6
6
0
One of the investigations recommendations from last year's Ft Hood shooting is to require all Soldiers to register privately owned weapons, not just those brought into post.
Your thoughts?
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/23/fort-hood-lopez-shooting/20650031/
Your thoughts?
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/23/fort-hood-lopez-shooting/20650031/
Weapons
Shooting (Sport)
Gun Control
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 32
My compliance with this is in great doubt, and I am sure I am not alone.
Besides, it would be an asinine policy with much cost and no benefit.
Besides, it would be an asinine policy with much cost and no benefit.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Those who advocate registration rarely understand the implications of Haynes v. United States.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
That's a big ole NOPE! Shouldn't have to register them anywhere. The reality is that those who want to do harm are going to. Those who want to break the law are going to. Strict punishment for violators is more helpful IMO. And that idiot from Ft Hood should have already been sent to meet his maker by now... that whole situation is frustrating to me.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
- Requiring all Soldiers to register privately owned weapons, not just on post? Absolutely not.
- Soldiers should be held to a higher standard of conduct than civilians because of who we are and what we do but we should not be held to a higher standard of law compliance.
- Any regulation applied to Soldiers should be the minimum required to achieve an effect and should be directly related to the Army's mission. This is one reason why motorcycle requirements are higher for Soldiers than for civilians. Accidents and safety trends show what is killing Soldiers and what can be done to mitigate the deaths and accidents. Forbidding a Soldier to own a motorcycle would be going too far. Ensuring that a Soldier is properly trained and wears proper equipment is a reasonable response.
- Requiring all POWs to be registered will solve what problem exactly? If there is a problem and registering all POWs is the solution, how exactly is the local chain of command supposed to enforce the requirement? A chain of command has little authority to force their way into a private residence off post therefore the requirement could only be punished after the fact if a Soldier did not comply.
- Soldiers should be held to a higher standard of conduct than civilians because of who we are and what we do but we should not be held to a higher standard of law compliance.
- Any regulation applied to Soldiers should be the minimum required to achieve an effect and should be directly related to the Army's mission. This is one reason why motorcycle requirements are higher for Soldiers than for civilians. Accidents and safety trends show what is killing Soldiers and what can be done to mitigate the deaths and accidents. Forbidding a Soldier to own a motorcycle would be going too far. Ensuring that a Soldier is properly trained and wears proper equipment is a reasonable response.
- Requiring all POWs to be registered will solve what problem exactly? If there is a problem and registering all POWs is the solution, how exactly is the local chain of command supposed to enforce the requirement? A chain of command has little authority to force their way into a private residence off post therefore the requirement could only be punished after the fact if a Soldier did not comply.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir,
As a pro gun person, I beleieve we should register our firemans for one amin reason.
If a Law Enforcement officer where have to respond to your house, military or civilian, being a negtive or positive situation. The officers knowledge of you having a firearm can only aid in his response. If it is a negative response then he would also be aware that the person inside has some form of weapons training which again would be influenced in his COA.
As a pro gun person, I beleieve we should register our firemans for one amin reason.
If a Law Enforcement officer where have to respond to your house, military or civilian, being a negtive or positive situation. The officers knowledge of you having a firearm can only aid in his response. If it is a negative response then he would also be aware that the person inside has some form of weapons training which again would be influenced in his COA.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Very respectfully, screw that! Infringing on the rights of those who volunteered to serve the nation and to protect the constitution would be hypocritical and a punishment for service.
You have folks hat actually undergo vetting, and training so THEY SHOULD be the ones we arm the best.
The reason we had attacks on US posts is precisely because our troops are unarmed. Our weapons are locked in arms rooms, and our ammo is locked in the ASP. We will continue to see our troops victimized precisely because our bases and units are not dude signed and operated for their own defense.
Best thing to do is let, and encourage, our guys to carry at all times, and posture all units for imediate base defense.
Kind of hard to cause a massacre when the first person to recognize a threat starts sending lead to the face.
You have folks hat actually undergo vetting, and training so THEY SHOULD be the ones we arm the best.
The reason we had attacks on US posts is precisely because our troops are unarmed. Our weapons are locked in arms rooms, and our ammo is locked in the ASP. We will continue to see our troops victimized precisely because our bases and units are not dude signed and operated for their own defense.
Best thing to do is let, and encourage, our guys to carry at all times, and posture all units for imediate base defense.
Kind of hard to cause a massacre when the first person to recognize a threat starts sending lead to the face.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Oh, if commanders can't trust their guys to carry while in garrison and not under stress, then those dudes provbably should not be in uniform for deployment down range.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see), but don't we already give up many 'rights' when we swear to uphold the Constitution of the US based on the UCMJ?
On your point about arming all, I feel torn about that based on personal observations of immaturity across ranks and over time, including our current conflicts and before.
On your point about arming all, I feel torn about that based on personal observations of immaturity across ranks and over time, including our current conflicts and before.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir, thank you for the respose. We are free men, freely taking an oath to protect our constitution. Our oath does not negate our right to self defense. And if you are serious about self defense, then you need the tools to do it.
As far as immaturity goes, that is a recruitment, vetting, training and discipline issue we have across the armed forces. It is most defiantly a problem in the CSM lane.
As far as immaturity goes, that is a recruitment, vetting, training and discipline issue we have across the armed forces. It is most defiantly a problem in the CSM lane.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think all devices that have a tube or some ejection area connected to it and something comes out of that tube needs to be registered. You name it, it needs to be registered. Over flow the system.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Why don't we address the mental issues of our service members a little better and also identify extremist like Hasan instead of punishing the innocent?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The DoD has no need to know if I am not storing them on post. I currently live on post so mine are registered.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google