Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I couldn't disagree with you more! All the combat veterans and active duty members I know are rational, clear thinking human beings that I would trust with my life! I know none that are "Itching to shoot someone'!! Besides that, they should ALL have the right to defend themselves especially since they've become a target for people that are "itching to shoot them'!! Combat vets are one thing. An E4 92S who's never been deployed and wants some action is another. We can't arm all of em. I say increase the number of security personnel immediately. Contract with local LE until they can get the numbers up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original Lumpy Gritz Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I have mixed feelings on this... Not all that long ago I was sitting down eating at an overseas location, and an AF TSGT walked by with her pistol on fire. When I politely informed her, she replied with "if you knew where I worked, you'd know why it was on fire." Which is fine, as an M-9 is as safe as a glock with the "decocker" on fire. What gave me pause, was the sense of impending danger, and indignant attitude she had. Being familiar with her AO, I saw no reason for her to be concerned. There were about 50 more AF security dudes on their compound, inside the wire near the perimeter, than there needed to be to defend it, if the perimeter was breached, and they had more .50 cals set up than your average armored battalion. But she still felt she had to be ready, and that she had to put me in my place for questioning the state of her weapon at dinner. Now take that frame of mind, from an "experienced" airman, and stick it in a recruiting office. Half the people that walk into those places look like criminals, I know... I was one once. And that frame of mind has to decide how to react... Training aside... We have to many people in uniform that are just itching to shoot someone, and unfortunately, they're usually not the ones with real combat training/experience. With the M-9 selector in 'fire' position, it's no different than any double action revolver that has no selector. How do you even know if she had a round chambered? OLG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 With the M-9 selector in 'fire' position, it's no different than any double action revolver that has no selector. How do you even know if she had a round chambered? OLG She could have said that instead of the smartass comeback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original Lumpy Gritz Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 She could have said that instead of the smartass comeback. Agree. Many LEO's carry the M9 with the selector on fire. Just not a big deal is all when it's in a level 3 holster. OLG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elk Creek LeMieux Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 I couldn't disagree with you more! All the combat veterans and active duty members I know are rational, clear thinking human beings that I would trust with my life! I know none that are "Itching to shoot someone'!! Besides that, they should ALL have the right to defend themselves especially since they've become a target for people that are "itching to shoot them'!! Let me be clear that I have nothing but respect for any and all active duty/veteran. And I'm not disagreeing with the right to access the tools to defend ones self. And I'm not saying that every soldier that hasn't shot someone wants too... I'm saying it's far to much of a liability to give the 18 year old vehicle mechanic that watches Rambo and Full Metal Jacket every weekend a loaded weapon for stateside force protection... That is not to say that units not separated from the public can't detail a few senior individuals to stand watch on a given day. IMHO, those service members that have a CCP, ought to be allowed to carry wherever they may be. When they're stateside, a service member has no rights the rest of us don't. But they shouldn't be denied the rights we have either. End state: Permission should not be denied the unit that wants to take a responsible approach to appropriately arming certain service members, when a legitimate vulnerability exists. Otherwise, those legal to carry off base/off duty, should be allowed to carry on base/on duty. Arming everyone, regardless of need or proximity to assumed vulnerabilities, is a very poor solution to a threat not yet unilateral. "Joe" will shoot the wrong guy, sooner or later. That's a pretty big deal to me, when the wrong guy could be an honest American. With the M-9 selector in 'fire' position, it's no different than any double action revolver that has no selector. How do you even know if she had a round chambered? OLG Yes, I said about as much in the post you quoted. The M-9 is perfectly safe with one in the pipe, hammer down, and the selector on fire. I don't know if she had one chambered or not, beyond a vague recollection that the camp CO at that time had everyone carrying with full mag's loaded and ready to go. I'm trying to figure out how loaded or not dictates weapon safety for anyone though. Either way, loaded or clear was not the issue, as I saw it. Generally speaking, military wide... If your weapon is equipped with a "safety," you carry it on safe. Her conscious decision to carry a weapon into a chow hall in an "unsafe" and unauthorized condition, despite not being a member of a QRF or in any way involved with the camp force protection assets, did not give me high confidence in her ability to make sound decisions. I would not stick her in an inner city recruiting station with a loaded weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Hey Utah Bob, I always appreciate your reasoned responses in threads like this, I've given it some thought and I have a question that's related to the discussion. I hope this isn't considered off-topic. When the amount of SP presence on a base is set up, is it based on the thought that you don't need as much on base as you would need police presence in a similar sized town, because the base is presumed to be safer than a general public population? If so, does that need to be reconsidered now? Another question I had about arming recruiters is, would they be issued weapons or allowed to carry personal weapons? If it has to be issued weapons due to regs, what about recruiting stations where there's no base or armory in the area? Do all recruiting stations have a safe on site, if not what do they do with the weapon if they have to go someplace they can't carry? What about recruiter visits to private homes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chantry Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 UB and Loophole are both correct. Anyway, active duty US military who don't normally carry a firearm in the performance of their duties are not going to be allowed to carry firearms now or in the foreseeable future. There is no way the DOD and the base commanders are going to allow this. As a former National Guard MP, I sure in the hell hope the firearms training being taught is better then what I got when I went through MP School. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Hey Utah Bob, I always appreciate your reasoned responses in threads like this, I've given it some thought and I have a question that's related to the discussion. I hope this isn't considered off-topic. When the amount of SP presence on a base is set up, is it based on the thought that you don't need as much on base as you would need police presence in a similar sized town, because the base is presumed to be safer than a general public population? If so, does that need to be reconsidered now? Another question I had about arming recruiters is, would they be issued weapons or allowed to carry personal weapons? If it has to be issued weapons due to regs, what about recruiting stations where there's no base or armory in the area? Do all recruiting stations have a safe on site, if not what do they do with the weapon if they have to go someplace they can't carry? What about recruiter visits to private homes? Not having any Military Police experience I could not say what the TO&E for security units is as far as Bn or Co strength units per x number of personnel on a given base. So I can't answer that. It's my understanding that some of the governors have authorized carrying for those personnel who possess a ccp, so I'm assuming private firearms. Active duty personnel are not allowed to carry personal firearms, only issued weapons. So the assignment and security of those weapons could be problematic if recruiting stations do not have arms rooms. The whole issue of arming troops in CONUS, especially off base, is much more complicated than most people realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 They could put up GUN FREE ZONE signs on the recruitment office door. Shirley that would stop the perps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 They could put up GUN FREE ZONE signs on the recruitment office door. Shirley that would stop the perps. No, you need a "DON'T SHOOT INTO THE GUN FREE ZONE FROM OUTSIDE THE GUN FREE ZONE" sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Alabama about to arm its National Guard. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/alabama_arming_its_national_gu.html#incart_river I also have heard of armed civilians standing outside recruiting stations guarding them while uniformed personnel are present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Um... What is wrong with following the 2nd Amendment and allowing all honest citizens - military, LE, and non-badged civilians to exercise their civil rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michigan Slim Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Add Indiana to the list. Gov just said 'GO'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Um... What is wrong with following the 2nd Amendment and allowing all honest citizens - military, LE, and non-badged civilians to exercise their civil rights? Oh Joe, that is soooooo, sensible. You just know that would not fly in DC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Oh Joe, that is soooooo, sensible. You just know that would not fly in DC What? I made sense? Does that mean I must turn myself in for reeducation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 What? I made sense? Does that mean I must turn myself in for reeducation? Just stay out of DC. They would eat you alive back there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Um... What is wrong with following the 2nd Amendment and allowing all honest citizens - military, LE, and non-badged civilians to exercise their civil rights? There would be chaos odf Biblical proportions. Anarchy. Blood in the streets. The end of life as we know it. Just ask Feinstein! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Let me be clear that I have nothing but respect for any and all active duty/veteran. And I'm not disagreeing with the right to access the tools to defend ones self. And I'm not saying that every soldier that hasn't shot someone wants too... I'm saying it's far to much of a liability to give the 18 year old vehicle mechanic that watches Rambo and Full Metal Jacket every weekend a loaded weapon for stateside force protection... That is not to say that units not separated from the public can't detail a few senior individuals to stand watch on a given day. IMHO, those service members that have a CCP, ought to be allowed to carry wherever they may be. When they're stateside, a service member has no rights the rest of us don't. But they shouldn't be denied the rights we have either. End state: Permission should not be denied the unit that wants to take a responsible approach to appropriately arming certain service members, when a legitimate vulnerability exists. Otherwise, those legal to carry off base/off duty, should be allowed to carry on base/on duty. Arming everyone, regardless of need or proximity to assumed vulnerabilities, is a very poor solution to a threat not yet unilateral. "Joe" will shoot the wrong guy, sooner or later. That's a pretty big deal to me, when the wrong guy could be an honest American. Yes, I said about as much in the post you quoted. The M-9 is perfectly safe with one in the pipe, hammer down, and the selector on fire. I don't know if she had one chambered or not, beyond a vague recollection that the camp CO at that time had everyone carrying with full mag's loaded and ready to go. I'm trying to figure out how loaded or not dictates weapon safety for anyone though. Either way, loaded or clear was not the issue, as I saw it. Generally speaking, military wide... If your weapon is equipped with a "safety," you carry it on safe. Her conscious decision to carry a weapon into a chow hall in an "unsafe" and unauthorized condition, despite not being a member of a QRF or in any way involved with the camp force protection assets, did not give me high confidence in her ability to make sound decisions. I would not stick her in an inner city recruiting station with a loaded weapon. 18 year old vehicle mechanic that watches Rambo and Full Metal jacket???? Boy that's sure a whole lot of 18 yr olds!!! NOT!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Sarge Posted July 20, 2015 Author Share Posted July 20, 2015 MS Gov Phil Bryant has ordered certain full time National Guard personnel to be armed. "The order also directs the Mississippi National Guard to examine existing security policies and procedures at military facilities and identify any opportunities to enhance security" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 18 year old vehicle mechanic that watches Rambo and Full Metal jacket???? Boy that's sure a whole lot of 18 yr olds!!! NOT!!!! More likely plays Call of Duty, Rainbow Six and Halo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooting Bull Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Um... What is wrong with following the 2nd Amendment and allowing all honest citizens - military, LE, and non-badged civilians to exercise their civil rights? Dang, beat me to it. I'm opposed to arming every uniformed person out there. But I'm even more opposed to DISarming them. If they have a valid CCW permit or are in a state that doesn't require a permit I say let them carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Dang, beat me to it. I'm opposed to arming every uniformed person out there. But I'm even more opposed to DISarming them. If they have a valid CCW permit or are in a state that doesn't require a permit I say let them carry. As I wrote, 'What is wrong with following the 2nd Amendment and allowing all honest citizens - military, LE, and non-badged civilians to exercise their civil rights?" We shouldn't have to beg permission from the State to exercise our civil rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 As I wrote, 'What is wrong with following the 2nd Amendment and allowing all honest citizens - military, LE, and non-badged civilians to exercise their civil rights?" We shouldn't have to beg permission from the State to exercise our civil rights. That's a whole other discission of course but I believe Shooting Bull is correct if only in the sense that DOD wouldn't want to step on any states' toes if the servicemen are carrying concealed off post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.