-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Vote Poll: Should troops be armed on homeland bases?
- Thread starter Acujeff
- Start date
smokey-seven
NES Member
Cite the law please. That statement is obviously inaccurate since Security Personnel obviously carry. If Security can carry, the base commander could authorize anyone he wishes to carry. Just make them auxiliary security.
Actually, you can thank DoD directive 5210.56
On that topic, why was it ever decided that unless you were in the role of law enforcement or a security detail that you couldn't have a gun? Was there a series of mishaps on bases in the time frame in which this DoD directive was drafted?
To put things in perspective for allowing soldiers (outside of MP and security details) to carry a weapon on the base, think about this.
You are in a group of 20 soldiers. Your intention is to conduct a mass shooting. Now give the other 19 soldiers a firearm. What is the likelihood that you draw your weapon to carry out that mass shooting? Lets say that reason doesn't prevail and you do actually draw your weapon and manage to start shooting. The remaining armed soldiers in the group that are still combat effective will draw their weapons and neutralize the threat. This limits loss of life and injury significantly versus if you were unimpeded in your shooting.
[edit]
Reading a bit more of this, in the Procedures for Use of Deadly Force, Section F-4. "In the case of holstered weapons, a weapon should not be removed from the holster unless there is a reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary."
To that end, if you were to even draw your weapon from your holster it should prompt alert and suspicion from the other soldiers in your group, which would hasten their reaction time to a potential mass shooting, which in theory could neutralize a potential threat quicker, and without death or injury.
Now explain to me again why we aren't allowing the soldiers we are ok with sending off to other countries with guns the ability to carry them on their home soil?
As stated above for DoD directive 5210.56, it allows only for those in a law enforcement role or a security detail to carry a weapon. Army Regulation 190-14 seems to reiterate most of DoD directive 5210.56. In chapter 2 section 1, 2-1b, there is an allowance for personnel to carry a firearm for personal protection which is approved on a case-by-case basis.
Last edited:
I don't have a clear answer for this. If I have to answer this with a simple yes or no then I will answer yes. I was a US Army MP for 8 years. I was one of the few on both of my duty stations that allowed me to have a CWP (duty weapon) on the post. I think that certain soldiers should have a right to carry a weapon for protection, but that should be handles on a case by case basis. I think certain MOS (jobs) it should not be a issue. I think rank and age should be a issue also. Yes, I know these kids are asked to pick up a rifle and defend this nation, but not all are ready for the responsibility without structure! That structure is provided by the NCO corp. I guess I view it like giving any of you the power to enact the laws of your state and you saying everyone in your state can carry a firearm (felon or not). Would you feel comfortable with that blanket statement? With soldiers, yes they all have access to firearms, just more than others. The training they get on those firearms varies also. I think the best answer (IMO) is for each unit to have a "safty officer" who is a NCO or officer who provides that armed guard. It sounds to me like Ft Hood and the 89th MP company got a lucky break having a MP close to the shooting. I know they have to come up with a better answer than what they are doing now!!!
Enzo
NES Member
Here's the O'Reily video from last night. If you forward to 2:30 you get what Ret Lt Col Peters said.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html
MP-In-The-Wind
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,657
- Likes
- 687
Voted. Indeed...carry into war...can't carry on US soil?!?
Including US military personnel who are not US citizens.
meh
Then put armed military police in every building at check points by every door. Personally I think allowing individual concealed carry is a much better option.
Last edited:
In a way soldiers are no different from us. Even when you are fully trained, checked, approved and licensed, it is expected of you to shelter in place and wait for somebody else to handle the problem.
My statement is obviously inaccurate or you obviously aren't aware of the law?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
and the DOD directive:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf
Yes, of course law enforcement and those who's job authorizes the carrying of firearms to do their job can carry firearms. But no, most people cannot, by law, carry a firearm. And no, the base commander cannot authorize anyone he wishes. Well, he can, in violation of law I suppose.
Like with any workplace, yes. Especially where this is the second time this has happened, it shouldn't even be debated --- if a SOLDIER can't be safe on a military installation, where can he or she be safe?
I get it, they have to follow orders, but if this has proven anything, violence happens. ANYWHERE IT WANTS.
I get it, they have to follow orders, but if this has proven anything, violence happens. ANYWHERE IT WANTS.
chindogg
NES Member
Are we as a nation so lazy and stupid to think that a military base would be a target. I understand that our air space is well defended but 9/11 happened right? So a base with trained soldiers guarding military planes, tanks etc. should be left to the protection of unarmed soldiers ? Lets see how that would fly in a country with a country that actually cared about its self interests. Let me think, Ya like Russia. Sorry to be sarcastic. I'm really having a hard time believing all this crap (beyond this one topic) is out of stupidity and not ulterior motives.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,632
- Likes
- 2,422
When on duty I think it should be command discretion, when off duty CC should be permitted.
As far as individuals being armed... its always been practice since Ive been in that an NCO has a safety magazine (we all have rifles drawn out during any field op) or an M9. In some instances this is even required.
That said, like civilians, some people in the military are not safe to have around firearms... in the civilian world, most of these people never get involved with them, on the mil side of the fence guns are a big thing. I can understand comman resistance, but I dont support it.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
As far as individuals being armed... its always been practice since Ive been in that an NCO has a safety magazine (we all have rifles drawn out during any field op) or an M9. In some instances this is even required.
That said, like civilians, some people in the military are not safe to have around firearms... in the civilian world, most of these people never get involved with them, on the mil side of the fence guns are a big thing. I can understand comman resistance, but I dont support it.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
ochmude
Marine Veteran
There's something I've always wondered about, and perhaps some of my fellow Marines (or anyone else familiar with the history) might know the answer. When did "under arms" stop meaning literally being armed? We all have been there standing barracks duty, and we were taught that we wore our cover at all times because the duty belt represented that we were "under arms." I asked my first sergeant about it, once, and he said that at some point in the past Marines who were standing barracks duty actually were armed, hence the pistol belt, but he had no clue how long ago that was or when it stopped. Anyone have a clue?
The difference is that at most of your jobs, if you get caught with the gun the worst they do is fire you. At our jobs, if we get caught we get court-martialed and get permanently disqualified from ever handling firearms again.
I think that just as there are proposals for certain school teachers to be trained and then authorized by their employer to carry in an otherwise "gun free" zone, it would make sense to have a similar program for selected officers and NCOs on military bases. The current policy is not acceptable. Oh, here is one of the current policies at Fort Hood:
**PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS- If you are in possession of a Privately Owned Weapon you MUST stop at the Fort Hood Visitor Center BLDG 69012 prior to entering the installation to register your firearm (s). NO EXCEPTIONS !!!!!
**PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS- If you are in possession of a Privately Owned Weapon you MUST stop at the Fort Hood Visitor Center BLDG 69012 prior to entering the installation to register your firearm (s). NO EXCEPTIONS !!!!!
kevin9
NES Member
Much as it pains me to pass up a chance to bash Billy-Boy, the banning of personal firearms on military bases goes back to at least the waning days of Bush 1 (DoD Directive 5210.56) and possibly as far back as Nixon ('69) in some form.
source: FORT HOOD FALLOUT: The Ban On Military Personnel Carrying Weapons On Duty Isn’t New… And It Isn’t Right
Artie
NES Member
Marine guard shoots, kills another guard at Camp Lejeune
I am hoping this turns out to be an accident. Wont help with the argument to arm troops on base.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...oots-colleague-camp-lejeune-article-1.1750109
View attachment 99993
I am hoping this turns out to be an accident. Wont help with the argument to arm troops on base.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...oots-colleague-camp-lejeune-article-1.1750109
View attachment 99993
Last edited:
I'm currently a Marine, and although I trust most of my brothers and sisters with my life...there is probably a good 5% that I don't trust with a weapon...period! you'll see a LOT more ND's and 'Accidental deaths' than you've ever seen murder and/or massacres like the examples at Ft. Hood.
so...should we ALL be armed on military bases...I say a strong NO! leave it for the MP's and camp guards to carry the iron.
so...should we ALL be armed on military bases...I say a strong NO! leave it for the MP's and camp guards to carry the iron.
I would agree with this statement. Should they all be armed? I say no as well. Should more proven people be armed on base as a deterrence and show of force? Absolutely.
I mean you go to each building and say we need a certain number of personal that work here on a regular bases to volunteer to be armed response for this building. They know the building layout and would be the best person to help secure it. Depending on MOS give them remedial quarterly qualifications with side arms and training to incident respond.
