Let the service men and women carry guns

Pretty please. At this point it just seems like they are fish in a barrel. I understand the reasoning behind it but it is clearly the wrong path. If the brass has not noticed we are fighting wars with are hands tied. Be great again America You can do it.

reply to post by deadeyedick

The effort of such an undertaking is greater than the knee-jerk reaction thought process.

I understand where you're coming from, but having the military issue arms daily ... from an arms room is asking a lot.

Maybe they should lift the restrictions for service members to keep and bear their privately owned weapons and see where it goes from there. It would be easy to test this on a single installation and see if it causes problems or not.

reply to post by Snarl


So much for the term armed forces. It was a bit knee jerk but it is the same sentiments i had when they were taken away. There has to be some enlisted worthy to open carry at all times.

reply to post by Snarl


In many other countries the soldiers are armed 24/7 and take their weapons and ammo home with them. They ride on buses and trains with them. They take them to fast food places and the movies.

The problem is that the Government does not trust the Military types. That oath to the Constitution is one big stumbling block.

P

Let them eat, sleep, shower and have their rifle with them all the time 24/7/365. An unarmed solider is a liability.

reply to post by deadeyedick

There has to be some enlisted worthy to open carry at all times.

No doubt.

But, we're talking about the military here. Their uniform standards could screw up a wet dream.

Allowing NCOs and officers to open-carry privately owned weapons in a standard military issued holster might be a VERY good place to start.

You're not going to get every unit to open every arms room every day. The ROI for such an effort is in the tank.

reply to post by Bramble Iceshimmer


What i honestly see coming is a police vs miltary soon in this country. I do belive that this is the driving force behind alot of our new regulations.

reply to post by pheonix358

There are more than 400,000 soldiers on active duty, IIRC. If we went down that path, it would certainly change the appearance of America. :p

reply to post by Snarl


400,000 unarmed soldiers.

reply to post by deadeyedick

I understand the reasoning behind it but it is clearly the wrong path.

The reasoning behind it is simple. In theatre armed, out-- disarmed.

Do the words reprisal and fragging mean anything to this generation?

reply to post by intrptr


18 to 1 is a loss in any book. if you are gonna be in the game then suit up. The war seems to be at home now. Things have not always been this way. Everyone knows what enemies foreign and domestic means.

reply to post by deadeyedick

Things have not always been this way.

Don't I know it. How much do they expect the modern soldier to put up with? How many tours of duty?

What are the stats on 13 years of waring in Afghanistan? I couldn't imagine going three, four times and still staying sane.

intrptr
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

I understand the reasoning behind it but it is clearly the wrong path.

The reasoning behind it is simple. In theatre armed, out-- disarmed.

Do the words reprisal and fragging mean anything to this generation?

Then officers would learn to be polite, civilized and do what's best for the men and women serving under them.

As a retired vet, I kinda like the idea of having a military that doesn't need to be armed 24/7, albeit a pipe-dream of more peaceful times. If the US ever gets back to a decent nation, I would hope we would have a military only armed during conflict.

Another valid point to make is that all of the typical knee-jerk reactions the US enacts through laws and policies is clear proof the terrorists are winning. If anyone looks at the definition of terrorism (and each agency in the US has a different one), the general meaning is, "The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." (DoD version)

I hope everyone understands this. It is VERY important. While the terrorists would love to change the world in one event, THEY CAN'T DO IT - and they know that. Every new law, policy and conspiracy theory that has evolved since 9-11 is the EXACT thing the terrorist want. They have influenced and coerced us into a state of fear. We have, essentially, legitimized the terrorists through our own actions (recognized them as a legitimate institution).

Consider the following statement by Pres. Reagan, "America will never make concessions to terrorists -- to do so would only invite more terrorism."

This is because, when we negotiate with terrorists, we have effectively legitimized them. Think about when you see your kid get hurt and nobody is around to see it. He/she is immediately looking for attention and as soon as he/she gets it, the bawling begins (tough love often works wonders).

I realize the argument is tough, but the best way to beat terrorism is to recreate a world we desire to live in, rather than fear the world we live in. This takes an informed nation, comprised of citizens who are educated, empathetic, and with clear determination for a successful future. (Plato's Ship Analogy)

Getting off my soapbox....thoughts?

reply to post by Bramble Iceshimmer

Then officers would learn to be polite…

errm, its not an officers job to be polite… except to each other. They ignore enlisted men until its time to order them to die.

If they lead then fine, if they stay in the rear with the gear, that might breed contempt. if they get men killed due to incompetence… watch out.

Somebody else help me out here, I'm not a service man and never have been. I just read books.

Finland does okay with its huge number of firearms per capa

Sure, if guns are an issue you simply dont have enough!

intrptr
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

Things have not always been this way.

Don't I know it. How much do they expect the modern soldier to put up with? How many tours of duty?

What are the stats on 13 years of waring in Afghanistan? I couldn't imagine going three, four times and still staying sane.

To be honest i don't think my sanity could remain it tact the way it should. I praise everyone that hangs in there. Are we taking bets on religous affilations in this matter today?

reply to post by jrflipjr


Seems very well put and right on time

reply to post by Snarl


I like your idea of allowing them to carry their own private firearms. I think that would be the best route to take for a couple of reasons. Like you said, to test it out on one installation for starters, which is great. Also, people who take the effort to get licensed for concealed carry are likely to be responsible with their firearm.

I live on a military base, and I regularly see people that I would NOT want to be carrying a weapon at all times. But I also see many very responsible people who SHOULD be allowed to carry... in my opinion it is one of the rights that service members have more than earned.

reply to post by MojaveBurning

I live on a military base, and I regularly see people that I would NOT want to be carrying a weapon at all times.

This one sentence is the substance of the argument which needs to be addressed.

It doesn't matter what rank a person in uniform is wearing. Some of the greatest waste of human skin is covered by people who wear an officer's brass. It doesn't matter how hard the military tries, bad apples get through and manage to remain concealed for long periods of time. It's really stress that exposes their character.

As for me, the only person I completely trust with a firearm is myself. Anyone else carrying keeps me on my toes.

I work on a military installation every day. My personal preference is seeing those weapons locked up in the arms room where they belong.

But ... I'm willing to listen, as long as folks can be objective in weighing the options. There may be a better way and no one has given it the old college try yet.