A Common Sense Gun Law

[gallantwarrior]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

What are those "good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed"?

 

[gallantwarrior]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

Name two of them.

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

I agree about the UCMJ. I do not see where any of the listed "reasons" would be cause to restrict military carry of firearms...well, maybe the armed conflict between unit members thing. Should just let them duke it out.

 

[Pete7469]

Name two of them.

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

I agree about the UCMJ. I do not see where any of the listed "reasons" would be cause to restrict military carry of firearms...well, maybe the armed conflict between unit members thing. Should just let them duke it out.

Modern thug gangs have infiltrated the military as well.

 

[gallantwarrior]

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

I agree about the UCMJ. I do not see where any of the listed "reasons" would be cause to restrict military carry of firearms...well, maybe the armed conflict between unit members thing. Should just let them duke it out.

Modern thug gangs have infiltrated the military as well.

I have read reports about that.

 

[Pete7469]

I agree about the UCMJ. I do not see where any of the listed "reasons" would be cause to restrict military carry of firearms...well, maybe the armed conflict between unit members thing. Should just let them duke it out.

Modern thug gangs have infiltrated the military as well.

I have read reports about that.

I can understand the military's resistance to allowing weapons to be carried by every swinging dick on CONUS bases. I would have to ask some old folks how it used to be. It seems unlikely to me that weapons were ever allowed to be carried unregulated.

That said I think a lot of oxygen thieves wouldn't exist if unrestricted carry was the standard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

Is one of them that they might shoot a Major with an Arabic sounding name?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Being armed has nothing to do with Unit Cohesion, nor property control since they would have to carry their own weapon. Being armed has nothing to do with theft prevention either. As to weapon maintenance since they would be carrying their own weapon it is not an issue.

As to training exercises commands would just bar private weapons from them as they do now.

Not sure if I agree concealed carry is a good idea for uniformed military though. There are command issues that would arise, such as when and how a command could restrict them carrying. And who would decide who could carry? Units do have people that command might not want carry weapons around out side of a combat zone.

Further how would you designate the areas on the base where concealed carry was barred at all times?

Of course it has to do with unit cohesion. Let's let them design their own uniforms and put flowers in their hats, too, eh?

If one member of the unit is armed, they should all be armed, no?

Where would personal weapons be stored, in foot lockers, under pillows?

I don't know what military you were in, but I had to have my personal weapon stored at the company armory. I checked it out when I had business with it, was off duty, and headed off base.

No one on base carried a concealed weapon.

The argument " because I didn't get to do it" holds no water. Firearms would have to be worked out with new regulations. I assume that if concealed carry were authorized, which I highly doubt it will be, new regulations would have to be in place and yes storage of firearms would likely become allowed in barracks.

I also assume regulations would determine process and procedure for authorizing concealed carry. And yes some people would be denied.

My personal opinion is that all that could be worked out BUT I do not necessarily agree it is a good idea nor do I believe it would ever pass Congress.

It would be complicated, but the military is used to complicated, so I agree that it would be possible to work out. I was in the Navy, so my experience is with them, but I think it would be a bad idea aboard a ship. Not because I think people would be shooting each other either. Then again, I am an old fogey, so I could be wrong.

 

[daveman]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

Name two of them.

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

Three of your objections can be overcome by allowing the carry of personally-owned weapons.

Besides...it's kinda tough to carry an M-4 concealed.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Of course it takes a Texan to introduce it and we all know the bed wetters will lose their minds at the idea because it will actually be effective. However Most Texans know liberals don't have a lot to lose in that category anyway.

Rep. Steve Stockman said he plans to introduce a bill to allow military personnel to carry concealed guns while on military bases in the aftermath of the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard that left 13 dead including the shooter.

I am personally delighted that political momentum favors such legislation, and rejects the asinine disarmament bullshit the bed wetters have been caterwauling for over the last 10 years. In spite of the LSM lies about AR15's, the truth came out thanks to modern communication technology.

Military personnel are entitled to the rights all Americans are, at least Americans in "Shall Issue" states. They should not be left defenseless when some jihadist asshole, or insane bed wetter makes it through enormous PC cracks in the system and decides to shoot up a military post.

make sure the law allows them to carry ammunition as well

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

He's right.
Eg.
Lets say your an E5, and you are in the aviation field, now get your subordinates to follow your orders without question, you must gain leverage upon them like so:
A new E2 arrives at your squadron and you welcome him with open arms, tell him he is one of the Good Old Boys, then say: hey man, falsify this log book for me ............ cool, cool ............. I have 15 othe log books for you to falsify for me on a daily basis BITCH, or your going to prison for falsifying the first one.
The E2 then pulls out his pistol and shoots the E5 ............ this would be bad.
An investigation would be launched, meanwhile that squadron squares it self away so tightly that their noses would be squeaky clean in all areas ............. this would be really bad.
Now Congress Men & Senators will no longer have any leverage upon any military installation ............... this would be really, REALLY bad.

They can't possibly introduce this bill, a few sandniggers shooting up a military installation once in a wile is better than losing control of the shit.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Let me guess you think Hitler took guns away from the people huh? He only banned Jews from owning guns...can't very well let your enemy who declared war on you having arms.

Never stated that.

The Jews put up ample resistance in the ghettos while dispatching quite a number of German pigs to their graves before being reinforced by Hitler and subsequently dealt with. I don't believe the Jews were very well armed.

If you ever get to Germany and I doubt you will, then you'll find that while being horribly socialist, they'll never promote NAZISM as a whole. They are a very ashamed people for the most part, as theu should be.

 

[National Socialist]

The people aren't ashamed of their NS past the jewish led propaganda and politician's there have completely destroyed any pride they should have..or at least tried when that doesn't work they scream and yell about the holohoax and ban groups that the people want...just this past election the NPD got over 600k votes...quite a few for a so called dead ideology...The brainwashing has been nonstop since the end of ww2.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, with all this flap-yap about how everybody needs more weapons, we are definately seeing more weapons in the US. How is that working out? Is there a good reason why firearm deaths will exceed auto deaths in a couple of years? Why we have over 11,000 gun homocides a year while Great Britain has less than 100?

And the fellow that shot up the base was ex-military with a still valid security clearance. How many of the shooters and McVeighs are ex-military?

Maybe the solution is less guns, period.

 

[National Socialist]

Nope. Its not. Its making sure the good guys aka law abiding citizens have guns and easier access to them.

 

[eflatminor]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

Name two of them.

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

Wow! Did you pull those out of your ass! You know, just typing words does not constitute a reasonable retort or rational argument.

 

[eflatminor]

Maybe the solution is less guns, period.

Given that there over 100 countries with a higher murder rate (and even more with a higher violent crime rate) than the US and most of those countries have virtually banned civilian firearm ownership, your "solution" lacks logic and reason.

But hey, this about feelings, right?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well, with all this flap-yap about how everybody needs more weapons, we are definately seeing more weapons in the US. How is that working out? Is there a good reason why firearm deaths will exceed auto deaths in a couple of years? Why we have over 11,000 gun homocides a year while Great Britain has less than 100?

And the fellow that shot up the base was ex-military with a still valid security clearance. How many of the shooters and McVeighs are ex-military?

Maybe the solution is less guns, period.

still valid security clearance

he was issued a new one