is lost on you and there is no need to debate.*





> The FBI had warned Texas officials several hours before a provocative Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that a suspected extremist could show up at the event.
> But FBI Director James Comey said on Thursday the agency had no indication that the attack on Sunday was planned.


Everyone knew that was a possibility of course. Just plain old common sense would tell them that. I thought you meant they had specific knowledge of someone who was going to do it and it was ignored.


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Everyone knew that was a possibility of course. Just plain old common sense would tell them that. I thought you meant they had specific knowledge of someone who was going to do it and it was ignored.


They had one of the gunmen specifically identified. Any way I guess an opinion is just that and is not appreciated at all,,, have a good day...


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no point in mindless rhetoric
> It's just empty words
> 
> 
> Parroting cliches isn't debating


Aint you special,,,have a wonderful day


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> They had one of the gunmen specifically identified. Any way I guess an opinion is just that and is not appreciated at all,,, have a good day...


They stopped him didn't they?


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They stopped him didn't they?


Yep,, no thanks to bureaucratic machine and intel. The Officer on the scene did a good job.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> Yep,, no thanks to bureaucratic machine and intel. The Officer on the scene did a good job.


They couldn't stop him before he acted
That's not how things work


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They couldn't stop him before he acted
> That's not how things work


That is BS and you know it. No more from me you are the winner of the relentless Statist award.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> That is BS and you know it. No more from me you are the winner of the relentless Statist award.


No, it's not "BS" to say police can't act before a crime is committed.
If they did you'd be complaining about that too.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's not "BS" to say police can't act before a crime is committed.
> If they did you'd be complaining about that too.


You might want to explain that legal standard to the police in Iowa. http://www.examiner.com/article/iowa-teen-described-as-shy-girl-faces-terrorism-charges. Here's a 16 year old girl in custody for conspiracy to commit terrorism.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Okay is this really where you guys are wanting us to go? Arresting people for running their mouths? I don't think the girl should have been arrested. http://www.heartlandconnection.com/news/story.aspx?id=706831#.VVUtYJOLgwo

I can't find out what actually happened to her, sadly the news is about useless on follow-ups.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You might want to explain that legal standard to the police in Iowa. http://www.examiner.com/article/iowa-teen-described-as-shy-girl-faces-terrorism-charges. Here's a 16 year old girl in custody for conspiracy to commit terrorism.


Conspiracy is a crime in itself


> The Ottumwa, Iowa teen, identified as Emily Kay Six was arrested on Thursday, investigators said after another student told school officials the girl was trying to recruit students in a plot to harm "a number of students." The 16-year-old girl was taken to a juvenile detention center.


That's a specific threat, not some vague internet rambling


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's not "BS" to say police can't act before a crime is committed.
> If they did you'd be complaining about that too.


Yes it is BS, people are stopped and questioned all the time as you may recall in your experience, there is a tactic up held by SCOTUS called reasonable suspicion. That information/suspicion, unfortunately for the security guard shot, was not passed along adequately.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> Yes it is BS, people are stopped and questioned all the time as you may recall in your experience, there is a tactic up held by SCOTUS called* reasonable suspicion*. That information/suspicion, unfortunately for the security guard shot, was not passed along adequately.


There was no a specific threat, and therefore no reason to "stop and question him"
Do you seriously think they should watch everyone 24/7?


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was no a *specific* threat, and therefore no reason to "stop and question him"
> Do you seriously think they should watch everyone 24/7?


Does not need to be specific just a reasonable suspicion, with his background and proximity to an event/person targeted by a terrorist organization any LE worth his salt could justify a stop well before the shooter/s reached their target. But I do agree we should not stifle freedom in the name of security, so it all worked out great I guess. Maybe you can argue away the Patriot act and the NDAA, Oh wait if I recall correctly you argued for the NDAA,,,my bad


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Does not need to be specific just a reasonable suspicion, with his background and proximity to an event/person targeted by a terrorist organization any LE worth his salt could justify a stop well before the shooter/s reached their target


.
That's still totally unrealistic and would require they watch him all the time



> Maybe you can argue away the Patriot act and the NDAA, Oh wait *if I recall correctly* you argued for the NDAA,,,my bad


I suspect that's all in your mind

Why don't we stick to one topic per thread?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

This shooting in Chattanooga is the second base attack since the FPC was raised. We had one here in Little Rock with fortunately no fatalities but the gunman.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> This shooting in Chattanooga is the second base attack since the FPC was raised. We had one here in Little Rock with fortunately no fatalities but the gunman.


You might want to read about the one in Little Rock One Army man was killed and another was wounded and the gunman was not killed and just had the trial.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> *"The U.S. military has increased the threat level at bases across North America. Officials say the incremental boost will likely mean heightened vigilance and more random bag or vehicle checks..."*
> 
> 
> http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/...ing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=1017189109
> ...


They've never needed a warrant for anyone entering a military base.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Old Vet said:


> You might want to read about the one in Little Rock One Army man was killed and another was wounded and the gunman was not killed and just had the trial.


I don't know what you are talking about but the gunman in the shooting that happened on June 15th of this year at the Little Rock AFB died. Maybe you are thinking about the incident in Conway a few years back? 

http://www.thv11.com/story/news/2015/06/17/mcelroy-family-sheds-light-on-struggles/28903679/



> LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KTHV) - The family of Larry McElroy, the man shot and killed as he threatened Little Rock Air Force Base Monday, is speaking out about their loved one's past.
> They describe McElroy as caring and outgoing, but also as a man who was deeply troubled and desperately seeking help.
> "That's all he needed was help, because he's not a bad person. He's not a killer, he's not a terrorist," said Andrea McElroy.
> Andrea McElroy fights back tears as she describes her cousin, Larry McElroy. The same man police say tried to force his way through the main gate of the Little Rock Force Base Monday with a gun.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I don't know what you are talking about but the gunman in the shooting that happened on June 15th of this year at the Little Rock AFB died. Maybe you are thinking about the incident in Conway a few years back?
> 
> http://www.thv11.com/story/news/2015/06/17/mcelroy-family-sheds-light-on-struggles/28903679/


 I was talking about the one in Little Rock not the one in Jacksonville ( Little Rock Airforce base) or the one in Conway. That is where they attack the Recruiting station.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Old Vet said:


> I was talking about the one in Little Rock not the one in Jacksonville ( Little Rock Airforce base) or the one in Conway. That is where they attack the Recruiting station.


This one then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Little_Rock_recruiting_office_shooting


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> This one then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Little_Rock_recruiting_office_shooting


Yep that one. It is near the one today. The other ones were not.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It is about time we do this, "gun-free zones" at military facilities. Three are calling for a end to that. Yeah,


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> It is about time we do this, "gun-free zones" at military facilities. Three are calling for a end to that. Yeah,


I hate to be the one to tell you but they already are.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> I hate to be the one to tell you but they already are.


I'm pretty sure he meant to say "do away with"


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm pretty sure he meant to say "do away with"


That is why I ended with ----They are calling for a *end to that-----.* End the gun free zones.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

why don't we just find the head , decapitate it , and be done with the whole affair ........ ~ shrugs ~


----------

