Heck, let em open carry. I fully support either though.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...tions/FDk9cNpH
Heck, let em open carry. I fully support either though.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...tions/FDk9cNpH
Signed and shared on the evil Facebook.
This should not even be a question on a military installation.
They're not allowed to drink till they're 21. Should they be carrying guns[facepalm]Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
We are one of the most disarmed segments of society on base
I've said it once, I've said it 1,000 times: They trust us with loaded "assault rifles" downrange, carried in a loaded posture, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week... why not back home?
Signed and shared.
I see no problem. They defend their country, they have the most training etc etc. why shouldn't they be given a lifetime CCW anywhere in the country, not just on military installations.
While I can see the arguments for letting soldiers carry on base, I also remember some instances that lead to commanders pointing to why soldiers in the barracks could have no weapons at all. Like in Hawaii some infantry guy had a pistol in his room and one drunken night kills the pizza delivery guy for some reason. Or an argument over some barracks skank gets one guy gut stabbed with a k-bar. The problems of these daytime shootings might be solved, but the night time accidents after pounding a 12 pack might be worse. There would have to be major changes in mentalities for this to work, and I don't see the power drinking and testosterone fueled idiocy common in on base parties stopping anytime soon.
Military bases are not any more subject to shootings or crime than any other city. There are just as many people on a military base that I don't want armed with an assault rifle as there are civilians who I don't want to see armed with an assault rifle. If the shooter at Ft. Hood this past week had his M4, the situation would have been even worse.
Unless things have changed in the last 20 years, it's the only way to keep DA civilians alive, given the way they treat soldiers. I guess we'd have to add contractors that list, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Service members aren't trusted with loaded weapons overseas either. What makes anyone think they will allow it here?
Why does this work so well in Israel? Don't they require all their soldiers to have their M4 with them at ALL times? A google search shows girls on the beach carrying these things around. I have never heard of a mass shooting over there by one of their soldiers and they require everyone to join the military after school.
If the shooter at Ft. Hood this past week had his M4, AND SO DID EVERYONE ELSE ON BASE, the situation would have ended quickly, if it happened at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedysst
Yep!Quote:
Originally Posted by KAPA
I think it would have been more of a deterrent than stopping the shooting shortly after beginning. These people are cowards. The moment they're met with armed resistance they give up or take their own life. If everyone had been armed, they would have chosen some place else.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
I expect you mean in Garrison?Quote:
Originally Posted by coloccw
Certainly it was a long time ago, in a land far, far away, and maybe the circumstances of handling classified material and gear warranted it, but when I was in DE and worked shift at a comm center, the repair tech on duty as radio operator had ready access to a rack of M16's and a basic load.
Back in the real world (1st ID Fort Riley), we never had access to ammunition unless it was during refresh or qual.
I'm on the fence about arming soldiers in garrison with M4's, but there's no compelling reason I can see to prohibit permitted CCW.
With all the "news" programs spreading the word on how unarmed our military bases are here at home, I predict a terrorist attack carried out by around a dozen dirtbags hopping the fence and having a turkey shoot in the near future. It would be a little more difficult than attacking a gun free school, but with much greater bragging rights.
The dirtbags pulled it off multiple times in Afghanistan against armed troops.
Who could stop them?
How many would die before they are finally stopped?
Then (next prediction), instead of arming our military at home, they will instead hire the TSA to search everyone entering the bases.
As per base commander's policy- every unit arms room had to have a basic loadout (2 magazines full) for 4 soldiers to pull guard duty in the event of power outage, emergency, or terrorist activity in the area. That was Ft. Drum, 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
Thinking about it a little more, all us enlisted always had extra duty to pull; Doobie Driver, CQ for the barracks rats, etc.
Wouldn't it be fairly simple to assign x number of key personnel per day to be armed protectors while they're performing their regular duties?
I have no problem with the idea of allowing personnel on base carry concealed as long as they comply with local laws (applicable permits, etc.) but ... BUT ... any commander is going to have to think long and hard about arming up to guard a non-Priority A resource on US soil without legal authorities. Letting them exercise rights granted by the civil authorities is distinctly different from trying to exercise non-existent military authorities. How does LOAC apply to criminals versus verified enemy combatants? IIRC, Hasan yelled "Allahu Akbar" as he was firing -- that makes him a traitor and enemy combatant in my book. Lopez did no such thing -- he was no different from some gangster or redneck who went in firing because he was pissed over what I was wearing or that I'd made a pass at his girlfriend.
Very very dangerous ground here.
So you are in favor of an "assault riffle" ban? Are you sure you are on the correct forum? Secondly who said anything about arming everyone with rifles?Quote:
Originally Posted by speedysst
Rednecks are criminally equivalent to gangsters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Am I reading this wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Au6qBLgk1A
As far as I know, there are several Air Force installations in CONUS that do this or something very similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
That was a good laugh...we all know how available the arms room guys are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
ROFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by coloccw
Ah, good times. Looking for the arms room guy when he's supposed to be issuing weapons for a SCHEDULED QUAL...
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Since when is a basic M4 load not 210 rounds?
In 198x we only had steel 20 rd mags and IIRC, it was a 240rd loadout.
Let's not fool ourselves. The US Military is institutionally afraid of weapons. The (overwhelming) majority of US bases I've been on in Iraq and Afghanistan have clearing barrels at the gates. Service members in combat theaters are often required to walk around with cleared weapons because loaded guns are scary. How do you think that Afghan AF officer was able to kill 8 NATO troops (and a contractor) in 2011? Those poor bastards had empty weapons. I have to carry a letter signed by an 0-8 equivalent that says I don't need to download my weapons coming onto bases.... in Afghanistan..... Most soldiers don't have that letter. Wrap your brain around that.
Here's the underlying problem. For the last decade or so the US military has developed a culture of risk aversion. Officers and senior NCOs are often afraid to make a call because a bad call means the end of their career.
Last year I had to sign a letter exempting an O-6 from responsibility before he would let me leave the base to do my damn job. Mind you, I didn't work for this man, but he was so concerned that he'd get blamed if something happened to my team that he wouldn't tell the guys at the gate that we could leave until he covered his ass.
Any base commander that allowed service members to carry on base (outside of official duties) has to be willing to accept that any incident means the end of their career. I don't see that happening. Ever.
And that's not even addressing the piss-poor small arms training most service members have.
My view on this from the eye's of a late 80's 11b are I can see both sides of this .
While I think that we should have been trusted to do the right thing at the time it could have gone very bad .
There is not much more dangerous than a bored infantryman . There were numerous cases of world class irresponsibility and stupidity . There were people I served with that would get in a pissing contest in a heartbeat and would have easily escalated if the possibility would have been there .
Nail, meet your hammer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick-Boy
I'm surprised some people are against this. The way I read the petition, all it's saying is if I can carry on the outside of the installation gate, I should be able to carry on the inside. Obviously the gun free policy doesn't work. So not only can I not defend myself with a firearm while on post, I can't from the time I leave my house for the day until the time I get home since you can't even bring a gun on base (with certain very limited exceptions). The no guns policy is bullshit. I realize Joe can be dumb, I work with him everyday. Sometimes I even participate in Joe's shenanigans. But I'd rather take my chances being armed.
When I was stationed at Hood, I went through SRP about a month or two before Maj Fuckstick shot it up. I was TDY to Hood about 3 weeks ago. I could have easily been a target in either of the shootings. Chances are I wouldn't have been involved in either incident, and even if I was may or may not have been able to do anything, but again I'd rather take my chances with the means to defend myself.
This idea doesn't solve all the issues, but it's a step in the right direction. If I have a permit to carry concealed in CO, I should be able to carry on Carson or Pete or any other base/post.
For that particular policy that's what it stated... Not a full combat load out, but a "guarded" posture load. Downrange, however, we had to have our 210rnds on us at all times when going outside the wire.Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
True... And many of them didn't know very much about the firearms they were responsible for. Our unit armorer saw it as a chore.Quote:
Originally Posted by coloccw
Different bases have different rules, our FOB was loaded mag, empty chamber, and 101st ABN before we took over said no mag in weapon... Uh we're in a war zone, wtf? And I agree with your last statement, I'm better trained now, after being out for almost 4 years, on an AR type rifle, than almost everyone in my unit was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick-Boy
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Active shooter/insider threat is best solved at the individual level with mindset, not tools. Too many servicemen these days are, for lack of a better term, pussies. I see them in AS/IT scenarios each class and most stand still or curl up and cry. They are not ingrained with the mindset that if they are going to die that day, then they are taking the SOB with them by fighting until the lights go out.
Well the Marine Corps has responded by firmly declaring that..... their no-guns policy stands.
Quote:
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/New...ownership.aspx
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. --
Marine Corps leadership issued Corpswide guidance for personal firearm storage aboard installations April 4.
The release of Marine Administrative Message 176/14 (MARADMIN) creates standard policy and enforcement measures Corpswide.
“We decided to reemphasize, across the Marine Corps regulations, we have on the books at several installations and to make sure our Marines understand them,” Maj. Gen. Juan G. Ayala, Commander Marine Corps Installations Command, said. “We also wanted to make certain our installations remain safe for our Marines, sailors and their dependents — I like to use the term safe havens.”
Marine Corps Installation Command (MCICOM) serves as a higher headquarters for 24 Marine Corps installations nationwide. MCICOM provides leadership and direction to equip, train and provide all necessary support for operating forces and tenant activities. The command has only been fully operational for a little over a year.
According to Ayala, 99.9 percent of his 24 installations and the personnel who serve on them are safe and doing the right things. The recent Washington Navy Yard shooting tragedy prompted the Secretary of the Navy, The Honorable Ray Mabus, to direct the Department of the Navy to take a look at the personal firearm policies already in place.
Measures standardized across the Marine Corps by MARADMIN 176/14 include:
Prohibit privately owned firearms in all federal workspaces, to include leased building and vehicles, a standard practice for all federal facilities.
Privately owned firearms cannot be carried as concealed weapons aboard installations.
All privately owned firearms will be stored in approved installation facilities, registered and on file with installation law enforcement.
Prohibit the storage of firearms in bachelor enlisted quarters. At the installation commanders’ discretion, residents of bachelor officers’ quarters and staff non-commissioned officer BEQs will be allowed to retain secured privately owned firearms in their rooms.
Transportation of privately owned firearms is authorized in POVs to and from an authorized storage area or to an off-base location consistent with federal, state, and local laws. They may also be transported to and from on-base areas where firearms use is authorized, such as hunting areas or recreational shooting ranges. All personally owned firearms will be placed in secure fully encased containers.
“There is no change; we are simply reemphasizing the importance of Marines being familiar with the base orders and regulations on personally owned firearms,” Ayala said. “As we do with a wide array of issues, we want the commanders and enlisted leaders to talk to their Marines about these issues at every level.”
Ayala emphasized his confidence in being close to his desired end state — keeping people and property safe and ready to support training to ensure the operating forces are sufficiently equipped and trained to fight.
“The Marine Corps has been handling weapons for 238 years,” Ayala said. “We still have a duty to emphasize these rules, maintain security and readiness, and reduce instances of irresponsible weapons handling.
“The MARADMIN is not taking anyone’s rights away. We just want our folks to be safe — period.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick-Boy
Wait a second... You're telling me that what this guy did was ... ILLEGAL?!?! *GASP* [facepalm]
Not entirely no-guns...Quote:
Prohibit the storage of firearms in bachelor enlisted quarters. At the installation commanders’ discretion, residents of bachelor officers’ quarters and staff non-commissioned officer BEQs will be allowed to retain secured privately owned firearms in their rooms.
Makes one wonder if any there are any authorizations in place at any installations.
A Fort Hood 1st Lieutenant wrote a letter to the TX State Senate... Pretty powerful stuff here:
Quote:
My letter to Congress, read today at Texas Senate committee on Constitutional Carry. It is now public record.To my friends, fellow Texans, brothers in arms, members of the committee, and everyone within the sound of my voice, greetings.
My name is First Lieutenant Patrick Cook of the 49th Transportation Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas, and this past Wednesday I found myself trapped in an enclosed room with fourteen of my fellow Soldiers, one of whom was barricading the door against a madman with a .45 pistol when he was fatally shot. Through what I can only describe as a miracle, he somehow found enough strength to continue pushing against that door until the shooter gave up and went elsewhere, at which time he collapsed. Nearly a week later, I can still taste his blood in my mouth from when I and my comrades breathed into his lungs for 20 long minutes while we waited for a response from the authorities. This Soldier’s name was Sergeant First Class Daniel Ferguson, and his sacrifice loaned me the rest of my life to tell this story.
But I write to you today not to memorialize this brave Soldier, nor to tell a war story about how we made the best of a losing situation, but to express the part of that story that some in high positions of power clearly do not want told: I knew this was going to happen. I had been saying for five years that Fort Hood was a tinderbox of another massacre waiting to happen. It had to happen, because our betters failed to learn the obvious lesson of five years ago. Worse yet, I know it will happen again. More will die, more will be wounded, more families will be torn apart, needlessly. It happened again, and will happen again, because Fort Hood is a gun free zone.
When the first shots rang out, my hand reached to my belt for something that wasn’t there. Something that could have put a stop to the bloodshed, could have made it merely an “ugly incident” instead of the horrific massacre that I will surely remember as the darkest twenty minutes of my life. Stripped of my God-given Right to arm myself, the only defensive posture I had left was to lie prostrate on the ground, and wait to die. As the shooter kicked at the door, I remember telling myself, “oh well, this is it.” It is beneath human dignity to experience the utter helplessness I felt that day. I cannot abide the thought that anyone should ever feel that again.
At the point blank range at which this shooting occurred, anyone with an M9 and some basic instruction could have ended the mayhem as quickly as it began. An MP by trade and a CHL holder, I am convinced that concealed weapons would have stopped it, but openly carried side-arms, like the ones carried in a law enforcement capacity, could have prevented it entirely. Instead, many more died because of the fatally misguided restrictions on the carrying of arms, which obviously the madman did not respect.
I shall conclude by restating my warning. This will happen again, and again until we learn the lesson that suppressing the bearing of arms doesn’t prevent horrific crimes, it invites them. To those of you who hold elected office, if you hear nothing else I have told you, hear this: you have the power to stop the next massacre from happening. You have an opportunity to restore the sacred Right to bear arms, which has been either stripped entirely or unjustly relegated to the poor substitute of a probationary, government-issued privilege. For God’s sake, do the right thing.
Thank you for your attention, and good day.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/srcstc.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Pretty much sums it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick-Boy
We're not even to the point where members trained in a law enforcement AFSC/MOS can conceal carry on installation off-duty with a personal firearm, let alone the armed forces as a whole.
I'm torn also...Quote:
Originally Posted by C Ward
I had my fair share of intervening in "off-post" altercations with NCO's and their spouses with guns and alcohol in the mix. I can only imagine how bad that could get in the barracks, as I took part in some insane acts myself as a young 11B. Then I think about the possibilities of "informal" marksmanship competitions and the risk to wild-life.[LOL]
At the same time, I don't think anyone should be walking around being mandated to be defenseless.
Tough call to make.
His thought was that his ONLY action was to lay there and wait to die??? That is a mindset issue, not a need for a firearm. If all he had available was a gov issue stapler then everyone in that room should have been ready to jump the shooter immediately and kept pounding staples in the shooters head until the threat was gone. That LTs letter, although well written, was nothing more than an armchair QB note saying "well, if would have done something if I had a gun..." That LT should be court marshaled for negligence. The US military has become so pussified that the normal response is not to run towards gunfire but to cower from it. I am disgusted...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13