Why do trust service members with weapons that can decimate entire cities but not to carry a firearm for personal protection?

SFC Peter Cyprian — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 21:36:35 -0500

Why is it that we entrust service members with weapons that can decimate entire cities but they are not allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection on post? It is a well established trend among mass shooters to execute their crime in "gun free" zones- which includes (in the past few years) military installations. I think if a service member goes through the appropriate training and certification, they should be able to carry- even on the job. Yet we have installations that have strict garrison policies that disarm service members. We support and defend the Constitution but are denied a fundamental right that the Constitution grants to citizens of this great nation. What is your position on this?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 3 at 2014 1:35 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 01:35:04 -0500

SFC Peter Cyprian Have to agree. We live in a country which says guarantees the right to bear arms but makes soft targets everywhere. It's no surprise where the mass shootings occur. The mass casualty could be reduced by a service member, a vet, or just a regular person who knows where center mass is and is able to freely exercise their Constitutional right.

Response by PFC Aaron Knapp made Dec 3 at 2014 2:10 AM

PFC Aaron Knapp — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 02:10:03 -0500

They only arm the guards. I would say in there defense they figure why should you need to be armed on a base full of highly trained soldiers? It's supposed to be the safest place you can be. So my question would be why do you feel the need to be armed on a post or base surrounded by family?

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 3 at 2014 7:56 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 07:56:22 -0500

SFC Peter Cyprian You would probably like this discussion, we're trying to get RP people on the same talking points to launch a mass email wave on the swearing in of the new congress to correct this issue: https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Arm the Armed Forces! | RallyPoint

The outcome of the discussion "Concealed carry for CAC holders?" by [~222148:SGT Bernard Boyer III]. Below follows my skeleton letter to congress, based on the edits RP members have suggested to the 10 points. Anyone and everyone is welcome to edit and personalize the letter for their own use in writing to their congressional representatives. We sent a mass email on 3 January, the swearing in of the new congress, now it's a free for all. You...

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2014 1:50 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 01:50:49 -0500

The policy that bans open carry on base is short-sighted. Granted we can't have a bunch of cowboys walking around base, but we are taught gun safety from day one in uniform and if it was ever allowed, an annual re-crert should be required.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2014 1:50 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 01:50:36 -0500

Did you also realize that active duty are not allowed to carry on American soil, like in a civilian - response situation. This Law was Passed To Prevent Our military from committing a coup. I'll see if I can find the name of the law. This may also be the reason for disarming us on base as well.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2014 1:53 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 01:53:31 -0500

Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That’s why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/#ixzz3KuSJRXD7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 11:02 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:02:39 -0400

I completely agree. It's ok to walk around carrying a government owned weapon to protect the person to the left and right of me as well as the people but I can't have my own personal weapon to protect myself in the world we live in today

Response by SFC Patrick M. made Jan 12 at 2021 10:26 AM

SFC Patrick M. — Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:26:43 -0500

Not only service members but properly licensed concealed carry retirees and veterans.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Jan 13 at 2021 2:01 PM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:01:08 -0500

Individual weapons used to be controlled by the individual to whom the were issued until mid Vietnam when they began to disappear into the hands of militant anti-war/anti-government groups. Spent a lot of money building larger armories.

Response by CSM Vern Pratt made Apr 12 at 2023 6:05 PM

CSM Vern Pratt — Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:05:54 -0400

My opinion, not every military member is trained in non-combat use of force situations, nor de-escalation techniques/options to counter different levels of threat (use of force continuum), and especially legal aspects such as use of force controlling factors. The only service members I know of trained to the standards I listed are the law enforcement careers, AR & MC military police, AFsecurity forces, and NA Shore Patrol.

I for one do not want troops carrying firearms with only combat theatre Rules Use of Force (RUF) experience.