We need to allow Service members to be armed on base!

[Usmc0844spare]

Nonsense.
Unless disallowed through mental illness or criminal action, everyone should be able to carry wherever, with very few restrictions.

If we are going to allow our troops to put themselves in harms way downrange, and apparently stateside (my brother was at Ft. Hood when the shooting occurred there), and for those same troops to do, by and large, excellent work both keeping the $50m aircraft and so on at the ready without but the rarest of problem, then why should we restrict them from the right to self protection.

You really need to think through what you wrote, as you are workkng hard to get your own firearm and ability to protect you and yours taken from you.

Yeah I was a member of the ONE US military service that prides itself on every member being able to pick up a rifle and take it to the enemy (and even devotes a month of initial training time to this concept) but WTF do I know?

Yeah, I was just a reservist but I would bet that almost ANY "real" Marine would tell you the same thing... you have an overly romanticized view of just how professional the military is. LOTS OF AWESOME folks out there that I would trust with a loaded gun walking around generally. BUT AT LEAST AS MANY that I wouldn't let near my family with a loaded gun, no matter what their intentions.

What is MOST of the military like? Keep in mind that the guys at the pointy end of the knife have a HUGE logistical tail keeping them pointy. Even including the Marines, there is simply no way you can make a blanket assumption that just they because they went through a little basic training and maybe shot 300 rounds out of an M16, that all those Motor T bubbas, Data guys, air-wingers, Admin guys, Supply guys, Paint Chippers, boiler techs, Nuke techs, anchor scrubbers, firemen, ATC people, bulk fuel bubbas, public affairs people, linguists, legal, and musicians are in ANY WAY suited to walking around a military base packing heat.

They are NOT, across the board, a bunch of "Duty/Honor/Country/Best of the Best of the Best, SIR (with honors)" folks who are "creating the best powerpoints they can to do their part in the fight against ISIS" . A large part of the military is essentially just civilians who have to wear a uniform to work.

And last time I checked, the ability to safety wire a bolt holding the blades on a Huey in no way indicates their competence for walking around as cops.

We frankly part company on general carry, and we are not gonna change each other's mind, so unless we want to get into a "last word" match on that topic, probably best to let that one go.

[billt]

.... Did Christ tell you to hate others? Just wondering.

Are you talking to me?

[billt]

I am a vet, what amazes me is change the this to civilians talk of CCW's and a lot of you sound like the same anti gun arguments. Either people have a right, or they don't. Service member or civilian doesn't matter.

+100. Well said!

[Dan_Eastvale]

Military personnel don't have the same Constitutional rights as civilians as they fall under the UCMJ. On military installations even civilians with Constitutional rights can't CCW.

[amishfarmer]

There is really only a few ways to look at this.
1. Everyone on base carries, those worried about those not fit to carry will either shoot themselves or be shot doing something stupid. Which in either case the problem solved itself.
2. Only a select few carry, then again you dont have the sheer numbers of deterrence to prevent loonies getting someone killed.
3. In the specific case of the Pensacola incident we are all overlooking one thing. Islam teaches that anyone who is considered a martyr for Islam goes to Paradise. They are incentivizing death in the name of a religon. Deterrence wont work if someone thinks they are going to paradise after they die. As rediculous as it sounds if there is no negative consequences to murdering people and dying in the process. Then no amount of deterrence will have an effect.

On a personal note I am a USAF retiree, now a civil servant. There have been more than one close calls of security breaches at the base I work at in the CONUS. So I believe personally the more that have a way to defend themselves and others the better

[50BMGBOB]

I do agree, you sign away some of your rights when you join and most don't realize it until after they join. I also support training before you carry.

Still I stand by that people should have the right to carry. Not everyone in shall issue states carries. I am not saying everyone should be forced to carry. If they are required to carry them they should be trained and more than just basic training. Still if they qualify for a CCW off base, they should be able to carry on base.

I also don't agree with a lot of the gun free zones. Most come down to some pigs are more equal than others...

[bronco75a]

On the Duty Train between West Berlin and West Germany we had Military Police (MPs) as our security since we were going through communist East Germany.

It usually traveled overnight and we slept on the train.

Two MPs got bored and had a game of quick draw and one ended up shooting the other causing an international incident.

Just expect more of those things to happen if some of these knuckleheads get a loaded weapon on base.

[billt]

Two MPs got bored and had a game of quick draw and one ended up shooting the other causing an international incident.

So.... You want to base the security and safety of Americans on U.S. military bases, on what 2 idiot German MP's do on a train in Germany? Perhaps we should disarm all of our MP's as well. You know, just to be "safe".

[Jwalt]

(even IF only SNCOs and Os got weapons - just because you are higher than an E5 doesn't mean you are magically imbued with more competence or smarts)

Nope, but it does weed out a lot of the biggest idiots. Not all, but a lot.

[Jwalt]

3. In the specific case of the Pensacola incident we are all overlooking one thing. Islam teaches that anyone who is considered a martyr for Islam goes to Paradise. They are incentivizing death in the name of a religon. Deterrence wont work if someone thinks they are going to paradise after they die. As rediculous as it sounds if there is no negative consequences to murdering people and dying in the process. Then no amount of deterrence will have an effect.

Of course deterrence can have an effect, just not in the way we usually think of it.

If they don't manage to kill anyone and wind up dead anyway that doesn't inspire a lot of copycats. The blaze of glory is a big part of the going out in a blaze of glory fantasy.

[VSA]

I personally knew a bunch of grunts out of both Pendleton and the Stumps who kept their handguns with them. Sure, there's your share of drunk morons around, but I think being smart helps to mitigate any nasty consequences of being near said morons...

[DevilDawgJJ]

Military personnel don't have the same Constitutional rights as civilians as they fall under the UCMJ. On military installations even civilians with Constitutional rights can't CCW.

Yes they can...in policy, but not 1 CO will allow it.

[Unbekannt]

No, no, no, no. Old Roman Principle---no army within Rome's walls. The modern version is no guns inside a military base. Like the Roman example, the elites are threatened.