Should our men and women in the armed forces...

[whitewolf001]

Be allowed to carry concealed(or otherwise) onto a base? What's your opinion TGO as I know many are former/active service members.

 

http://www.kvue.com/news/Austin-Veterans-speak-out-on-guns-on-postsbases-debate-253987591.html

 

"AUSTIN -- In light of Wednesday’s shootings on the Fort Hood post in Killeen, there’s been a growing debate around the nation about whether military men and women should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on military posts and bases.

The vast majority of the veterans KVUE found Friday at VFW Post 8787 in North Austin say absolutely not.

“Nobody should bring a weapon on base. I don't care who it is,” said Bob Burcar, a veteran who served in three of the nation’s four Armed Forces.

Burcar’s wife, Dianne, is also a veteran. They met in the Army Reserves 40 years ago. She agreed with her husband.

“If they have a weapon assigned to them, it's in the armory. If they need it, they go sign it out. I don't think that anybody should be able to carry a concealed weapon on to a post,” said Dianne Burcar.

“You don't know what they've gone through, so it's a real iffy question, I think,” said U.S. veteran Bill Bennett, who fought in Korea and Vietnam.

Bennett believes it’s OK to allow U.S. military personnel on international bases and posts to carry concealed weapons, however he is torn over allowing it on American facilities.

“Even in Vietnam, they locked our weapons up, and the only time we got them is when we went out to guard the perimeters,” said Bennett.

Every veteran KVUE spoke to said they'd like to see less attention focused on the guns on posts debate and more on getting current and former military personnel timely help to cope with PTSD."

Edited April 9, 2014 by whitewolf001

[RC3]

I really want to say no. As much I love and support the military, there is WAY too many bad eggs that would seize this opportunity. And with the rate of how disgruntled service members are getting, its just asking for disaster. Open carry is a maybe since you can access the threat. But concealed, I will agree with them being a BIG no.  

[Ugly]

I think they shouldn't be banned, that's fer sure. Senior people and civilians with a license should be able to have them IMO.

[Randall53]

I say yes they should be armed with a side arm and it should be OC. Those bad eggs and crazy's would calm way down if everywhere they looked they saw 45's on everybody's hips. Here is an excellent article on the subject IMHO:

 

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

[TMF]

Troops carry loaded arms every day in Afghanistan. Why on Earth could they not be trusted to do the same on base in the US? Am I missing something here? I seem to recall being an E-3 in the days following 9/11, having a loaded M-16 with basic combat load and an M9 on my belt, also loaded, standing post at an armory in a downtown area. Also recall transporting weapons across country in uniform and being armed with shotgun + pistol. If I remember correctly, the arms room guy has a loaded side arm at all times. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mike243]

Why would we trust them while on duty but not when they are off duty? . Stuff happens & no one can stop any body from doing bad things,banning something has never stopped any thing Ever ! Sheepeople  thinking rules mean any thing to the bad guys only hurt the majority of law abiding folks that make up this great nation imo

[NRA]

ummmm ............ I say YES!

[Guest Lowbuster]

I've never been on a base but I feel our soldiers should at lest have the choice. They not only deserve, but most have earned the right to protect themselves, as well as us civilians from all threats foreign and domestic. If they do not feel safe on base, by all means they should be able to carry.

[Grand Torino]

Why would we trust them while on duty but not when they are off duty?. Stuff happens & no one can stop any body from doing bad things,banning something has never stopped any thing Ever ! Sheepeople  thinking rules mean any thing to the bad guys only hurt the majority of law abiding folks that make up this great nation imo

I spent 26 years in the military. I've never understood that logic.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Grand Torino

[leroy]

As other posters have said.... Why should these folks be entrusted with "the bearing of arms' on duty in other countries; and be disarmed here..?  There should be no places where the citizenry is disarmed... 

 

leroy

[E4 No More]

A couple of the responses are alarming, and I think anyone that would say no or limit it to senior military needs to re-evaluate their position. It's ok for you to carry concealed but not a private or seaman? WTH?

[Ugly]

As an aircraft mechanic in uniform in the Navy, it's not feasible to carry while working, that's why I said senior. Tool accountability is like no other when it comes to a/c maintenance, adding a firearm to the mix isn't practical. Blanket rules or laws don't cover all scenarios, should be up to command for final application. Edited April 10, 2014 by Ugly

[E4 No More]

As an aircraft mechanic in uniform in the Navy, it's not feasible to carry while working, that's why I said senior. Tool accountability is like no other when it comes to a/c maintenance, adding a firearm to the mix isn't practical. Blanket rules or laws don't cover all scenarios, should be up to command for final application.

I don't interpret this thread to be limited to the job site. As a field artilleryman in the gun park sitting in the Mojave desert I would not be able to handle having one on while I worked either. And yes, your stuff walking off happened many times, but I wouldn't limit someone because of what a relatively few do during a few hours out of the week. Command is inherently arrogant with its throw-back to feudalistic times so they'd just stick to the "We can do it but you can't" type of mentality.

[Ugly]

I see where you're coming from. In my scenario, the Navy rarely had money for anything other than a/c or ships. Our hangars were usually substandard, even condemned by other branches, we'd put a coat of paint and band aid on em and make due. Personal lockers or space were rare Plus 10-18 hr days in some cases makes for some tired sailors. Stuff can't walk off in aviation, if it does none of your aircraft don't fly until everyone is searched, including pulling ejection seats if need be. Either way, I think not allowing firearms on base is ignorant. There is only one reason for it and it has to due with pols and trust. Trust of those that swore an oath to the Constitution. Edited April 10, 2014 by Ugly

[Jonnin]

Yes.  If you cannot trust them with a weapon, they don't belong in the armed forces.   It is that simple.   Yes, the heroes who served and are now mentally scarred are to be cherished, helped, and treated with the utmost respect, but at the same time, if they are *also* too unstable to have a weapon, then they need to be discharged (could be temporary) until they *can* be trusted to fight, carry a weapon, etc.   I have an uncle who was in vietnam --  and while I respect him and his sacrifices, he can't be trusted outside a padded room, let alone with a gun.   He got a hacksaw and all but killed his (now ex) wife.  He cut his own unit off when left unattended for like 10 min.   PTSD is real, and its ugly. 

Edited April 10, 2014 by Jonnin

[LagerHead]

I really want to say no. As much I love and support the military, there is WAY too many bad eggs that would seize this opportunity. And with the rate of how disgruntled service members are getting, its just asking for disaster. Open carry is a maybe since you can access the threat. But concealed, I will agree with them being a BIG no.  

 

So someone who carries concealed will go crazy and kill everyone in sight, but someone carrying openly is just a snuggly teddy bear? You can't assess the threat until the bullets start flying. 

[E4 No More]

I neither doubt PTSD is real nor that it's confined to the military: however, the military has a responsibility to identify those who have it and take control of those with it who are active. The chain of command can recognize it and limit someone's right to carry on base while they are struggling with it. In the recent shooting the guy was a driver who was deployed for a very short time. I don't know the specifics, but there are many more men and women who endured a LOT MORE and who have not shot-up their fellows.

[TMF]

[quote name="SWJewellTN" post="1136670" timestamp="1397142323"]I neither doubt PTSD is real nor that it's confined to the military: however, the military has a responsibility to identify those who have it and take control of those with it who are active. The chain of command can recognize it and limit someone's right to carry on base while they are struggling with it. In the recent shooting the guy was a driver who was deployed for a very short time. I don't know the specifics, but there are many more men and women who endured a LOT MORE and who have not shot-up their fellows.[/quote] The individual in question had no combat related mental issues. He was just a garden variety looney bird. Same as the ones I'm sure you encountered when you were in. Think about how many guys in basic ended up on suicide watch at one point or another when you went through. Problem is now, folks are so quick to attribute a looney in uniform as someone who is that way because of the work done in uniform. You and I know different. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[E4 No More]

The individual in question had no combat related mental issues. He was just a garden variety looney bird. Same as the ones I'm sure you encountered when you were in. Think about how many guys in basic ended up on suicide watch at one point or another when you went through. Problem is now, folks are so quick to attribute a looney in uniform as someone who is that way because of the work done in uniform. You and I know different. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, and that's because the public has been trained to associate PTSD with anything "crazy" in the military. There're unstable people everywhere which makes me wonder why they don't do psychological evaluations in MEPS.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I am as usual completely ignorant of the topic. A couple of years ago researched modern volunteer military enlisting requirements, which apparently make it near impossible to accept recruits below the mean population intelligence. So if the bottom of the enlisted bell curve is around the population mean, then the middle of the bell curve for modern military folk would HAVE to be significantly higher than the general population bell curve. About any current military or the younger veterans, as best I could tell, should be virtually guaranteed smarter than the average citizen.

 

Of course wisdom is not exactly the same as intelligence, and there can be good dumb folk or evil smart folk. Nevertheless, it seems that modern military packing heat on base would be expected to work better than, or at least as good, as law abiding civilians packing heat?

 

However, from historical perspective-- Please pardon my ignorance, just asking-- In the old days the ship of the line would lock up the flintlocks and sabers, and only break em out when sails of the enemy appeared on the horizon? Am guessing over much of history the mean intelligence of military was about the same as mean intelligence of the general population, and perhaps in times of war, at least some of the wars, the mean intelligence of the military could dip lower than population mean, as they begin scraping the bottom of the barrel?

 

Also, in the past men tended to be rowdier than modern times. I recall it from my childhood onward. Men might not be any more  likely to shoot each other back then, but they sure were more likely to punch you in the nose. It has got progressively more "civil" over time, except in the ghetto or certain rural areas.

 

Am just wondering, in the old days, with a lower mean intelligence in the military, packing men together in unpleasant conditions, men more likely than moderns to kick yer ass if you piss em off-- Just wondering if maybe some times in the past it might have made sense to lockup the weapons except for imminent battle?

 

Dunno the answer, just asking.

[TMF]

[quote name="SWJewellTN" post="1136695" timestamp="1397144181"]There're unstable people everywhere which makes me wonder why they don't do psychological evaluations in MEPS.[/quote] I think they do. I recall folks getting bounced outa MEPS when I processed. Pretty easy to hide crazy there I suppose. Once a person is around others for 24/7, it tends to come out. I recall going to the DS with my battle buddy during rifle marksmanship to report a member of the platoon who acted like the dude from Full Metal Jacket. The DS said the guy was pretending so he could get discharged. The dude had a meltdown not too long after that and spent the rest of his time in a road guard vest with a suicide guard on him 24/7 until he was booted out. For all I know he went on a rampage or killed himself in the civilian world, and they likely said he was crazy because of his "service". Thing is, if he hadnt had his meltdown, he would have ended up in a unit and done God knows what. If he'd a stayed in long enough to when the war started he may have done some crazy things. I think it's hard sometimes separating the looneys from the malingerers when you have so many joes and a mission to accomplish. That's why folks slip through the cracks and make it in to the military when they have no business being there. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tnguy]

Anyone who is an officer, commissioned or non (certainly sergeant or above) should be required to carry a sidearm unless it otherwise interferes with their duty. After that, we can talk about concealed carry for all or whatever strawman is being thrown up by the left.

[tnguy]

However, from historical perspective-- Please pardon my ignorance, just asking-- In the old days the ship of the line would lock up the flintlocks and sabers, and only break em out when sails of the enemy appeared on the horizon? Am guessing over much of history the mean intelligence of military was about the same as mean intelligence of the general population, and perhaps in times of war, at least some of the wars, the mean intelligence of the military could dip lower than population mean, as they begin scraping the bottom of the barrel?

 

Special circumstances there I think. Personal weapons would be more of a hindrance than a help in normal ship-bound duties (space was real tight) and when you can see the enemy from far off...

[TMF]

[quote name="tnguy" post="1136712" timestamp="1397146008"]Anyone who is an officer, [/quote] This makes me want to make jokes about Second Lieutenants... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tnguy]

This makes me want to make jokes about Second Lieutenants... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Go for it :)