Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
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.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.
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.DEB wrote: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.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.
...and STAY in the Armed Forces despite failing to meet or abide by standards.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...
What units did you serve in, what years, what locations to come to your conclusions?Texas Dan Mosby wrote:...and STAY in the Armed Forces despite failing to meet or abide by standards.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...
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.
Via P.M...What units did you serve in, what years, what locations to come to your conclusions?
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:Via P.M...What units did you serve in, what years, what locations to come to your conclusions?
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...Texas Dan Mosby wrote:...and STAY in the Armed Forces despite failing to meet or abide by standards.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...
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.
