Armed Forces?

[Tester]

Whoa there bro. If you can't continue with the discussion and want to run off, do so. Don't fault me because I wanted you to expand on your Palin-esce response "whichever ones choose to be armed," and no I'm not going to ask you which magazines you read either, for fear of getting an equally broad response.
Fact of the matter, you simply don't understand the scope of the issue. Perhaps you should look into the various world-wide roles servicemen are placed, the rudimentary process of enlistment, and the culture of the military from a historical standpoint.... and then maybe consider why arming "whichever ones choose to be armed," isn't as easy a notion to pull off as you seem to believe it is.

Running off? I've been here nearly as long as you. I just don't get on the computer as much. If I discontinue a conversation, I'm likely doing real life things. If I continue a conversation, it's likely related to weather making my choice for me. My post count isn't as high, but the fault doesn't lie with me for that either. I've been over the magical 50 (and have PMs in the sent file to attest that), but comments that were meaningful enough to me to take time to type out were considered "one-liners" by the powers that be. Not that I care since I don't do trading online, but it's disheartening to see something I mention being trashed. I assume all of these posts conversing with you will go likewise.
As for the rules and regulations of military world-wide, I don't really care. I don't know why you've colored me with a "Palin" brush, nor why you make mention of what magazines I read. Be careful with that because word on the street is comments using "Faux News" accusations are the new Godwin's Law.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Running off? I've been here nearly as long as you. I just don't get on the computer as much. If I discontinue a conversation, I'm likely doing real life things. If I continue a conversation, it's likely related to weather making my choice for me. My post count isn't as high, but the fault doesn't lie with me for that either. I've been over the magical 50 (and have PMs in the sent file to attest that), but comments that were meaningful enough to me to take time to type out were considered "one-liners" by the powers that be. Not that I care since I don't do trading online, but it's disheartening to see something I mention being trashed. I assume all of these posts conversing with you will go likewise.
As for the rules and regulations of military world-wide, I don't really care. I don't know why you've colored me with a "Palin" brush, nor why you make mention of what magazines I read. Be careful with that because word on the street is comments using "Faux News" accusations are the new Godwin's Law.

Uh, ok. I wasn't talking about your post count nor you membership time.

 

[oldpink]

I honestly think Pence doesn't care. He's just trying to regain some local political capital.

Oh, you must mean all the organized liberals (doubtless also stridently anti-gun) who themselves used RFRA to crucify him will now change their minds when he orders that our armed forced be -- you know -- armed?

 

[sharpetop]

I feel that all who qualify with military weapons [not all military jobs require weapons] should be armed any time they are on duty, on a military base [including recruitment centers] or performing any military function. When off base and off duty it's up to the individual.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Oooooo-k. What I'm about to post is based on my experience and observations. I was active duty USAF 7 Feb 86-31 Aug 07, retired in the rank of Senior Master Sergeant (pay grade E-8).


Uniforms: any discussion concerning uniform regulations is irrelevant. You can wear your hat (or "cover" for Navy and Marines) if you are armed. That's wear it begins and ends.

Based on what I saw, the police in the United States would not be armed if the military ran the police. There is a death-fear that senior leaders have for people being armed.

19 year-old Cops with M4s and 120 rounds are at the gate. The thought of a 40 year-old Senior Non-Commissioned Officer having a sidearm in a drop-leg Blackhawk! if he/she is not at Kabul or Bagram is crazy talk.

In 2004, I read a report from the Security Forces Director for Air Combat Command. 14 pages that said, "We need to arm our troops and stop locking the weapons in the armory."

I was at two bases in Iraq in 2005: I SAW NO ONE with a magazine in their weapon. The night I spent behind a hospital outside Tikrit? The M9 I had was loaded.

Dr. Maurice Massey used the term "significant emotional experience" that is required to change the view of people after a certain age. I guess we haven't had one yet.

 

[GIJEW]

Making excuses for the brass and saying that "when you enlist, you give up your personal freedom and your superiors decide what you do" is beside the point. Not arming troops, particularly when they're being targeted by ISIS (or being deployed for disaster relief, where they might be confronted by looters/criminals) is both stupid and immoral--what I think the OP said.

 

[oldpink]

FWIW, when I was serving on a Knox class frigate in Norfolk, the standard regulation throughout was that we could only have personal weapons on board with a signed request **** from the old man (that's captain to you landlubbers), and they had to be kept locked in the small arms locker, which made it easier for me as a Gunner's Mate.
Our old man at the time signed the ****, which certainly elevated my opinion of him quite a lot.
However, when I brought both handguns to the ship and later, when I left at the expiration of my enlistment, I had to keep them in a locked gun case and have that signed **** on my person the entire time until I was outside the gate.
That's the reality: Weapons regulations are actually stricter on base than they are out the "outside."
How ironic that the moment a recruiter goes "off duty" and (can't do this while driving the government vehicle) and get into his own car to go home, his LTCH is suddenly and magically completely valid.

Edit: My first time encountering the auto-censor.
Lest anyone think I was using a naughty word, it was the term used mainly be the navy to describe a request form whose pronunciation approximates the real naughty word for excrement.

 

[amboy49]

Which soldiers do you arm? The better alternative is to put in place restrictions on the wearing of the uniform off post. If they need to go off post, wear civvies, and pick up your edc (if you want have one) at the front gate.

I was thinking about your post above. When I was going thru old photos of my father when he was on active duty during 1941-1945 there were multiple pics in his scrapbook while he was at home on leave and he was dressed in his military uniform. Guess, perhaps either he didn't own any civilian clothes OR he was proud to be seen in uniform. When I returned from Southeast Asia and traveling home thru Seatac I recall I also wore my uniform going thru the airport and then home. Although I believe my father in uniform in the 1940's was viewed with more respect than I was I'm the 1960's, regardless, I think the wearing of the uniform was/is appropriate while not on a military base. In fact, I think it's rather sad AND a statement of our times that wearing a military uniform results in individuals being specifically targeted. Therefore, I don't quite grasp your apparent concept of limiting service men/women to wearing their uniforms only on post or (on duty).

I'm don't understand how implementation of your viewpoint would have provided any degree of protection to the Marines recruiters (who were "on duty" ) at the site where they were murdered. As I interpret your last sentence you are suggesting the Marine recruiters should, at best, only have had access to a military issued firearm while on post, and since they were not on post when they were murderd they should not be armed, either with a military issue or EDC weapon. The alternative would be to allow recruiting only on a military base I suppose.

Sorry, not buy'in you're solution as a method ensuring the ability of our servicemen and women to protect themselves. Perhaps as a member of law enforcement ( which I interpret you are from your sign on name and posts ) you believe that the fewer guns in "civilian hands" the safer law enforcement officers are. I' vet not seen you express that opinion previously so only take this as an observation and an attempt on my part to try to rationalize your position as stated above.

 

[amboy49]

I'm speaking from the point of view that soldiers are targeted simply because of the uniform they wear. They Pentagon should probably crackdown on lax adherence to uniform policy.
As far as negating their rights, when they are in uniform and working in a military, yeah, a soldier's rights are pretty much negated at the discretion of their superiors. That's my opinion.

My suggestion - change the mindset of the "superiors." I believe Governor Pence just demonstrated his feeling on this subject notwithstanding the degrading comment you made on another post about his motive(s).

 

[churchmouse]

Running off? I've been here nearly as long as you. I just don't get on the computer as much. If I discontinue a conversation, I'm likely doing real life things. If I continue a conversation, it's likely related to weather making my choice for me. My post count isn't as high, but the fault doesn't lie with me for that either. I've been over the magical 50 (and have PMs in the sent file to attest that), but comments that were meaningful enough to me to take time to type out were considered "one-liners" by the powers that be. Not that I care since I don't do trading online, but it's disheartening to see something I mention being trashed. I assume all of these posts conversing with you will go likewise.
As for the rules and regulations of military world-wide, I don't really care. I don't know why you've colored me with a "Palin" brush, nor why you make mention of what magazines I read. Be careful with that because word on the street is comments using "Faux News" accusations are the new Godwin's Law.

This is a quality (although Snarky) post. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The one liner rule is here for a good reason.

Now, after reading your posts I understand why some were deleted.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I'm speaking from the point of view that soldiers are targeted simply because of the uniform they wear. They Pentagon should probably crackdown on lax adherence to uniform policy.
As far as negating their rights, when they are in uniform and working in a military, yeah, a soldier's rights are pretty much negated at the discretion of their superiors. That's my opinion.

At Ft. Hood (and the Navy Yard), they were in uniform on the military base, not in a civilian setting. Should those soldiers not have the right to defend themselves?

 

[Woobie]

Which soldiers do you arm? The better alternative is to put in place restrictions on the wearing of the uniform off post. If they need to go off post, wear civvies, and pick up your edc (if you want have one) at the front gate.

What about when your duties take you off post? Stick to what you know Kut.

 

[Woobie]

I'm speaking from the point of view that soldiers are targeted simply because of the uniform they wear. They Pentagon should probably crackdown on lax adherence to uniform policy.
As far as negating their rights, when they are in uniform and working in a military, yeah, a soldier's rights are pretty much negated at the discretion of their superiors. That's my opinion.

I think cops should be disarmed when in uniform.

 

[Cowboy1629]

Back when I was in the Army as an MP I carried my issued 1911 while on duty but couldn't carry a personal weapon when off duty. When I lived on post I had to keep my personal firearms locked in our company's armory. If I wanted to take my gun of post I had to sign it in and out of the armory but wasn't allowed to carry it on post. This was back in the 70's, I imagine it's still the same way today.

 

[Birds Away]

I don't believe the military will ever issue personal weapons to everyone. 1) there aren't enough weapons to go around. 2) they don't have the time or the resources to train everyone and keep them proficient. 3) they don't want to have the liability. 4) they don't have the resources for such a program.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Let's look at this logically. Dick Heller was one of the plaintiffs that sued Washington, D.C. and won based on the fact that he worked (and may still work, I don't know) as a security guard and was expected to be armed to protect some building or property specified by his job, but was not allowed by law to be armed to protect himself or his family or anyone else around him. Let's put that in perspective:

"If someone else's stuff is threatened, I'm authorized to use force, even deadly force, to protect it, but my life and the life of my family are less important."

SCOTUS (and common sense) said that was not Constitutional.

I will be the first to admit that I am not knowledgeable about the UCMJ. I know that the conventional wisdom in the military is that you are there to defend freedom, not to exercise it. With that said, someone please explain to me how, "if in uniform, you may only be armed when your duties require it" differs from DC's voided law saying that a man may be trusted to use deadly force to protect a building, but not to protect his own life.

I'm reminded of the scene from Blazing Saddles when Bart and Charlie ride the handcart into the quicksand. When it is retrieved, and no effort is made to protect the two men sinking into the sand, their combined value to their "employer" is established to be less than $400.00.

So apparently, when in-theater and on a battlefield, the value of a piece of land in someone else's country is valued more highly than the lives of the servicemen and women here at home, on or off base.

Long and short of it: I don't care if the weapon they choose to carry is issued or personal. If they are willing to trust their own lives to it, that should suffice. Our military men and women should be able to be armed for their own defense on or off base, just as should our citizens be able to be armed wherever they go, short of into a detention area in which criminals or the criminally insane are incarcerated. Anything short of that is, "I support the Second Amendment, but.....", and no, that's not a contradiction. The people in those areas have been adjudicated and via due process, some of their liberty and some of their property is denied them. That also is Constitutional.

Anything less is saying "I'll only trust you if you make yourself defenseless", especially when those saying that retain arms for their own defense.

It's hypocrisy and it's insulting and it needs to stop.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[phatgemi]

Sadly, what is the state of affairs when a US military member has to hide in "civvies" right here in the good ole United States?

 

[STEEL CORE]

Back to the days of the Wild Wild West it seems, think about it though, service men and women have to be properly trained and qualified, strict Government rules on weapons and ammunition storage and accountability, must be in place, rules of engagement training standards met, and local civil and state laws adheared to, so arming our Armed Forces isn't all that simple a task, all things considered.
Permits for concealed carry? I don't think the DOD will authorize that aspect.

 

[Birds Away]

Most of my time in the Navy we were often required to wear dress uniforms in foreign ports but prohibited from wearing them in the United States.

 

[Woobie]

Back to the days of the Wild Wild West it seems, think about it though, service men and women have to be properly trained and qualified, strict Government rules on weapons and ammunition storage and accountability, must be in place, rules of engagement training standards met, and local civil and state laws adheared to, so arming our Armed Forces isn't all that simple a task, all things considered.
Permits for concealed carry? I don't think the DOD will authorize that aspect.

I dont know about the federal components of the mitary, but I do know a little about the Guard. They are part of the military department of their respective state, until activated on federal orders. So there is an entire level of beaurocracy that you can remove from that equation.

So what if, in accordance with state law, and in coordination with state law enforcement, the governor of a state issued an executive order authorizing the arming of National Guardsmen?

What if part of the compliance was requiring a state issued carry permit?

What if a training class was offered complete with weapons qualification, schedules permitting, to service members already in a paid status, therefore no extra pay?

What if the weapon and ammunition to be carried was to be supplied by the service member?

Such training could be accomplished in a day, at almost no additional expense to the government. Even the training rounds would be furnished by the service member.

Does it seem so difficult in that light?