TexasCHLforum.com

It's long past time to end "gun free" policies on U.S. military bases

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7930

Hummm, What do you think...

I would be really surprise if ANY government agency would ever allow weapons on any site, they need to extend the parking lot policy to government agency ..

Its sad, you work for the government, and you can not protect yourself to and from work..

BAT

Its hard to wrap your mind around the fact that an organization whose purpose is to fight with weapons is not allowed to have weapons??? How does that work? answer=not too good.

Either you trust them or you don't. Obviously, the top brass doesn't.

Not to divert the thread too much but, the 'no concealed carry even with a license at a gun show' rule follows the same faulty logic as the military.

When people deploy to the sandbox they typically have a loaded weapon with 3 inches of them at all times.

But at home...not.

Not sure how this makes sense.

It's also frustrating that as a CHL holder and a member of the Army National Guard, the 30.06 sign is posted at the vehicle main entrance to JRB Fort Worth which means I have to leave my weapon at home because I can't have it in my vehicle once I enter the base.

No big deal to carry a loaded M4, but god forbid you have a concealed Glock on you, too (or in your car in the parking lot).

They are trained and we trust them to effectivly use the weapons on the battlefield but the goverment does not trust them in thier own forts. I've always found this policy disturbing. I was not fully awate of this until the Fort Hood incident and found it scary that our soldiers are not allowed to carry.
As always gun free zones were a invitation for a coward to do the most harm that he could.

I was watching "WWII in Color" last night (can't remember if it was on the Military Channel of History International - I switch between them and watch two at a time quite often) and one episode about Iwo Jima had some pretty initeresting parallels to this thread subject. It seems that towards the end of the major hostilities, and the island had been declared "Jap free" by the top brass, all personele (unless on active guard duty) had been required to turn in their ammunition. Due to being practically unarmed, we lost another 50+ guys to a band of Japanese that had been hunkered down waiting for their last chance to do some damage and die for their emperor. My only guess is that in cases such as this is that the greater fear is the possibility of quite a few battle fatigued guys snapping and shooting imaginary enemy attackers.

I don't really see the practicality in allowing every uniform on the base carrying live firearms, but do think there should be many, many more armed personele. Maybe the military needs to come up with their own version of "chl".

I understand completely why the Brass restrict firearms for Active Duty personnel on Military Bases. It is simply a result of the quality of people that the same brass allow to enter the Armed Forces with various waivers for crimes, drugs, drinking and so on.
They simply don't want to hand guns to the people that they allow to be enlisted. Overseas it is fine. The only people that they can hurt are Service members and locals. Here in the states they might shoot an officer's dependents. We couldn't have that.

Purplehood wrote:I understand completely why the Brass restrict firearms for Active Duty personnel on Military Bases. It is simply a result of the quality of people that the same brass allow to enter the Armed Forces with various waivers for crimes, drugs, drinking and so on.
They simply don't want to hand guns to the people that they allow to be enlisted. Overseas it is fine. The only people that they can hurt are Service members and locals. Here in the states they might shoot an officer's dependents. We couldn't have that.

I understand what you are saying and there are many that appear less than capable, some probably wouldn't even pass the background check. But, with that said many of these soldiers have CCW, they can and do carry off the installation, what exactly is the difference, other than one is controlled by the Federal Government? I know that I am preaching to the choir as it were, I read your post with tongue in cheek as I am sure it was intended. But an idea could be to allow senior personnel to carry their assigned side arms, especially at mass gatherings? We have all of these weapons assigned to trained individuals and still must wait for L.E. to show in case of an emergency. I would hate to be shot while knowing that probably within walkin distance I maybe could have effected a difference, my hat is off to all of you who serve. My major complaint is that all of us fully vetted, CCW civilian workers/retired personnel are fully disarmed when we come on post either for our job or to conduct other business, P.X. Commissary and such. At least the soldiers can be armed in case of emergencies, probably won't be but they have the ability to be, while I would have to hunker down and place my life in the hands of those same soldiers/commanders.

DEB wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I understand completely why the Brass restrict firearms for Active Duty personnel on Military Bases. It is simply a result of the quality of people that the same brass allow to enter the Armed Forces with various waivers for crimes, drugs, drinking and so on.
They simply don't want to hand guns to the people that they allow to be enlisted. Overseas it is fine. The only people that they can hurt are Service members and locals. Here in the states they might shoot an officer's dependents. We couldn't have that.

I understand what you are saying and there are many that appear less than capable, some probably wouldn't even pass the background check. But, with that said many of these soldiers have CCW, they can and do carry off the installation, what exactly is the difference, other than one is controlled by the Federal Government? I know that I am preaching to the choir as it were, I read your post with tongue in cheek as I am sure it was intended. But an idea could be to allow senior personnel to carry their assigned side arms, especially at mass gatherings? We have all of these weapons assigned to trained individuals and still must wait for L.E. to show in case of an emergency. I would hate to be shot while knowing that probably within walkin distance I maybe could have effected a difference, my hat is off to all of you who serve. My major complaint is that all of us fully vetted, CCW civilian workers/retired personnel are fully disarmed when we come on post either for our job or to conduct other business, P.X. Commissary and such. At least the soldiers can be armed in case of emergencies, probably won't be but they have the ability to be, while I would have to hunker down and place my life in the hands of those same soldiers/commanders.

Yes, my post was tongue-in-cheek, but I have to admit something.

I grew up as a Military Dependent and then spent another 24 years in the Military (Active/Reserved/Mobilized, etc.). I spent that entire time never wondering about the apparent incongruency (I hope that is a word) between being a member of the Armed Forces being trained in weapons, but not being allowed to carry ANY civilian or military weapons except in very controlled circumstances. As a result, my gut-reaction is to agree with the status quo.
But when I think about it, I realize that only in the last few years have I even developed any sort of awareness of the Second Amendment and what our rights actually mean. Now that I am a convert that believes that we all should indeed be allowed to carry on-base, I see that converting the masses (both civilian and military) is going to be a hard-row to hoe.

I understand completely why the Brass restrict firearms for Active Duty personnel on Military Bases. It is simply a result of the quality of people that the same brass allow to enter the Armed Forces...

...and STAY in the Armed Forces despite failing to meet or abide by standards.

Sadly, our armed forces are filled with "commanders" at the higher levels, but very few LEADERS. LEADERS are undesirable in our military because they don't "toe the line" in support of poor policy or decisions, unlike "commanders" who would seemingly sell out their soul to advance their "career". ANY idiot can be designated as a "commander", and they often are, (look at our current POTUS as an example), but it takes something else to be a LEADER.

An individual intent on unlawfully using a firearm for violence is not impacted by laws, regardless of whether the individual is in the military or not. The same "blood in the streets" excuse used by some citizens is used to justify military commanders' ridiculous anti-firearm policies.

It won't change.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

I understand completely why the Brass restrict firearms for Active Duty personnel on Military Bases. It is simply a result of the quality of people that the same brass allow to enter the Armed Forces...

...and STAY in the Armed Forces despite failing to meet or abide by standards.

Sadly, our armed forces are filled with "commanders" at the higher levels, but very few LEADERS. LEADERS are undesirable in our military because they don't "toe the line" in support of poor policy or decisions, unlike "commanders" who would seemingly sell out their soul to advance their "career". ANY idiot can be designated as a "commander", and they often are, (look at our current POTUS as an example), but it takes something else to be a LEADER.

An individual intent on unlawfully using a firearm for violence is not impacted by laws, regardless of whether the individual is in the military or not. The same "blood in the streets" excuse used by some citizens is used to justify military commanders' ridiculous anti-firearm policies.

It won't change.

What units did you serve in, what years, what locations to come to your conclusions?

Funny, in a supposedly pro 2A forum, so many have the same ideas as the Brady anti Gun bunch.. Kind a sad really. oh well there are other forums.

What units did you serve in, what years, what locations to come to your conclusions?

Via P.M...

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

What units did you serve in, what years, what locations to come to your conclusions?

Via P.M...

Thanks, like another user met here,that served,, I believe what ya have to say, just different then what I lucked into.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

I understand completely why the Brass restrict firearms for Active Duty personnel on Military Bases. It is simply a result of the quality of people that the same brass allow to enter the Armed Forces...

...and STAY in the Armed Forces despite failing to meet or abide by standards.

Sadly, our armed forces are filled with "commanders" at the higher levels, but very few LEADERS. LEADERS are undesirable in our military because they don't "toe the line" in support of poor policy or decisions, unlike "commanders" who would seemingly sell out their soul to advance their "career". ANY idiot can be designated as a "commander", and they often are, (look at our current POTUS as an example), but it takes something else to be a LEADER.

An individual intent on unlawfully using a firearm for violence is not impacted by laws, regardless of whether the individual is in the military or not. The same "blood in the streets" excuse used by some citizens is used to justify military commanders' ridiculous anti-firearm policies.

It won't change.

Sir, there is something to what you say, for certain. I'll just come out and say that I served for 20 years as an aircraft mechanic in the USAF and "retired" last year as an E-7 (senior NCO). Some folks on here may have read that before. My career didn't put me in the same sort of danger that a lot of folks in the Army and Marines have been through. But, I have personally seen many instances where "the brass" was most assuredly more concerned with what would be said to them at a meeting with their higher-ups than they were in supporting their unit personnel. I read a couple of books by a fairly famous gunsmith who talked about the troops not being allowed to have loaded weapons on installations because how would they ever explain an accident that occurred on their watch? Their careers would be nixed, or suffer a setback, and for some (not all, I did have some good commanders over the years) they would never make it to that cushy job at the Pentagon as a full-bird colonel, with a captain scheduling their golf games and bringing them lattes. It pains me to say this, but when I read those books (and what TDM said), it really seemed to be the way it is in many cases. Very sad to say that...