Ted Cruz wants the troops armed in garrison
Chief Tango sends us a link to Politico which reports that Presidential Candidate, Ted Cruz, wants Senate Armed Services chairman, John McCain to hold hearings about whether the troops can carry their own private weapons while they’re in garrison, if they are so licensed by the State where they are serving. Of course, the perfumed princes of the Five-sided Insane Asylum are opposed to the whole thing;
Generals have argued that only military police officers should be able to carry weapons freely around base. Many in the chain of command believe more guns would only lead to more violence, especially among those who suffer from mental instability as a consequence of combat.
“I want to give an opportunity for the military leadership to lay out their views,” Cruz told a woman who asked him about the issue.
Do these “generals” realize that they are in the profession of arms? They’re willing to send these folks they consider “mentally unstable” to foreign countries with loaded firearms, but not in their own country? By making this an issue, they endanger every member of the military, not only on their military base, but also while they’re enroute to work and home.
Many states consider their training in the military in regards to the safe handling and carrying of weapons sufficient for the various state’s licensing training. But, I guess the states have more faith in that training than the unnamed generals.
I want the military “leadership” to lay out their views, too, I want these handwringing bedwetters on the public record that they aren’t confident that their soldiers are well-trained in the handling of firearms, so the troops know who to trust.
Category: Military issues
Oh may a idea that my work
That would be May and not my. But let’s remember there are a lot of people in the army that can barely shoot a target at 50 yards I don’t think giving everyone access to fire arms is a great idea maybe leadership????????
What target at 50yards? What weapon to shoot it? What you said makes no sense. So someone should be able to “shoot a target at 50 yards” in order to posses a firearm?
OldManchu. What I’m trying to say is I was placed with a Trans unit and we had people that could not shoot for shit. On the range day to qualify some of us were on the next lane shooting there targets to qualify them.
So again I ask…
If they can not shoot for shit, then they should be deprived of the right to posses a firearm?
Hell no they should not I believe in the right to carry. My views on guns has changed about 180 since a incident many years ago every body should have the right to defend themselfs what I’m trying to say is 1. I hope they allow people to carry in units it’s crazy they don’t already 2. I’m just saying we had soliders that could not shoot let alone handle a weapon.
In other words, if a highly skilled sniper were posting a comment instead of you, then everyone who could not “shoot” to his standards should not posses a firearm?
I’m not saying that at all. I’ll take the hit here for not posting my comment properly. I believe in the right to carry I hope my comment up top clears up what I’m trying to say.
If your soldiers couldn’t shoot their weapons properly then their leadership is at fault.
Ate up it was. When I was stationed in Germany with the big army my platoon Sargent said, every unit you are currently in is more jacked then the last, it’s what you do. To lead your solders and make it a better unit is up to you. My last one was like a high school on hormones, we had dating games, non stop drama. Coming from a Cav unit to a Trans unit was a trip. But I made the choice to go to this unit. So I see it as a leaning experience. But one I’ll never forget Lol…..
You and your chain of command in that unit should have been busted for cheating and qualifying people who could not do so on their own. YOU and those who assisted made everyone else LESS safe if deployed.
It’s called REMEDIAL training and if they STILL can’t qualify, DX their azz’s. Period.
Mikey C-4/27
I did speak up and many others. About a toxic command environment that was there prior to me and others arriving. Is not my fault now trying to build good competent soldiers and teaching army values was my job. And I believe I did that.
Now I could cry and whine but that’s not going to help…. I started this thread this morning at the VA Dental in the waiting room coming off some happy meds so I miss spoke. Pinto Nag. Posted a comment that was what I was trying to say but I wanted to add training also on top of it. Maybe One of these days We can have a beer or go fishing and I’d give you the whole story, I’m tired of sticking my foot in my mouth. And not explaining myself properly thank you Mikey for your vote of confidence!!!!!!!
That kind of “help” is part of the problem.
My CCW class required that I shoot a man-sized target at 7 yards.
Jonn. I know 90% can shoot at 7 yards what I saying or trying to say is there are people in my last unit that could not SHOOT at all not everybody in the army is a scout or infantry
I’m getting two things from your comment, Skippy. One is that you know of members of your unit who falsified training reports, because inability to qualify with a weapon was cause for separation when I was in. And I highly doubt the Army changed that much in the past 20 years. So clearly someone lied and said they were a go at rifle qual, or you’re exaggerating for effect, shall we say?
Second, you apparently think only scouts and infantry had any ability to shoot. And yet I managed to qual Expert at rifle during my five years in, and I was Intel. Nor was I alone in my unit.
MikeD. The has not changed on BRM qual’s, I was in a guard unit that was ate up. There where people that I would not trust with a M-9 I guess what I’m trying to say is not every body in the army can shoot for shit. And I’ll eat my humble pie on my comment about scouts and infantry. I know a lot of cooks and 42 alphas and other soliders the cans shoot a fly off a stick.
MikeD. The Stranded when I was retired in mid 2013 was on its way down. As far as solider skills it was a Joke. If you could breathe then you were good to go.
If I had one of them gun things I’d practice at 10-20 feet to repeatedly hit the center of mass.
I did qualify at 25 yards with a .45 many years ago. Nary a snap-shot required though.
Er, Um… What is this CCW thing anyway? Cold, cloudy weather?
Just piling on …
Soldiers in the Army do not get enough range time. Between 1970 and 1976, I did not. When my son was in a combat arms unit from 2006 to 2014, he did not.
I shoot three to five times a month. Lately I focused on rifle and my pistol skills have slipped. It will probably take a couple thousand rounds to fix that but fix it I shall.
It is not that hard to train someone to shoot fairly well – focus on the fundamentals and the groups get smaller and speed improves.
If they cannot shoot well, additional training and range time will probably cure the problem. Proper motivation helps.
Carry all the time? Absolutely! Every active duty military person should be armed when they are awake, sober, and in their right mind. It is who we are (or, in my case, who I was) – the Armed Forces of the United States.
Richard. Exactly I’m not typing what I’m thinking up top very well, my last 3 months in the army the focus was EO and more EO and all the garbage that’s not going to do you anygood in a combat situation. It was absolutely crazy, my solders wanted to go to the range but no, more power point,
Reading comprehension… it does NOT say give everyone in the military a gun on base, it says that IF you already have a concealed carry license, you should also be able to carry on base.
If you’re competence enough to have already jumped through all the various hoops for a CCW, then you’re competent enough to be armed on the job.
What about States that do not require a concealed carry license? Should those bases in that State allow you to carry? I’m not trying to be an a–hole, I just want your opinion.
Sure, why not. If state law allows the unlicensed carry of firearms, then it should be followed on post.
That’s a failure of recruitment filtering procedures, and failure of commanders to properly train their troops.
Neither issue can be fixed without starting from the very top.
I can suggest how to fix it, but the political will to do so hasn’t been in effect for over 150 years.
Oh, another politician interested in using the military for social experimentation. Just ’cause he’s from the other side of the fence doesn’t make it any better.
Nice try. The social experimentation was disarming us in the first place.
A liberal decided that having the military actually do military things like maintain proficiency with our weapons could save some $$ and soothe their bleeding little hearts, so here we are.
Same old story; you’re responsible enough to shoot or be shot for your country, but not responsible when not in the war zone.
The generals say this: Here’s a weapon, now go out there and kill that other guy. Ok, now give me the weapon back and go sit down.
I actually see nothing inconsistent about that.
There is a difference between carrying a weapon for the military’s purpose and carrying a weapon for your own purpose. The reason soldiers are often required to carry weapons when they are outside of CONUS and forbidden to do so while in CONUS is because carrying weapons outside of CONUS is part of their mission.
My contention with what you’re saying is that, unfortunately, the wars have followed us home. MPs are no different than civilian police; they can’t be everywhere, and we all saw how well that worked at Ft. Hood. If a soldier can be trusted with a weapon while deployed; he should be able to be trusted when in garrison and shouldn’t have to rely on the MPs, who may or not be there, to have his back.
It was Department of the Army Police (DA Police) that responded to the Nadal shooting.
Ok, so it was DoD rent a cops; the premise is still the same.
I would say allow CC on base/post out of uniform/off duty. On duty would have to depend on job roles and be limited to issued weapons/ammunition only. (I.e. while on duty you can carry the weapon you would to war) Of course for that last part to work many services would need to increas the manditory range time and probably rethink handgun vs rifle for some jobs. (I.e. some jobs just don’t lend themselves to carrying a rifle all the time, but a holstered handgun can worn by just about all jobtypes including what some would considered ‘office’ workers). Either way my comment about increased range time and training would still apply!
No. If soldiers are to carry weapons in garrison, they need to be duty weapons, exactly like police officers are required to carry. Who, when and how needs to be determined by unit mission. These aren’t harness horses that need jewelry hung on them to make them purdy, by god. A weapon is a TOOL. If soldiers need to carry a weapon in garrison, then there needs to be a reason. If that reason is potential terrorism, then we better start having politically distasteful discussions on what we have to fear in this country and what we need to do to fight it. And I am sick to my goddam teeth of cowardly, spineless, mealymouthed, inbred, overpaid, attention whore politicians rolling around on the military like a dog will roll on fresh horseshit!!
Pinto Nag. What you are saying is what I was trying to say before I put my foot in my fourth point of contact. 🙂
Nailed it.
It’s the “ARMED Services”. We should be issuing a weapon during Basic Training, and you keep it with you for your entire career. As in, carry it with you at all times, period/end/dot.
Which is exactly what most police officers do. When they join a department, they are issued a weapon. They have that weapon with them, both on and off duty. If that weapon disappears or is misused, they are disciplined, charged, or fired, accordingly.
And age has nothing to do with it. If 18 is considered too young to be able to be issued a weapon, then it’s too young for enlistment age, as well. You can’t have it both ways. They are either old enough to handle a weapon, or not.
Some dumb private will keep it in his car and drive off base, then the local police will arrest him for not having a licensed firearm. PLUS having it loaded too. ON base Federal law, off base State law is in play.. Bad Idea.
ONLY MPs and duty personnel should be allowed to carry. Giving all military permission to carry a loaded weapon…is just asking for trouble.
Exactly. Well said Sarge…
Some Dumb private will drink and then drive his car off base, the local police will arrest him for driving while intoxicated. PLUS having an open container, too.
See how that works? Dumbassery happens. When it does, deal with the person who is a dumbass. You have little confidence in our military. It would have sucked to have you as a Sgt.
It’s the ARMED Services”. ARM them. And tell the states to shove it up their ass. Once you’ve sent a platoon to occupy the local jail and retreive service members a few times (leaving a smoking ruin behind you), they’ll get the idea.
Make sure you get that action on VIDEO!! 😀
Obviously, it can be done as it is done while deployed. However, I wouldn’t want to be the FLIPL IO when SPC Snuffy reports that his M-16 and ammo were stolen from his home. Unless we are saying that we are going to have units run a 24-hour arms room, this is going to create some circumstances that need to be dealt with up front.
We all know how reactive some people and politicians are. While this could potentially prevent another tragedy, what will happen when Joe and his buddies rob a convenience store with their issued weapons? Again, not saying allowing troops to carry on post can’t or shouldn’t happen, but we need to deal with this up front.
“when Joe and his buddies rob a convenience store with their issued weapons?”
Nice strawman, D, nice strawman.
Oh, and with a touch of conflation on the side (military = robbers).
What I’m saying is when that occurs, be prepared for people to react. I didn’t say it should prevent troops carrying. I also didn’t present a strawman. Good grief, while we were at Bright Star, one of our mechanics was arrested for multiple armed robberies. All I’m saying is it changes the story for the reactive media if the weapon is Army-issued. It’s already hard enough for those of us who want to carry, but combine the negative publicity of Open Carry groups with what could happen with troops carrying issued weapons on post and I can only imagine the outcry from the gun haters.
If one of your troop was arrested for armed robbery, what will him being permitted to carry a firearm change.
He’s already breaking the law as it stands by carrying one to perform the “armed” robbery for crying out loud…
The entire time I was in I never heard of any of my units being arrested for armed robbery.
Picking up prostitutes, public intoxication, public urination, fun shit like that. There were also getting into fist fights off and on post but never an armed robbery…
Ok, then come up with an incident that the media can and will latch onto…suicide, murder, robbery, scaring a toddler, you name it. Incidents will cause a reactive public and media to make folks want to take away anything that is given, and it’s not even given back yet. The struggle will be real to be able to keep that right if Congress ever passes it and the president signs it into law. I’m assuming it would go in as part of the NDAA, of course.
You must be a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats always come up with the hypothetical or exception to some proposal that otherwise makes good, solid sense. It’s called ‘what-if’ syndrome.
Maybe I wasn’t being clear. Personally, I don’t have much issue with it, but the logistics would need to be addressed. I don’t know how else I can state that the reactive media, reactive politicians, and reactive people will make it difficult to maintain if incidents occur. I didn’t say we shouldn’t try to do it, but we need to be prepared for it when or if it happens. Is that better?
No, you were clear. I was being a smart ass. I do that.
You hang them in the nearest public square, and leave the bodies as a warning for everyone else.
Next question?
I would love to be able to bitch slap whatever General made such an idiotic comment about Combat veterans… If they were so unstable, then they should not be in the military at all nevermind allowing them to be armed.
Lot of logistical questions about it, but to use that as an excuse? He deserves to be fired, more so than the idiot Air Force general who made the “treason” comments about the A-10.
Of course the pampered perfumed political Princes of the Pentagon don’t want Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coasties able to defend themselves should another Hasan-like assault on them should occur. Like liberal politicians, they’re far more concerned about the health and welfare of the perpetrators as well as finding ways to do studies and have endless planning sessions to come up with “Hey, look at me!” reports about why Joe and Jane should not be allowed to have a means of defense while on an installation. Let’s remember that a number of them glibly stated that pay and benefit cuts would not affect morale!
This just tells me that even in garrison, I’m still expendable. That should another Hasan incident happen, if I get shot, if I die, there’s no impact to the mission, they can just pipe another guy in to fill the seat I filled.
The short and curlies of it is that they’re basically saying if another Ft. Hood happens elsewhere, everyone who gets hit is just that– expendable. There’s no mission impact over a couple dead Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, or Coasties. And they’re still able to sleep at night, is the fucked up thing.
Face facts…we are expendable. We fill a slot until another guy or girl comes along and fills it.
The Hassan case was a multi point command level failure. He had been previously identified as a problem, and all the warning signs were simply ignored. Those who are responsible sit in gilded chairs and will never be brought to the carpet over their negligence. Having a bunch of guns on scene there would have simply resulted in more lead flying about the room, more casualties and more finger pointing.
I really doubt that there would have been more casualties.
Hassan would have been put down and less people would have been needlessly killed.
“Having a bunch of guns on scene there would have simply resulted in more lead flying about the room, more casualties and more finger pointing.”
BULLSHIT.
Cite to 5 such occurrences.
Consider all the possibilities and the perspective of the responding Cops.
You arrive, you challenge and hopefully secure the first guy or gal you see with a gun. Why? Because you responded to a call of shots fired by an individual in uniform.
Take out the right guy, you are a hero and have mitigated the situation quickly and efficiently.
Get the wrong guy and you have further endangered him, and taken a good guy with a gun out of the fight.
Perhaps the shooter was not working alone…and his partner was laying in wait for responders to arrive. Whatifwhatifwhatif…
More guns on scene equals more shooters equals more lead equals more confusion…to an already hugely confused situation…how do you discern who the “good guys” are?
I find it a bit ‘ironical’ that my DD214 alone qualifies me to carry a weapon in public in several states. It does not matter what is on it as long as it is honorable.
It’s fine to use your military service to carry one as a civilian, we better not trust those active duty characters though.
Well, unless they are walking the streets of some other country of course.
Especially ironic given that Cruz seems to be trying to allow personal handguns, CHLs typically are for persona handguns, and probably 90% of the folks getting out of the military qualified only with a long gun.
Now, to float an idea – what if the military had some version of CHL training good on any military post and in all 50 states? Might be more workable.
Best option suggested so far.
An armed society is a polite society.
Hassan might not have pulled his cr@p if he expected push back.
Universal CHL for active duty military. Good idea.
I didn’t think about the weapon before. I was an office puke so a rifle (my personal favorite) would be impractical but a pistol in any decent carry holster would be perfect.
Richard, I agree in principle…but you are discounting those who do not care whether they survive their actions.
What if the military actually took weapons training for EVERYONE seriously?
Just more proof that all CCW licenses should be valid in all 50 states, regardless of which state issued them. My Virginia driver’s license allows me to drive in other states, right? Why can’t CCW be done the same way?
Because driving is an administrative privilege conferred by the states, and is covered by the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution. It would be very inconvenient for everyone if it were otherwise. In contrast, Second Amendment rights are merely specified explicitly in the text of the Constitution itself as being guaranteed against infringement. They’re obviously not as important.
Yeah, in case you missed it: that was sarcasm.
I believe the argument goes that driving standards and rules are pretty much equal in all 50 states, whereas CHL standards and testing varies widely. The tighter states which require class time, range qualification, and background checks often don’t like the “laxer” standards in many other states. Now if some smart cookie drafted a 50 state standard… (I can see the one for California: 100 hours class time, perfect score with non-lead ammunition, Top Secret level background check, official Democrat Party membership[ – yep, that’s the lot)
Another politician who has never served, opining on what/how the military should do things. Blatant pandering to a desired demographic.
As a AF Cop…I say shut up Ted. I deal with enough imbalanced morons in my own unit whom I hesitate to arm. I definitely don’t want all the other idiot Zoomies being allowed to carry legally off duty on base. I have pulled enough weapons off people on base, I don’t need it to become an everyday occurrence.
I’m sure there are several victims that wish they has been armed because as professional, dedicated and well meaning the police are/were, they just couldn’t get there in time.
People, civilian or military, should be allowed and able to protect themselves.
“Had”been
Perhaps in the Hasaan situation the solution for the future is to arm the folks at the deployment line…there are weapons going out, so there should be some protection for those and the human assets…
I’m a CCW holder but I can see no reason for such a rule to exist.
Yes, there was the Hasan incident but the reality is that military bases are among the safest places in the country. Even military bases that are located in high crime areas are often oases of civility and safety, simply because access is controlled and every Joe Blow gangbanger or wife beater can’t get in unless he has a reason to be there.
Put another way, is the risk of another Hasan incident worth the casualties that would be caused by the inevitable dumbassery that soldiers are involved in day-to-day? How many negligent discharges do we get at overseas bases? How many weapons are lost or left in latrines, chow halls and vehicles unattended?
And let’s talk about alcohol. As much as I hated GO#1 when I was in, you have to wonder how many MORE negligent shootings or lost weapons we’d have if Joe Snuffy was allowed to pound down a few beers after chow in the combat zone. With no GO#1 in CONUS I see a lot of bad coming out of letting SPC Tentpeg pack a Glock under his ACU’s every day and very little good. The Hasan incident was an anomaly, an aberration. There’s no more need for soldiers to carry guns outside of their military duties than there is for soldiers to drive HMMWVS or deuce-and-a-half trucks outside their military duties.
Off duty and off post with a CCW permit? Carry away (I did, when I was stationed in Washtington.) But the military has the right and the duty to make rules regarding what kind of behavior is acceptable within the military installation and specifically by soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines when on duty. Being in the military isn’t like being on the block.
Bottom line, if you don’t like people telling you what to do when you don’t agree with their reasons for doing so, then the military is probably not a good choice for careers.
I disagree.
“Put another way, is the risk of another Hasan incident worth the casualties that would be caused by the inevitable dumbassery that soldiers are involved in day-to-day?” Statistics based on changes in allowing concealed carry in places where it wasn’t before refute your assertion. People become MORE mature when armed, not less.
Per HumanEvents.com: “Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws.”
Also, I haven’t updated the list in awhile, but these are the attacks I found for research in fighting the current restrictions in AR 190-11. they are fairly commonplace. One analysis says that, since 9/11, there have been as many as 32 plots against DoD facilities just in the US:
Ft. Rucker, COL David Swank 1994: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19940213&id=gTkdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2qUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6869,3236427 Note: The attacker in this case has been released from Prison.
California CARNG, Synagogues, Israeli consulate Aug 2005: http://www.globaljihad.net/view_news.asp?id=255
Ft Dix, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Fort_Dix_attack_plot
Arkansas Recruiting station, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02recruit.html?_r=1
Fort Hood/MAJ Hasan Nov 2009: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873
MacDill AFB Jun 2010: http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/breaking-apparent-major-terrorist-attack-thwarted-at-macdill-air-force-base-in-florida/
Ft Bliss Sep 2010: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-20/justice/texas.base.shooting_1_fort-bliss-mexican-border-police-officers?_s=PM:CRIME
Marine Museum/pentagon/recruiting stations Oct/Nov 2010 http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2102670
Ft Leonard Wood May 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386480/Gunman-captured-trying-break-army-base-shooting-cops-high-speed-chase.html
Fort Hood attempt Jul 2011: http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/thwarted-fort-hood-terror-attack-raises-new-questions-about-radicalism-within-military-20110728
D.C Navy Yard Sep 2013: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-opens-fire-at-navy-yard-in-washington-killing-at-least-4?lite
Finally, I am a retired Army Officer, concealed carry permit holder, and government civilian employee on a military base. I am rendered unarmed to and from work, whether on or off post, for my commute.
Why?
Virtual, why cant you carry to and from work? Nowhere to secure your weapon while at work?
I ran an armory awhile back, and we had several local Cops who worked part time on base and other base employees that carried concealed who would check their weapons into our courtesy storage while they were at work on the yard. Nothing like that by you?
2 years ago in A-Stan I was in a company of 143 Soldiers. A 12 month deployment and zero negligent discharges and 1 trouble maker that left his weapon in a vehicle 1 time. When his PLT SGT was finished with him, he never did it again. BTW, he didn’t forget his weapon in the truck. He left it there because he was a sorry, lazy POS that was cross-leveled to us. So some other unit was able to unload their trash.
Neg. discharges and unaccounted for weapons are not the rule, but the exception. I’m sure a Soldier, regardless of rank is going to keep tabs on a $700.00-$1000.00 Sig, Kimber, etc.
The goal of most leaders in the military is to teach accountability in one way or another. I think that most Soldiers are going to be more responsible than most civilians.
And FWIW I’m not worried about the stereotype PTSD-addled psycho war veteran (which is pretty much a creation of the media anyway.)
I’m much more worried about Private Snuffy or Specialist Tentpeg who’s got a few beers in him and says “watch this shit!” Or who goes to Burger King and leaves his Springfield in the restroom for a kid to find.
How does Israel/IDF handle this?
Spent a few weeks in Tel Aviv for work a couple years ago. Guns and uniforms all over the place…in the mall, on the street, in the restaurant, yet for the most part all condition 4. Saw very few with magazines inserted. It was my understanding that those with magazines inserted were infantry or MPs.
Who cares. This isn’t Israel. Our citizens have constitutional rights and that includes our armed forces.
When a base commander accepts and assumes the risk and responsibility for the conduct of Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen or Marines (And Coasties…) on his installation, he cares. It is up to him or her to ensure the troops, families and employees of his base can continue to train, live and work in as peaceful an environment as possible.
IMHO…not everyone in service is an angel…we should not all should not be carrying weapons outside of combat zones and as they apply to our day to day duties.
How the times have changed.
FLW in the late 80’s.
Slept over my own personal armory in the Q’s. Primitive to modern firearms.
Sofa bed and truck tool vaults locked and chained.
Weekends were spent camping in the remote sections of post lighting them off.
Good times.
Yeah Fatcircles, I was only curious how a CinC with intelligence and balls handled this issue….that’s all.
According to my boss who was born and raised in Israel, served in the IDF, and lives there now, personal firearm ownership is carefully regulated.
I don’t know about active duty IDF.
Today, people who live in settlements can get a concealed carry permit and frequently carry weapons, there are two such guys in my company’s headquarters.
Last spring I visited Jerusalem and Mesada. On the top of Mesada they had a daytime patrol of about 6 in full combat uniform, all carrying those nifty Tavors with holo sights. No magazines in the weapons. The police in Jerusalem are very well armed and there are a lot of them. They looked almost exactly like the IDF on Mesada only with bigger guns. I did not take any pictures – they seemed a little twitchy – and I do not remember if they had magazines inserted.
Like JohnE said, lots of uniforms.
I got in trouble atop Masada…my host was explaining what went on there, and my conclusion was that it was the Israelite Alamo…which to me is really a pretty accurate assessment. He didn’t really like my simplification of the situation…
How dare the military rate the same constitutional rights as civilians. HOW DARE THEY!
#MilitaryLivesMatter
[…] Lonely Conservative: This Is How Progressives Deal With Political Opposition This Ain’t Hell: Ted Cruz Wants The Troops Armed In Garrison Weasel Zippers: Race-Baiting Author Toni Morrison Says “I Want To See A Cop Shoot An Unarmed […]
As I recall, the only place I saw guns at all on a US base was at the base shooting range, period. I realize that my viewpoing is antique, but the probability of an on-base shooting by a servicemember was unlikely, because those people who were so unstable as to engage in that were not in the service in the first place. That was when the draft was still in force and people ran away from it in droves.
However, with the current climate of attempts to go on a rampage of some sort, I think that service members carrying a personal weapon for self defense while on duty on the base, with proper training, might be a good idea until this mess gets straightened out.
While I recognize that Cruz is making a play for votes here, he’s stirring a pot that should be left alone for now.
Was in an Air Guard unit many years ago with a high percentage of assorted civilian cop types as members. All these guys were required to be armed the moment they left the base, and also required to be unarmed the moment they entered the base. Always seemed extremely weird that they carried for a living, but had to disarm themselves to perform their part-time job.
No, not exactly the same, but if that policy has not changed, if folks sworn to protect and serve are not allowed to carry when in their civilian uniform, in a patrol car, then don’t hold your breath expecting anyone else to be granted the right.
Why the fuck should soldiers be limited to personally owned weapons? That’s just fucking stupid. How about this. If you’re a solider, you carry your assigned weapons at all times with a small amount of ammunition. For M4/M16 it will be mag in but round in chambered at all times you are on duty outside of PT.
That would certainly make medical and admin appts more interesting.
If anything comes from this, it will be that SOME military personnel in addition to MPs will be armed. The alerts recently issued to home-based military personnel are so much empty bullshit w/o self defense capability. As matters now stand the alerts caution troops and their families to be aware and cautious, but if they see potential harm coming their way, it’s best of luck and too bad.
I wonder, how many less people would have been killed and wounded by Nidal Malik Hasan, if the soldiers in that hospital area had been able to carry their weapons?
Or the civilians?
Or if the Army had simply listened to those saying this clown was dangerous.
The reg stops me, as a civilian employee, from carrying on post as well. Or transporting it across post, technically, unless on the way to a range and having registered the firearm on post.
As I said above…retired Army officer, concealed permit holder for many years, more than just competent with my carry firearm. I live off-post, and am rendered unarmed to and from work, on-post and off, by the reg. Why should I be restricted?
So when I am deployed I am allowed to carry enough ammo and explosives in my 4 Strykers to commit genocide, but I am not allowed to carry my pistol with a 7 to 15 round magazine on post?
Please consider the first responders (Cops)perspective when responding to calls of shots fired. If I show up and there is a gunfight between folks in identical/similar uniforms…how do I know who the good guy is?
Even worse…I respond to a school and there is shooting going on…multiple parties engaged. How do my patrolmen make the determination of which one to take down?
In the old days there was the bar fight conundrum…don’t rush in, let them wear each other down first. Make your job easier and all. Nowadays, active shooter protocols demand immediate and decisive response.
How do you know who the good guy is?
As was the case with Hassan, he was the one shooting at people with an illegal firearm and the rest were running for cover because they COULDN’T SHOOT BACK, DAMMIT !!!!!!!
Libs… Sheesh…
Oldest argument in the world for gun controllers…
It has never happened since they have been issuing CCW permits. There have not been any shootouts over parking places, road rage or neighbor disputes involving CCW carriers.
There have been interventions in mass shootings, like this last weekend in Chicago, of all places…
Sheesh… Libs…
Here’s something that will make liberals sh!t, it’s chock full of facts and logic, two things they’re deathly allergic to:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/
The good guy is the one who asks you what took you so long, and is happy to see you.
This really isn’t that difficult.
Holy guacamole, JohnE! No, we don’t have to look at the issue from that perspective at all. It is the LEO who must make the shoot/don’t shoot determination when he or she arrives on scene and, when there is doubt as to who the aggressor is, the correct response is not to shoot.
I am the LEO…this is what keeps me up at night.
Thunder, please go and search the google for concealed carry shooting…parking lot/space shooting or neighbor dispute shooting. You will find many instances of otherwise law abiding folks waxing each other over stupid shit just because they could.
You worry me. If the good guys and bad guys are wearing the same clothing and it’s confusing as to who the bad guys are, you don’t shoot unless you have to defend yourself. In that case, the guy shooting at you is the bad guy. It’s that simple. Besides, by the time you arrive, it’s over. It’s like civilians shooting at one another. Who is the good guy? You don’t know. Usually, if a person is down and the shooter is missing, the shooter is the bad guy. If he’s still there, he’s likely the good guy.
So you advocate LEO types simply letting folks shoot it out and then picking up the pieces post incident?
Just out of curiosity, have you ever worked in any sort of law enforcement capacity? Responded to any type of domestic incident? A fight, a mob scene or other civil disturbance or unrest? The simple point here is that it is not that simple. Situations are not always ended when we arrive, that is a popular fallacy. Talk to Andy Brown, Kimberly Munley or Jacob Chestnut.
A police officers basic job is to keep the peace…when multiple parties are throwing lead, all are disrupting the peace and all are targets. It is not as simple as you seem to think, the bad guy isn’t always the one who goes down. This isn’t the movies.
As a cop with 13 years of experience on the road, I can tell you that the answer is typically pretty simple. The good guy is the one that will comply with verbal directions.
Have you tried, you know, telling them to put down the gun?
Maybe the Air Force shoots first and asks questions later.
Really? If only it was that simple! 🙂 After 26 years of experience both civilian and military, I will tell you that my experience has been different. Bad guys will cooperate too…and good guys are often non cooperative.
Only thing you can depend on is that every situation is dynamic and utterly unrelated and unlike with the last one.
Stay safe out there…
So what, exactly, is the problem with bad guys cooperating too? That is great – and yes, most people, with good intent or bad, armed or unarmed, will cooperate when faced with a police officer with a drawn weapon. But that kind of defeats your point. It is the same guys/gals in the military as outside it. Somehow, local LEOs manage to keep all them “dangerous CPL holders” from killing each other in every town in every state (except maybe New York and Cali) every day. You are saying that Airmen who can obtain CPLs from their respective states are more dangerous/psychotic/prone to rage and bad decisions than the average citizen? I call bullshit.
First of all, we do not have “Constitutional rights”. Our individual rights are UNALIENABLE, with which we were endowed by our Creator at birth. Our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America exists primarily to guarantee our individual unalienable rights by imposing severe restrictions on the power and authority of government, as in, “Congress shall make no law – – – “, et cetera. Secondly, there should be no restrictions, including licensing, on any person carrying firearms anyplace, whether military or civilian. That’s how Vermont, Kansas, (and I think) Wyoming, Arizona, and Alaska operates, i.e., with no licensing required, and no restrictions on carrying, concealed or openly (although I might be slightly mistaken on a couple of those venues). Finally, if any private soldier can not be trusted with a loaded firearm, then he never should have been permitted to enlist, and should be summarily discharged forthwith. I ought to know. I’m one that society would never have permitted to have access to firearms, due to my adolescent years involuntarily committed to the criminally insane wards of state mental hospitals. Yet, thanks to the intervention of President Lyndon Baines Johnson (and possibly a state governor, as well?), I served honorably in the United States Army for nine (09) years, with two (02) of those years in the Republic of Viet Nam, and graduating from III Corps NCO Academy. Following my Honorable Discharge, with a Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and Good Conduct Medal, I was variously employed as a Department of Defense Police patrolman, firefighter, Emergency Medical Technician, and Correctional Supervisor at the Utah State Prison, with concealed weapons licenses in Idaho and Mississippi. No, not everybody can do what I did, and I’m not even sure what the point is of what I’m trying to say, or how to say it. But, the bottom line is, EVERY single one of us has the unalienable right to be always armed, including active duty soldiers in our United States Army, and if any guy can’t be trusted, then he shouldn’t be given the honor of being allowed to… Read more »
So, just like with civilians, the only people allowed to carry firearms on post will be the security patrol (who are never right there when the shit hits the fan) and the criminals (who are probably going to shoot the place up). Yup, there’s logic.
True story. In the late ’90s, I was stationed at Cape Canaveral AFS. One of my younger troops was involved in an incident where he unfortunately drowned. In my presence. Alcohol and unrequited lust make you do strange things.
Shortly afterwards, I started getting death threats from his family, because they were convinced that there was a big coverup and I was involved. I took to carrying my Kel-tec .40 in the small of my back for about 6 months. Under my BDUs. I never told anyone and I never removed my shirt.
Only one time did I have an issue carrying like that. One time, coming through the gate, I got stopped for a random vehicle search. The first thing they do, after opening the glove box, etc is have you exit the vehicle. At that point, he asked me if there were any weapons in the vehicle. Technically, there weren’t, so I said No.
But, but, what happens when Joe comes back from the bar at 0400, oversleeps til 0615, and in the rush to get ready for pt, he catches his red stiletto heel in the trigger guard of his firearm and has a ND, shooting his Squad Leader on the other side of the door? What then? It’s possible 1 in 4 SL’s will become casualties and we’ll have to have rubber ducky runs in heels to raise awareness.
The lefty response would be something like, “Obviously, we should issue hot pin instead of red pumps.”
Also, must point out that it just wouldn’t happen if he would wear the matching reflective belt.
I was “resourceful” off duty is all I will say.