Concealed Carry for Soldiers Petiton

[Kutnupe14]

Valid point. I think it would make sense to let or even require all NCO's and officers to be armed

That actually makes sense, little consolation to everybody else, but there will probably need to be a compromise.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Screw compromise. The compromise was that we (Americans) allowed Clinton to do this to our soldiers unchallenged for 21+ years. Now it's time to get back to the way things were before that, which, since he placed an order, tells me that they were not forbidden to carry prior.

As for the whole "armed 17 year olds" canard.... They can already be armed if they're in a combat zone. I say let them carry on base, just like everyone else. Once off base, follow local law, unless in uniform, on duty. Off duty, follow local law; if the locals can carry at 18, let them go through the same process as everyone else. If 21, let them do so at 21. OC/CC? Again, follow local law. If you're in Texas, you conceal. If you're in IN, you choose which way you like.

The focus now needs to be letting them not be defenseless, if they choose to take that responsibility. After the prohibition is removed, let each person decide the details for him/herself.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[HD1911]

Finally someone shows up who Recognizes that the Constitution actually applies to all Citizens equally... No, NCOs and Officers lives are not worth more than their Subbordinates. Every single Human Being has their Natural Right to Self defense, Preservation, and Freedom. Nor are they the only ones who are "Qualified" to employ their Firearm in Self Defense.

The 2nd Ammendment has no Clause, and says nothing about having to acquire a certain Rank or Social Status to be able to protect one's self. It also says nothing about needing to be Trained and/or Competent.

To think otherwise goes completely against self determination and freedom. It goes against the very foundations of both the 2A and natural rights of man. This is the same fatally flawed argument the Liberal Left, Anti Gun Agenda follows.

 

[45fan]

Finally someone shows up who Recognizes that the Constitution actually applies to all Citizens equally... No, NCOs and Officers lives are not worth more than their Subbordinates. Every single Human Being has their Natural Right to Self defense, Preservation, and Freedom. Nor are they the only ones who are "Qualified" to employ their Firearm in Self Defense.

The 2nd Ammendment has no Clause, and says nothing about having to acquire a certain Rank or Social Status to be able to protect one's self. It also says nothing about needing to be Trained and/or Competent.

To think otherwise goes completely against self determination and freedom. It goes against the very foundations of both the 2A and natural rights of man. This is the same fatally flawed argument the Liberal Left, Anti Gun Agenda follows.

Your logic is sound, except for one small part. The members of our military are there to protect our constitution, not live under its protections. Being an all voluntary force, it is a right willingly waived for the privilege of serving under our flag. Understanding the way chain of command and military discipline works would make this all much easier to understand. The military lives under a separate, but similar set of rules to our constitution, its called the U.C.M.J.

As far as selectively allowing(or requiring) military service members to carry a weapon, the platoon level command is probably the best equipped to make the initial recommendation as to the individuals ability to responsibly take charge of a weapon on a day to day basis, and let the individual unit forward the recommendation up to a base/division level for a sign off on the service record book.

Leaving the initial action on the small unit level gives a better security in the individual's mental state, and a more personal evaluation than a broad stroke of the hand that encompasses every single service member. I am sure the majority would be just fine, but the fact still remains that even in the military you will find those that probably shouldn't be trusted with guns.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Finally someone shows up who Recognizes that the Constitution actually applies to all Citizens equally... No, NCOs and Officers lives are not worth more than their Subbordinates. Every single Human Being has their Natural Right to Self defense, Preservation, and Freedom. Nor are they the only ones who are "Qualified" to employ their Firearm in Self Defense.

The 2nd Ammendment has no Clause, and says nothing about having to acquire a certain Rank or Social Status to be able to protect one's self. It also says nothing about needing to be Trained and/or Competent.

To think otherwise goes completely against self determination and freedom. It goes against the very foundations of both the 2A and natural rights of man. This is the same fatally flawed argument the Liberal Left, Anti Gun Agenda follows.

i think the point about officers carrying is it's a compromise between being a GFZ and every soldier carrying their battle rifle everywhere. Is a reasonable augmentation of the MPs ability to be in more places than they can be.

 

[HD1911]

Your logic is sound, except for one small part. The members of our military are there to protect our constitution, not live under its protections. Being an all voluntary force, it is a right willingly waived for the privilege of serving under our flag. Understanding the way chain of command and military discipline works would make this all much easier to understand. The military lives under a separate, but similar set of rules to our constitution, its called the U.C.M.J.

As far as selectively allowing(or requiring) military service members to carry a weapon, the platoon level command is probably the best equipped to make the initial recommendation as to the individuals ability to responsibly take charge of a weapon on a day to day basis, and let the individual unit forward the recommendation up to a base/division level for a sign off on the service record book.

Leaving the initial action on the small unit level gives a better security in the individual's mental state, and a more personal evaluation than a broad stroke of the hand that encompasses every single service member. I am sure the majority would be just fine, but the fact still remains that even in the military you will find those that probably shouldn't be trusted with guns.

First of all, what made you assume I have never served in the Military? And I never said anything about Requiring all Personnel to CCW on or off-duty. If you want to sit back and be a victim and cower in fear while the next mass shooting happens, that's your choice... but DO NOT hold me to your same Convictions. You have absolutely No Right to tell me or prevent me from Protecting myself and my countrymen, no matter where I'm at.

Are you actually implying when you're mentioning about the Individual's Mental State, that some people are just not cut out to handle concealed carrying on base, and shouldn't be allowed, so that they can defend themselves against these mass shootings.... but they're fit to Serve in the US Military and Deploy and lose their lives for this country overseas?

Are you really saying that as a Member of the US Military, also being a US Citizen, and having sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL Enemies, both Foreign and Domestic.... that we don't have a Natural Right to Defend our own selves, while on Base?

So we do, when off Base.... but not on Base? And Joe Citizen, well yes he can defend himself anytime he wants, cause he's a Civilian.

I'm almost Positive our Founding Fathers said something along the lines of: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"


Here's a Buddy of mine expressing his thoughts on the Matter (better spoken than I am):

"I think concealed carry should be allowed on base because self defense is a fundamental natural right. In every combat situation we have ever fought the individual always had the right to defend themselves from the enemy or hostile action regardless of standing roe. If you attempt to judge the qualifications of our military members before self-righteously allowing or disallowing them to DEFEND THEMSELVES the same way they could off base then you had better check your arrogance at the door. They aren't children, you aren't their father, and nobody on this forum has the right to tell them to suck it up and wait for their saviors in blue to show up. The only way this situation is different than off base is that these men and women are made sitting ducks by their commanders. I don't know who the hell you people think you are to order these people to go armed in harms way for their country but not for themselves and their families. These men and women are the reason the Constitution lives, and we limit their freedoms under that document for mission necessity ONLY. This paternalistic "protect them from themselves" mentality is not only foreign but completely hostile to the document we swore to support and defend, and those that hold that opinion have completely and utterly missed the entire point of their service."

I mimic his view on the Matter 100%.


*You folks who are trying to compromise or decide who is fit and who is unfit to carry, and when and where and so on and so forth... your own words are the enemy to self determination and freedom. What you are failing to realize is that your stance goes against the very Core of both the 2A and Natural Rights of Man. You are as much of an enemy to the 2A as the Far left is.

 

[45fan]

what made you assume I have never served in the Military?

Are you really saying that as a Member of the US Military, also being a US Citizen, and having sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL Enemies, both Foreign and Domestic.... that we don't have a Natural Right to Defend our own selves, while on Base?

I rest my case. You seem to have answered your own question for me. If you have never heard the expression "you are here to defend democracy, not practice it" then I would assume then that you never served in the military, or were never there long enough to understand that democracy and personal freedoms are non-existent in a military that maintains good order and discipline. This does not mean that the leadership in our armed services do not respect the lower ranks, nor do they expect that they will be non-reactive in self preservation. Any "freedoms" that are witnessed or experienced while serving in the military is in fact just a liberty that has been granted from someone up your chain o command.

While it would seem that there are some freedoms, total oppression would make and sort of moral difficult, if not impossible to maintain. On the other hand, it could be something as simple as a dirty uniform that COULD potentially lead to the loss of most, if not all privileges that are granted to the general population of the military.

 

[HD1911]

I rest my case. You seem to have answered your own question for me. If you have never heard the expression "you are here to defend democracy, not practice it" then I would assume then that you never served in the military, or were never there long enough to understand that democracy and personal freedoms are non-existent in a military that maintains good order and discipline. This does not mean that the leadership in our armed services do not respect the lower ranks, nor do they expect that they will be non-reactive in self preservation. Any "freedoms" that are witnessed or experienced while serving in the military is in fact just a liberty that has been granted from someone up your chain o command.

While it would seem that there are some freedoms, total oppression would make and sort of moral difficult, if not impossible to maintain. On the other hand, it could be something as simple as a dirty uniform that COULD potentially lead to the loss of most, if not all privileges that are granted to the general population of the military.

First off, thank you for your Service to our Country. "A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The 'United States of America', for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'"

You're resting your case, because you have no leg to stand on. You're wrong, and you can make no Logical rebuttal as to why our Troops, Their Dependents, and Contractors on Base should have the Inherent Right to Defend themselves. It's as simple as that.

Point out for me, provide me with something that shows where our Founding Fathers shared your sentiment....


***EDIT: I posted this the other nite on another Forum, but I believe it's appropriate here right now.....

"Our Leadership, has Clearly and Miserably, FAILED US.

Examples (just a few, but I could find countless more...so just gonna go off the top of my head):

Force/Coerce a Female Subordinate to give you *******s/Sexual Favors and completely abuse and misuse your Authority to be a piece of ****.... no big deal. *come to think we had a President do that as well*

Legislate from the Oval Office? No big deal, **** the Constitution, as it's outdated and irrelevant now...No big deal.

Watch in real time while the situation unfolds for more than 24hrs and let Americans at a US Embassy be murdered, and withhold a QRF or any other means of support for that matter... Not a big deal. *Actually leading up to it, they knew better and chose not to Ramp Up the crew and get prepared...flat out ignoring/denying numerous requests leading up to that slaughter*

If you want to drain the swamp, and I think we need to Immediately, let's start at the Top and work our way on down.

America is seeing a Culture of Corruption like never before. Rule of Law no longer is followed (in the pure/unmolested sense), as the Elites that are in Power (Politicians, Bearucrats, and Military Leaders) can simple pick and choose how they want to warp it, pervert it, ignore it, or create it as they see fit, and then apply it, so that it fits Their Agenda. There is no Responsibility, no Accountability, and massive lack of Living by what's Right and Wrong.

Don't even get me started on the Fraud, Waste and Abuse of leaving Billions, with a B, of Equipment overseas in Terrorist Harboring Countries.... but then Hammer an E3 with NJP for something Trivial like $20 worth of Benchstock... Yes wrong is wrong, no justifying, just saying. And yes, hey, if you're GSA... goto Vegas and spend a ****load of Taxpayer Dollars on your own personal pleasure... **** the Taxpayers.

Coming back to the current issue at hand: You cannot and will not stop and/or prevent every single Evil person that lashes out like this SPC did. You just Can't. Not unless we become China/Syria/North Korea/Iran/Venezuela/Russia etc., where having to deal with a Govt. like any one of those (amongst several others obviously) would be far worse than anything we have seen, yet.

Sorry for the Rant... I'm sick of all these ****ing Issues that our Country is being bombarded with Daily, and coming from within, no less... from the lowest levels to all the way up to and including the Oval Office.

Freedom, Liberty, Morality, the Pursuit of Happiness, and Hell, even our Words that we speak are starting to Damn us and cost us our jobs and other things. Simply put, Our Way of Life as Americans...it is all under attack, and the Enemy has many different Faces and Personalities."

 

[45fan]

The case I was resting, since you seem to be ignorant to what I am trying to point out, is why I assumed that you never served. Reading the last post only reinforces that assumption.

If you read, and actually let in what I am trying to convey sink in for a bit, you may understand that what I am saying is that if you have never been there, then it is probably going to be difficult for you to wrap your head around.

In the interests of maintaining good order and discipline, personal freedoms are non-existent in the military. Plain and simple, not something that is up for debate. If you dont like it, keep your right hand down, go home and hang out back on the block. No harm, no foul. Any body who has been in those boots, especially anyone who has been in a position of leadership will confirm this as a simple, undeniable fact of life.

That said, for the most part, military life is not like living in a gulag. Live life as a screw up in the military, and you will wish you were in the gulag for the remainder of your contract. For the most part its not much different than any civilian job, but because of the nature of the mission of our military, there are times that discussion and democracy just will not work.

As far as a valid reason that just arming the military in its entirety and calling it good, I could write you a book on the reasons that this just wouldn't be a good idea.

First, and most glaringly obvious to me it the fact that a large majority are 18-19 years old. Given a mission, and a means to kill, there are very few of those young men that I served with that I would not trust with my life. Give them a gun and liberty, and sit back and wait, because most of them lack the maturity to make reasonable decisions on their own without some sort of leadership giving them direction. Somebody will end up doing something stupid, and there would be an uproar about why on earth we have thousands of young men and women running around with guns. Trust me, I have seen this many times before with liberties granted on other subjects. Give them enough slack, and just about any young service member will find a way to hang themselves.
Couple this with the fact that many of the youngsters that join the military do so not out of a devotion to the country, but as a way to escape the life they have created wherever it might be that they came from. It is not uncommon for someone to join the military simply with the intent to gain the training that is available to our soldiers. Some that are currently serving in our military arent even US citizens, and are serving their contract as a way to gain(earn) citizenship to this country.

Going all hands on deck to issue a weapon to every Fleet Marine, Army Soldier, Airmen or Seaman sounds good on the surface, but that is a knee jerk reaction that is no different than any one of the knee jerk reactions that this country makes after any other tragedy. Many of those same knee jerk reactions that many hear (most everyone, I believe) sees for what it is, and insist that we look at more closely to identify a reasonable, and effective way to solve a problem.

The military has protocol and procedure to lock things down, and ensure the safety of its bases in the very situation that happened at Ft Hood this week. The reasons that they do not always practice these methods is because the inconvenience that it does present anyone that has business being on any military installation. The greater good, and reasonable suspicion of threat are many things that our military leadership takes into consideration before making any decision (in theory anyways). Locking down a base, and posting armed guards on every corner of every building is always a possibility, but the inconvenience of that outweighs the perceived threat that the leadership sees.

I could go on all day, but I think it would be a waste of time and data. I think, for the most part, that we both agree that there needs to be change in the rules that allow our military to better defend themselves in these situations. The differences that I see seem to be more of a difference in perspective than a difference of ideals. I think that both of our energies and passion would be better served focusing on effecting change for those still in uniform, and not arguing over the details of the broad strokes that we can both agree on

 

[HD1911]

The case I was resting, since you seem to be ignorant to what I am trying to point out, is why I assumed that you never served. Reading the last post only reinforces that assumption.

If you read, and actually let in what I am trying to convey sink in for a bit, you may understand that what I am saying is that if you have never been there, then it is probably going to be difficult for you to wrap your head around.

In the interests of maintaining good order and discipline, personal freedoms are non-existent in the military. Plain and simple, not something that is up for debate. If you dont like it, keep your right hand down, go home and hang out back on the block. No harm, no foul. Any body who has been in those boots, especially anyone who has been in a position of leadership will confirm this as a simple, undeniable fact of life.

That said, for the most part, military life is not like living in a gulag. Live life as a screw up in the military, and you will wish you were in the gulag for the remainder of your contract. For the most part its not much different than any civilian job, but because of the nature of the mission of our military, there are times that discussion and democracy just will not work.

As far as a valid reason that just arming the military in its entirety and calling it good, I could write you a book on the reasons that this just wouldn't be a good idea.

First, and most glaringly obvious to me it the fact that a large majority are 18-19 years old. Given a mission, and a means to kill, there are very few of those young men that I served with that I would not trust with my life. Give them a gun and liberty, and sit back and wait, because most of them lack the maturity to make reasonable decisions on their own without some sort of leadership giving them direction. Somebody will end up doing something stupid, and there would be an uproar about why on earth we have thousands of young men and women running around with guns. Trust me, I have seen this many times before with liberties granted on other subjects. Give them enough slack, and just about any young service member will find a way to hang themselves.
Couple this with the fact that many of the youngsters that join the military do so not out of a devotion to the country, but as a way to escape the life they have created wherever it might be that they came from. It is not uncommon for someone to join the military simply with the intent to gain the training that is available to our soldiers. Some that are currently serving in our military arent even US citizens, and are serving their contract as a way to gain(earn) citizenship to this country.

Going all hands on deck to issue a weapon to every Fleet Marine, Army Soldier, Airmen or Seaman sounds good on the surface, but that is a knee jerk reaction that is no different than any one of the knee jerk reactions that this country makes after any other tragedy. Many of those same knee jerk reactions that many hear (most everyone, I believe) sees for what it is, and insist that we look at more closely to identify a reasonable, and effective way to solve a problem.

The military has protocol and procedure to lock things down, and ensure the safety of its bases in the very situation that happened at Ft Hood this week. The reasons that they do not always practice these methods is because the inconvenience that it does present anyone that has business being on any military installation. The greater good, and reasonable suspicion of threat are many things that our military leadership takes into consideration before making any decision (in theory anyways). Locking down a base, and posting armed guards on every corner of every building is always a possibility, but the inconvenience of that outweighs the perceived threat that the leadership sees.

I could go on all day, but I think it would be a waste of time and data. I think, for the most part, that we both agree that there needs to be change in the rules that allow our military to better defend themselves in these situations. The differences that I see seem to be more of a difference in perspective than a difference of ideals. I think that both of our energies and passion would be better served focusing on effecting change for those still in uniform, and not arguing over the details of the broad strokes that we can both agree on

Thanks for the response.

You're really starting to Blow my mind... So apparently, I've never served because you don't agree with my Posts and we have a Different Perspective on the Key Point I've been trying to make all along... mine being that Police (Military and Civilian) are not everyone's personal Body Guards and can't be everywhere at once... that we as Americans and even Human Beings, all have a Right to Defend ourselves, any where and anytime..... that Core issue, you are making clear, that not everyone should have that right, not everyone is Equal, that junior enlisted and younger troops just can't be trusted to protect themsevles, loved ones, and friends...

With your comment about "Going all hands on deck to issue a weapon to every Fleet Marine, Army Soldier, Airmen or Seaman sounds good on the surface, but that is a knee jerk reaction that is no different than any one of the knee jerk reactions that this country makes after any other tragedy"....

Please, point out where I ever called for that to become the standard and be enforced? When did I say: "Every single person in Uniform needs to have a Rifle on their Person at all Times, no exceptions." ?? Yet you and another poster have implied that that's the Idea I'm trying to convey.

So in short, you're flat out saying that I shouldn't be able to carry my Personally Owned Handgun Off Duty, On Base...plain and simply? You are saying, that what happened at Ft. Bliss is acceptable, because the MPs came, and did what they were trained to, and no Joe Soldier that was off duty with a Pistol in a Concealed Holster, who may of been in the immediate Vicinity of the Active Shooter, once it started, couldn't have done Anything that could've drastically altered the out come that day?

This is like trying to plead your same case, to the Citizens of Indiana on here. It is the same argument that the Anti-Gunners are employing... just call the Police when the Shooting starts because no one is Qualified but them to shoot back at someone who's killing innocent people. No need to save your own lives. Criminals can and will have guns and start randomly shooting people, and you are just supposed to Barricade yourself and Cower in Fear and wait for the SRT guys to show up.

You are aware that as soon as a Female MP confronted him with her Weapon drawn, he shot himself? So if the response time of the MPs were say even 2 minutes (unlikely they arrived on Scene that quickly), which during an Active shooter, seconds seem like minutes and minutes seem like days, that a Good Guy that was Off Duty and was within say 50 ft. when it started going down, wouldn't have changed a thing?


EDIT: as I go back and re-read our posts, you clearly have a Reading Comprehension Problem, or didn't care to read my Responses all the way through


.

 

[Muzzleloaderbill]

Done

 

[BigMoose]

Forget having them buy thier own. Issue out all those M9/M11s, and M1911A1s from the inventory to 1 in 10 folks on base..... problem solved.

Makes too much sense.....

 

[SSGSAD]

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. You do know that such would allow for the possibility of arming 17 year olds right? There are TONS of social and legal issues to consider.

There are 18 year old MP's, and they are ARMED, while on duty !!!!!

 

[SSGSAD]

Let's just get our soldiers back to carrying FIRST, then we can bicker and debate over CC / OC / JFC, eh?

You can blame Clinton for the prohibition.

I have got NEWS for ALL of YOU, I was AD, USMC, from 1977-1981, and we could NOT carry ANY kind of weapon on our persons, AT ALL ..... We all carried some kind of pocket knife ..... As much as I like to see clinton blamed, he shouldn't have to carry this burden .....

 

[Kutnupe14]

There are 18 year old MP's, and they are ARMED, while on duty !!!!!

No one questioning them being armed on-duty, it the "off-duty," that I believe the issue will lie.

 

[jon5212]

I fail to see the logic with any of this. We give them fully automatic rifles in the battlefield, yet when on base we can't trust them with a handgun? Completely asinine and ripe with government logic... which there is none.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I fail to see the logic with any of this. We give them fully automatic rifles in the battlefield, yet when on base we can't trust them with a handgun? Completely asinine and ripe with government logic... which there is none.

The logic is simple. The govt trusts....no encourages them to shoot NON-Americans, but doesn't trust them around other Americans. It also may have it's roots in the traditional belief that armed soldiers are a threat to the people. (Remember no legion was allowed in Rome)

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I fail to see the logic with any of this. We give them fully automatic rifles in the battlefield, yet when on base we can't trust them with a handgun? Completely asinine and ripe with government logic... which there is none.

The military views it as a numbers game. If you arm soldiers in garrison, a certain number will die from NDs. A certain number will be crippled by NDs and no longer be of use to the military. Not arming soldiers eliminates that, but leaves them vulnerable to active shooters. If the military thinks they lose more troops with option A, they will not allow option A.

Given how many soldiers die in peacetime training from NDs, its a fair point. It doesn't make the national news when it happens, but it happens. 70th Engineers lost two the first year I was at Ft. Riley, one dead and one with his hand amputated, due to a .50 cal ND.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The military views it as a numbers game. If you arm soldiers in garrison, a certain number will die from NDs. A certain number will be crippled by NDs and no longer be of use to the military. Not arming soldiers eliminates that, but leaves them vulnerable to active shooters. If the military thinks they lose more troops with option A, they will not allow option A.

Given how many soldiers die in peacetime training from NDs, its a fair point. It doesn't make the national news when it happens, but it happens. 70th Engineers lost two the first year I was at Ft. Riley, one dead and one with his hand amputated, due to a .50 cal ND.

One of my HS friends died from a ND while he was in the service.... hadn't been in a 6 months.

 

[mk2ja]

The military views it as a numbers game. If you arm soldiers in garrison, a certain number will die from NDs. A certain number will be crippled by NDs and no longer be of use to the military. Not arming soldiers eliminates that, but leaves them vulnerable to active shooters. If the military thinks they lose more troops with option A, they will not allow option A.

Given how many soldiers die in peacetime training from NDs, its a fair point. It doesn't make the national news when it happens, but it happens. 70th Engineers lost two the first year I was at Ft. Riley, one dead and one with his hand amputated, due to a .50 cal ND.

We lost a Marine this week at Camp Lejeune due to ND. He was a gate guard. Source.


I'll make a note that that Marine Corps has much stricter standards about when and where Marines can wear certain uniforms. If other services adopted similar policies, it could alleviate the concerns about servicemen going to bars or even stopping at Walmart on the way home in uniform and under arms.