rwilson452
New member
Of course, the rule of exceptions always applies.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Arming our Service Members
- Thread starter leadcounsel
- Start date
Of course, the rule of exceptions always applies.
The Fear of "negligent shootings" BS gets my goat.
First off, how is it a problem in the states but not deployed. Yes they happen, but to leave our soldiers helpless because of ND is a P$$ Poor excuse at best. How may soldiers have been killed while deployed do to ND? I bet you'll find it to be less then those who were killed in the Tenn. Murders of our Marine/Navy personal.
I carry per the LEOSA. it allows us retirees to carry as long as we qualify yearly. The military qualifies yearly.
I see no legit reason why our service members aren't covered with the same sort of law. Active - retired. If they can qualify they should be able to carry.
People don't like to see military personal carry guns, Cops do, how is that frightening.
They should open carry while in uniform and conceal carry in civilian clothing.
If you see a group of armed soldiers in a Recruitment Center (or anywhere else) you're going to think twice before you attack them.
I don't want to get political, but to tell our soldiers to close the blinds, don't wear uniforms, hide is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Our soldiers don't run and hide from danger.
If our soldiers aren't qualified to carry firearms, its a command and training problem, not a soldier problem.
What's worth, besides not allowing our soldiers to protect themselves, the powers to be are now trying to stop others from guarding them.
Civilians guarding the military????? Isnt that backwards.
The real problem is that those who make the rules have their armed security, they don't care about our troops.
Yes I said it. Our leaders do not care about our soldiers and vets.
First off, how is it a problem in the states but not deployed. Yes they happen, but to leave our soldiers helpless because of ND is a P$$ Poor excuse at best. How may soldiers have been killed while deployed do to ND? I bet you'll find it to be less then those who were killed in the Tenn. Murders of our Marine/Navy personal.
I carry per the LEOSA. it allows us retirees to carry as long as we qualify yearly. The military qualifies yearly.
I see no legit reason why our service members aren't covered with the same sort of law. Active - retired. If they can qualify they should be able to carry.
People don't like to see military personal carry guns, Cops do, how is that frightening.
They should open carry while in uniform and conceal carry in civilian clothing.
If you see a group of armed soldiers in a Recruitment Center (or anywhere else) you're going to think twice before you attack them.
I don't want to get political, but to tell our soldiers to close the blinds, don't wear uniforms, hide is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Our soldiers don't run and hide from danger.
If our soldiers aren't qualified to carry firearms, its a command and training problem, not a soldier problem.
What's worth, besides not allowing our soldiers to protect themselves, the powers to be are now trying to stop others from guarding them.
Civilians guarding the military????? Isnt that backwards.
The real problem is that those who make the rules have their armed security, they don't care about our troops.
Yes I said it. Our leaders do not care about our soldiers and vets.
First off, how is it a problem in the states but not deployed
You'd probably be surprised at how little service members actually carry when deployed. Obviously, those in front-line positions do carry - especially when on duty. The rest - well not so much.
As someone posted, we are at war. It is a different kind of enemy, but make no mistake. It is war! Obviously the men in Tenn. were on the front line of this war. The problem for the brass and politicians is that they can't define the war because of it's surreptitious nature.
Front line troops must be armed.
Front line troops must be armed.
The authorization to carry
firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there
is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be
jeopardized if firearms are not carried.
This, as I see it is the root of the problem, at the moment. For generations prior to this becoming DoD policy, permission to allow troops to be armed (as individuals) on base, or on duty was a local decision. It was up to the unit / area/ base commanders.
The general policy was always no, but local commanders could decide for themselves, without having to meet the DoD standard quoted above.
Sure, if something bad happened, they were accountable, but that's why they get the big bucks, right? Everyplace I ever was that wasn't "on the sharp end" the rule was always, personal arms go in the arms room. Can't have them on duty. Or in the barracks, or anyplace we don't specifically authorize, etc.
The issue is now becoming a political football, it was on the few minutes of talk radio I heard today, it will be interesting to watch who takes what position "defending our troops". I don't have any great hopes now, and fear they will turn it into the same thing they did with "arming pilots", and the net result will be essentially zero.
Double Naught Spy
New member
As someone posted, we are at war. It is a different kind of enemy, but make no mistake. It is war! Obviously the men in Tenn. were on the front line of this war. The problem for the brass and politicians is that they can't define the war because of it's surreptitious nature.
Front line troops must be armed.
As if terrorists only attack military folks. So Congress should mandate everyone be armed.
He just looks like a gun toting wannabe, if I was in the Army I would not want a self appointed guard near me, its not his job or responsibility. It does surprise me in gun loving America that soldiers in vulnerable situations are not armed. In this part of the UK soldiers are armed off duty, but the threat was more severe and widespread than it is in America.Somebody's gotta do it![/
That will not happen, and should not happen . Just like people have the right to carry firearms, people also have the right not to carry firearms if they don't want to.So Congress should mandate everyone be armed.
^^^^^^^Many civilians in the U.S. believe in gun ownership, and the right to carry a firearm. Our armed forces are part of the GOVERNMENT which does want us to be armed, nor our military to be armed unless it is absolutely necessary. Yes, our armed forces are anti-gun unless they are in combat, and then they'd rather use a drone, than an armed human combatant.
We will be fielding mostly unmanned ground, air, and sea assets in the very near future.
We will be fielding mostly unmanned ground, air, and sea assets in the very near future.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Most recruiting offices I have seen have personnel from all the branches. It seems to me a JO, an NCO or two, and maybe another enlisted for each branch in the smaller offices. 5 Branches, so about 15 people in and out of the office. If we can't find 2-3 that are responsible and trained/trainable to carry a sidearm on a daily basis out of that 15, I think we have a MUCH deeper problem that needs to be addressed. Maybe there won't even be an armed person all the time, but an extremist won't know for sure he is walking into an office full of US military personnel who are defenseless.
At one point in time the Army issued some officer a smaller more concealable Colt semi-auto. Maybe a Colt 1908 hammerless? Maybe something along those lines needs to be investigated for such installations.
At one point in time the Army issued some officer a smaller more concealable Colt semi-auto. Maybe a Colt 1908 hammerless? Maybe something along those lines needs to be investigated for such installations.
There was a time, not too long ago when harming any member of our armed services in any way, meant the "Big Stick" was brought out and we started kicking ass. T.R. had the right idea but it seems..(as was said before) the higher-ups have become afraid of our own troops and refuse to accept that we are at war ANY time a service member is harmed, especially on our own soil.
There has to be a way to get our troops armed in times such as the present, especially in those areas where they are in uniform and on duty, and not on post. I applaud those standing guard at those recruiting offices. I do not understand why those in command do not supply them (the recruiters) with the means to protect themselves... At least those who haven't done so already.
Coming from a military family,(father-Career Navy; brother-Air Force; I had 18+yrs in the Army....last deployment was Desert Storm).
And I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, in Key West...My home...The beaches and everywhere on the island where you saw any servicemen in a group, at least one was armed. My brother was in commo, yet he carried an M-14 slung over his shoulder and a .45 on his hip....BOTH loaded and ready. Things have surely changed. When I posted guards on the Port of Dammam in '91 we were carrying '16s and M-9s but were ordered to not load them; Right...As if.
Things need to change, but I'll bet it won't happen until one of the higher-ups has family hurt or killed. And then you can bet your ass it will happen very quickly.
Just my $.02.
WILL
12B40
There has to be a way to get our troops armed in times such as the present, especially in those areas where they are in uniform and on duty, and not on post. I applaud those standing guard at those recruiting offices. I do not understand why those in command do not supply them (the recruiters) with the means to protect themselves... At least those who haven't done so already.
Coming from a military family,(father-Career Navy; brother-Air Force; I had 18+yrs in the Army....last deployment was Desert Storm).
And I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, in Key West...My home...The beaches and everywhere on the island where you saw any servicemen in a group, at least one was armed. My brother was in commo, yet he carried an M-14 slung over his shoulder and a .45 on his hip....BOTH loaded and ready. Things have surely changed. When I posted guards on the Port of Dammam in '91 we were carrying '16s and M-9s but were ordered to not load them; Right...As if.
Things need to change, but I'll bet it won't happen until one of the higher-ups has family hurt or killed. And then you can bet your ass it will happen very quickly.
Just my $.02.
WILL
12B40
44AMP said:IF you take an M16 blank, and insert it in the muzzle, give it a good rap with a rock (never use your helmet, Sgts can hear that sound a mile off), so it jams in there, and then fire a blank, the case is capable of punching through the door of a deuce and a half at close range. (don't ask)
I killed a bunch of jack rabbits down range on Ft Carson with just that rig. Very effective and reasonable accurate out to 10 yards or so. Got stung on the backside with one or two as well, playing our own little "war games". Gets your attention.
Things may have changed a lot since the late '70s, but I served with plenty of gang members, thieves, morons, alcoholics and outright criminals. Part of that was judges who issued "military or jail" sentences back then. Many if not most, probably including myself at the time, would not be good candidates for CC. Lots of bar and gang fights, with plenty of shootings and stabbings as well.
But as someone else mentioned, in any given recruitment office in the country there should be at least a few who are qualified and capable of being trained and trusted with a loaded weapon.