Arming our Service Members

L

leadcounsel

Moderator
One of the many reasons I chose to leave service was because of the criminally stupid policies which disarm Service Members in combat zones, and while CONUS on bases or in transit.

These criminally irresponsibly policies have predictably bad results for Service Members who die due to "leadership" decisions.

Our "leaders" fail to learn from history. One such example was in WWII. I recall reading a story of a WWII unit that was departing an Pacific Island in the morning so had surrendered all of their ammo. Japanese Soldiers snuck into their camp and slaughtered them.

70 years later effectively disarmed Soldiers in combat zones (no ammo in your weapon) are repeatedly attacked and killed on military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. While weapons are nearby, several are killed before an armed response can be made.

If that isn't bad enough, the "gun free" zones on military bases encourage these soft targets to be struck. Hassan killed 13 or so, in a terrorist attack, and now 4 Marines were killed by another terrorist.

Let's examine my situation, for instance. I was an officer with a top secret clearance, significant military and civilian handgun and rifle experience, and had a concealed carry permit allowing me to carry in most places in 40+ states. I carried a weapon in Iraq. Yet somehow, I'm not to be trusted carrying a weapon on a CONUS installation, and that also prevents me from carrying to or from base, and all locations/errands in between. That leaves thousand of vulnerable service members coming onto base a 6am and heading home at 5pm. Ripe targets, when not under the blanket of security (security theater) offered by the installation.

Anyone agree that it's time that Service Members, at least the senior enlisted and officer corps, be allowed to carry weapons on duty.
 
I assume the prohibition was implemented to reduce the number of negligent shootings on military bases. While I can see how this may have been an issue at one time it does appear we are moving into a different reality where terrorist are attacking military bases and personnel here in the US. So, in theory I would support this, but wonder about the details. Should everyone carry a sidearm? Does the military have that many sidearms? If not who gets a gun and who goes unarmed? Again, not opposed to a change in policy, but curious what those of you with first hand experience think the new policy should look like.
 
Armies have always operated that way. Not just ours, Generals get nervous having armed troops around unless they are performing a task for them that requires a weapon.

Thats why they take em away and lock em up. Its not to secure the weapon. Its to secure their authority.
 
TOTALLY agree with the OP, 100%.

However, no more so than it's also time that I be treated the same way.

When all the extraneous information clouding the facts is moved to the side and the clear picture appears... PROHIBITING carry only prohibits legal, defensive carry.

Grisly, willful murder is at the top of the list of unlawful acts these sociopaths commit... sidestepping a prohibition on firearms is somewhere close to doing a rolling stop past a stop sign.
 
I don't really think it is so much of a question of should the military arm all its members as to allow the service members to carry of their own choice. I am quite sure that there are a good many that would choose not to carry a firearm at all times. Simply allow them to defend themselves the same as civilians would. I think the military services should conduct voluntary concealed and open carry classes for those interested. I think this because there are many folks who may never handle a firearm other than in basic training and maybe an occasional "qualification". I was one of those who rarely handled a firearm on duty.
 
I'm retired USN. I'm for putting more arms in the hands of our service men and women that have qualified with them. A good many USN are not. I was even though my primary job was not with small arms, secondary jobs required it. It would not be that difficult to at least have senior enlisted (SNCO) be qualified. Then allow them to be armed. Those that go the route to get civilian permits to carry their personal arms to and from duty. Then allow them to carry issued arms on duty. As I understand it under current law and/or regulation they are not allowed to carry their personal arms while on duty. On recruiting duty the open carry of a pistol may seem scary to some. If the open carry of a pistol scares someone off from being recruited, do we want them in the service to begin with? I think not. Arming SNCOs seems to me to be a good start and see how it works out. I do think it should be voluntary for those that their duties do not require it. At least let them have a pistol readily available in a recruiting station and not locked up in a safe. Lock it up when they close up at night to prevent theft.

I suppose I should add, out here in retired land, I'm licensed and do carry where ever possible. My home state of PA is very easy about going about armed with a pistol.
 
I was in the Marine Corps infantry during the USS Cole bombing. We were on a Navy ship in the Mediterranean as part of a MEU(SOC) deployment. Before the bombing occured, we weren't allowed to have any ammo while pulling ship guard duty in port. We were sitting ducks with empty rifles while guarding the fo'c's'le or the flight deck; our ammo was stored in an ammo can that was kept with the Corporal of the Guard.

The Cole bombing occured when we were at sea, and it caused a re-evaluation of ship security. So the next time we went into port, we were allowed to have a loaded magazine, but we couldn't load it in the rifle, we had to leave it in a mag pouch in our chest rig.
 
I was in the Marine Corps during the USS Cole bombing. We were on a ship in the Mediterranean as part of a MEU(SOC) deployment. Before the bombing occured, we weren't allowed to have any ammo while pulling ship guard duty in port. We were sitting ducks with empty rifles while guarding the fo'c's'le or the flight deck; our ammo was stored in an ammo can that was kept with the Corporal of the Guard.

The Cole bombing occured when we were at sea, and it caused a re-evaluation of ship security. So the next time we went into port, we were allowed to have a loaded magazine, but we couldn't load it in the rifle, we had to leave it in a mag pouch in our chest rig.
Click to expand...

That sounds familiar. I was Navy. We played the same game. I was in Key west during the Cuban missile crisis M1s with a bandoleer, Empty chamber.

In port on board ship I stood guard with a .45 5 rounds in the mag, the mag in the pistol. the chamber was empty.
 
Send enlisted men in to harm's way in foreign lands and absolutely refuse to give them ammunition?! Makes me sick to my stomach.
 
It wasn't any better in the late 80's-early-90's. As the first Gulf War ramped up, I can remember trudging through the snow in Germany with an unloaded M16A2 to "protect my fellow soldiers." I took out my bolt and stuck it in a pocket, if Hanze and Fanze wanted a rifle off my dead body I wasn't going to make it any easier to kill fellow GI's.


When the Good Idea Fairy struck and they decided to protect the housing areas as well, they took away the unloaded rifles and handed us sawn-off broom sticks as billy clubs. The local Polizie stopped by one day as I was doing my rounds and were simply amazed that we weren't issued ammunition. That we were trying to 'bluff' Muhammad and friends was a completely foreign concept to them.
 
Its not just CONUS. I was appalled when i saw the Army guys in Kurkuk Iraq carrying unloaded rifles around the Air base (KRAB). Everyone had a slung rifle or 249....only a FEW had mags attached to the stocks. Nobody had any 249 ammo with them.

The stupid thing is, we, as DOS contractors were allowed to carry loaded weapons on base, but an Army guy had to carry an empty rifle around.. D U M B
 
Let's examine my situation, for instance. I was an officer with a top secret clearance, significant military and civilian handgun and rifle experience, and had a concealed carry permit allowing me to carry in most places in 40+ states. I carried a weapon in Iraq. Yet somehow, I'm not to be trusted carrying a weapon on a CONUS installation, and that also prevents me from carrying to or from base, and all locations/errands in between. That leaves thousand of vulnerable service members coming onto base a 6am and heading home at 5pm. Ripe targets, when not under the blanket of security (security theater) offered by the installation.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the basic rules rules of Government. The first rule is to keep the fat cats happy. The second is to minimize scandal and the third is to take the path of least resistance.

It is OK for service members to be killed by criminals as that does not create scandal for the leadership. It is a law enforcement matter, service members are disposable in the greater good, and the greatest good is protecting the leadership.

Now, if you, a service member, accidentally or intentionally shoots someone, anyone , with a service weapon, then leadership has to explain, justify, etc. This takes work and they don't want to do it. Anyway their career's depend on getting that top rating on their OER, a little trouble, a poor rating, and the elusive General's star moves out of reach.

Besides, their Bosses are all scared you might turn your guns on them. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth" , and our Corrupt Politicians and their Corrupt supporters know full well how wicked they are.

Did you notice how they are cutting your benefits? Promises, promises, none are kept, and they are actively repudiating the promises they made to get you to put your life on the line. Sort of like Alice of Wonderland: "the rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today!"
 
A friend of mine, who was in the Air Force at the time of this experience, recounted being present when a General was passing through an area where a serviceman was guarding a special mission aircraft. The General introduced himself to the guard and in the course of the brief conversation he quizzed the guard on the effective range of his weapon. "About 15 yards, sir!" was the answer. The general tried to correct him but the guard then showed him that his rifle was unloaded and that he had been issued no ammunition. The range was his estimate of how far he could throw the rifle accurately...
Everyone had a slung rifle or 249....only a FEW had mags attached to the stocks. Nobody had any 249 ammo with them.
Click to expand...
The M249 will take M16/M4 mags (although it can ruin them) and uses the same ammo as the M16/M4.
 
I can see things the other way. There are quite a few "unstable" service members at any given time. For most, this instability is temporary (i.e. getting chewed out by a superior, spouse troubles, PTSD, alcohol, etc.). Allowing service members to be universally armed is just asking for trouble. I spent almost every Friday at Captain's Mast because one of my rocks got himself into trouble (frequently caused by alcohol).

However, I strongly believed that those "on duty" or "on watch" in a potentially vulnerable position should be armed. Like rwilson, we carried empty chambers with full magazines in pouches or rounds on bandoliers. I was fast enough that I could load a mag into a 1911 and rack the slide without fumbling around but many were not (most Navy guys don't get to shoot a lot).

There were times when I bent the rules though. Whenever I would have to go and get money (I was the Disbursing Officer) I would keep a mag in the .45. I still didn't have a round chambered but I felt better. There was one disbursing officer robbed and murdered while I was in - but that actually happened on the ship.
 
I'd be happy if they just recognized whatever carry laws the state had off base/post.

Have a permit the locals recognize? OK.
 
Quote:
Everyone had a slung rifle or 249....only a FEW had mags attached to the stocks. Nobody had any 249 ammo with them.
The M249 will take M16/M4 mags (although it can ruin them) and uses the same ammo as the M16/M4.
Click to expand...

Uhhh yeah...but with only about 1 in 20 guys even having a M4 mag attached to his stock, im pretty sure nobody would be throwing a mag to a SAW gunner
 
>I was in the Marine Corps infantry during the USS Cole bombing. We were on a Navy ship in the Mediterranean as part of a MEU(SOC) deployment. Before the bombing occured, we weren't allowed to have any ammo while pulling ship guard duty in port. We were sitting ducks with empty rifles while guarding the fo'c's'le or the flight deck; our ammo was stored in an ammo can that was kept with the Corporal of the Guard.

The Cole bombing occured when we were at sea, and it caused a re-evaluation of ship security. So the next time we went into port, we were allowed to have a loaded magazine, but we couldn't load it in the rifle, we had to leave it in a mag pouch in our chest rig.<

I don't know if anybody has mentioned this, but in the Beirut Marine barracks bombing, the gate guard was not allowed to have a loaded weapon. He was scrambling to get a mag in and get firing while that bomb truck was crashing through. The US military is filled with careerist boot lickers who will go along with just about anything.

If I remember correctly, the French embassy had been truck bombed shortly before that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top