View Full Version : Quick Show of Hands, Please. Who Believes for a Nanosecond that the Brass...
Spurholder
07-21-15, 16:57
...will let us carry personal weapons on post or off post in uniform?
Me thinks the answer is ....oh, hell no. But apparently every American not in uniform thinks the NDAA for '16 will do it for us - right, wrong or indifferent.
Thoughts?
I routinely carried concealed while in uniform and would not consider going into public except to the sterile parts of an airport without a handgun. I also routinely carried on various installations. Yes, I've been pulled over on post. No, I did not tell them that I had a weapon. They can all go screw themselves - I operated under my own set of rules when it comes to my safety and I did so knowing the consequences if I was caught. At the same time, I was VERY smart with how I concealed my weapons.
If you are going to choose to stay in the military under the command of the incompetent boobs that now lead our armed forces, at least have the common sense to protect yourself at all times. If you do not take personal responsibility for your own welfare, I promise that none of the senior military and civilian leadership will.
I routinely carried concealed while in uniform and would not consider going into public except to the sterile parts of an airport without a handgun. I also routinely carried on various installations. Yes, I've been pulled over on post. No, I did not tell them that I had a weapon. They can all go screw themselves - I operated under my own set of rules when it comes to my safety and I did so knowing the consequences if I was caught. At the same time, I was VERY smart with how I concealed my weapons.
If you are going to choose to stay in the military under the command of the incompetent boobs that now lead our armed forces, at least have the common sense to protect yourself at all times. If you do not take personal responsibility for your own welfare, I promise that none of the senior military and civilian leadership will.
Perhaps the most intelligent thing I've ever read on this forum.
Risky? Yes.
Potential to be portrayed as a possible shooter if caught? You bet.
Probably what I'd do in your situation? I hope.
I routinely carried concealed while in uniform and would not consider going into public except to the sterile parts of an airport without a handgun. I also routinely carried on various installations. Yes, I've been pulled over on post. No, I did not tell them that I had a weapon. They can all go screw themselves - I operated under my own set of rules when it comes to my safety and I did so knowing the consequences if I was caught. At the same time, I was VERY smart with how I concealed my weapons.
If you are going to choose to stay in the military under the command of the incompetent boobs that now lead our armed forces, at least have the common sense to protect yourself at all times. If you do not take personal responsibility for your own welfare, I promise that none of the senior military and civilian leadership will.
Rebel you are. ;)
Hell, in any kind of modern BDU-type uniform CCW would be rather easy, i.e. if you can't hide it in ACU's you're carrying Dirty Harry's Model 29! Now the old "pickle suit" from the 70's? Yeah, might have been difficult. However, any of the modern fatigues from O.D. jungles, BDU's, and up through the ACU/Multicam is a no-brainer.
Outlander Systems
07-21-15, 19:02
Negative.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
07-21-15, 19:14
Not I said the duck.
I'm thinking outloud here, but does it violate posse commitatus?
Not I said the duck.
I'm thinking outloud here, but does it violate posse commitatus?
Self-defense and law enforcement activities are two entirely different things IMHO.
That said, no, I don't think they'll go for it. If Ft. Hood didn't do it this incident won't either (unfortunately).
Straight Shooter
07-21-15, 19:37
Not under this Muslim-in-Chief. POSSIBLE if a conservative were to be elected. Which brings up a question:
Can the President ALONE make that call? If the C.I.C. were to issue an order allowing it, is that all it would take?
Defense has already said it is not in favor. Cited the typically things... Negligent discharges, etc
Sent from my PRC-104 using phonetics
Rebel you are. ;)
Hell, in any kind of modern BDU-type uniform CCW would be rather easy, i.e. if you can't hide it in ACU's you're carrying Dirty Harry's Model 29! Now the old "pickle suit" from the 70's? Yeah, might have been difficult. However, any of the modern fatigues from O.D. jungles, BDU's, and up through the ACU/Multicam is a no-brainer.
Oh yeah, try scoring a 300 on an APFT while a G26 smacks you in the junk every step of the...whole...two...miles.
Can the President ALONE make that call? If the C.I.C. were to issue an order allowing it, is that all it would take?
I was actually wondering this myself.
From what I've read, the DEPSECDEF under George H.W. Bush enacted a DoDD 5210.56 (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf) that restricted carry of firearms in 1992.
It was reissued (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf) under Obama in 2011. The reissuing implements 10 USC § 1585 which authorizes civilian employees of the DoD to carry firearms when assigned certain duties (investigations, gate guard, etc) by SECDEF. It also incorporates DoDI 5200.08, which charges commanders with protecting their installation and empowers them with the tools to do so.
From what I can tell, 5210.56 never mentions a legal necessity to restrict the arming of base personnel, only that you won't arm base personnel in general unless there is an imminent threat or their specific mission requires it. So I'm guessing that the President or SECDEF can rescind it without having to deal with the Congress Critters.
From a policy perspective, the main question is always going to be, will you save more lives than you will now lose due to NDs? This (http://www.stripes.com/news/disturbing-trend-seen-in-negligent-discharges-of-weapons-in-afghanistan-1.22443) is an old article, but it says in 2003, there were 18 injuries and 4 fatalities as a result of NDs in Afghanistan by US Military personnel. Recruiting stations are soft targets compared to a base even at the current readiness levels, so disregarding the Tennessee shootings, how often do base personnel get attacked by a mass shooter already within the base?
Recruiting stations are soft targets compared to a base even at the current readiness levels, so disregarding the Tennessee shootings, how often do base personnel get attacked by a mass shooter already within the base?
Enough that it has happened two times on Fort Hood with 33 killed and 46 injured (not counting the as-clowns terrorists that did it). That is a lot more then a few NDs.
Defense has already said it is not in favor. Cited the typically things... Negligent discharges, etc
Sent from my PRC-104 using phonetics
Odierno partially walked back his objections today, saying he thought the question specified arming ALL service members. There's a significant amount of heat being applied to DoD over this nonsense right now and if you don't think parents of potential new recruits aren't concerned over this, you'd be mistaken. With DoD's obsession with Command & Control over all other considerations, it's a completely uphill battle. Without resounding support from the public, it would never come to pass. But for Pete's Sake, they recommended closing the effing blinds as an additional "security measure" today. Can anyone that stupid actually withstand scrutiny? :fie:
Not I said the duck.
I'm thinking outloud here, but does it violate posse commitatus?
I don't think so unless you use it while under orders and acting against the civilian population.
In a related story, Ray Odierno is retiring next month as Army Chief of Staff. He's the one who had a problem with members of the armed forces being, well, you know, armed.
Hey Ray, one last question before you hit the road. What taste saltier - Obama's jizz or Biden's balls?
Straight Shooter
07-22-15, 00:35
In a related story, Ray Odierno is retiring next month as Army Chief of Staff. He's the one who had a problem with members of the armed forces being, well, you know, armed.
Hey Ray, one last question before you hit the road. What taste saltier - Obama's jizz or Biden's balls?
GOLF CLAP.
But for Pete's Sake, they recommended closing the effing blinds as an additional "security measure" today. Can anyone that stupid actually withstand scrutiny? :fie:
It makes some small amount of sense assuming a mass shooter's goal is to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible before he knows he will be stopped. Locking your door and shutting your blinds makes him waste time on your office or building or whatever, making it more likely he'll move on instead of trying.
It's not about being objectively the most hardened room possible, it's about being hardened just enough that theoretically he won't waste his fleeting time left on this world breaking down every single door. Because if he did, the amount of offices he could get to is significantly less than if he can just walk through a hallway, looking into each room really quickly to find people to shoot.
That being said, I'd still rather have a gun.
I'm impressed with SMA Dailey so far, I'd like to think he would push the issue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Spurholder
07-22-15, 05:16
Not I said the duck.
I'm thinking outloud here, but does it violate posse commitatus?
Self-defense and law enforcement activities are two entirely different things IMHO.
That said, no, I don't think they'll go for it. If Ft. Hood didn't do it this incident won't either (unfortunately).
I thought - for a very brief second over the weekend - that the steamroller effect of opinion would be too much this time. And like you guys have stated, every excuse in the world's coming out of the woodwork to slow this thing down.
I'm now waiting for someone to actually say, "let them eat cake."
Eurodriver
07-22-15, 05:43
They are already portraying the Marine and sailor who shot back at the gunman as "See? Arming yourself does nothing good..."
I hope to God at least one of them hit the ****er.
Spurholder
07-22-15, 07:17
^ Yep. Pretty sickening, isn't it?
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/29601189/military-sources-navy-officer-and-marine-returned-fire-at-gunman-during-attack
I wonder - since it's now public knowledge that the installation commander engaged the gunman with a personal weapon - is the Navy going to let it slide or bring him up on charges?
Or, just tell him to quietly retire?
Oh yeah, try scoring a 300 on an APFT while a G26 smacks you in the junk every step of the...whole...two...miles.
I wasn't talking about a PT uniform! You're dedicated!
^ Yep. Pretty sickening, isn't it?
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/29601189/military-sources-navy-officer-and-marine-returned-fire-at-gunman-during-attack
I wonder - since it's now public knowledge that the installation commander engaged the gunman with a personal weapon - is the Navy going to let it slide or bring him up on charges?
Or, just tell him to quietly retire?
I doubt with the publicity this is getting that they will crucify the guy. However, knowing the military they will NOT just let it slide.
Spurholder
07-22-15, 08:25
a
I doubt with the publicity this is getting that they will crucify the guy. However, knowing the military they will NOT just let it slide.
Figuring a lukewarm OER, with some comments about "poor decision making ability" by his senior rater will lead to him getting passed over for promotion to O-5, SELCON (whatever the Navy calls it) to 20 years and then quietly going home.
Unless they push it, that is.
BuzzinSATX
07-22-15, 10:25
I routinely carried concealed while in uniform and would not consider going into public except to the sterile parts of an airport without a handgun. I also routinely carried on various installations. Yes, I've been pulled over on post. No, I did not tell them that I had a weapon. They can all go screw themselves - I operated under my own set of rules when it comes to my safety and I did so knowing the consequences if I was caught. At the same time, I was VERY smart with how I concealed my weapons.
If you are going to choose to stay in the military under the command of the incompetent boobs that now lead our armed forces, at least have the common sense to protect yourself at all times. If you do not take personal responsibility for your own welfare, I promise that none of the senior military and civilian leadership will.
I agree with all you said. I work daily on a military base too, but I've been randomly stopped too many times and had my vehicles searched by dogs to risk the possible felony conviction.
I remember back in late 80's when stationed at Malmstron AFB, MT, half the private owned trucks and SUV's had gun racks, and during hunting seasons, most carried a rifle/shotgun or two in plain sight, parked during the day. No big deal. I lived in the barracks at one point, and I kept my firearms locked in my truck (against the rules even then). One evening, I had a security forces guy knock on my door at 0330 asking me if the blue Isuzu Trooper in the parking lot was mine. I said yes, and was told to get dressed, get my car keys, and step outside with him. We get to my vehicle, and he shines the light into my truck and says he can see a bullet on the floor (it was a .22 LR) and tells me he needs to search my vehicle for weapons. I tell him he won't need to as I'll cooperate, and tell him to pull the big blanket from the back cargo area. Long story shorter, I had 2 bolt rifles, a shotgun, three revolvers, and three .22's. Along with the firearms, I had a couple hundred rounds of every caliber except 12 gauge and .22's, where I had just bought a case of each on sale.
So away to the cop shop I go, until my first sergeant came for me around 0630. Boy did he think it was funny! It took me a month to get my stuff back, and then I had to store everything in the base armory. That sucked!
But had that happened today...I'd probably be turned over to DHS and locked away in the Gitmo Country Club!
Take Care,
Buzz
Political pressure is the only way. The GOs will respond to Congress.
It makes some small amount of sense assuming a mass shooter's goal is to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible before he knows he will be stopped. Locking your door and shutting your blinds makes him waste time on your office or building or whatever, making it more likely he'll move on instead of trying.
It's not about being objectively the most hardened room possible, it's about being hardened just enough that theoretically he won't waste his fleeting time left on this world breaking down every single door. Because if he did, the amount of offices he could get to is significantly less than if he can just walk through a hallway, looking into each room really quickly to find people to shoot.
That being said, I'd still rather have a gun.
No, it doesn't. They didn't say shut the blinds and lock the doors. How would they conduct business if the place looks closed and no one can get in? If you look at the layout of most strip mall recruiting centers, there isn't anything inside to lock. All this "advice" does is shorten the potential response time because they won't see the shooter coming until he's in the door.
I have been that 1st shirt getting that call.
All kinds of thoughts that there isn't enough room to type up here.
I have mixed emotions on the subject. I've seen the young SF's that have no business with a firearm at all or should be allowed to carry that badge due to maturity issues. I've seen some of the most professional of soldiers denied the ability to even get issued a weapon in a hostile AOR.
I remember being a troop commander for 60 swinging dicks (ok a couple of women too) trying to get them all in one piece from Stateside all the way to Kandahar. I swear most of them had no business being off their mom's tit.
I agree with all you said. I work daily on a military base too, but I've been randomly stopped too many times and had my vehicles searched by dogs to risk the possible felony conviction.
I remember back in late 80's when stationed at Malmstron AFB, MT, half the private owned trucks and SUV's had gun racks, and during hunting seasons, most carried a rifle/shotgun or two in plain sight, parked during the day. No big deal. I lived in the barracks at one point, and I kept my firearms locked in my truck (against the rules even then). One evening, I had a security forces guy knock on my door at 0330 asking me if the blue Isuzu Trooper in the parking lot was mine. I said yes, and was told to get dressed, get my car keys, and step outside with him. We get to my vehicle, and he shines the light into my truck and says he can see a bullet on the floor (it was a .22 LR) and tells me he needs to search my vehicle for weapons. I tell him he won't need to as I'll cooperate, and tell him to pull the big blanket from the back cargo area. Long story shorter, I had 2 bolt rifles, a shotgun, three revolvers, and three .22's. Along with the firearms, I had a couple hundred rounds of every caliber except 12 gauge and .22's, where I had just bought a case of each on sale.
So away to the cop shop I go, until my first sergeant came for me around 0630. Boy did he think it was funny! It took me a month to get my stuff back, and then I had to store everything in the base armory. That sucked!
But had that happened today...I'd probably be turned over to DHS and locked away in the Gitmo Country Club!
Take Care,
Buzz
Forgive my ignorance here as I was never in the military, but why is it perfectly okay to let a twenty something beat cop with 24 hours (three 8 hour days...) of firearms training at the local police academy walk and drive among the general population with pistol, AR and shotgun at the ready, but its not okay to let trained soldiers with weeks or months of firearms training walk around other soldiers with a holstered pistol on a military base?
My frustration level with human stupidity continues to build...
They are already portraying the Marine and sailor who shot back at the gunman as "See? Arming yourself does nothing good..."
I hope to God at least one of them hit the ****er.
Oh good. Then the entire USSS protection detail can turn in all of their firearms.
Bulletdog, because not every soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine has weeks or months of firearms training.
My PD academy firearms training was measured in weeks spread out over 5 months. Everything from basic marksmanship to engaging multiple targets that are actively shooting back (using sim rounds) and the legal ramifications of our actions.
In the .mil unless you are in combat arms they don't shoot regualrly. This myth of all military personnel being shooters needs to go die.
Bulletdog, because not every soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine has weeks or months of firearms training.
My PD academy firearms training was measured in weeks spread out over 5 months. Everything from basic marksmanship to engaging multiple targets that are actively shooting back (using sim rounds) and the legal ramifications of our actions.
In the .mil unless you are in combat arms they don't shoot regualrly. This myth of all military personnel being shooters needs to go die.
Is it your feeling that the "average" U.S. Soldier is less able to carry a firearm responsibly, than the "average" police officer, or the "average" CCW holder?
Of all the people who are capable of handling and carrying a firearm responsibly, it seems to me a soldier should be pretty high on that list...
BuzzinSATX
07-22-15, 14:55
I have been that 1st shirt getting that call.
All kinds of thoughts that there isn't enough room to type up here.
I have mixed emotions on the subject.
My little story was simply to illustrate we used to have lots of private weapons on military bases without everyone shooting each other, just like we now have lots of folks carrying concealed everyday without incident.
Problem is that most folks see arming military people as an "all or none" proposition. It shouldn't be.
Lots of folks working on military bases, both in and out of uniform, are perfectly capable/competent with firearms. And there are lots of people, same groups, maybe not as much. But the issue is no one is allowed to legally even bring their private weapon on base and keep it secured in their vehicle. It's a friggin gun free zone. That's the problem!
Might be different in bases in CA/MA/DC/etc., but I'd bet if Ft Hood in TX wasn't a gun free zone, that POS Hasan would not have been able to take out as many soldiers before an armed citizen arrived to confront him.
Armed citizens are deterring/stopping crime all over the U.S...so why would a military base be any different.
All you need to do to immediately increase security for the vast majority of troops on military bases in the U.S. would be to eliminate the personal firearm restriction from being stored in personal autos while at work, and carried in common commercial buildings like base exchanges, restaurants, and shops.
Take Care,
Buzz
BuzzinSATX
07-22-15, 14:57
...will let us carry personal weapons on post or off post in uniform?
Me thinks the answer is ....oh, hell no. But apparently every American not in uniform thinks the NDAA for '16 will do it for us - right, wrong or indifferent.
Thoughts?
And to answer the OP question, most top brass are too politically scared to buck a gun-grabbing commander in chief.
Take Care,
Buzz
No. Never gonna happen. And I have to agree it would be a bad policy change.
Have you never been around a bunch of privates? Remember, many are barely GED grads, and don't have a lick of common sense. A deployment changes some for the better, but some for the worse. Unless we have a HUGE Mass killing on a Post, the odds of one private shooting another over a girl are way higher than a muslim extremist attacking.
Now, I WILL SAY, that the recruiting stations are a different story, as their force protection measures SUCK (and closing the blinds and not wearing uniforms is cowardly and will NOT attract enlistees). Same for a lot of ARNG/USAR Facilitys (the newer ones built have better measures). For those facilities OFF Post, a reasonable compromise would allow CCW holders to carry while in uniform and on duty at those facilities. Usually CCW holders are a little older, as are recruiters.
The states can authorize it for the ARNG and in co-located centers with the USAR, that would cover it. Posse-comitatas could cover the ARNG personnel.
I WILL Say this. In my USAR Center, many of my soldiers were police, and I KNOW some of them carried (with my tacit and sometimes express permission when the force protection levels went up) as they had a least SOME arrest powers in that community; And I wouldn't have wanted anyone to check ME OR my CSM, either..."Regulations are the guidance of the Commander"...
Is it your feeling that the "average" U.S. Soldier is less able to carry a firearm responsibly, than the "average" police officer, or the "average" CCW holder?
If by "US Soldier" you mean "US Service Member" including all branches, not just the Army... YES. I know you didn't ask me, but YES, the average member of the US Military is far less able to carry a firearm responsibly than the average LEO or average CCW holder.
I'm not saying they're inherently less able to carry responsibly, but as of this very moment, due to lack of training, they are undeniably less able to carry responsibly.
In the USAF for example, unless you're SOF, Aircrew, Security Forces, CE (which are SF augmentees and have some units like Red Horse), OSI, or Combat Comm, you will likely never touch a firearm after basic, unless you deploy to a combat zone.
No, it doesn't. They didn't say shut the blinds and lock the doors. How would they conduct business if the place looks closed and no one can get in? If you look at the layout of most strip mall recruiting centers, there isn't anything inside to lock. All this "advice" does is shorten the potential response time because they won't see the shooter coming until he's in the door.
I misunderstood the quote. I thought it was shut the blinds in response to an active shooter, not shut the blinds at all times.
How about you can carry if you pass the carry reqs for the state your stationed in, and get trained on that weapon or have a certain rank? It's not an all or nothing proposition.
I routinely carried concealed while in uniform and would not consider going into public except to the sterile parts of an airport without a handgun. I also routinely carried on various installations. Yes, I've been pulled over on post. No, I did not tell them that I had a weapon. They can all go screw themselves - I operated under my own set of rules when it comes to my safety and I did so knowing the consequences if I was caught. At the same time, I was VERY smart with how I concealed my weapons.
If you are going to choose to stay in the military under the command of the incompetent boobs that now lead our armed forces, at least have the common sense to protect yourself at all times. If you do not take personal responsibility for your own welfare, I promise that none of the senior military and civilian leadership will.
I'm curious, did you have a plan to deal with the repercussions in case you actually had to use the gun either on base or off base where it could easily be assumed you had the gun with you before you got on base or had just previously left the base and had to use it and it could be assumed that you had the gun on base the whole day? I'm not calling your decision into question because I agree with it. I'm just wondering if you considered the likely outcomes or basically said **** it, I'll worry about that after. Did you have a lawyer on retainer or anything like that?
If by "US Soldier" you mean "US Service Member" including all branches, not just the Army... YES. I know you didn't ask me, but YES, the average member of the US Military is far less able to carry a firearm responsibly than the average LEO or average CCW holder.
I'm not saying they're inherently less able to carry responsibly, but as of this very moment, due to lack of training, they are undeniably less able to carry responsibly.
In the USAF for example, unless you're SOF, Aircrew, Security Forces, CE (which are SF augmentees and have some units like Red Horse), OSI, or Combat Comm, you will likely never touch a firearm after basic, unless you deploy to a combat zone.
I misunderstood the quote. I thought it was shut the blinds in response to an active shooter, not shut the blinds at all times.
How about you can carry if you pass the carry reqs for the state your stationed in, and get trained on that weapon or have a certain rank? It's not an all or nothing proposition.
I think it'd be reasonable to allow someone to carry if they are licensed in a state. I would say in the state they are in, but I'm in Hawaii where nobody can but I have my VA CCL. Kind of like a driver's license. I don't think everyone should be able to carry just for being in the military. There are too many that are incompetent, but I feel that if they have the desire to acquire a permit, hopefully that means they're at least somewhat proficient.
I think it'd be reasonable to allow someone to carry if they are licensed in a state. I would say in the state they are in, but I'm in Hawaii where nobody can but I have my VA CCL. Kind of like a driver's license. I don't think everyone should be able to carry just for being in the military. There are too many that are incompetent, but I feel that if they have the desire to acquire a permit, hopefully that means they're at least somewhat proficient.
While I agree in the broadest sense, that if someone is licensed in any state that they can carry on a Federal installation, I don't know if I actually agree in practice.
I'd rather have a military-run carry license or something of that nature, that acts like a CCL on every Federal installation to include military bases.
Otherwise, what if you're from, say, California and are stationed in Hawaii? You'd be forced to go to a third state to get an out-of-state CCL.
While I agree in the broadest sense, that if someone is licensed in any state that they can carry on a Federal installation, I don't know if I actually agree in practice.
I'd rather have a military-run carry license or something of that nature, that acts like a CCL on every Federal installation to include military bases.
Otherwise, what if you're from, say, California and are stationed in Hawaii? You'd be forced to go to a third state to get an out-of-state CCL.
That would work even better. But obviously it'd take more work from them so it may be less likely to get adopted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BuzzinSATX
07-23-15, 12:30
While I agree in the broadest sense, that if someone is licensed in any state that they can carry on a Federal installation, I don't know if I actually agree in practice.
I'd rather have a military-run carry license or something of that nature, that acts like a CCL on every Federal installation to include military bases.
I'd go for that, as long as active, reserve, retired military, their dependent, and civilian employees could also get the card.
But I go back to the simple fact that Federal installations are gun free zones and gun free zones become "easy kill" zones. And this should be addressed and rectified.
Take Care,
Buzz
Averageman
07-23-15, 12:50
I think it'd be reasonable to allow someone to carry if they are licensed in a state. I would say in the state they are in, but I'm in Hawaii where nobody can but I have my VA CCL. Kind of like a driver's license. I don't think everyone should be able to carry just for being in the military. There are too many that are incompetent, but I feel that if they have the desire to acquire a permit, hopefully that means they're at least somewhat proficient.
I've always been very surprised that the Military Brass is nearly anti-gun for the most part. They seem to take great pride in making it as uncomfortable as possible for you to own or keep a gun on post and yet here at Fort Hood we seem to recently be having a near annual mass shooting event.
I think it says an awful lot about the trust and confidence these guys have in their subordinates that even the Staff Duty Officer and NCO go about their duties unarmed.
I've always been very surprised that the Military Brass is nearly anti-gun for the most part. They seem to take great pride in making it as uncomfortable as possible for you to own or keep a gun on post and yet here at Fort Hood we seem to recently be having a near annual mass shooting event.
I think it says an awful lot about the trust and confidence these guys have in their subordinates that even the Staff Duty Officer and NCO go about their duties unarmed.
Sometimes there is reason behind it. (Not saying I necessarily agree here)
I was in Riyadh when there were a few notable ND's in camp at the clearing barrel. (I was not witness to the events, just in the tent city at the time) The last one was where the officer missed the barrel completely when the pistol discharged IIRC. After that, no one was allowed ammo in the weapons at all. This was all during the time when we were certain Saddam was coming across the border at any minute.
While I agree in the broadest sense, that if someone is licensed in any state that they can carry on a Federal installation, I don't know if I actually agree in practice.
I'd rather have a military-run carry license or something of that nature, that acts like a CCL on every Federal installation to include military bases.
Otherwise, what if you're from, say, California and are stationed in Hawaii? You'd be forced to go to a third state to get an out-of-state CCL.
I really like that idea. The only issue I foresee would be accidentally leaving the base while still armed in say, New Jersey. Their state isn't going to give a flip about that .mil CCW permit and some of the more "jackbooted" of them might even consider areas near base gates to be "honey holes". :(
Spurholder
07-23-15, 14:06
Sometimes there is reason behind it. (Not saying I necessarily agree here)
I was in Riyadh when there were a few notable ND's in camp at the clearing barrel. (I was not witness to the events, just in the tent city at the time) The last one was where the officer missed the barrel completely when the pistol discharged IIRC. After that, no one was allowed ammo in the weapons at all. This was all during the time when we were certain Saddam was coming across the border at any minute.
Every ND I've ever seen or heard - save one - has been at a clearing barrel.
Those things are just as much a part of our culture as PT belts now...
Well, the whole point of clearing barrels are so that when the individuals who have to have weapons but really shouldn't, have to load or unload, there is a safe direction for the weapon to be pointed towards so that when they make the mistake, no damage done.
Not I said the duck.
I'm thinking outloud here, but does it violate posse commitatus?
I had this discussion with a professor friend of mine. I don't think it is a violation. We're talking "force protection" and just damn self defense.
Clearing barrels are retarded. A press check, or unloading altogether isn't that hard.
I really like that idea. The only issue I foresee would be accidentally leaving the base while still armed in say, New Jersey. Their state isn't going to give a flip about that .mil CCW permit and some of the more "jackbooted" of them might even consider areas near base gates to be "honey holes". :(
I haven't checked every state law, but Hawaii for example has a law against carrying firearms, like most states do. It makes exceptions for law enforcement, CCL permit holders, and mil on official duty.
A military concealed carry card would use that to say it is your duty to concealed carry except when going to the bar, when doing PT, etc.
Clearing barrels are retarded. A press check, or unloading altogether isn't that hard.
Clearing barrels are retarded. But we have retards so clearing barrels become less retarded.
Clearing barrels are retarded. But we have retards so clearing barrels become less retarded.
Rather ND into a clearing barrel than into a person, thats fo sho.
Clearing barrels are retarded. But we have retards so clearing barrels become less retarded.
PREACH!
Rather ND into a clearing barrel than into a person, thats fo sho.
Yep, seems like a cheap and easy way to mitigate the risks associated with the regular loading and unloading of firearms. Even if you are taking the time to be responsible enough to practice muzzle discipline, wouldn't be the first time somebody ricocheted a round off the deck and killed somebody.
Yep, seems like a cheap and easy way to mitigate the risks associated with the regular loading and unloading of firearms. Even if you are taking the time to be responsible enough to practice muzzle discipline, wouldn't be the first time somebody ricocheted a round off the deck and killed somebody.
Yeah. It's like when you disassemble or unload, you're supposed to do it in a safe direction. A clearing barrel is just the designated safe direction.
Clearing barrels are retarded. But we have retards so clearing barrels become less retarded.
Got that right..... "it went off when I was unloading it...." it went off when I was cleaning it......" the F tards never say "I was I real ass clown and had my fat fingers in the trigger guard like a real Jack wagon, that's how I ND'd into my leg, like a champion at full retard."
Forgive my ignorance here as I was never in the military, but why is it perfectly okay to let a twenty something beat cop with 24 hours (three 8 hour days...) of firearms training at the local police academy walk and drive among the general population with pistol, AR and shotgun at the ready, but its not okay to let trained soldiers with weeks or months of firearms training walk around other soldiers with a holstered pistol on a military base?
My frustration level with human stupidity continues to build...
What department gets that little training? That is scary and NOT ok.
Is it your feeling that the "average" U.S. Soldier is less able to carry a firearm responsibly, than the "average" police officer, or the "average" CCW holder?
Of all the people who are capable of handling and carrying a firearm responsibly, it seems to me a soldier should be pretty high on that list...
As both a former Marine and current police officer...unfortunately that is the case. I was a combat marksmanship trainer for my last 3 years in the Corps and I have seen it ALL. Rifles are one thing, but pistol training in the military is a joke for all except the most high speed or LE type guys. Even your average infantryman with multiple deployments under his belt doesn't have anywhere approaching the amount of pistol training that the average cop in my area has (and no, I don't believe all cops are firearms experts. Far from it on my experience). Not to mention the use of force legal training and maturity of said individuals carrying the weapons. Unless you've been in, you have no idea what kind of f*cked up shit goes down in the barracks. Most servicemembers are far from the high speed Captain America SOF types we tend to talk about and idolize to a certain point in the firearms community.
I support the idea of arming military personnel, particularly NCOs and above that go through some sort of enhanced LE style training course/vetting procedure. Undoubtedly a major reason for pushback from the brass over arming service members is due to liability issues, whether that stems from a bad shoot, ND causing injuries, etc. Remember, we are talking about uniformed US Government employees carrying firearms in and amongst the civilian population while carrying out official duties.
BuzzinSATX
07-24-15, 06:29
Clearing barrels are retarded. A press check, or unloading altogether isn't that hard.
Clearing barrels are like fire extinguishers...they are bulky and in the way until they are needed to function as designed. Yes, they should never be needed, but they are, as ND's are a reality in the military, as they are every where else...including in police stations.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.