TexasCHLforum.com

Jim Beaux wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Only in America does the military have to call police to come protect them because they are not allowed to carry guns.

Ive read a few comments on this thread and some are essentially stating that "rules are rules" & if "you break them, you should be prepared to face the consequences".

How about you dismissive posters tell us what our military should do when they have to contend with those who respect no rules? What do you suggest? Sacrifice cuz rules are rules?

Check this out.

FBI: Middle Eastern Men Intimidating U.S. Military Families In Colorado & Wyoming

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/08/04/f ... o-wyoming/

I am in a violent rage just reading this. These slimy reptiles have no place on earth.

teraph wrote:

Taypo wrote:

teraph wrote:Not quite. Ideally I tend to deal with what comes over the signals. In reality I turn wrenches, set up satellite dishes, pitch tents and just about everything but my job. Last AIT post I was at (Fort Sam) there were some ridiculous regulations about non AIT personnel not being allowed to correct AITers, even for flagrant uniform issues. I hope that is not the case at Gordon.

You and I may have background in common. I spent some time in Monterey and San Angelo to get started.

I think we do. I went straight to San Angelo though. I have spent a lot of time working with people from Monterey, teaching each other about what we do. I love my job, when I get to work it.

teraph wrote:Not quite. Ideally I tend to deal with what comes over the signals. In reality I turn wrenches, set up satellite dishes, pitch tents and just about everything but my job. Last AIT post I was at (Fort Sam) there were some ridiculous regulations about non AIT personnel not being allowed to correct AITers, even for flagrant uniform issues. I hope that is not the case at Gordon.

teraph wrote:Taypo,

I think you may be right about us just butting heads, and the way the Army seems to be going. It is rough going right now, but I think parts are getting better. Slowly and painfully though.
I wish I could take you up on that drink, but I am actually on my way to Gordon right now. Thank you anyways.

E. Marquez,
I did not realize that you retired. Thank you for the time you have given the Army. And you are right. If you willingly violated policy, then you should be willing to face the consequences. I know quite a few that are willing to do that. And have been there myself, a couple of times. I do wish the LtCDR the best of luck on whatever the Navy decides.

teraph wrote:Taypo,

Every single Service Member goes through firearms training, except for Chaplains (but some of those guys can really shoot). It does not matter the branch of service. Some get more than others (Marines, combat arms etc) and some get less (Air Force, Research Officers). They all have proven their competency with firearms.

What I think you are trying to get at, is that you think that they are going to become a liability to anything firearm related. With that being said, how about those states that do not require proof of training (WA, PA), or those that allow unlicensed open or concealed carry (AZ, AK, WA (open) etc)? Many of those people in those states have far less training than a slick sleeve Airman, with less common sense than that 18 year old Infantryman. And they carry!
Or, better yet, how about the stories of cops and Feds that incurred a case of Glock Leg, or those NYPD cops that shot 16 rounds, and hit 9 bystanders? (Links below) They have had extensive pistol training and they are also armed professionals. What is the difference though?
The difference is that we are trained to "support and defend" through superior firepower. And we are the disArmed Forces of the United States of America when it comes to any form of terrorist attack on our own soil. Before Chattanooga, there have been many other attempts at attacking military installations. Fort Dix NJ, Fort Hood TX, Fort Bliss TX and Norfolk VA all have had terrorists attempt an attack and 2 of them succeeded. These are just the attacks off of the top of my head. I was nearby at one of these. It was not pretty and I know I am not alone when it comes to pushing some boundaries to ensure the safety of those around me.
If you are allowed to carry in your home, your neighborhood, your place of work, your grocery store, and your "big box store", why are we not? Especially when it has been proven many times over that we (the Military) are (relatively) soft targets for any form of attack? Yes, we may have armed guards at the gates. Would you still carry in a community where you had controlled access and armed cops minding the gates? And the response time on many installations is comparable to the times off post. And this does not even cover recruiting stations, National Guard Depots or any other place that is not a major installation. ALL of which have far less security than post does. I do not just want the military to carry, I would like some form of National Reciprocity, but there are times where we (as a firearms community) must take that small step before we can take the big one. I will personally be ecstatic if I am allowed to lawfully defend myself and my family next time an attack happens. Not if, but when.

As a side not, to me it sounds like you are being an elitist about Texas, and have some misconceptions. If I have misinterpreted, please enlighten us.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/empire-state-b ... d=17078377
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ufT_6Kgy0 (DEA Glock Leg)

P.S. We get and give use of force, laws and regulations about firearms (open and concealed, civilian and military) very 6 months or so. And I am not SF, MP or any other MOS that gets to carry concealed daily. And allowing us to carry will actually be cheaper (lives and $) when the next event occurs and everyone is reacting .

jmra wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

Like the recruiter who recently shot himself in the leg while illegally carrying? We aren't talking SEAL Team 6 here.

Jim Beaux wrote:

Taypo wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

#1: How many serving members of the military have ANY pistol exposure? Now, take your answer and subtract the MP's, the officers, the MI guys and the SF guys. I'll gladly stand behind putting armed guards on entrances of any federal/state/military installation, but allowing the rank and file to carry concealed is asking for trouble. In this instance, its an officer we're discussing so he, at minimum, had M9 exposure.

#2. Your comparison to a teacher not talking is also moot - that's part of the job description, or mission. A recruiter doesn't need a weapon to fulfill the mission.

We're rapidly approaching the point where we need to follow the Israeli model of troops behind armed all the time, but until that changes the law is what it is.

You havent provided anything but baseless rhetoric. There is no sense in engaging you. Have a good day.

Jim Beaux wrote:

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

jmra wrote:So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.