Posted on Dec 2, 2014
Why do trust service members with weapons that can decimate entire cities but not to carry a firearm for personal protection?
5.25K
23
25
6
6
0
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?
Policy
Rights
Firearms and Guns
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 10
3
3
0
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
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/#ixzz3KuSJRXD7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Not only service members but properly licensed concealed carry retirees and veterans.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SFC Peter Cyprian
Yet the libtards will make outrageous claims, such as "show us where a armed civilian stopped a mass shooting"....uh, you don't get "mass shootings" when the shooter is dead before they killed more than 2 people!
Some of my favorites from my personal collection- from the top: NDM-86, PSL-54, SVD Tiger, and a plain old AK-47. All but the AK fire 7.62x54R.
Some of my favorites from my personal collection- from the top: NDM-86, PSL-54, SVD Tiger, and a plain old AK-47. All but the AK fire 7.62x54R.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
I for one do not want troops carrying firearms with only combat theatre Rules Use of Force (RUF) experience.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
SFC Peter Cyprian
If you are referring to the Posse Comitatus Act then I have to say that you are only partially correct. That act was passed to prevent the US military from being used in police/law enforcement capacity. This is why it is alarming that our police departments have become more and more militarized- it kinda defeats the reasoning behind the act.
(2)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
It certainly explains why. You trade one for the other. The police force is no way ready to face a 2nd revolution...just saying. We should, at rhe very least, be training with them. You mentioned partially...
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
The act does exclude the National Guard and Coast Guard...and it is a bit fuzzy about the Navy and Marines...so yeah, looks like it only specifically includes Army and AF.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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?
(0)
(0)
PFC Aaron Knapp
And again to be the Devils advocate the shooter at Hood was a soldier and managed to have a weapon against regs. I understand everyone's feelings on the matter and i am pro carry but no matter how much added security we have, no matter how many people open or conceal carry people In today's world are still horrible and find new and inventive ways to kill other human beings. It's a sad world we live in. Understand again I am very pro carry and would support any law that allows soldiers to carry regardless of the outcome.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Playing devil’s advocate you actual help prove our point. The Fort Hood shooter was a soldier and he did violate policies by carrying a firearm. Criminals by definition violate laws. If a criminal is willing to commit capital murder then violating a gun law or policy is hardly a deterrent. A threat on post can come from a fellow soldier, dependent, civilian contractor, or anyone that sneaks onto post. It’s not that hard.
(1)
(0)
PFC Aaron Knapp
Again you say "our" point as if I'm some how against everyone. I merely made some arguementative points. If people were to read all my comments they would see I also say I'm pro gun and don't have an issue with conceal carry or open carry laws. Nor would I have an issue if laws were changed to allow open carry on post. I was merely pointing out how times have changed to this point and why these rules were put in place to begin with. I even went so far as to suggest a congressman in Idaho for the original poster to contact to get the ball rolling. It just amuses me how many people feel the need to comment on why I'm wrong when I have slowly tried to state I'm pro carry in my previous posts. I just want you to realize these are the arguments your going to hear from people... Lol.
(0)
(0)
PFC Aaron Knapp
The original post is insinuating soldiers are trained and entrusted with weapons so by that definition should be allowed to carry at work. I'm just pointing out we need stronger more educated arguements to convince the government they should allow a standing army to be armed at all times. Take it for what it is....and let's be smart and educated in the way we present this to civilians who may not understand the arguement of "we entrust our soldiers with weapons that decimate cuties (during time of war) so whey should be allowed to carry on base"
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google