PDA

View Full Version : Washinton Times: "End Clinton Era Military Gun Ban"


Southwest Chuck
11-12-2009, 11:06 AM
I hope this sentiment spreads throughout the country and puts pressure on Pres. Obama to rescind the ban.

This was originally posted in another thread by Locosway (credit where credit's due :D) :

It caught on...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/

EDITORIAL: "End Clinton-era military base gun ban"

Foolish military gun controls left soldiers defenseless

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Time after time, public murder sprees occur in "gun-free zones" - public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week's slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.

Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That's why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage.

Everyone wants to keep people safe - and no one denies Mr. Clinton's good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal - or in this case, the terrorist.

The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?"

It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton's deadly rules even disarmed officers, the most trusted members of the military charged with leading enlisted soldiers in combat. Six of the dead and wounded had commissions.

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Research also shows that the presence of more guns limits the damage mass murderers can unleash. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone - soldier, civilian or law enforcement - arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack. All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

Thirteen dead bodies in a Texas morgue are the ultimate fruit of gun-control illogic - in which guns are so feared that government regulation even tries to keep them out of the hands of trained soldiers. With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can end Mr. Clinton's folly and allow U.S. soldiers to protect themselves. Because we clearly cannot protect our soldiers from harm, the least we owe them is the right to protect themselves.

.

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 11:09 AM
I'd be more excited if a liberal rag printed this. Isn't The Washington Times an extremely conservative paper?

MudCamper
11-12-2009, 11:14 AM
terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division

This would be hilarious if it weren't sadly true.

Glock22Fan
11-12-2009, 11:34 AM
All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

Why, oh why, don't the anti's take note of this?

Legasat
11-12-2009, 11:34 AM
Great Article!!! Simple, to the point, and very clearly written.

Here is a killer line:

The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal - or in this case, the terrorist.

caoboy
11-12-2009, 11:47 AM
I'd be more excited if a liberal rag printed this. Isn't The Washington Times an extremely conservative paper?

So what is wrong with them printing this?

If extremely conservative powers (who want less .gov) want some .gov control removed, which is why they are conservative, then why not?

bwiese
11-12-2009, 11:52 AM
I'd be more excited if a liberal rag printed this. Isn't The
Washington Times an extremely conservative paper?

Fairly conservative, with some good articles/editors - but it's forever been tainted by its founding association with the Moonies. (No joke).

TaxAnnihilator
11-12-2009, 11:52 AM
So what is wrong with them printing this?

If extremely conservative powers (who want less .gov) want some .gov control removed, which is why they are conservative, then why not?

I think his point was that in a conservative paper the piece is preaching to the choir. If a liberal paper ran a like piece it would be preaching to the sheep! BBAAAA.

Am I correct?

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 12:01 PM
Fairly conservative, with some good articles/editors - but it's forever been tainted by its founding association with the Moonies. (No joke).

Thanks Mr. Wiese- I had never even heard of the Unification Church before you mentioned "moonie" and I had to look it up.

Interesting...

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 12:01 PM
I think his point was that in a conservative paper the piece is preaching to the choir. If a liberal paper ran a like piece it would be preaching to the sheep! BBAAAA.

Am I correct?

The nail! It just got hit right on the head!

Ducman
11-12-2009, 12:48 PM
great article, unfortunately it'll just fall on deaf ears.

ojisan
11-12-2009, 12:58 PM
Thanks Mr. Wiese- I had never even heard of the Unification Church before you mentioned "moonie" and I had to look it up.
Interesting...

The Moonies own Kahr.

Meplat
11-12-2009, 1:38 PM
Why, oh why, don't the anti's take note of this?

Because their agenda is tyranny not security. Do you really think they are that stupid. When the rules don't fit the game you have to conclude at some point the other side is not playing the same game.:43:

Dirk Tungsten
11-12-2009, 2:31 PM
The Moonies own Kahr.

And, I believe, Auto-Ordnance.

blacksheep
11-12-2009, 3:58 PM
And, I believe, Auto-Ordnance.

Yup and that means the " Tommy Gun ".

HowardW56
11-12-2009, 7:18 PM
Repeal it and better yet, order all NCO's to carry at all times...

yellowfin
11-12-2009, 7:25 PM
no one denies Mr Clinton's good intentions...Ok, maybe nobody until now, but I sure do. "Good intentions" my ***, the slimeball knew this was exactly what he was doing. If this is true and he is responsible for this order, I wish they'd have him hanged at dawn for it- he deserves worse if so, but I guess that's all they could do.

five.five-six
11-12-2009, 7:29 PM
The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal - or in this case, the terrorist.

.


this line is rich

lumwilliam
11-12-2009, 7:41 PM
Why the heck didn't bush repeal this when he was president?

Fot
11-12-2009, 8:17 PM
Why the heck didn't bush repeal this when he was president?

+1..lol

M198
11-12-2009, 8:25 PM
Yeah, as a former Marine I can tell you once again, the Washington Times is completely wrong. Soldiers should not be allowed to carry firearms while on base unless it is deemed necessary for operational safety or as a guard/MP. It's lunacy. Sorry, it's just not a good idea. If you walk down to pendleton right now and start shooting on any camp, you are either going to taken out by the MPs armed with handguns, or CAMP GUARD. You know, the two squads that are on QRF duty 24/7 to protect the armory and base. This whole time, I've never heard any mention of the Duty officer, assistant duty officer, or camp guard. WTF? One of my first jobs as a boot private was camp guard. Can someone explain to me where they were at? Right now it looks like they don't have one. Thinking back to my brief stint (4 months) at Fort Sill Army base, I don't remember ever seeing a camp guard. Are Marines the only branch that has a dedicated camp guard armed with rifles and standing on QRF?

Maestro Pistolero
11-12-2009, 9:00 PM
Former Marine or not that flies in the face of logic. We either trust our Marines with weapons or we don't. At a minimum, there ought to be an armed presence significant enough to halt any rogue actor within seconds. We might have a dozen brave Americans still alive today.

7x57
11-12-2009, 10:06 PM
Why, oh why, don't the anti's take note of this?

Because it does not support the preconceived agenda. :cool2:

7x57

Electricboy
11-12-2009, 10:26 PM
from the information i could find the population in fort hood is just a little lower than mendocino county. yet mendo has many times the amount of people legally carrying guns, thats just stupid. all members of srevice over a certain rank should be carrying guns as part of their uniform.

bigstick61
11-12-2009, 10:41 PM
from the information i could find the population in fort hood is just a little lower than mendocino county. yet mendo has many times the amount of people legally carrying guns, thats just stupid. all members of srevice over a certain rank should be carrying guns as part of their uniform.

There was a time when all officers were required to carry a sidearm. Then it simply became their prerogative. I'm not sure when that ended, but it couldn't have been any earlier than the 1920s; it was probably later, though. On ships though before it was restricted further only officers were permitted to wear sidearms; this had been the case for a very long time.

7x57
11-12-2009, 10:48 PM
On ships though before it was restricted further only officers were permitted to wear sidearms; this had been the case for a very long time.

Pretty certainly it has been that way always in the US Navy. I am not aware of any time that the British navy permitted arms for sailors except when going into combat (sailors' knives excepted--a sailor going without a knife would be regarded as indecent exposure or something). The fear of mutiny was always extreme, and with impressment the fear was certainly valid. Our navy was created by British-trained officers, and I imagine we began with precisely the same rules.

Rules at sea were always different anyway.

7x57

MP301
11-12-2009, 11:42 PM
Yeah, as a former Marine I can tell you once again, the Washington Times is completely wrong. Soldiers should not be allowed to carry firearms while on base unless it is deemed necessary for operational safety or as a guard/MP. It's lunacy. Sorry, it's just not a good idea. If you walk down to pendleton right now and start shooting on any camp, you are either going to taken out by the MPs armed with handguns, or CAMP GUARD. You know, the two squads that are on QRF duty 24/7 to protect the armory and base. This whole time, I've never heard any mention of the Duty officer, assistant duty officer, or camp guard. WTF? One of my first jobs as a boot private was camp guard. Can someone explain to me where they were at? Right now it looks like they don't have one. Thinking back to my brief stint (4 months) at Fort Sill Army base, I don't remember ever seeing a camp guard. Are Marines the only branch that has a dedicated camp guard armed with rifles and standing on QRF?

No offense, but it looks like that whole camp guard/mp thing didnt work too well. And the reality of it is, just like people depend on the police with dial a prayer, YOU are the only one ultimately resposible for your safety...no one else.

Yeah, sure, there are bone heads in the military that might not be the best poster children for gun ownership....just like there are boneheads in civilian life
that fit the same bill....but unarming me and many others....and yeah, even the bone heads....is stupid and dangerous. Ill take my chances with a level playing field instead of a false sense of security......

M198
11-13-2009, 12:16 AM
No offense, but it looks like that whole camp guard/mp thing didnt work too well. And the reality of it is, just like people depend on the police with dial a prayer, YOU are the only one ultimately resposible for your safety...no one else.

Yeah, sure, there are bone heads in the military that might not be the best poster children for gun ownership....just like there are boneheads in civilian life
that fit the same bill....but unarming me and many others....and yeah, even the bone heads....is stupid and dangerous. Ill take my chances with a level playing field instead of a false sense of security......

No one is talking about unarming you or any other civilian. When you join the military, you sign away your rights. I saw plenty of young Marines exercise their freedom of speech. They were of course instructed in the subtleties of shutting their mouths before it was shut by someone else. Joining the military suspends your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My original post asked the question of whether the Army actively kept soldiers on QRF duty as camp guard. I'm assuming that they didn't. If they had, things MIGHT have been different. As to people of certain ranks being allowed to carry weapons while not in uniform on base, I still think that it's a bad idea. It's not a terrible idea, but it's not a good idea. As far as "making it apart of the uniform", that's a terrible idea. If you're a solider and want to carry your weapon around all day in uniform, become an MP. That, or ask your CO if you can check your sidearm out of the armory every morning. I'm sure he will politely explain why it's not a good idea and also why you are being reassigned to the **ht detail.

bodger
11-13-2009, 5:54 AM
Yeah, as a former Marine I can tell you once again, the Washington Times is completely wrong. Soldiers should not be allowed to carry firearms while on base unless it is deemed necessary for operational safety or as a guard/MP. It's lunacy. Sorry, it's just not a good idea. If you walk down to pendleton right now and start shooting on any camp, you are either going to taken out by the MPs armed with handguns, or CAMP GUARD. You know, the two squads that are on QRF duty 24/7 to protect the armory and base. This whole time, I've never heard any mention of the Duty officer, assistant duty officer, or camp guard. WTF? One of my first jobs as a boot private was camp guard. Can someone explain to me where they were at? Right now it looks like they don't have one. Thinking back to my brief stint (4 months) at Fort Sill Army base, I don't remember ever seeing a camp guard. Are Marines the only branch that has a dedicated camp guard armed with rifles and standing on QRF?


I'm ex-USAF. On the stateside bases where I served in the early ' 70's, the Security Police were the only armed troops on the base. And they were essentially just a police force, not unlike any civilian town's cops. If I recall, they carried .38 revolvers as a sidearm. Never saw a shotgun or M-16 on any of them. Just a blue pick-up truck and a wheel gun.

I often thought how easy it would have been for someone to breech the perimeter chain link and access the flight line. Other than routine patrols, I never saw any standing guards.

Overseas was way different for obvious reasons.
Nakhon Phanom RTAFB was only 235 miles from Hanoi.

The Director
11-13-2009, 8:35 AM
I seem to recall from my Grandfather's stories as part of the WWII axis armies it was extremely common for Officers to carry a sidearm. Mind you that was in a combat zone, but still, removal of an enemy officer's sidearm was one of the first symbolic disarmament measures taken upon surrender or capture. I also recall a ship's captain in the late 18th century always having a sword on him, which he could either fight with or use in a surrender to hand over honorably.

There is certainly a precedent for armed officers. Look at Patton with his .357 and Peacemaker even.

If we can' trust the officers on base...I'd say anything from LT on up with a pistol, how do we trust them with tanks, howitzers, missles, nukes, subs....aircraft carriers!

Let's start giving these guys the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps even extend that to senior NCOs and warrant officers.

Kid Stanislaus
11-13-2009, 11:07 AM
Southwest Chuck wrote: "I hope this sentiment spreads throughout the country and puts pressure on Pres. Obama to rescind the ban."


BWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Get real.

5hundo
11-13-2009, 11:40 AM
Why, oh why, don't the anti's take note of this?

Because they are completely ignorant to the subject of firearms and as a result, they just take "stabs in the dark" at trying to regulate them. If the gun control crowd would cooperate with gun rights organizations, then they could figure out how to come up with regulations that might stand a chance of working. The laws they make are just stupid! What good does a 10 day wait do if you already have a weapon in your posession? :confused:

Doesn't that kind-of negate the concept of a "cooling off" period?

What was it that brought down Major Hassan? A gun...

What was it that finally stopped Charles Whitman? Guns (some of which were fired by private citizens, I might add)

The solution to this problem is simple. Less regulation of firearms, not more.

I'm telling you all, once this country becomes more Libertarian in our political mindset, the better off we will all be...

Glock22Fan
11-13-2009, 12:37 PM
Because they are completely ignorant to the subject of firearms and as a result, they just take "stabs in the dark" at trying to regulate them. If the gun control crowd would cooperate with gun rights organizations, then they could figure out how to come up with regulations that might stand a chance of working. The laws they make are just stupid! What good does a 10 day wait do if you already have a weapon in your posession? :confused:

Doesn't that kind-of negate the concept of a "cooling off" period?

What was it that brought down Major Hassan? A gun...

What was it that finally stopped Charles Whitman? Guns (some of which were fired by private citizens, I might add)

The solution to this problem is simple. Less regulation of firearms, not more.

I'm telling you all, once this country becomes more Libertarian in our political mindset, the better off we will all be...

Mine was a rheotorical question.

And as for the poster who thinks that only MP's can be trusted with guns on military bases, no doubt he believes that only post-certified officers can be trusted in the civilian world. What are you doing on this forum, sunshine?

nick
11-13-2009, 12:58 PM
Because they are completely ignorant to the subject of firearms and as a result, they just take "stabs in the dark" at trying to regulate them. If the gun control crowd would cooperate with gun rights organizations, then they could figure out how to come up with regulations that might stand a chance of working. The laws they make are just stupid! What good does a 10 day wait do if you already have a weapon in your posession? :confused:

Doesn't that kind-of negate the concept of a "cooling off" period?

What was it that brought down Major Hassan? A gun...

What was it that finally stopped Charles Whitman? Guns (some of which were fired by private citizens, I might add)

The solution to this problem is simple. Less regulation of firearms, not more.

I'm telling you all, once this country becomes more Libertarian in our political mindset, the better off we will all be...

That's assuming that the goal of such people is to reduce crime, not just ban guns.

nick
11-13-2009, 1:06 PM
No one is talking about unarming you or any other civilian. When you join the military, you sign away your rights. I saw plenty of young Marines exercise their freedom of speech. They were of course instructed in the subtleties of shutting their mouths before it was shut by someone else. Joining the military suspends your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My original post asked the question of whether the Army actively kept soldiers on QRF duty as camp guard. I'm assuming that they didn't. If they had, things MIGHT have been different. As to people of certain ranks being allowed to carry weapons while not in uniform on base, I still think that it's a bad idea. It's not a terrible idea, but it's not a good idea. As far as "making it apart of the uniform", that's a terrible idea. If you're a solider and want to carry your weapon around all day in uniform, become an MP. That, or ask your CO if you can check your sidearm out of the armory every morning. I'm sure he will politely explain why it's not a good idea and also why you are being reassigned to the **ht detail.

Why is it a "terrible idea"?

Also, as for the bolded part, it reminds me os something someone said on the subject of German citizens who might want to own a firearm...

TaxAnnihilator
11-13-2009, 1:49 PM
Why is it a "terrible idea"?

Also, as for the bolded part, it reminds me os something someone said on the subject of German citizens who might want to own a firearm...

I am also curious about why it is a bad idea. I have no experience on base and wonder why a stateside base should operate under different rules than those in combat zones or overseas (I am under the impression that you would be always armed in the latter).

Thanks for the clarification.

dustoff31
11-13-2009, 3:40 PM
Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.


I served in the Army from 1975 to 2000. I don't remember ever being allowed to carry privately owned weapons on duty, or being able to check weapons out of the arms room for anything other than official gov't business. As others have said, as a rule only MP's or certain guard details were armed.

There is plenty to blame Clinton for as far as screwing over the military, But I don't recall that he had anything to do with this.

Am I missing something?

bigstick61
11-13-2009, 4:30 PM
I served in the Army from 1975 to 2000. I don't remember ever being allowed to carry privately owned weapons on duty, or being able to check weapons out of the arms room for anything other than official gov't business. As others have said, as a rule only MP's or certain guard details were armed.

There is plenty to blame Clinton for as far as screwing over the military, But I don't recall that he had anything to do with this.

Am I missing something?

Perhaps he made it mandatory rather than a matter of discretion for the base commander.

pnkssbtz
11-13-2009, 4:36 PM
I'd seriously be interested in evidence supporting the following:

All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

That right there is a nail for a coffin for broader CCW issuance.

7x57
11-13-2009, 4:36 PM
Why is it a "terrible idea"?


I've been assuming that the overriding rationale for the current rules came under the heading of "military discipline," not the sorts of practical considerations us civilians think of. But you vets would know that better than me.

If made king-for-a-day, I'd simply issue an executive order restoring the old principle that an officer's mark of rank, being a gentleman, is his personal sidearm of honor and should be worn as part of the uniform at all times. While that only arms a fraction, it transgresses no ancient rule or custom but rather reinstates one.

In a really whimsical mood I'd require a sword in addition to any other sidearm of choice, a sword being the gentleman's true heart-weapon, but I think I'd actually control myself and simply be practical. :rolleyes: Not that I don't think the military would be vastly improved by requiring a saber, backsword, or (for naval personnel) cutlass for all officers. An monocles too, monocles shall be issued and required.

Whoops, the whimsy is coming out after all. Must...control... :chris:

Of course, since it is a personal weapon of honor, it would be at the sole discretion of the officer. That means those who wish to carry a 1911 instead of an M9 are free to do so. I don't know what to do about those free spirits who wish to be really traditional and carry a Colt SAA, though.

...no good. Whimsy is out of control. :eek:

7x57

Mayhem
11-13-2009, 6:11 PM
Why the heck didn't bush repeal this when he was president?

Because Bush was also part of the problem. His administration was against Heller.

The only big difference between Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans is whats rights get trampled on. Democrats go for throat of the Constitution while republicans nibble and whittle away at it.

America's biggest problem isn't Politics it's Politicians. Our government consist mostly of elitist professional political whores who care more for their salaries and benefits then they do for their country and it's citizens.

We never really see good candidates as we often find our selfs voting for the lesser of two evils. Add in the fact the average american has been stupefied into casting their vote based off of 5 second sound bites Fed to them by a corrupt and biased media.

We have an education system that does not teach people of their rights let alone how America's political system works.

You need a 8+ year expensive higher education to know the law. Even law enforcement officers do not know the law but have what is considered a "Working" knowledge of the law. Yet Joe citizen is expected to obey the law and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Now once Joe citizen is charged with breaking the law specially if he is being made an example of by an overzealous ADA with a chubby for people that exercise their rights, he has to spend a few grand or More defending himself by hiring one of those people with the 8+ year expensive higher education. His fate will be determined by 12 idiots who were to stupid to get out of jury duty. Of those 12 idiots they will weed out and remove anyone who has even the slightest legal training or experience.

We the citizens of this country are left with a broken system that no one wants to, or cares to fix.

As far as Clinton goes I don't think he's the one that did it to the army. I was in the Army before and after Clinton took office. In-fact my first commander in chief was Reagan. Soldiers where never allowed to be armed unless they where on duty and being armed was part of their job and then they where armed with issued weapons only. All weapons brought on base have to be registered with the provost marshal regardless if you live on base or not . They can only be transported unloaded in locked containers. If you Live in Barracks your weapons have to be kept in the armory which means you can only check the weapon out when your company armorer is on duty. Typically even when infantry soldiers are called for some sort of guard duty they are unarmed. This includes the CQ and CQ aid at the company and battalion level. The only People that get armed on a base for anything other then Training are MP's and Personnel on special guard or escort duties at the brigade Division and/or Core level. When I was in If you had base family housing you could keep weapons in your home - but this may have changed since I was on active duty.

Maestro Pistolero
11-13-2009, 6:45 PM
Nothing so clearly demonstrates the futility, and immorality of gun control as perfectly as an incident like this. The utter failure of absolute gun control is perfectly modeled here in the microcosm of the Ft Hood military post.

All that expensive training, all the background checks, and all those weapons and ammunition were locked up in the armory. Why in the hell can't 1 of 5 or 10 soldiers be designated to carry at all times, in the interest of military base security? If they had, we would have a dozen or so brave Americans still alive today.

I'm all for arming he officers, as a start.

larryratcliff
11-13-2009, 8:52 PM
Great Article!!! Simple, to the point, and very clearly written.

Here is a killer line:

+1 I could not agree more.

lumwilliam
11-16-2009, 12:05 AM
God Mayhem, that's friggin scary, but I'm hearing it more and more. I felt like I was doing my part for the 2nd amendment, not to mention my other freedoms when I voted Bush 00' and 04'. When you start to realize that both parties in a two party system are ripping apart the constitution, where does that leave you?

Mayhem
11-16-2009, 3:35 AM
God Mayhem, that's friggin scary, but I'm hearing it more and more. I felt like I was doing my part for the 2nd amendment, not to mention my other freedoms when I voted Bush 00' and 04'. When you start to realize that both parties in a two party system are ripping apart the constitution, where does that leave you?

Well it was the Bush administration that nibbled off a massive amount of your privacy rights with a little bit of your right to due process as side dish. In my eyes I find both republicans and democrats dirtier then my toddler's diaper and full of the same stuff. Even if you are a die hard republican or bush supporter and saw no wrong in this He empowered all the presidents in line behind him and their administrations like Obama, even if Obama plays it clean at some point some one will abuse the power, its inevitable and you can't take it back. Human Nature - those with power will cling to it wither they need it or not.

Even with the current problems like the recession you can't lay all the blame on one party or another. as both parties either contributed to the problem by their actions or by their inactions failed to stop/fix the problems.

I'm personally considering leaving the Republican Party and joining either the Libertarian party or the Constitution party.

I may be Sick Poor and Hungry but by God I'll have my Freedom!

Bugei
11-16-2009, 8:23 AM
I was Infantry from 1974 (when Ford was President for a while) and 1978 (when Carter was President). If you lived in the barracks, as many did, especially enlisted men, the policy was simple: any weapons you owned had to be locked in the company arms room. You could check them out to go shooting if you wanted.

It was against policy to keep your personally-owned weapons (we didn't call them POWs) off base.

The result was that there were no personally-owned weapons in the company arms room. Apparently, either people didn't own them....or they kept them off base in violation of policy.

Don't think we can blame Clinton for this one.

The Director
11-16-2009, 9:06 AM
I don't think we're talking about personally owned weapons. Carrying those is absurd. Doesn't the Corps issue marines their own weapon (that whole...this is my rifle, there are many others like it deal)? Where is this weapon kept when not in use? In the armory?

Someone needs to be packing heat on base and not the two MPs ten miles away at the gate, either.

Mayhem
11-16-2009, 10:13 AM
Umm Ya we are talking about personally owned weapons.

If you live in the barracks they have to be kept in the armory.
If you live in base housing they need to be kept in the home under lock and key.

All personal weapons brought on base wither kept there or not, or just brought on base to target shoot or hunt, Needs to be registered with the Provost Martial. it needs to be transported unloaded in locked container.

If you are married and authorized to live off post. You could keep your personal weapons in the home.

However if you are single you can technically live off post but you still have to maintain a residence in the barracks and it is against some base policies to keep weapons off post if you live in the barracks.

However some post commanders get so anal, that as Bugei stated you can have a Post Policy that forbids you to keep personal arms off base or in your residence and requires you to keep them in the armory. I think just such a policy got challenged and the policy was dropped.

I don't see what is absurd about off duty personnel being capable of being trained and certified to CCW or LOC their personal side arms on base or even off.

Most military personnel are Issued a weapon usually a m16. That weapon is kept in the armory unless you are training or on duty in a capacity that requires a weapon (ie guard duty at the division ammo point). In most cases when a soldier has a weapon he/or she either has no ammo or has blanks unless at an actual shooting range. The issued weapon gets checked back into the armory before the soldier goes off duty. You get issued a weapons card that list which weapon is yours however soldiers specially 11B infantry soldiers can switch weapons more often then they do their underwear. The only guys that keep the same weapon are the Company/platoon sniper, the 11c (mortar maggots) the 11bc2 (platoon Anti armor specialist). 11H/11he9 (company or battalion level TOW gunners) they usually only have the m16/m4.

Now the post has several MP/SP's that are armed depending on the base thats 1 or 2 at every gate and usually 3 or 4 on patrol. You have personell who are on various guard details that may or may not be armed then you have usually a platoon or company on Reactionary stand by but this usually the same guys on devision/post guard duty. These soldiers on guard duty are rarely armed and more often then not if armed have no ammo. They are rarely allowed to carry locked and loaded. at best if fully armed they have one loaded magazine usually in their magazine pouch and an empty in their firearm.

Keep in mind I have not served in over 10 years. and I only did an 8 year.

Untamed1972
11-16-2009, 10:56 AM
The only time I have seen armed Marines on guard duty other then the MPs (and more recently civilian federal LEO's) was in the the few weeks after 9/11. Other then that....there are plenty of places on that base where someone could go nuts and it would take several to many, many minutes for an armed officer to respond and end an attack.

There are Marines on foot patrol about like SOI and places like that, but they are never armed with more than a neon green vest and radio. I always figured that was more of a training thing then it was an actual security thing.

Bugei
11-17-2009, 8:38 AM
I think it was Mad Ogre who suggested that they just issue you a handgun and a knife upon graduation from Basic training and charge you to carry it. Me, I'd go farther. Unless you're convicted of a felony, you should carry the knife and handgun forever. Partly because of your duty to protect society, here and abroad, but also as a badge of your status as a veteran.

Civilians should carry, and with the weapon of their choice. But if you see a guy with, say, a Kabar and a parkerized 1911, you know that guy is a veteran.

Or so things would go in Bugei-World.