Previous Post
Next Post

Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, III Corps and Fort Hood commanding general (courtesy

At a 10:45pm EST news conference, Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, III Corps and Fort Hood commanding general [above] revealed that Fort Hood shooter Spc. Ivan Lopez, 1st Battalion, Warrior Transition Brigade [click here for a picture] served four months in Iraq in 2011. Although Lopez was not diagnosed with PTSD he was “undergoing behavioral health and psychiatric treatment” for depression and anxiety. He was taking psych meds as part of his treatment. Lopez murdered his fellow soldiers with a .45 caliber Smith & Wesson, which was not registered on the base. Sixteen others were wounded. A female officer (a.k.a., a “good guy with a gun”) drew her weapon on Lopez, who then turned the gun on himself. Milley also said he is against military personnel carrying firearms on base for personal protection.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. And the good General is A-OK with a 10-15 minute response time ON BASE versus legal concealed carry. Does he own stock in Bates Caskets?

  2. Again, how would registration have stopped this? I’ve had soldiers who had PTSD and owned guns and were never a threat to anyone. I know a few that would have been more depressed losing their guns and their ability to go shooting than how to PTSD made them feel.

    • The argument that the antis will make (and it is wrong) is that if it was registered then A) the command structure would be aware B) being aware they could remove the firearm if they saw a need or C) the ID scanners at the gate could be cued to flag him as a risk for extra scrutiny when entering the base.

      They will argue by knowing and having the authority to remove or more closely monitor him that action could have been taken to prevent this. When in all likelihood attempting to remove his firearms or causing more “random access measures” to stop him at the gate would have pushed him into a bunker mindset.

  3. CNN uses the term “not YET diagnosed with PTSD”.
    I dunno, but I think that those PTSDers are as prone to violence as Asperger’s patients…..

  4. It’s sad these things happen. Regardless of the laws about weapons on base it breaks my heart whenever a veteran loses the battle against PTSD. It doesn’t justify what he did, but it’s still tragic that it came to this. I’ll keep the shooters family in my prayers along with the victims and their families.

    EDIT: I misread the part that said he was NOT diagnosed PTSD. Still his family will be in my prayers as this will still be difficult for them.

      • The Anti’s can stop enabling criminals at any time, and stop wanting MY death. Until then, I am no longer concerned about their delicate feels.

    • Well now…. You wonder why these “wonderf–ks” are scared of you…. owning guns? Realllllly? Is it not dishonorable to express such anger and delusional hatred towards anything? Including your enemy? I sure as hell wouldnt trust you with such a temper and quick fuse with a firearm. That is not to say anything about the 2nd amendment, but anyone who is worth 5 cents will know that the 2nd amendment really has little to do with a civilian himself owning a gun. It has to do with states having the right to create armies if the need to defend themselves from a tyranical government arises. Am i against the 2nd? Heyalll NOOO. Do i think anyone with PTSD, drug addictions, violent records, other psychologically hazardous conditions, and anger issues should not have the right to tote? YES. If you want to reflect true Americanism, stand proud, strong, and stoic in the face of hatred, disgust, or rage. Acting like you just inhaled an ounce of meth and caught your daughter in bed with your best man only displays your lack of conviction and reason. Good luck in life, people like yourself are the reason so many are afraid of “gun-nuts” which sucks because to me guns should be tools of defense, not offense.

      • “That is not to say anything about the 2nd amendment, but anyone who is worth 5 cents will know that the 2nd amendment really has little to do with a civilian himself owning a gun.”

        Dude, you need a remedial reading course or something. The 2nd Amendment is entirely about civilians, themselves, owning guns.

      • You figured that all out on pavepushers few comments?
        You sound mad as hell yourself.
        I’d go to battle with pavepusher at my side and he had better be madder than hell when we get in the shit. It’s what keeps you alive! You can be madder than hell and still keep your head……thats how you’re trained!

      • “quick temper”?

        Bub, it’s taken me 45 years, 23.5 of them in the USAF, to get to this point. Any quicker and I’d be a victim of continental drift.

        You poltroon.

      • P.S.

        “That is not to say anything about the 2nd amendment, but anyone who is worth 5 cents will know that the 2nd amendment really has little to do with a civilian himself owning a gun. It has to do with states having the right to create armies if the need to defend themselves from a tyranical government arises.”

        Aaaaaaaaannnnnndddd…. you’re an idiot.

  5. The General’s statement may have absolutely nothing to do with his personal opinion. Whatever he says will fit with the policy of the chain of command, or he will be replaced with someone who does. My guess is that he personally doesn’t want carry of loaded weapons on post either, but we will probably never know.

    In some ways, commissioned officers have less freedom than enlisted men. Nobody cares what a private says, because nobody listens.

    • He said “I…”. If he was simply quoting the “party line”, he’d have said, “Official policy states…”, or something to that effect.

      • No, he wouldn’t. A general officer can’t hide behind clever phrasing like that, too many people listen to him. Too many people watch him. If he is seen to disdain or disparage the decisions made by those above him in the chain of command, he can create a lack of respect for the organization, and an atmosphere of insubordination.

        This cannot be tolerated if you want a unit of any size to be able to act together. Add to that the political aspect of serving under the rule of a political party which has shown a long history of disdain and disrespect for the values and beliefs of traditional military people since Carter, and he quite simply would never say anything implying he disagreed with a policy like this one, unless he wanted to retire from the service.

        • Exactly so.

          Pave, with respect- to suggest otherwise displays ignorance of how the military works.

          Remember that in the US the military is subordinate to Civilian control, in the person of the Commander In Chief, per Article 2 of the Constitution.

          Officers swear an oath, to follow that leadership- and there is an unwritten code that says, “no matter how much you may personally disagree, you are expected to honor that”, excluding illegal orders, acts of treason, etc.

          Step over the gray line even to make a bad joke, as Hasdrubal explains, is so contrary to good order and discipline, that an honorary officer will resign when they realize that, no matter how feckless and un-derserving the individual politician sitting in the chair, and how competent in war that officer might be. The point is, to be insubordinate to the Office of the Commander in Chief, is un-acceptable.

          Remember McChrystal?
          Or MacArthur, under Truman, in the Korean War?
          Or McClellan, under Lincoln, in the Civil War?

        • @rlc2, actually we don’t take an oath to the leadership. The text of an officers oath is as follows:

          “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

          You will note that the object of my oath is towards the Constitution not towards any person specifically or office of leadership. I, as a commissioned officer, respect the positions of authority over me and will abide by and carry out their orders to the extent permitted by my oath. At the end of the day though my loyalty is to the ideals of my faith first and the Constitution second and not to any leader (be that a person or a position).

          That being said I recognize the authority granted to my leaders through the Constitution. I voluntarily place myself under that authority. I also recognize that their authority is limited by the same. I will support my leadership within the scope of the authority they are granted but no further.

        • What pyratemime said.

          Also, I know quite well how the military works. Been in it for 23.5 years so far. What I see is a General putting his desire for promotion and rank above duty and the welfare of his troops.

          High military office and leadership should not be about ‘go-along-to-get-along’, it should be about doing what is right, honorable and mission-accomplishment. Allowing your troops to be vulnerable to murderers while in garrison is not right, not honorable, and does not contribute to mission accomplishment.

    • So, you mean he is as gutless and lacking in integrity and honor as the typical “good cop”. If he had any courage he would have resigned rather than enforce these idiotic rules. If he had any honor now he would commit seppuku.

      • And I certainly don’t require going so far as to actually commit ritual suicide.

        But a formal, public resignation in protest, or suitable equivalent, would certainly be refreshing and inspiring leadership.

  6. “Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, III Corps and Fort Hood commanding general … also said he is against military personnel carrying firearms on base for personal protection.”

    We will never know what his true opinion is, because he is smart enough to know that a senior officer should never publicly disagree with the Commander In Chief.

    • Bullshit. Almost every great and successful U.S. flag officer has had disagreements with the CiC, often public, and very frequently correctly so.

    • He also owned a gun. The response to both statements is… “so?”

      People crazy enough to go on a shooting spree are probably crazy enough to be undergoing treatment.

    • As mush as a POS Clintion was/is, the disarmament policy didn’t start with BillyBob. Dates to Oct1985 *when I reported to Benning) or earlier. Stupid/ilegal then and stupid now.

  7. Another damaged human almost certainly filled with drugs that made things worse. Tragic for everyone involved.

  8. How could Lopez murder his fellow soldiers? Aren’t U.S. Military bases “gun free” zones? Mentally unsound, murderers, and Muslim jihadists obey the rules don’t they? They can read the signs and they know the rules and none bring guns on the bases because that is against the rules, right?

    The most fertile ground for mentally unsound, murderers, and Muslim jihadists are “gun free” zones such as U.S. Military bases, schools, universities, shopping centers, and various cities in the U.S. led by Democrats.

  9. The true issue that is of course going to be buried is why a man who had a disagreement with other men, as we are hearing, felt the need to murder them. We see this day in and day out in our cities and towns, when so-called tough guys resort to shooting someone they have a fight with instead of just using their fists. Or better yet ignoring those people and moving on with their life. Guns have NOTHING to do with this problem in our society, but of course they will be blamed. Because again, we are not being controlled for our safety, we are being controlled for the safety of those who want power.

  10. He probably snapped knowing thay the same people he would be fighting alongside, were also men who would rape Iraqi and Afgani children in front of their parents to intimidate any resistance. But now getting back on the topic about guns. Then only thong I see out of this is the government expanding on this so called “mental health checks”. But that leads you to wonder what they look for, it isn’t always so obvious.

    • Its the owners fault, not giving them the proper discipline. You have to assert your dominance over the gun so it doesn’t think its the alpha. Best to keep a good grip when you take it for walkies so it doesn’t try to turn and look at the other guns on the range. Guns are very social so you have to give them the attention and care they deserve.

  11. Gents I know 90% of the commenters here get it- but lets just remind ourselves of the tragedy and grief his family is facing, and will have to deal with for the rest of their lives, including all the news and commentary on the internet.

    We POTG, who may perhaps best understand the daily sacrifices of our military brothers and sisters, and the challenges of dealing with their experiences and injuries- lets be respectful, and wait for the facts to come out.

    I suggest we can do that, in deference, and lead by example, in contrast to the “the blood-dancers” who are so eager to speak…and twist the truth.

  12. Yet Another breach in the magic-fairy land of the Gun Free zone.

    The real tragedy is that those men/women that were fired on never had a snowballs chance in hell as the weren’t allowed to defend themselves

    • If you’re referring to the practice of pumping a mentally unstable individual full of psychotropic drugs when not even the manufacturers understand the mechanism by which they work then nope, no pattern here.

  13. I feel terrible for the people that got shot and for their families. I can’t imagine what they are going through right now, but they should also be outraged. For it is the government that turned these great men and women of our armed services into, as the anchors on FOX described, “sitting ducks in a shooting gallery”.

  14. Did not one of the writers just say that those who have mental issue be incarcerated in debate? Yes, he did.

  15. Looks like every one of these shooters is stopped the second they encounter resistance. If our soldiers could carry sidearms, this wouldn’t have happened.

    I do think our soldiers need better mental health treatment though. Those guys go to Hell and back and need nothing but the best we can give them when they get home.

    • You are so right! They have to kill or be killed and that isn’t easy to live with for most! Some that face the worst fight demons every day. Most are mentally prepared enough to cope…say a prayer for those who aren’t!

  16. Again, good person with gun confronts shooter, shooter kills self, this seems to be a pattern. But, the General still thinks guns on base is a bad idea. The law didn’t stop him from bringing the gun on base.

  17. By my count, he fired his “Smith & Wesson .45” at least 20 times. How is that even possible? I thought the M&P45 could only hold 10+1?

    We’ve been told that magazine capacity laws would eliminate just this sort of tragedy. Have we been hoodwinked?

  18. The truth: Standard-issue .45 caliber handgun used. Shooter’s name is Lopez. Female soldier resists – shooter then kills himself.

    The way it will be reported: Assault rifle w/ high-cap magazine used, shooter was ‘white hispanic’, with “possible” right-wing ties & mental health issues (that’s why he was ‘right-wing’ after all), who was suicidal.

  19. Milley also said he is against military personnel carrying firearms on base for personal protection.

    So am I to presume, then, Gen. Milley, you’re FOR military personnel carrying firearms on base for nation protection?

  20. My condolences to the families of the victims. I have to agree with the folks who question the cocktail of SSRIs and other brain lubricants that this soldier was on to help him cope as the root cause of this shooting.

  21. The “Warrior Transition Unit”, or WTU, is a unit whose mission consists solely of recovery after a debilitating injury. It has quickly become a black hole for those that can not perform their duties but are able to use a medical excuse to justify the deficiency. Considering the fact that our little hero served only a partial deployment in Iraq after all combat operations had been handed over to the Iraqis suggests that he was merely milking the system in the manner that it has been so conveniently set up.

  22. Tom Forrest

    You beat me to it, but I’m gonna reach further. My coin is on the lad rolling into the depression unit (warrior whatever), successfully enrolled with the purpose of getting disability, now the bombshell…the drugs prescribed actually altered his brain, lowered the tolerance rational thinking. Insert gun and we have a winner. Smelling cordite and coming off the adrenalin, reality took hold, realized what happened and smoked Mr. Browning.

    There I said it…and might have an element of truth. Once agin the Army takes the easy way out, hire mind doctors, prescribes drugs, instead of a platoon packing a ruck and talking a long walk, building campfires, man hugging, and working through the brain housing group.

  23. S&W .45ACP 10 round magazine. So, no “assault weapon”, no ” high capacity magazine”. And it was a soldier, who along with the police, should be the only ones that have guns (according to liberals). What are the anti’s going to do with their rhetoric now?

    • Well, obviously the lack of “universal background checks” allowed a mentally ill person to legally buy a gun.

      At least that’s my prediction on the liberal spin.

      Oh… and another argument for a 6-round mag limit.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here