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.

 

Jim Webb wants U.S. military to be able to carry weapons aboard installations

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Mods I'm not sure which forum this could go in because honestly I think it could be in three or four different ones. Picked this one as it seemed to fit the best. If not, apologies.

MSNBC is carrying a statement by Jim Webb, Democratic presidential candidate, saying that he is in favor of allowing service members to be armed while aboard their duty stations or at other facilities (such as recruiting offices). For those who are unfamiliar with him, Webb served as U.S. Marine before going on to Secretary of the Navy and finally U.S. Senator for Virginia. While his stance doesn't surprise me on a personal level, I found it more than a little surprising coming from a democratic candidate. On the other hand, Webb is hardly the prototypical democrat.

Webb declared his candidacy a week or two ago and doesn't seem to be wasting any time making waves.

www.msnbc.com...




posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Armed with what exactly, and how secured? In recruiting stations?

ermmm…



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

What is the purpose of only allowing MP's to carry weapons, is it something to do with Posse Comitatus? If so, why not increase MP's especially at recruiting stations? If not, I don't see a reason that our military personnel at home can't carry guns to protect themselves with. I mean though each case is horrific, it's still statistically small (attacks on US military at home)... but it is crystal clear that they are targets for extremists. We should be figuring out how better to address this.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
I say give that man a cigar. It is about time we allow them to protect themselves. This has been an issue of much contention since Ft. Hood.

Funny thing, our regional paper had a story that was supposedly about the Dems speaking appearances in Iowa this morning but the only two candidates quoted were Hillary and Bernie. The end of the article mentioned the other candidates by name. Not a peep about this statement from him.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I never understood the polices in the military of not carrying weapons inside the bases, but if you buy a weapon in the base military exchange and live aboard a military base you can have you weapon in your home.

My husband if he is carrying he has to leave his weapon at the front gate or not bring it with him to the base, but he can buy any weapon in the PX.

The irony.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
We have George the First to thank for the restrictions on military personnel being disarmed.

www.theblaze.com...



The question of why military members aren’t armed on base garnered attention back in November 2009 when Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at Ft. Hood and killed 13 people. He was sentenced to death on August 28. Now, nearly four years later, many are asking the same question.
So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I've honestly never really seen a straight answer on it. It's a matter of "that's just how it is" by the time I came in. That being said, my gramps when in from '42-'61 and he never carried stateside unless he was standing post. It having something to do with PC is entirely possible, as near as I can figure.

Its not as if it couldn't be done and legislated in a satisfactory manner. I don't think every service member needs to walk around strapped all day long but having some sort of "guardian angel" could work.
edit on 18-7-2015 by Shamrock6 because: I hate when I repeat myself



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Kali74
We have George the First to thank for the restrictions on military personnel being disarmed.

www.theblaze.com...



The question of why military members aren’t armed on base garnered attention back in November 2009 when Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at Ft. Hood and killed 13 people. He was sentenced to death on August 28. Now, nearly four years later, many are asking the same question.
So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush.




Not true. I was in the army before this was even signed and we weren't allowed to carry arms on base. Personal arms had to be checked in and out from the armory.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Make sure that all military members receive training in self-defense in a civilian-populated area... basically an advanced handgun course like those available to civilians and encourage them to carry while in uniform.

Unless they're in a high-speed unit, most service members receive very little training on sidearms because they aren't expected to need them. Most infantrymen don't even carry a sidearm in combat. The training is basically "here is how to load the pistol and hit a target now prove you can load the pistol and hit the target... yay you're qualified."

Train them up, provide a sidearm, and let them protect themselves. Impose the same "no drinking and carrying" laws that apply to civilians. The current policy is nothing more than CYA nonsense to avoid accidents.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

well that maybe when a law was signed, i was in the Corps during the 80's and the only people that carried weapons were on guard duty,security, reactionary forces, OOD,SOG, COG, some Armurier's, and Military Police. that was on Navy Bases or Marine Bases. can't say about Army or Air Force

you couldn't carry personal weapons at all, and they had to be secured in the armory when you brought them on base.


edit on 18-7-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Do you know the reasoning or legalities behind it?



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Seems like a reasonable request to me.

Like it or not the US is at war with ISIS and other Islamic groups.

Long as it only on base and only in the US seems fine.

Id have a problem if Americans were allowed to walk round armed in there UK bases as they shouldn't be except from allied nations law.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010
Tell it to the source---it seems pretty clear to me who wrote and signed the order on whose watch. If you have other information please feel free to post the links.
Air Force personnel were carrying on base in '91 when the B-2 was at Ellsworth AFB and it wasn't just the MPs or guards at gates. I know this for a fact. Don't know how it was at other installations where sensitive pieces of equipment (like the B-2) were housed.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I think Buster's point was that personnel were unarmed prior to Bush's administration.

There has always been caveats that necessitated somebody being armed. Moving sensitive gear, holding sensitive gear, transporting weapons and ammunition, elevated threat level, etc.

But by and large the vast majority of personnel are unarmed on any given day, and I know at least in the Corps that's pretty standard.
edit on 18-7-2015 by Shamrock6 because: Swapped a word



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

All military personnel have extensive training in basic rifle and had gun handling from safety procedures, to cleaning and they have to be able to shoot with a certain accuracy, so if you never been in the military this is one of the most important things in military career.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

All personnel in the military do NOT receive handgun training. It is entirely possible and plausible to go an entire enlistment without ever once firing a handgun.

If you have ever watched a bunch of Navy doctors attempting to qualify with their handguns you would understand that "extensive" is an overstatement.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Answer

All military personnel have extensive training in basic rifle and had gun handling from safety procedures, to cleaning and they have to be able to shoot with a certain accuracy, so if you never been in the military this is one of the most important things in military career.



No... you're wrong. Sorry.

I was in the Marine Corps and I'm well aware of the training mindset in the other branches.

Whether or not someone gets handgun training depends on MOS. Most military members go their entire career without learning how to shoot a handgun. There are others who qualify once and never shoot a handgun again.

Even those who are trained in basic handgun marksmanship need additional training to know how to handle a defensive situation in a civilian environment.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

All military recruits that join the military receive basic arms firing training


Military Weapons

Used in Basic Combat Training

It wouldn’t be the Military if it didn’t involve firing weapons. Members will get their first crack at firing actual military weapons during the last few weeks of basic combat training. Weapons training differs greatly among the different branches’ basic training programs. Without doubt, Marine Corp recruits fire the most rounds during the basic training programs. They’re followed by the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, and finally, the Coast Guard.


Regardless of the branch, a recruit can’t graduate from military basic combat training/boot camp without proving that he/she can handle a military weapon without shooting themselves, their classmates, or the instructors.


usmilitary.about.com...

My husband served 22 years until retirement in the military service Marine corps branch and yes all military personnel receive arm handling training



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Shamrock6

All military recruits that join the military receive basic arms firing training


Military Weapons

Used in Basic Combat Training

It wouldn’t be the Military if it didn’t involve firing weapons. Members will get their first crack at firing actual military weapons during the last few weeks of basic combat training. Weapons training differs greatly among the different branches’ basic training programs. Without doubt, Marine Corp recruits fire the most rounds during the basic training programs. They’re followed by the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, and finally, the Coast Guard.


Regardless of the branch, a recruit can’t graduate from military basic combat training/boot camp without proving that he/she can handle a military weapon without shooting themselves, their classmates, or the instructors.


usmilitary.about.com...

My husband served 22 years until retirement in the military service Marine corps branch and yes all military personnel receive arm handling training




You have 2 people in this thread with military experience telling you that you're wrong. Stop trying to win this argument.

We are specifically talking about handguns in this thread and you are incorrect.

The Navy recruits don't even shoot a real rifle any more, they shoot a simulator. It makes no sense for an electronics technician on a ship to waste ammunition learning to shoot a rifle he'll never touch again.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Agree with others here, just not true...until i became a rescue swimmer and then got on a vessel boarding team i was never actually trained with a pistol. i was lucky to get training i did because i was trying to go seals and made a deal with command to delay my package to become a rescue swimmer, i got every school they could get me in.. But usually even vessel boarding team members, receive just minimum training . Before that i had to use ninja like maneuvers to get out of the engine long enough to get chow lol, gun shoots forget it..
In navy generally the only ones who get really good training with pistols are MA's and GM's.. Aside from special forces, seals eod etc

As for the topic, i think CC is a better option.. And not everyone should do it. Should be at individuals discretion.. I feel CC laws are most effective in how they instill doubt, having it or not matters little against a bad guy, bad guys always have the advantage because they have the element of surprise, making them second guess or hesitate is the best deterrant. Open carry, especially limited open carry identifies targets.
edit on 18-7-2015 by swimmer15 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join