The Military and our gun laws

S

Shooter 2.5

New member
I was wondering about the state of our laws and the horrible shape that our military recruiting is in amd I came to the conclusion that what this country and our military needs is a executive order that states that our military, active and inactive, can and should be armed at all times. I'm not sure what guidelines could be met in creating this scenario, however I think it could be followed along the guide lines as police afficers. If you're on duty and in uniform you carry the side arm of the branch you are in when you are not in a combat role. When you are in civilian clothes you can carry the firarm of your choice .380 or larger in a concealed rig. Further, no gun laws would apply regardless of where you live. Any thoughts?
 
It'd be nice, and a step in the right direction, but...

It'd be unfair to the civilian population. And it'd never happen. :D In the Army (my branch) you're not even allowed to carry your own sidearm into war anymore. You can be courtmartialed for it. It's not like that in the Marines, I understand.
 
I don't know how my fellow Army comrades on this forum feel about the following, but simply based on the quality of recruits I'm seeing these days I don't know if I would trust some of them walking around armed and unsupervised. I don't want to get into the "18-year olds can go to war but can't carry concealed weapons". Judging by the amount of supervision required when troops are on a rifle range with live ammo the Army would go into convulsions at the thought of soldiers carrying loaded sidearms on and off post.
 
I think there is a VERY easy solution to this "problem" of ill trained recruits. Vrey simple make it MANDITORY during schooling, from the 5th-6th grade level that Firearm Safety & Marksmanship sould be taught. Not only would that make out soliders more proficent, it would also allow the stream lining of the training process in someways. As a bonus it would indeed create a revived respect for firearms in general.


That is a great idea, that would work.
 
Yep. Your junior high diploma is all you would need to prove that you have taken a firearms course and are skilled with same.

"18-year olds can go to war but can't carry concealed weapons."

Why is it that we reflexively marry the words "weapon" and "concealed"? I guess the bombardment of CCW permit schemes have truly infected our lexicon. Like "gun" and "violence" and "weapon" and "assault." Those of us who live in Arizona and several other States do not have to conceal our self defense tools.

Rick
 
JWR-I never thought that 18 year olds belong in combat zones anyway so we could raise it to 21 or just trust our troops to do the right thing. We don't have to get into the old "the streets will run with blood" argument that surfaces everytime the anti's get together. The best thing to come out of the concealed weapons laws is that law-abiding citizens are just that. They are not the ones that break the laws.
 
Shooter 2.5,

With respect, I'm afraid your idea -- although well intentioned -- might be a great step backward.

I spent twenty years on active duty as a Naval officer and an additional twelve working with the aviation elements of the services for a major defense contractor. Therefore, my opinions are based on several decades of direct knowledge with the military.

Most career officers have several experiences of young folks using abysmally poor judgment, frequently alcohol related. Repeatedly, I have seen best friends -- both drunk -- do great damage to each other over nothing in EM Clubs and/or bar fights. In the morning, when they are both sober, they cannot understand why, for example, they used an ashtray to give their buddy a fractured skull. In sum, youthful judgments, clouded by booze and machismo, can be a very bad combination. This is serious enough, however, imagine how much worse it would be if that ashtray became a .45 ACP Glock or a 9MM Sig.

Now, if you want to modify your idea for senior NCOs (E-8s and E-9s, for example) and Field Grade (and above) Officers, that might make somewhat more sense (IMHO).


[Edited by RWK on 01-23-2001 at 10:48 AM]
 
I'm pro-military, but does anybody else live in a liberty town when the folks let off steam? I can't say that I support the off duty arming of military. If they were in a foreign country where their lives were endangered, no problem provided they're trained (I've met a former sailor who was never taught to fire a gun).
 
I'll have to agree with RWK on that one.
During the late seventies, I was in the Air Force, stationed at Charleston AFB SC. In Charleston we had Air Force (busboys), Navy (squids, bubbleheads), and of course our beloved Marine Corps (the few, the proud, the gate guards).
There always seem to be this inane rivalry between each service. I saw, and shamefully admit to participating in a few of the fabled barroom blitzes. It always seemed to start over something really stupid, like who's quarters were on the pool table first, or beer spilled on somebodies shoes, or the one that always got me in trouble, "dats my woman you're messin' with".
Nope, alchohol, testosterone, and firearms do not mix IMHO.
 
Here's an idea. Mandate open carry for NCO's and officers in uniform. Have concealed carry training for same. HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS!! A lot of the problem with the military is the fact that you're treated like a damn kid all the time. Instill a sense of seriousness and responsibility and you won't need to worry about the problems like the USS Cole and Beirut anymore. Anyone that screws up with a firearm gets busted down. Anyone doing anything criminal with a firearm spends a long time at Leavenworth. No BS, no problems. Semper Fidelis...Ken M
 
I disagree with the Officers and Non-coms approach because with me, it's everyone or no one. I disagree with the idea of police officers for the same reason because I won't agree to some civilians having rights and not for others. The scenario that keeps on coming up are the bars and clubs. maybe those places should be off-limits if you're carrying. Hopefully expecting people to be responsible for their actions would be easier in the military than in civilian life.
 
1) "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

2) "An armed society is a polite society."

3) "War is where old men send young men to die."
-----

#1 acknowledges the God-given or (if you prefer) Natural right to be armed. Period.

#2 indicates that much of the irresponsible actions we see now (e.g. drunken barroom brawls, etc.) would become quite rare when the stakes are appropriate.

#3 implies (to me, at least) that those who are old enough to die for the rest of us should enjoy the Natural Rights of their homeland - which includes "... the right of the people..."
-----

Unfortunately, too many (pseudo-)Americans have left the rearing of their offspring to the government (public schools) and the media (TV, movies, etc.). Therefore, most of our children are Americans by geography but not by the character of the Americans of the 18th and 19th centuries.

We have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But our so-called representatives have made the stakes too high to practice the birthright which our ancestors fought for, died for, and presented us on a silver platter.
 
The amount of firearm training when I was in the army sucked.No SAFTY training at all.Maybe why we had two idiots playing fast draw while on border duty.Maybe thats why one died.Being in the military does not mean you are profencent with firearms,the same with police officers.It takes training and at least some maturity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top