Should U.S. soldiers be armed?

[MaryL]

You aren't referring to the Ft. Hood shootings, are you? Pretty ironic we need to arm the armed forces here in the good ol U s of A. What is this country coming to when we have to arm ourselves against the people that are supposed fo protect us?

 

[Indofred]

Should U.S. soldiers be armed?

After all, not one has fired a gun to defend the United states since 1945.

Oh yes they have.

They fire in training on American soil.

In Iraq and Afghanistan...before the terrorists had a chance to strike again on American soil...The War on Terror.
No1 terrorist Osama bin Laden was shot in the head and killed, in defence of America.

Banning massive immigration and immigration of certain people should also be introduced.

A relaxed policy enabled the alleged Boston bombers.

Afghanistan was invaded because a bunch of Saudis attacked the towers.
Iraq didn't attack America at all.

The terror is from the U.S. military.

 

[Indofred]

Should U.S. soldiers be armed?

After all, not one has fired a gun to defend the United states since 1945.

That is not the appropriate question. What you want to ask
Is should they be armed on base. The military says no. And we all know what lefties the joint chiefs are.

Given, not one American soldier has fired a weapon to defend America since 1945 but they have used them to invade and attack foreign countries that have never attacked America, I suggest they should be disarmed whilst outside America.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Indofred, send an email to Obama and tell him to stop being mend.

Obama, Bush, the next president and for the next 100 years, America will back Israel.

 

[Politico]

No one has managed to cite an instance of a U.S. soldier firing his weapon to defend America.
Can anyone?

On U.S. soil, they can't provide any proof over the past 150 years.

However..............

Overseas, we can point to a few conflicts, only trouble is, it's what those elected tell us to do (even though most have never served).

I challenge those on this board to show where someone who has been in the service has managed to defend this country (either via firing their weapon, or firing their mouth).

I seriously don't expect anyone to be able to answer.

No they just don't want to play troll with you. You don't even care about the question you asked.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one has managed to cite an instance of a U.S. soldier firing his weapon to defend America.
Can anyone?

Who cares. They are trained in the use of weapons. The idea that soldiers are disarmed on a military base is asinine. ALL soldiers are qualified to carry. Disarming them just makes it easy for the nutters to kill more.

Does anyone know the reasons behind newly elected Bill Clinton's act to disarm our military bases in 1993?

As is true of so many on the Left, Clinton despised the military.


This, from the letter he wrote to Col.Holmes (1969)...


" I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes and the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is dis-service, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.
Clinton's Draft Avoidance

 

[editec]

Who cares. They are trained in the use of weapons. The idea that soldiers are disarmed on a military base is asinine. ALL soldiers are qualified to carry. Disarming them just makes it easy for the nutters to kill more.

Does anyone know the reasons behind newly elected Bill Clinton's act to disarm our military bases in 1993?

MOre RIGHT WING LIES..for those truly interested in the truth?

While there was at least a small kernel of real information underlying such claims, the gist of the rumor was wrong on two major counts.

A change in U.S. Army regulations issued in March 1993 (just two months after President Clinton assumed office) did affect the issue of personnel carrying firearms on military bases, but that change in regulations was issued by the Department of the Army and was not implemented by President Clinton via an executive order. Moreover, that change in regulations came about in response to a U.S. Department of Defense directive issued in February 1992, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and not at the sole behest of President Clinton.

Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried":

a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms.

b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.

c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.
Last updated: 19 September 2013
Read more at snopes.com: Clinton Disarmed Soldiers on Military Bases?

 

[Indofred]

No they just don't want to play troll with you. You don't even care about the question you asked.

Classic answer.
If someone asks a difficult question you don't want to answer, just call them a troll.

In other words - there have been NO actions to defend America but loads of invasions, terrorist attacks and so on.
None were to defend the United states.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does anyone know the reasons behind newly elected Bill Clinton's act to disarm our military bases in 1993?

MOre RIGHT WING LIES..for those truly interested in the truth?

While there was at least a small kernel of real information underlying such claims, the gist of the rumor was wrong on two major counts.

A change in U.S. Army regulations issued in March 1993 (just two months after President Clinton assumed office) did affect the issue of personnel carrying firearms on military bases, but that change in regulations was issued by the Department of the Army and was not implemented by President Clinton via an executive order. Moreover, that change in regulations came about in response to a U.S. Department of Defense directive issued in February 1992, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and not at the sole behest of President Clinton.

Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried":

a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms.

b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.

c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.
Last updated: 19 September 2013
Read more at snopes.com: Clinton Disarmed Soldiers on Military Bases?

1. From your link:
"A change in U.S. Army regulations issued in March 1993 (just two months after President Clinton assumed office) did affect the issue of personnel carrying firearms on military bases,...issued by the Department of the Army and was not implemented by President Clinton...."

Here, tecy....for you, and for Snopes:

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.




2. "Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones."

Read more: EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times




3. Question for you, tecy:

Who was President in March of 1993?


And this: Is the military part of the executive branch?

C'mon...you can do it.



In the future, be more judicious when you scream "lies".

 

[Sallow]

No.

 

[Mushroom]

Why?
Can anyone name an instance of a U.S. soldier firing his weapon to defend the United States of America (Since 1945)?

Tell you what.

When Indonesia disarms it's military, I will consider doing the same for that of the US.

Maybe this thread belongs more in the humor section, because it obviously is just another disguised "attack the US" political thread.

 

[Mushroom]

Does anyone know the reasons behind newly elected Bill Clinton's act to disarm our military bases in 1993?

He did not.

But please, if you can name the act which he did so in, I would love to hear it. However, when I first entered the military in 1983, we were not allowed to go around on base armed, unless it was in the line of duty. And if we had a personal weapon it had to be locked in the unit armory unless we were checking it out to use it.

So please, continue with this, I would love to hear the act.

This, from the letter he wrote to Col.Holmes (1969)...

People change a lot in over 20 years.

In 1969 I hated broccoli, I do not hate it anymore.

Sorry, it is a bit of fail to use a letter written in 1969 to reflect somebodies viewpoints almost a quarter of a century later.

2. "Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones."

Read more: EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times

Sorry, an editorial piece is not a "real reference". This is because an editorial is not fact, but opinion.

3. Question for you, tecy:

Who was President in March of 1993?

And this: Is the military part of the executive branch?

C'mon...you can do it.

In the future, be more judicious when you scream "lies".

Actually, the military is not part of the Executive Branch.

Now while the Secretary of Defense is part of the Executive Branch by being an appointed member of the President's Cabinet, the Department of Defense itself (nor it's personnel) are not part of any branch.

Just like the IRS, the Postal Service, or any other part of our government.

The military follows the orders of all three branches of the US Government, Legislative, Judicial and Executive. And any one of the three can over-ride the others.

So if you believe the military is under the Executive, that would be wrong. Only the Secretary of Defense (and the next layer or to down, like the Secretary of the Navy) are under the Executive.

And notice, they are all civilians. Once again, separation of powers at work.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does anyone know the reasons behind newly elected Bill Clinton's act to disarm our military bases in 1993?

He did not.

But please, if you can name the act which he did so in, I would love to hear it. However, when I first entered the military in 1983, we were not allowed to go around on base armed, unless it was in the line of duty. And if we had a personal weapon it had to be locked in the unit armory unless we were checking it out to use it.

So please, continue with this, I would love to hear the act.

This, from the letter he wrote to Col.Holmes (1969)...

People change a lot in over 20 years.

In 1969 I hated broccoli, I do not hate it anymore.

Sorry, it is a bit of fail to use a letter written in 1969 to reflect somebodies viewpoints almost a quarter of a century later.

2. "Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones."

Read more: EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times

Sorry, an editorial piece is not a "real reference". This is because an editorial is not fact, but opinion.

3. Question for you, tecy:

Who was President in March of 1993?

And this: Is the military part of the executive branch?

C'mon...you can do it.

In the future, be more judicious when you scream "lies".

Actually, the military is not part of the Executive Branch.

Now while the Secretary of Defense is part of the Executive Branch by being an appointed member of the President's Cabinet, the Department of Defense itself (nor it's personnel) are not part of any branch.

Just like the IRS, the Postal Service, or any other part of our government.

The military follows the orders of all three branches of the US Government, Legislative, Judicial and Executive. And any one of the three can over-ride the others.

So if you believe the military is under the Executive, that would be wrong. Only the Secretary of Defense (and the next layer or to down, like the Secretary of the Navy) are under the Executive.

And notice, they are all civilians. Once again, separation of powers at work.

"The majority of the independent agencies of the United States government are also classified as executive agencies (they are independent in that they are not subordinated under a Cabinet position)."
List of United States federal agencies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"...he presides over the executive branch of the federal government — a vast organization numbering about 3.5 million people, including 1 million active-duty military personnel.....
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/...80624215939eaifas0.6113092.html#ixzz2y8W2pH00



Are you suggesting that the President could not determine whether or not the military can have weapons on base?


I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In areas that are not subject to armed enemy soldiers or combatants soldiers should not be armed except as pertains to a specific duty obligation. And uniformed soldiers should never carry concealed private weapons except as duty may require.

Should off duty personnel in civilian attire be allowed to be armed on base? I would leave that up to the State they are in and the local Commander. With restrictions on sensitive or weapon storage and ammo storage areas be an area they can not be armed in. Ever except as duty requires.

 

[Indofred]

Why?
Can anyone name an instance of a U.S. soldier firing his weapon to defend the United States of America (Since 1945)?

Tell you what.

When Indonesia disarms it's military, I will consider doing the same for that of the US.

Maybe this thread belongs more in the humor section, because it obviously is just another disguised "attack the US" political thread.

Actually, many of Indonesia's military aircraft were gifted by the United States.
Perhaps you should check into things before you post.

This isn't an attack on the U.S., it is an attack on U.S. foreign policy.

 

[Mushroom]

Are you suggesting that the President could not determine whether or not the military can have weapons on base?

I am not only telling you it is wrong, it is horribly wrong.

Look, the President is not God. And I can guarantee that if a President would try to do so, it would be overturned within hours either by the Courts, or by the Legislative branch.

The President is not the King, he is not a Dictator, he has no authority to give such an order, let alone have it enforced. In short, I expect such an action to happen about the same time a President tried to order the rounding up of all firearms in the hands of the civilian population.

Look, I deal only in facts, not conspiracy theory. I got it, you are apparently afraid of the Government, and think that the President is going to violate the Constitution. Fine, you can believe it all you like. But as an individual who is still serving in the US military and has done so under every President since Ronald Reagan, I simply do not see that happening, ever.

In areas that are not subject to armed enemy soldiers or combatants soldiers should not be armed except as pertains to a specific duty obligation. And uniformed soldiers should never carry concealed private weapons except as duty may require.

Should off duty personnel in civilian attire be allowed to be armed on base? I would leave that up to the State they are in and the local Commander. With restrictions on sensitive or weapon storage and ammo storage areas be an area they can not be armed in. Ever except as duty requires.

And that is pretty much how it is now, with a minor exception.

Since military bases are not under State but Federal control, it is the Federal gun laws that matter. And I am welcome to carry my privately owned weapon on and off post, however I see fit. However, before I drive on base I must unload it and place it securely in a locked gun safe, and notify the gate guard that I have a firearm in my vehicle.

This was common at Fort Bliss, I knew dozens of people who had Texas Conceal Carry permits. And the joke was that you could take it anywhere you wanted other then a bar, Carl's Jr., and Fort Bliss.

And the gate guards did not even blink if you told them you had a gun. They just asked if it was unloaded and locked, and maybe 1 in 20 would ask me if I had a PMO gun registration form. And in over 2 years I was only asked to show the form a single time.

You should understand this, my first duty station was as a Marine Security Guard at a Naval Weapon Station. So I was one of the few who actually had a real need to be armed at all times in the line of duty. And I would not be comfortable with having anybody who wanted to wandering around base locked and loaded. Because for ever 99 safe and responsible people, you have that 1 idiot who would want to show off his new toy, and end up hurting himself or somebody else.

 

[Mushroom]

Actually, many of Indonesia's military aircraft were gifted by the United States.
Perhaps you should check into things before you post.

Then maybe you should give them back.

God I hate people who stand with one hand outstretched for things, then with the other want to smack you for it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In another thread someone posted a link to the actual order to military bases, it came from Nixon in 1969. But I do not recall reading about armed men as early as the 30's on military bases. While one might get permission to take a private firearm to war with them there is absolutely no need in peace time aboard CONUS bases for civilian arms to be carried. And most definitely not while in Uniform.

It is a risk to the secure areas and a risk to the Armories, Ammunition storage Facilities and weapons repair and vehicle storage areas.

I completely agree that the order was needed. However I have no problem with allowing State licensed concealed carry by personnel in civilian attire as long as the areas mentioned are exceptions.

I also have no problem with it staying as is.

 

[Imperious]

Afghanistan was invaded because a bunch of Saudis attacked the towers.
Iraq didn't attack America at all.

The terror is from the U.S. military.

I find it ironic that you would sit here and bark at those whom participated in this topic asking them to "report a instance where a US soldier uses weapons to defend the US" when you yourself are making aimless, unsupported posts like this.
Why dont you yourself backup the theory that the Saudis are behind the terror attacks, I would love to see some concrete evidence from you, and no, I don't want links to some documentary, I want you yourself to provide actual statistics and figures.

 

[Indofred]

Actually, many of Indonesia's military aircraft were gifted by the United States.
Perhaps you should check into things before you post.

Then maybe you should give them back.

God I hate people who stand with one hand outstretched for things, then with the other want to smack you for it.

I agree.
China and Russia are both trying to influence Indonesia but they do it with trade and neither have ever bombed Indonesia.
America has.
However, I'm not Indonesian so I have no say in this matter; only opinion.