TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:It could be more a sign of the times. I might speculate that, on average, the young recruits today and for the past 30 years have less experience with firearms than the average recruit of 100 or 70 years ago. Or it could be that our government has less trust in our military, but I'm not sure how that would play into this since I haven't heard anything about the civilian leaders making any of these policies.

I'm not saying they make the policy. I'm saying they set a tone, and all the generals on down conform to that tone because it enhances their career arcs......same as in any other corporate culture.

MeMelYup wrote:I agree with you Tam, them consider what happened at FT Hood.

Without a doubt. If there had been some armed soldiers immediately nearby, perhaps Nidal might not have been able to get off as many shots as he did. OTH, most of his shooting took place within the confines of a building in which most soldiers would probably not have been armed anyway, didn't it? Or maybe I'm not recalling correctly. But I agree that tight regulations against armed soldiers are largely unnecessary.

Here's what Col. Jeff Cooper had to say about the rifle (Jeff Cooper. To Ride, Shoot Straight, And Speak The Truth (pp. 172-173). Kindle Edition.):

The rifle is the queen of weapons - "the brother of Allah" - and it does more things well than any other smallarm. The skilled rifleman can strike a decisive blow, in a very short time, at any distance at which he can clearly make out his adversary. There are all sorts of rifle types, but the one we speak of here takes a full-sized military cartridge such as the 30-06 US, the 7.92 German, the 303 British, or the 7.5 Swiss. In the hands of a skilled operator the battle rifle is a formidable instrument -far more so than is generally realized in an age where most casualties are inflicted by high explosive. It can kill a man, or a horse, or wreck an automobile, with one round, at distances of half a mile or more, and when used in massed area fire it can be effective at two miles. At the other end of the scale, it can be used with split-second precision in close combat.

The rifle is a very personal arm, or it should be. It is not at its best when kept in racks and handed out indiscriminately to troops as they may need it, but rather issued to one man and made his personal responsibility for the duration of his assignment. It is thus something of an elite weapon, since only troops who can be trusted may be issued rifles and allowed to maintain them personally. If you are not sure of the reliability, loyalty or trustworthiness of your troops you had better not give them rifles.

Unfortunately, his words may say something about how our military as an institution tends to regard its service personnel—as not entirely to be trusted, which is of course, not true for them anymore than it is for the citizen. This institutional bias is further commented upon by Susanna Gratia Hupp, who famously said:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

The military is, of course, directed by the government, and policy flows from the top down.....so even though it may be the local commander's discretion at the post-level, it is not surprising that many of them, most probably, reflect that institutional bias.

And I'm not trying to take a swat an anybody's beloved Army/Marine Corps/Etc., I'm just commenting on where I thing these biases come from.

bronco78 wrote:That is just a local commander setting policy for his men.. you can find a few Army units that do the same thing.. Why, I'll never know... I hear the reasons but do not agree or subscribe to them.

There are three general carry conditions... Red- Magazine loaded, round chambered. Yellow, Magazine loaded, no round chambered, GREEN- Weapon cleared, magazine available. I say general as these conditions of carry status are not law, not regulation, but policy...though in the Army, they are the most common and standard I've seen of any policy.. 27 years, it's been the same deal from Germany as privet, to my last deployment in Afghanistan.

As for being in condition Green on a post, that just depends... even on Bagram airfield, the standard was Amber, with select people chosen to carry red to guard against the insider threat.. at are other smaller bases, camps, it was a 90/10 mix of Red / Amber. There were no US ARMY controlled locations that were directed or locally required to be at condition GREEN, weapon cleared, no magazine. Though Im sure some company or battalion commander did do that... there is no accounting for ignorant, unfounded, or otherwise tactical errors.

I don't know if this applies or not to this conversation, but I just saw something on TV yesterday tangentially related to this. It was an episode of one of those shows like "Mega-Movers" or something, and it was about how meals are prepared for large numbers of people at one time, typically in an institutional setting. One of the scenes was the feeding of 1,000 hungry marines at the conclusion of a training exercise. It was desert, so it could have as easily been 29 Palms as Afghanistan.....I don't recall that location was mentioned. Anyway, all the rifles/carbines carried by the marines had a magazine inserted upon arrival at the mess hall. Each marine had to point the muzzle of his weapon into a hole in a safety box, remove the magazine, clear the weapon, and fire the trigger into the box to make sure of an empty chamber before being permitted with his weapon into the mess hall. So the lesson I drew from this was that these guys were walking around with at least a loaded magazine inserted into their weapons, whether or not there was a round in the chamber.......and that was on a training exercise.

I would have to assume that most ground pounders, be they marines or soldiers or otherwise, are trained to a certain level of proficiency with their firearms, and there there is generally no reason to restrict whether or not they are permitted to carry a loaded weapon around on post. On the other hand, I also recall that, while serving with the 101st Airborne, General David Petraeus was shot in the chest by one of his troopers during a live fire training exercise (source, it is worth noting that "he was operated on by future U.S. Senator Bill Frist. The hospital released him early after he did fifty push ups without resting, just a few days after the accident" ). I've also read any number of times over the years that we have had troops overseas in various theaters of operations in the WOT of soldiers/marines being injured or killed by negligent discharges—either their own or someone else's.

So although I might agree with bronco78's opinion in the matter, I do understand the institutional mindset of officers who implement these policies. It may be misguided, but on the other hand, they just don't want anybody to be hurt unnecessarily. It is hard for me to get too angry about that.

74novaman wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Did they put it inside a Stryker vehicle and then drive the Stryker over an IED composed of 4 daisy-chained 155mm Howitzer projectiles?

No, but I'm pretty sure they at least blew it up.

Well, after what I saw Mythbusters do to a cement truck (one of the best explosions ever in the history of explosions), I don't doubt they did exactly that.

[youtube][/youtube]

If the weapon had been inside that cement truck, it would have been vaporized before anything could happen.

74novaman wrote:

philip964 wrote:

threoh8 wrote: As far as loaded weapons in a vehicle: If you take a hit heavy enough to set off weapons inside the vehicle, you have more to worry about than pistol rounds. Military vehicles in combat zones are full of hard spots, sharp edges, and assorted loose gear.

Knowing nothing about the subject, this would seem to be absolutely correct.

Wasn't there a mythbusters where they did a bunch of stuff to a loaded SKS and couldn't get it to go off without pulling the trigger?

Did they put it inside a Stryker vehicle and then drive the Stryker over an IED composed of 4 daisy-chained 155mm Howitzer projectiles?