Posted on Dec 21, 2016
How do you feel about soldiers being allowed to keep their weapons while on post?
70.9K
399
174
57
57
0
Last night, I caught someone attempting to steal my truck literally right outside of my barracks building. The only reason he ran off was because I told him I had a weapon. I don't, because one is locked in my units armory. and the other back home with my mother. That being said, how do you all feel about having weapons on post? Not necessarily on your person, but in your vehicles.
Weapons
Rules
Regulation
Self Defense
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 87
0
0
0
0
0
0
There is no place for a weapon to be on the Base it needs to find a Home at the mothers house Or fathers house but I don't think that is very good besides the Armor is Busy enough with other weapons. Why are bringing them in?
SSG MARK FRANZEN
USA VET
SSG MARK FRANZEN
USA VET
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
What about designated aurthorization carry permits for on base. I believe denying carry permits is dangerous and people have died in the States and overseas. Because of security not close. One death is to many. There is enough responsibilite officers and NCO's around that a good number would be armed. Just my suggestion.
(0)
(0)
MSgt John McGowan
SGT (Join to see) - Good point. Guess I was looking old school. That II had some very responsible young Airman in my branch. I stand corrected.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I'm not going to say I'm the smartest, but when it comes to weapons safety I'm on my A-game. My issued M4 and my personal weapons. I even remove the firing pin on my rifle when it's not being used, and keep it in my truck, despite being forced to lock it in my units armory. It would be no different, if say, I kept it in my room or something. The firing pin will always be elsewhere unless I'm getting ready to leave.
(0)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
SGT (Join to see) - And yet the Arms room is probably filled with firing pins that fit your M4, that can be swiped out of another rifle being turned in without being missed.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Lol, well, my personally owned weapon is a 1927 Thompson. The only firing pin that will work is the one it came with.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Guns in the barracks after duty hours are a bad idea. If you want to possess a pistol or rifle then move off post. There is no way your going to meet the Army storage regulations on post outside of a secure arms room. It's nice to live in a support unit where discipline is more lax but lets not kid ourselves that all Army units operate that way. Barracks are also used as "prison light" in the case of some chapter cases. Would you give access to weapons to prisoners? I wouldn't.
(0)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
SGT (Join to see) - Because they are unarmed as well and it's not your choice anyway. 1SG and CO's decision whom they restrict to barracks, you just need to live with it as part of being in the Army.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I live on post and know that in the housing weapons are allowed. Personally as long as the individual is registered and it is stored correctly I feel that it should be allowed. With that being said I don't think soldiers living in the barracks should have them. Only because the weapon can not be stored somewhere that it is not accessible to others.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Sure, they can, SGT. I have so many places in my barracks room where a weapon can be properly stored. There's no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have my weapon easily accessible in case I need to stop my truck from getting stolen, just because I choose not to get married.
(0)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
Yup, triple level security is the requirement that needs to be met. That and also need to remember that there is a "restricted to barracks" part of the UCMJ that is used a lot in Combat Arms for Soldiers that cannot behave off post or be trusted otherwise outside the barracks. These folks are mixed in with the general barracks population and would know where the guns are kept in other peoples rooms............and would find them, fence them, use them..........or be found elsewhere on post shooting range deer with them.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - I hate putting all soldiers into one lump because there are soldiers that are responsible enough to have a weapon in the barracks. My concern is more for the soldiers that aren't responsible enough. It isn't fair that all must be punished because one can't be trusted.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Hopefully it was not a fellow brother in arms. Regardless, i previously posted I am all for Carry and Conceal, but believe members and vets who have slightly more experience than boo t camp with weapons, should be able to carry on post.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
It would've had to be a "brother" in arms. On my side of post, there isn't any housing or anything like that, so it couldn't of been a dependent. Just because we all bear similar uniforms, doesn't mean we're trustworthy or good people.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SGT (Join to see), those shown to be untrustworthy should get a BCD and/or jail time. The rest of the personnel should not be punished for the shortcomings of the few.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Unfortunately, sir, it's the opposite now. If he managed to steal my truck I'm sure there would've been a couple of briefs (complete with powerpoint) on how to not be a piece of shit and steal someones car.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Would be useful in the event of an alien invasion, zombie apocalypse, or a Red Dawn scenario.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Bob Leonard
SSG David Gentile - The website "What Makes Islam so Different?" describes its mission, "TheReligionofPeace(DOT)com is a pluralistic, non-partisan site concerned with Islam's true political and religious teachings according to its own texts." They have tracked and listed incidents of "deadly Islamic terror attacks" in America since 1972. You might be interested in their data.
1972 to 1976 (last two years of Nixon-Ford Administration)
15 attacks in 2 years (7.5/yr.)
1977 to 1980 (Carter)
3 attacks in 4 years (1.5/yr.)
1981 to 1988 (Reagan)
1 attack in 8 years (0.125/yr.)
1989 to 1992 (Bush1)
2 attacks in 4 years (0.5/yr.)
1993 to 2000 (Clinton)
6 attacks in 8 years (1.5/yr.)
2001 to 2008 (Bush2)
22attacks in 8 years (2.75/yr.)
2009 to (present)
25 attacks in 8 years (3.125/yr.)
When you look at the data compared with the President in office, the biggest jump in the number of attacks occurred during Pres. Bush2's Administration (from 6 on Pres. Clinton's watch to 22! during Pres. Bush2's terms). They certainly didn't decrease during Pres. Obama's Administration, but an increase from 22 to 25 in 8 years is hardly a big jump compared with the leap experienced during Pres. Bush2's tenure.
1972 to 1976 (last two years of Nixon-Ford Administration)
15 attacks in 2 years (7.5/yr.)
1977 to 1980 (Carter)
3 attacks in 4 years (1.5/yr.)
1981 to 1988 (Reagan)
1 attack in 8 years (0.125/yr.)
1989 to 1992 (Bush1)
2 attacks in 4 years (0.5/yr.)
1993 to 2000 (Clinton)
6 attacks in 8 years (1.5/yr.)
2001 to 2008 (Bush2)
22attacks in 8 years (2.75/yr.)
2009 to (present)
25 attacks in 8 years (3.125/yr.)
When you look at the data compared with the President in office, the biggest jump in the number of attacks occurred during Pres. Bush2's Administration (from 6 on Pres. Clinton's watch to 22! during Pres. Bush2's terms). They certainly didn't decrease during Pres. Obama's Administration, but an increase from 22 to 25 in 8 years is hardly a big jump compared with the leap experienced during Pres. Bush2's tenure.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Bob Leonard
It's apparent you misunderstood the point of my post. You said, "esp since the infiltration of so many terrorists was accomplished in 2 terms of favoritism for them!" Now I admit I presumed you meant the two terms of Pres. Obama, just ended/ending. With that as a given, I was merely pointing out that the big jump in radical, Islamic terrorism occurred during Pres. Bush2's tenure, not Pres. Obama's.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google