7 killed at Ft Hood shooting

[cdc101]

I don't know how many times I needed to change into PT gear or get down and dirty.

If the armed forces are incapable of going for a run or digging a hole while armed, then the problem is worse that we've been discussing.

Please explain to me how I am going to run in my PT shorts, t-shirt and tennis shoe with my weapon. Have you ever been in a unit that tried it? Look at it from our typical CHL perspective: You have to figure out your wardrobe on a 24hour basis in order to carry concealed.
While running PT, where you going to secure your weapon? In the Armory! Hey, it is there already. Never mind.

Pfft...that's easy! I used to carry a Crossbreed Supertuck under my gray PT shorts...It was even easier to conceal in the winter with the full sweats!

Seriously though, I tend to lean to your side of thinking about carrying on post while on active duty stateside. MAYBE a little easier to digest if you're a sergeant (or corporal I guess) or above...or commissioned officer.

[57Coastie]

Chris says,

MAYBE a little easier to digest if you're a sergeant (or corporal I guess) or above...or commissioned officer.

Commissioned officer? Like Major Hasan?

Jim

[marksiwel]

I guess I'm gonna sound defensive, but here we go

I guess I cant understand why being in the military would give me an in site to why it would be okay to leave Thousands of people at Military Bases, known terrorist targets (Remember NJ?), defenseless. Not only people who are active military, but military families and civilians too.
I have a father who is a former Marine and Sister who is active an Airforce Pilot (and officer) who just back from Afghanistan who also dont get why military bases are left as such "Soft" targets for crazys and evil doers.

But I guess I never served in the military so what does my opinion count right?

[Purplehood]

I guess I'm gonna sound defensive, but here we go

I guess I cant understand why being in the military would give me an in site to why it would be okay to leave Thousands of people at Military Bases, known terrorist targets (Remember NJ?), defenseless. Not only people who are active military, but military families and civilians too.
I have a father who is a former Marine and Sister who is active an Airforce Pilot (and officer) who just back from Afghanistan who also dont get why military bases are left as such "Soft" targets for crazys and evil doers.

But I guess I never served in the military so what does my opinion count right?

All of our opinions "count". It is what we choose to do with someone else's opinion that may or may not make a difference. I have no problem with someone giving me a totally rational (in my mind) explanation of why things should be different and thereby convincing me to change my mind. It could even be a civilian!

[cdc101]

Chris says,

MAYBE a little easier to digest if you're a sergeant (or corporal I guess) or above...or commissioned officer.

Commissioned officer? Like Major Hasan?

Jim

You really going to go there?

[casingpoint]

Yesterday in Central Texas, President Obama paid homage to each deceased Ft. Hood soldier while placing a small, coin-like object from a bag near his waist on each memorial. Were they the Purple Heart?

If so, it conflicts directly with the DOD's published opinion Ft. Hood was not a terrorist attack due to the narrow window of qualification for the medal:

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/PH1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Criteria: a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force who, while serving with the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded;

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States;

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged;

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party;

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces;

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force;

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States[/b] or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the department concerned, or jointly by the Secretaries of the departments concerned if persons from more than one department are wounded in the attack; or,

(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations, while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

(8) After 7 December 1941, by weapon fire while directly engaged in armed conflict, regardless of the fire causing the wound.

(9) While held as a prisoner of war or while being taken captive.


And it they were not Purple Hearts Obama was presenting, then the subsequent tragedy of Ft. Hood is that thirteen U.S. soldiers killed and thirty wounded on the eve of this Veterans Day today are disrespected by their country for the misguided sake of political correctness and religious cowtowing.

[Keith B]

Yesterday in Central Texas, President Obama paid homage to each deceased Ft. Hood soldier while placing a small, coin-like object from a bag near his waist on each memorial. Were they the Purple Heart?

If so, it conflicts directly with the DOD's published opinion Ft. Hood was not a terrorist attack due to the narrow window of qualification for the medal:

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/PH1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Criteria: a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force who, while serving with the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded;

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States;

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged;

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party;

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces;

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force;

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States[/b] or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the department concerned, or jointly by the Secretaries of the departments concerned if persons from more than one department are wounded in the attack; or,

(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations, while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

(8) After 7 December 1941, by weapon fire while directly engaged in armed conflict, regardless of the fire causing the wound.

(9) While held as a prisoner of war or while being taken captive.


And it they were not Purple Hearts Obama was presenting, then the subsequent tragedy of Ft. Hood is that thirteen U.S. soldiers killed and thirty wounded on the eve of this Veterans Day today are disrespected by their country for the misguided sake of political correctness and religious cowtowing.

They were Commander in Chief 'Challenge' coins, not Purple Hearts. See http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/200 ... s-tribute/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mr surveyor]

what in the world is a "Challenge coin", and what is the significance of challenging anyone in uniform that has already sacrificed so much? I just don't understand all this symbolism and PC stuff that's been going on for the last 20 years or so.


surv

[57Coastie]

Chris says,

MAYBE a little easier to digest if you're a sergeant (or corporal I guess) or above...or commissioned officer.

Commissioned officer? Like Major Hasan?

Jim

You really going to go there?

Go where, Chris? I truly do not understand. I certainly meant no offense. I, possibly incorrectly, read your earlier comment as suggesting that commissioned officers might be better entrusted with carrying weapons on base, and I cited Major Hasan as evidence that that suggestion just might not be a valid assumption. If I have read you wrongly you have my abject apologies. I at a minimum was in error in jesting about an incident which was certainly not a joke.

As to the original subject, BTW, as a Coast Guard commissioned officer for more than 20 years I was a federal LEO and authorized by federal statute to carry a weapon on or off base, 24/7. On the other hand, in all those years I never knew of a Commanding Officer (including myself) permitting the carrying of weapons on his or her ship or base, except when required by his or her duty at the time.

With respect,

Jim

[Purplehood]

what in the world is a "Challenge coin", and what is the significance of challenging anyone in uniform that has already sacrificed so much? I just don't understand all this symbolism and PC stuff that's been going on for the last 20 years or so.


surv

Challenge coins are a big thing to collect in the Army (didn't see them much in the Marines). I would imagine the best you could get would be a Presidential one. They are totally unofficial.

[cdc101]

Chris says,

MAYBE a little easier to digest if you're a sergeant (or corporal I guess) or above...or commissioned officer.

Commissioned officer? Like Major Hasan?

Jim

You really going to go there?

Go where, Chris? I truly do not understand. I certainly meant no offense. I, possibly incorrectly, read your earlier comment as suggesting that commissioned officers might be better entrusted with carrying weapons on base, and I cited Major Hasan as evidence that that suggestion just might not be a valid assumption. If I have read you wrongly you have my abject apologies. I at a minimum was in error in jesting about an incident which was certainly not a joke.

As to the original subject, BTW, as a Coast Guard commissioned officer for more than 20 years I was a federal LEO and authorized by federal statute to carry a weapon on or off base, 24/7. On the other hand, in all those years I never knew of a Commanding Officer (including myself) permitting the carrying of weapons on his or her ship or base, except when required by his or her duty at the time.

With respect,

Jim

Jim,

It seemed (possibly incorrectly on my part) that you had just lumped all commissioned officers in the same group as The Traitor Jihadist, Nidal. I also included E4 Corporals in with the other NCO's in that same group.

I lived in the barracks as an E-4 and below for a few years in the Army (at Ft Hood no less in the 1/8 Cav as a Scout) back in the 90's, and I can tell ya...I wouldn't have felt safe knowing that some of those guys were carrying 24/7. It wasn't until I grew up some myself and became an NCO, that my whole outlook changed (okay, probably when I hit Spec 4). Maybe that's just me but it's my opinion.

[ammo two]

I am sure that there are Commanders at many levels assessing what happened at Ft Hood, and looking to make changes in an attempt to prevent it or something like it from happening again. We (the Amy) have always re-acted this way in the past, so I have no reason to believe that they aren't actively researching a solution. Having retired from the Army AND having had a CHL while on active duty, I can see both sides. As I see it there will continue to be sacrifices, particularly, in regards to the carrying of POWs by CHLs while on post.

I think their only viable solution for prevention is to arm certain individuals. Possibly allowing Cdr's, CSM's, 1SG's maybe even Platoon Sergeants/Leaders to carry their assigned weapon during the duty day while in Garrison AND they would also need to at least consider the MSG's and SGM's for the staff side.

OR continue to plus up (even further) the ever growing number of DoD Civilian Police on bases. This would be the more costly measure.

In regards to military CHL holders...not all leaders will qualify for a CHL, based upon one thing or another however some will. As a result, that could mean there are not enough CHL holders at assigned levels for there to be a uniform measure of security. Which leads me to believe that it would need to be their assigned weapon.

Just my thoughts. YMMV. IANAL.

[Purplehood]

I am sure that there are Commanders at many levels assessing what happened at Ft Hood, and looking to make changes in an attempt to prevent it or something like it from happening again. We (the Amy) have always re-acted this way in the past, so I have no reason to believe that they aren't actively researching a solution. Having retired from the Army AND having had a CHL while on active duty, I can see both sides. As I see it there will continue to be sacrifices, particularly, in regards to the carrying of POWs by CHLs while on post.

I think their only viable solution for prevention is to arm certain individuals. Possibly allowing Cdr's, CSM's, 1SG's maybe even Platoon Sergeants/Leaders to carry their assigned weapon during the duty day while in Garrison AND they would also need to at least consider the MSG's and SGM's for the staff side.

OR continue to plus up (even further) the ever growing number of DoD Civilian Police on bases. This would be the more costly measure.

In regards to military CHL holders...not all leaders will qualify for a CHL, based upon one thing or another however some will. As a result, that could mean there are not enough CHL holders at assigned levels for there to be a uniform measure of security. Which leads me to believe that it would need to be their assigned weapon.

Just my thoughts. YMMV. IANAL.

Good thoughts.

[A-R]

With all this talk on my mind about certain military personnel who really cannot be trusted with guns, except when training or facing the enemy, I ran across this quote today. Speaks VOLUMES ...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
George Washington

Now, I'm not saying you strap an M9 onto the hip of every 18-year-old private. Heck, they wouldn't qualify for a CHL, much less be capable of competently open carrying a loaded sidearm. But personnel of a proper age, maturity, discretion, and ability (to be determined by DOD) should be allowed to open carry a sidearm on post during their daily routine. Perhaps some should even be required to do so, but again I would leave that up to DOD to decide particular policy. And those with a CHL should be allowed to keep their personal firearms on base, secured (behind "double locks" and subject to inspection) in their residence or private vehicle at all times until off base.

Anyway, reading that quote from ol' George just really struck a chord with me.

[Purplehood]

With all this talk on my mind about certain military personnel who really cannot be trusted with guns, except when training or facing the enemy, I ran across this quote today. Speaks VOLUMES ...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
George Washington

Now, I'm not saying you strap an M9 onto the hip of every 18-year-old private. Heck, they wouldn't qualify for a CHL, much less be capable of competently open carrying a loaded sidearm. But personnel of a proper age, maturity, discretion, and ability (to be determined by DOD) should be allowed to open carry a sidearm on post during their daily routine. Perhaps some should even be required to do so, but again I would leave that up to DOD to decide particular policy. And those with a CHL should be allowed to keep their personal firearms on base, secured (behind "double locks" and subject to inspection) in their residence or private vehicle at all times until off base.

Anyway, reading that quote from ol' George just really struck a chord with me.

Many of those folks you describe live in the barracks and don't have POV's. Who are you going to appoint to do all this inspecting? Sorry, I will stop.