Milley won’t arm the troops
B Woodman sends us a link which reports that Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley has decided that the troops can’t arm themselves while they’re at work;
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said Thursday he is “not convinced” that allowing soldiers to carry concealed personal firearms would have prevented the various shootings and terrorist attacks on military installations.
Testifying before the Senate Committee on Armed Services to review the “posture” of the U.S. Army, Gen. Milley said evaluations of safety for smaller military campuses, such as recruiting centers and outposts, are determined on a case by case basis.
It was a Navy officer and his personal weapon that put down the Chattanooga shooter last year, so I don’t know what he’s basing his evaluation upon. Besides, Joe Biden and the President have both admitted that the gun control regulations that they’ve inflicted on the American in the last few years won’t stop gun violence, but that doesn’t stop them from writing new useless laws.
If Milley doesn’t want the troops to arm themselves on base, he should at least allow them to carry their weapons in their cars on their way to work – that’s when they’re the most vulnerable anyway. My head is on a swivel when I’m stopped at a gate waiting to show my ID to the guards.
Category: Army News
Screw Milley. Another clueless, useless General officer feeding on the fecal matter this administration spews so abundantly.
That S.O.B. is among the walking INSANE! WTF is wrong with the leadership in our military..oh, I know, the bozo in the white house got rid of the good ones and kept the puppets!de
I thought this was about Miley Cyrus.
That would be a step up toward the bottom of the cesspool
Whatever. Not allowing personal firearms, concealed, in barracks, or in vehicles is a decades old rule in the military with very few exceptions.
I do not like restrictions on weapons in general but I understand why they exist. Idiots with guns are more dangerous that terrorists. And there are millions more idiots in America than terrorists.
The threat is overblown anyway. I am so tired of so much manufactured and irrational fear of terrorists.
How do people function with so much crap they are afraid of? Really, how do they even leave the house?
Tell the survivors of those killed at Fort Hood that the threat was “overblown”, Taylor. Or the NOK of the man killed the other day at Medina Annex in San Antonio.
The threat ain’t just from terrorists, dipstick.
Lars wants his safe space, Hondo… and if that means those evil, black, phallic shaped bang sticks needs to go away, then it’s all good for him and his SJW’s.
From what hear, Lars likes black phallic shaped things, especially in his safe place.
BwaHaHaHaHa!!! You win, Swormy, the post of the day.
You don’t know me, Commissar.
Back doing more research Lars. I’ve missed you. No. Not really.
Still waiting for you to tell me I’m wrong Lars.
Idiots with guns
Translation: The Obama administration with guns
Check fire there Skippy, I slept over a veritable armory at FLW in my BOQ. Bought my own lockable metal trunks and kept under sofa bed. Ordnance ranged from primitive flintlocks to a Korean black rifle. And, a whole lot of sharp and pokey stuff. Weekends were spent in out of way places exercising high risk analysis activities. Fun factor was immense. The only requirement was that they had to be registered with the PM. The Company CDR on the other hand had vapors whenever he thought about us. The wanker.
Manufactured fear of terrorists? Tell that to the loved ones of those killed in Chattanooga, California, etc.
Typical form of Lars debate, open mouth and insert foot.
Yep, there are lots of IDIOTS, and I am reading the post of one now!
Whatever. Slavery was a decades old rule, too. Great use of logic and showing your elitist worldview, there, Lars.
Go ahead and bury your head in the sand. It worked for Bill Clinton, didn’t it? That is until 9/11 and he was out of office.
Your kind always says this kind of stupid sh!t and then blames someone else when all hell breaks loose due to their own ignorant, stupid and negligent policies.
There is a difference between fear and preparedness. What I fear is being unprepared. For, if I am prepared, then I have no need to fear.
All NCOs and officers should be allowed to carry.
I agree, and Open Carry of Service pistol at that.
The 5 sided puzzle palace can’t even decide on what the service pistol should be, let alone who should carry one.
Well, I heard the Army COS wants a credit card and a direct line to Cabelas.
It would be quicker and far more cost-effective than the process we have in place now!
I remember wearing an unloaded 1911 while on watch at various stations in the 60’s. We actually DID practice THE drill to make it go bang. Oh well… that was then, this is now.
Milley is weighing the potential that an armed Soldier would prevent a shooting against the potential that an armed Soldier would shoot an innocent civilian, another Soldier, or himself. Not to mention lost/stolen weapons, and other possibilities. Look at the blotter any given Monday morning and you see what I am talking about.
This doesn’t mean that DoD is doing nothing; it is entirely possible that there are plans that have not been publicized.
. Im sure Milley had several COAs in front of him and he made a tough call. We can disagree with it, but it doesn’t make him useless or an idiot.
What “blotter”?
Millions of civilians are able to do it without incident every day. You’re telling me the US Army are basically saying their troops who’ve supposedly been trained are less capable and responsible?
Sounds like a training/personnel problem that should be addressed then not to excuse some of the dumbest force protection policies of all time.
You just nailed it. Training. Weapons training would detract from all the “look, we’re doing something for the latest SJW hurt feelings” training that is the true reason the military conducts training. You want to waste time and resources on weapons? You Neanderthal!
Yes. Exactly. The blotter is the morning report from the MP desk sergeant with the roll up of incidents from the night before.
Soldiers aren’t trained to conduct police duties within CONUS.
Carrying concealed isn’t a police duty though. This has nothing to do with arresting people or for that matter conducting any police responsibilities. To suggest so is just absurd. This is for a immediate serious injury threat/death scenario just like what millions of non police citizens are able to handle just fine every day.
Some Army Reserve centers are now being allowed to arm up, I’d they are a stand alone reserve center which is not located on a military installation. I am the Arms room NCO for my unit, so I will tell you all this from my first hand experience. The AGR’s at my unit are carrying weapons from the arms room during their regular work week. During Battle Assembly weekends there are a select few TPU soldiers that have been identified to provide armed security inside the building. They draw weapons and ammo from the arms room in the morning and pull guard duty for the day. At the end of the day they turn the weapons and ammo in. This is a new program that just got off the ground, this last weekend was the first weekend we implemented it. It will have a few growing pains as we identify issues with the system and then change the SOP to account and mitigate those issues.
The issue of arming up anyone who’s not an on duty MP on a military installation is a tricky one. I can see both sides of the argument. I lean more towards rank, i.e., letting only NCO’s and officers carry, and towards experience, i.e., among those in appropriate ranks, only those with LE experience or a civilian permit to carry should be authorized to carry. But I’m a lowly Sergeant, so what do I know.
This makes sense to me- A reserve center is federal property, and you have a chain of command in place to make sure things are done properly. This is a far cry from letting every Soldier carry a weapon at all times.
You’re falling into the same horse shit officers live by, that rank determines maturity and basic civil rights.
Hilarious.
I’ve seen SNCO’s ND into their troops before.
You need to get off the high horse bullshit.
I probably deserved that response. I’m not going to argue with you. A junior enlisted soldier with a civilian CCW permit probably carries a gun in public every day without incident. No real reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to carry on post, I agree with that. But realistically, we have to start somewhere. “Baby steps”, as they say. My reserve unit is a MP unit. Several members of the unit are credentialed civilian LEOs and many others have civilian CCW permits. In a perfect world, the LEOs and CCW permit holders would not be given any grief for carrying their personal weapon on their person inside the Reserve center on a BA weekend. We’re not there yet, but allowing a small staff of soldiers to carry live weapons from the arms room during BA is a vast improvement over *no one* having a live weapon for Force Protection. You have to admit, even that much is pretty impressive given the current political climate in the military.
No sweat. I probably came off like a dick. I just know from experience that rank means nothing when it comes to weapon handling/safety/proficiency.
I’m sorry, if you can’t trust an NCO to carry a side arm, you made a bad decision in promoting him…but maybe I’m old school…
Rank = professionalism and weapons handling. Some of the worst offenders I saw were officers and SNCO’s. My comment was referring that just because somebody in the military has rank or doesn’t shouldn’t dictate their ability to do a basic task everyone in the military should be able to accomplish.
Complacency in SNCO’s and officers is what usually causes a NG or a round into the clearing barrel. Failure to keep one’s head out of one’s ass makes things go BANG at the wrong time.
kindly replace “NG” with ND”. My apologies to my National Guard compadres!
Texas State Guardsmen who hold LTCs (formerly CHLs) are already authorized to carry in uniform (concealed, not open) as long as they’re not violating the terms of their LTC. Many National Guard armories are state property, not federal. Texas National Guardsmen aren’t allowed to carry in uniform on those facilities, but State Guardsmen are. Go figure.
National Guard I think are subordinate to DA whereas the State Guard in Texas is strictly a Texas organization.
Further to the above question about who would carry – I would probably advocate that the primary criterium would not be age or rank, but the LTC or concealed carry permit. I’d also make some sort of range testing, as part of the permit or additional if the permit does not require it, to be mandatory. Too many officers (and people in general) can’t shoot for a hill of beans – the emphasis should be on safe carry/fire instead of who’s been promoted how many times.
Regarding NG vs SG, you are exactly right. Still, it’s stupid.
Negatron. Any TXMF Soldier / Airman (Army NG / Air NG / State Guard) with a valid Texas LTC can carry concealed in uniform or concealed / open carry on any state facility in Texas.
Blew me the fuck away when the policy came down. But I’m not gonna complain. 😉
Edit to add: concealed / open carry IAW state law when in civilian clothing.
JFTX Policy may allow Army/Air NG to carry concealed on state property, but federal policy does not.
“It just saves just one life it’s worth it”
Unless it’s enlisted troops, then fuck’em!
– US military brass
Gun control is not about what works and what doesn’t. It’s entirely about keeping and obtaining power by restricting effective force in order to obtain a monopoly on it. The fact so many higher in the US military don’t trust their troops with loaded weapons should be troubling to all citizens.
So the good Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley trusts the military with locked and loaded weapons when they’re deployed overseas at a FOB, etc.
But he DOESN’T trust the military when they’re at home, at their home base.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from the news lately, the danger of being shot at home is pretty near close to the danger of being shot overseas.
I am SO glad I’ve talked my g’son out of being a military unarmed mobile target.
“So the good Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley trusts the military with locked and loaded weapons when they’re deployed overseas at a FOB, etc.”
Unless SECDEF shows up for a visit, then you’d better turn in your bullets!
You make a good point 0311.
Leadership is apparently OK with young NCOs leading squad-sized combat patrols, composed of even younger troops that are all armed to the teeth, while they are over in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and trust them to do the right thing IAW ROE, etc. Those troops are armed 24/7 while deployed downrange, and they perform well and behave responsibly with their weapons.
Yet somehow the mere thought of those same young troops carrying loaded weapons here in CONUS makes virtually everyone in a position of leadership go almost hysterical with concern that “something bad will happen” if our troops are armed in garrison.
Can anyone explain what suddenly makes our troops untrustworthy with loaded weapons when they are stationed back here in garrison? What exactly is it that changes?
I’m all ears, because I’m not maintaining target track on this (erroneous) line of thinking that our troops should be unarmed in garrison.
Can anyone explain what suddenly makes our troops untrustworthy with loaded weapons when they are stationed back here in garrison? What exactly is it that changes?
Blame it on Demon Rum!
I say that jokingly. Mostly. But often the combination of youth plus alcohol plus posturing/”one-up-manship” doesn’t turn out too well. That’s probably factoring into decision making concerning this issue at the 5-Sided Asylum.
Hondo: I’ll agree with you on the concerns about alcohol + youth + posturing/”one-up-manship” = potential incident; we used to see plenty of that at Camp Lejeune. But absent the alcohol, you have basically the same social/inter-personal dynamics in garrison that you have in a deployed unit downrange, and in my experience there simply weren’t many cases of the troops going after one another, and they certainly didn’t do so with their weapons. (And before anyone rolls in hot on me here, I am not advocating trying to take alcohol away from the troops in garrison; to try to do so would be insulting, demeaning, and send a message to them that “we don’t trust you”. It would also quite frankly be impossible to implement and enforce.)
That said, I have a really hard time with the way that we trust our young troops so completely and give them so much responsibility when they’re deployed, and yet we insist on treating them like irresponsible children when we bring them back into garrison.
I’m sure that there’s no easy answer to this, but I for one would like to see something worked out where our troops could remain armed in CONUS.
That’s my two cents on this.
No real disagreement with you. Just pointing out a probable IMO major decision factor used by Echelons Above Reality.
Roger all; concur re: HHQ’s probable view on this issue.
Why not arm all staff duty NCOs and CQs if they’re NCOs. 9mm pistol, in amber status, nice white pistol belt and holster. we act like this would be hard to implement. No one wants to take responsibility, that’s the problem. If one jack off decides to do something bad, suddenly the whole program would be a failure instead of the 1 guy being responsible for his actions.
OH, for Pete’s sake, the guy’s name is Milley. He’s got a girl’s name. He’s probably afraid of guns and only uses them when he’s forced to at gunpoint. (snarc)
Seriously, in this era of possible and real recent attacks on or aimed at military facilities of any kind, the real issue is determining why any military facility is vulnerable in the first place and how to reduce vulnerability.
Great Lakes used to have an obvious entrance. Then it was moved to be less obvious and some drunk running away from local police tried to crash the gate one night. And since no one knows if the vehicle coming up to the gate without reducing speed is friendly or otherwise, what do you do?
I can see both sides of this argument, because in the 1960s when the only threat was protesters trying to break into the Pentagon to find the Selective Service files, no one gave even a mild nod to the idea of arming anyone either at the Pentagon or over at Bolling AFB. There was a memorable moment when someone flying a Steerman biplane got lost and landed on the runway at the Naval Photo Center, and had to be redirected to the air show he was attending.
Nowadayds, he’d be a visible threat, wouldn’t he?
Things have changed, especially since some malcontent decided to go shoot as many of his coworkers as possible at Ft. Sam Hood.
It isn’t whether or not you are carrying a weapon on you that matters. It’s how you react to any emergency like a shooter who is picking random targets. And what if it’s someone you know?
That question needs to be addressed, first and foremost.
Every command I’ve been attached to had a Command Duty Officer, a Squadron Duty Officer, an Assistant Squadron Duty Officer, and a Duty Driver. Assign the CDO, SDO and ASDO side arms, and the DD with a long gun. Maintain currency qualifications with the same. There’s your first baby step right there.
Annual pistol qualifications and bi-annual use of force training was a requirement for any officer or SNCO who was required to carry a firearm in a duty status aboard Quantico. As far as I know, that practice continues today. I don’t recall how that played out for the NCO’s since their T/O weapon typically wasn’t the 9mm.
…and heaven help the officer or SNCO who didn’t keep their annual training requirements up to date – lest they run the appearance of not being eligible to stand duty. That never fared well at the head shed.
Do you have any idea how absolutely this looks to the civilian population? Soldiers are not permitted to carry and yet they and their families are, from time to time, alerted that they may be targeted. Be alert. Travel in pairs. By being alert, you will perceive the threat quickly and by traveling in pairs the bad guy gets a twofer. Speaking of bad guys, they watch TV and listen to radios too. I am sure that will be happy to learn of this decision.
absolutely asinine
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said Thursday he is “not convinced” that allowing soldiers to carry concealed personal firearms would have prevented the various shootings and terrorist attacks on military installations.
Isn’t that backwards thinking? Shouldn’t the standard be to prove that weapons would not have stopped an attack rather than having to prove they would have?
Then Milley has released his own personal security detail?
Or at least disarmed them?
hahah all the lords that dictate to the plebs that they be disarmed always make sure they themselves or their pose is armed. You nailed the historic hypocrisy of anti gunners very well.
One does not make 4-star in today’s Army unless one is politically reliable.
I would hazard to guess that para 526 of the 2016 NDAA was only allowed to remain without a fight from El Presidente if Milley promised to provide some service-level veto.
It’ll be fine.
Well, as long as he promises to personally attend the next victim’s funeral.
Personally.
So he can explain to the survivors and their families how it was he wasn’t personally “convinced.” and all.
[…] Convention The Quinton Report: More Details On County Sheriff’s Arrest This Ain’t Hell: Army CoS Milley Won’t Arm The Troops Weasel Zippers: Leftists Protest Farmer Trying To Slaughter His Cow To Feed His Family Megan […]
These two folks hit the nail on the head:
April 11, 2016 at 7:02 pm
sj says: Then Milley has released his own personal security detail?
and…
April 11, 2016 at 8:09 pm
Eden says: Or at least disarmed them?
The hypocrisy of the elites, with their free-to-them, well-trained, armed-to-the teeth guard dogs, is nothing short of staggering. Barry, Billary, Feinstein/Boxer et al want to take MY guns, but are not willing to give up THEIR guns. Oh, silly me – it’s because I’m just too stupid to protect myself and my family…riiiiight.
I’m no fan of him, but Trump is saying a lot of things us common people have come to believe about our “leaders”. And it’s dipstick decisions like this, by brain-dead ass-kissing tools like this Millie Vanillie that have fanned the flames of anger by pissed-off (and pissed-on) Americans. Take a stand, vote, be informed. Or STFU and STFD.
Three-Sam 38, 10-8
Im a civilian and I think having all men armed is going to protect you from suicide bombers or ISis or China or Russia concentrate on protecting our country and if your not ready to be a soldier how do you expect to win a war no one wants to see a soldier die and if guns are out of a dangerous persons hands maybe that would prevent other such incidents