It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let the service men and women carry guns

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 


Are we talking on or off base?

Off base makes more sense than on base, considering you have to go through an armed garrison to get on base int he first place.

Just general purpose firearms license?




posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I had a commander years ago at DMAFB, very bright guy... he and I had a discussion about this very issue 7 or 8 years ago. Davis Monthan sits near some seedy areas; the only time I ever felt "exposed" was while driving to and from work. I lived off base, and couldn't take a gun on base. It isn't permitted. Beyond that, you have the Fort Hood shootings... the AF had a shooting spree at Fairchild AFB some years back... it happens. The sad thing is that, in each instance the gunmen were completely surrounded by men and women with extensive training in shooting bad guys. That training could have saved dozens of lives had they the right to carry a weapon. He and I both agreed that there is no sane reason to deny NCOs and Officers from carrying a loaded, holstered handgun in uniform. (There was a time when those were issued to Officers and NCOs...) No idiot in their right mind would ever ideate a scenario, where they could shoot a lot of people without being dispatched pretty quickly. Military bases would be damned near the safest places on the planet to live.

The government of this country asks our military, and trusts them, to carry out whatever goofyness they come up with. They could at least reciprocate a little of that trust ...



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Perhaps we could just print more fake money and hire privite contractors to stand watch. I do believe our leaders to be inert at this point. When one looks at the recent track record it paints a pansy ass picture. No doubt the specialist have their stuff together but the majority are spayed and nutered house pets. I am not talking about abilities or strength but strength of mind. There seems to be a giant gap between the elite trained and the rest as never been before. At least that way we can all say that we still have the best trained even though the majority fall short of what we started in yr2000 with.
edit on 2-4-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


hey its worked out for the past 60 years, why not!



If you borrow from the bank but the bank has no authority, you can just default on the loan, the Chinese were fools to lend that much, do they really expect to get that 'money'? (well not money, credit value, gold etc)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madmac5150
 


I see your point and would argue the same, given the previous generation's ideals, mores and values.

Today, the "kids" entering the military DO NOT have any concept of a larger purpose. The focus is on them (iPhone, iPad, MySpace, et al.).

Now, consider the effects of combat (particularly extended combat) and the responsibilities of maintaining a weapon. The current solution to many issues is solved quickly by knee-jerk reactions and self-serving actions (consider road rage - particularly in the hot environment of DMAFB)

While you argue the Ft. Hood and the Fairchild shooting sprees, I think two incidents are considerably LESS than what would happen if you allowed the current generation to maintain weapons. I sincerely believe there would be MANY more shootings (@ _____ Army Base)

At the end of the day, think about it. In a world where everyone has a voice, there is no need to express yourself.

In today's world the government (read media) has the final say due to citizen ignorance, which is why people are reaching out to "take care of business".

There is a time and a place...let's not forget that!



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Biigs
reply to post by Snarl
 


Are we talking on or off base?

Off base makes more sense than on base, considering you have to go through an armed garrison to get on base int he first place.

Just general purpose firearms license?

I would say either or. The problem with all the perimeter defense is that it instills a false sense of security. The military is one of those rare professions which could 'justify' issuing a permit to carry. It's not like they don't know their staff all that well (except the clandestine ones). If you let 'leaders' make the call, they could readily issue a Federal permit (like the one I carry now) and the surface problem would be solved.
edit on 242014 by Snarl because: Autocorrect



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jrflipjr
 


Yes, I see your point about the "me" generation and letting them carry a weapon on a military installation. That is why the Colonel and I discussed letting NCOs and Officers carry a handgun. IN MY EXPERIENCE, (20+ years Air Force... so I speak not for the other branches) by the time an Airman achieves NCO status (Staff Sergeant for USAF) we generally know that Airman. If a young Airman is going to have difficulties adjusting to military life, we would typically see that Airman either do “4 and out”; or he/she would typically be discharged before that 4 year mark.

The way that he and I thought that it could be implemented was straightforward and no-nonsense. Every NCO and Officer would be permitted to carry provided that:

1. Every NCO and Officer would be mandated to take a course in firearms safety, marksmanship, and the legal and moral justification for the use of deadly force (this course would be tailored at each base to reflect state and local laws that may apply.)

2. Any NCO/Officer that wishes to carry his/her weapon on base would be required to carry a card stating that the training requirements had been met, and that the NCO/Officer is in good standing.

3. Revocation/suspension of the permit to carry would follow the same rules (for the most part) that we use for revocation/suspension of security clearances. This insures that the Commander, First Sergeant, Security Officer and base Security Forces are all “in the loop” as to an individual's status. (We typically suspend/revoke clearances for the same reasons you might want to suspend/revoke a carry permit- criminal activity, positive urinalysis tests, etc. We would have added a caveat in which a health care professional could call a Commander/First Sergeant to advise of mental health issues, prescriptions with possible negative side effects etc.)

4. Suspension/revocation/reinstatement of carry privileges would further be decided by a board at the Squadron level that would include the Commander, First Sergeant, Security Officer, Squadron Chief and the Airman's direct senior supervisor (usually a Master Sergeant).

It isn't rocket science, it's easily doable. Until then, as the OP stated, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Our servicemen and women are defenseless in the one place where they should feel safest. It is a travesty. This needs to be fixed.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join