Armed Forces?

[Tester]

Now, after reading your posts I understand why some were deleted.

Please feel free to enlighten me.

 

[BugI02]

Arguing balls and strikes with a mod is like arguing with your boss. And that last post is equivalent to "Oh yeah", just with more words. Quality would be to add something further to the ongoing discussion, especially from specialized knowledge you have or personal experience. Its about the difference between argument and debate.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What about when your duties take you off post? Stick to what you know Kut.

Have you read this entire, thread? I'm assuming not.

Edit: actually it wasn't in this thread, but i mention that soldiers should be armed if their duties take them off post.

Edit edit: well, I thought i did, but I didn't. If you want clarification, I DO think soldiers working off post doing the business of the military, should be armed. I have no opposition to that. It's those walking uniformed soldier off post, not doing the business of the military that was meaning when I said the Pentagon should crack down on lax uniform policy.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I was thinking about your post above. When I was going thru old photos of my father when he was on active duty during 1941-1945 there were multiple pics in his scrapbook while he was at home on leave and he was dressed in his military uniform. Guess, perhaps either he didn't own any civilian clothes OR he was proud to be seen in uniform. When I returned from Southeast Asia and traveling home thru Seatac I recall I also wore my uniform going thru the airport and then home. Although I believe my father in uniform in the 1940's was viewed with more respect than I was I'm the 1960's, regardless, I think the wearing of the uniform was/is appropriate while not on a military base. In fact, I think it's rather sad AND a statement of our times that wearing a military uniform results in individuals being specifically targeted. Therefore, I don't quite grasp your apparent concept of limiting service men/women to wearing their uniforms only on post or (on duty).

I'm don't understand how implementation of your viewpoint would have provided any degree of protection to the Marines recruiters (who were "on duty" ) at the site where they were murdered. As I interpret your last sentence you are suggesting the Marine recruiters should, at best, only have had access to a military issued firearm while on post, and since they were not on post when they were murderd they should not be armed, either with a military issue or EDC weapon. The alternative would be to allow recruiting only on a military base I suppose.

Sorry, not buy'in you're solution as a method ensuring the ability of our servicemen and women to protect themselves. Perhaps as a member of law enforcement ( which I interpret you are from your sign on name and posts ) you believe that the fewer guns in "civilian hands" the safer law enforcement officers are. I' vet not seen you express that opinion previously so only take this as an observation and an attempt on my part to try to rationalize your position as stated above.

I'll take the heat for not being clear. I have no issue with off post soldiers working in a military capacity, being armed. So yes, recruiters, guys in convoys, etc should be armed (if they wish). However, rocking your uniform off duty, or not in a military capacity, should not be done. If we're having a uproar about how safe soldiers are, and how they're being specifically targeted, then let's lower the possibility by cracking down on lax adherence to uniform policy.

 

[Paul30]

One issue they worry about is a person shot suing the government. I know it sounds silly, but it is a consideration. I had a friend on a National Guard base who got a civilian job over the armory. He was telling me his woes about the mess the last guy left that he was trying to clean up. He had 55 gallon drums full of brass of spent rounds he needed to find a way to dispose of. I quickly suggested he let me help him with that and put them in my truck, I will recycle them and reload them. He asked his chain of command and was told no, because if someone reloads them and goes out and shoots someone then they might be part of the law suit. I was on the shooting team for the same National Guard base, and when I heard I could get a M9 pistol signed out to me and free ammo to practice with I was a bit happy. When he asked me for directions to my home, where the safe I must have was and how to get into it, I told him I would just use my own gun to practice. He told me a person who was a Guard member and a Postal employee had used the gun he signed out and shot several people at the post office, with the military gun he had signed out. So I'm sure they are wondering if they sign out a weapon to someone, and they shoot someone in self defense there will be the a huge target on the governments back to sue, because they have deep pockets and lawyers know it.

Here is information on the shooting where the Guardsman used his military signed out weapon to kill several at work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_post_office_shooting

 

[oldpink]

Back when I was in the Army as an MP I carried my issued 1911 while on duty but couldn't carry a personal weapon when off duty. When I lived on post I had to keep my personal firearms locked in our company's armory. If I wanted to take my gun of post I had to sign it in and out of the armory but wasn't allowed to carry it on post. This was back in the 70's, I imagine it's still the same way today.

It was definitely like that in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
I speak from my own experience.
There is no reason that it has gotten any less restrictive since 1991, when I got out.

 

[oldpink]

I'll take the heat for not being clear. I have no issue with off post soldiers working in a military capacity, being armed. So yes, recruiters, guys in convoys, etc should be armed (if they wish). However, rocking your uniform off duty, or not in a military capacity, should not be done. If we're having a uproar about how safe soldiers are, and how they're being specifically targeted, then let's lower the possibility by cracking down on lax adherence to uniform policy.

Good to see that I can agree with the first part, but I think you misworded the second part about "rocking your uniform off duty."
I'm taking what you had intended to say there as "not carrying your military sidearm off duty (i.e. not doing the work of the military) openly" while in uniform, rather than "not wearing your uniform off duty at all," correct?
Surely, you don't mean wearing your uniform off duty would be wrong, or in uniform off duty carrying your personal (not issued) sidearm concealed (with LTCH, naturally), say IWB?
I say concealed because of the problem for the general population seeing a guy in uniform going where he is obviously not in an on duty status (e.g. picking up a six pack on the way home) with his personal sidearm in an open carry fashion.

 

[KellyinAvon]

This embarrasses me. Representatives of the most powerful military in the history of this planet have to be guarded by some dumpy rent a cop. Hell the K-9 is embarrassed too. As far as "Officer Mullet" goes, WHISKEY-TANGO-FOXTROT, OVER??!!

 

[oldpink]

View attachment 40110

This embarrasses me. Representatives of the most powerful military in the history of this planet have to be guarded by some dumpy rent a cop. Hell the K-9 is embarrassed too. As far as "Officer Mullet" goes, WHISKEY-TANGO-FOXTROT, OVER??!!

I understand and agree with your frustration, but your cheap shot at a guy doing a job he was hired to do, just because he doesn't look all that "cool," is misplaced and really doesn't help your case.
Be mad at the people who necessitated a rent-a-cop, not at the rent-a-cop himself.

 

[Kutnupe14]

View attachment 40110

This embarrasses me. Representatives of the most powerful military in the history of this planet have to be guarded by some dumpy rent a cop. Hell the K-9 is embarrassed too. As far as "Officer Mullet" goes, WHISKEY-TANGO-FOXTROT, OVER??!!

I think that's a chick

 

[KellyinAvon]

I think that's a chick

If times were different I'd have posted this in the "chick or dude" thread. Either way this sends the wrong message to everyone.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I understand and agree with your frustration, but your cheap shot at a guy doing a job he was hired to do, just because he doesn't look all that "cool," is misplaced and really doesn't help your case.
Be mad at the people who necessitated a rent-a-cop, not at the rent-a-cop himself.

It sends the wrong message, particularly to those who would do us harm. That makes me mad. If you're going to look that unprofessional while in any uniform while providing security to professionals? Yeah, you'll catch it from me.

 

[weezy]

Usually you can't even carry on base unless you are security forces.

 

[oldpink]

It sends the wrong message, particularly to those who would do us harm. That makes me mad. If you're going to look that unprofessional while in any uniform while providing security to professionals? Yeah, you'll catch it from me.

It's good to see you focus on substantive issues.

 

[KellyinAvon]

It's good to see you focus on substantive issues.

This is substantive, here's why.

Two groups see this. One is the bad guys. They know a force on force fight is a loser against us. They know Special Ops and airpower can turn an average bunch of fighters into world-beaters. They also know if they drag it out the support for the fight will fade.

On their turf they face troops with air supremacy, level-4 body armor and C2 they can't imagine. On our turf? Its a completely different situation. The bad guys have people here already. Students, legal immigrants from places like Somalia, and bad guys crossing the border with drug mules. They can't imagine why we operate like this, but thy will take advantage of the situation until something changes.

The other are the taxpayers. Not ones with DD 214s or who are familiar with the military, but a large number of people in this country with no connection at all to the military. This makes no sense and drives a bigger divide between the military and the population at large.

 

[KellyinAvon]

British charge Muslim man in plot against U.S. military, trying to join ISIS


The pic is on the Fox News site. Several of the Blue-Suiters are wearing maroon berets. Those are Para-Rescue Jumpers (PJs). There are very few PJs, training is 2 years long and there is a 50%-75% washout rate. RAF Lakenheath is home to the 56th Rescue Squadron. There are maybe 8 PJs in a Rescue Sq. You take out a Cop or a Maintenance troop or a Comm dude there are more to take their place. Losing a PJ on a base in the UK would degrade the capability of the Rescue Squadron. On that base, a PJ would be the target. Kill the Wing Commander? The Air Force has a crap-load of F-15 pilot Colonels. PJs? Very few slots and only about 75% are filled.





British charge Muslim man in plot against U.S. military, trying to join ISIS | Fox News

 

[YayGuns]

The washout rate for PJ more around the 90% mark.

Here is my only worry about everyone on a guard base being armed. For one, being in a combat role, there's a lot of Joes and airmen that I wouldn't trust with a firearm. With that being said, even though it enfringes upon those of us that truely know how to handle a weapon, there should be a weapons training course.

Here is my second and biggest worry though. Let's say everyone on base is armed and you have an active shooter event on base. Imagine the mass confusion if you are an MP or security forces responding to this and the only SA you have is that there's a military male/ female armed at Bldg "X" shooting people, yet 75% of your base is armed. The ROE for an active shooter situation with have to take drastic changes to prevent fratricide.

With that being said, some base commanders have approved the procession of personal firearms for a while. For instance, a now retired commander authorized people with a LTCH to keep their gun in their car on base.

 

[matthewmaze]

i was always taught that the guns actual safety sits on the operators shoulder