(07-23-2015 05:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I have no problem with soldiers carrying because they are trained. The Tea Party types might not like it though.

As a Tea Partier, I have no problem with arming the military to protect themselves from crazed Muslims.

(07-24-2015 06:39 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 05:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I have no problem with soldiers carrying because they are trained. The Tea Party types might not like it though.

As a Tea Partier, I have no problem with arming the military to protect themselves from crazed Muslims.

But they are part of the government. Don't you fear big government? I thought that's why you all stock piled weapons.

(07-23-2015 12:31 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  My take:

I think it would be monumentally misguided. The ill effects from this could be catastrophic.

There is no way that all soldiers (using this as a blanket term) should be armed on domestic military bases. There are way too many of them who would go postal on someone/some people either due to a previously undiagnosed mental problem, PTSD, or simply a problem with anger or authority. More people would die as a result of such a policy than would ever be saved. Book it.

That isn't to say that there should not be more of an armed presence on military facilities. It is accurate that once you get past the entry point, hardly anyone is ever carrying a weapon. Like any other gun-free zone (I would get arrested and lose my job if I got caught carrying on base despite having a CC). Maybe measures like....moving recruitment facilities ON BASE, having armed soldiers at the entry points of every military facility regardless of the sensitivity of the operations there, increased MP presence on all bases, etc.

Moving recruiting facilities on base is just an absolutely terrible idea. Kind of defeats the purpose of recruiting. Recruiters need to be out in public, not tucked away in a military base out of sight and out of mind. Also there aren't military bases in every town.

I don't feel all military members should be allowed to carry. However, If a servicemember has a CC permit they should be allowed but there should be exceptions. For example, working at a secured facility I don't feel the need to have my weapon, armed security is...everywhere. What is insanely stupid is that I can't have my weapon in my vehicle when I park at the facility, which means I cannot have it when I transit to and from work. In secured spaces there are lock boxes for phones, there should be lock boxes for CC weapons...imo.

Cops carry weapons but soldiers cant?

I don't think soldiers need a bazooka in their truck but certainly the should carry sidearms

(07-24-2015 09:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:39 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 05:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I have no problem with soldiers carrying because they are trained. The Tea Party types might not like it though.

As a Tea Partier, I have no problem with arming the military to protect themselves from crazed Muslims.

But they are part of the government. Don't you fear big government? I thought that's why you all stock piled weapons.

Military is not "government". I trust military personnel to uphold their oaths 1,000,000 times more than i do any politician.

(07-24-2015 11:15 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 09:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:39 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 05:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I have no problem with soldiers carrying because they are trained. The Tea Party types might not like it though.

As a Tea Partier, I have no problem with arming the military to protect themselves from crazed Muslims.

But they are part of the government. Don't you fear big government? I thought that's why you all stock piled weapons.

Military is not "government". I trust military personnel to uphold their oaths 1,000,000 times more than i do any politician.

So you don't worry that the president can order them around?

(07-24-2015 09:54 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Cops carry weapons but soldiers cant?

I don't think soldiers need a bazooka in their truck but certainly the should carry sidearms

don't forget the security guards at wally world or the neighborhood watch coordinator...

It makes no sense for them not to be armed.....especially in today's schema of "what's next"

(07-24-2015 11:15 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 09:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:39 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 05:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I have no problem with soldiers carrying because they are trained. The Tea Party types might not like it though.

As a Tea Partier, I have no problem with arming the military to protect themselves from crazed Muslims.

But they are part of the government. Don't you fear big government? I thought that's why you all stock piled weapons.

Military is not "government". I trust military personnel to uphold their oaths 1,000,000 times more than i do any politician.

Wow.

(07-24-2015 11:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:15 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 09:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:39 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 05:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I have no problem with soldiers carrying because they are trained. The Tea Party types might not like it though.

As a Tea Partier, I have no problem with arming the military to protect themselves from crazed Muslims.

But they are part of the government. Don't you fear big government? I thought that's why you all stock piled weapons.

Military is not "government". I trust military personnel to uphold their oaths 1,000,000 times more than i do any politician.

So you don't worry that the president can order them around?

http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/about/

Quote:That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians,

(07-24-2015 09:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:39 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 05:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I have no problem with soldiers carrying because they are trained. The Tea Party types might not like it though.

As a Tea Partier, I have no problem with arming the military to protect themselves from crazed Muslims.

But they are part of the government. Don't you fear big government? I thought that's why you all stock piled weapons.

I fear big government with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of bureaucrats micromanaging literally every aspect of our lives. Obama has that effort on steroids.

I do not fear a military recruiter having a gun to protect himself in his little strip mall retail office.

(07-24-2015 09:41 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 12:31 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  My take:

I think it would be monumentally misguided. The ill effects from this could be catastrophic.

There is no way that all soldiers (using this as a blanket term) should be armed on domestic military bases. There are way too many of them who would go postal on someone/some people either due to a previously undiagnosed mental problem, PTSD, or simply a problem with anger or authority. More people would die as a result of such a policy than would ever be saved. Book it.

That isn't to say that there should not be more of an armed presence on military facilities. It is accurate that once you get past the entry point, hardly anyone is ever carrying a weapon. Like any other gun-free zone (I would get arrested and lose my job if I got caught carrying on base despite having a CC). Maybe measures like....moving recruitment facilities ON BASE, having armed soldiers at the entry points of every military facility regardless of the sensitivity of the operations there, increased MP presence on all bases, etc.

Moving recruiting facilities on base is just an absolutely terrible idea. Kind of defeats the purpose of recruiting. Recruiters need to be out in public, not tucked away in a military base out of sight and out of mind. Also there aren't military bases in every town.

I don't feel all military members should be allowed to carry. However, If a servicemember has a CC permit they should be allowed but there should be exceptions. For example, working at a secured facility I don't feel the need to have my weapon, armed security is...everywhere. What is insanely stupid is that I can't have my weapon in my vehicle when I park at the facility, which means I cannot have it when I transit to and from work. In secured spaces there are lock boxes for phones, there should be lock boxes for CC weapons...imo.

All service personnel that have qualified with a firearm should be allowed to carry concealed out of uniform and openly when in one...nationwide. There should be accommodations made for locking up those weapons in secured situations. This looks pretty simple to me. We are at war with these domestic terrorists. Our military should be allowed to do their duty and fight them when necessary.

(07-25-2015 08:32 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 09:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:39 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 05:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I have no problem with soldiers carrying because they are trained. The Tea Party types might not like it though.

As a Tea Partier, I have no problem with arming the military to protect themselves from crazed Muslims.

But they are part of the government. Don't you fear big government? I thought that's why you all stock piled weapons.

I fear big government with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of bureaucrats micromanaging literally every aspect of our lives. Obama has that effort on steroids.

I do not fear a military recruiter having a gun to protect himself in his little strip mall retail office.

I trust the members of our armed services 1000 times more than any bureaucrat or politician.

Let's just do everything we can to protect our people from the f-ckin' insane Muslims.

(07-25-2015 08:02 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:15 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 09:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:39 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  As a Tea Partier, I have no problem with arming the military to protect themselves from crazed Muslims.

But they are part of the government. Don't you fear big government? I thought that's why you all stock piled weapons.

Military is not "government". I trust military personnel to uphold their oaths 1,000,000 times more than i do any politician.

So you don't worry that the president can order them around?

http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/about/

Quote:That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians,

Exactly

(07-25-2015 08:52 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Let's just do everything we can to protect our people from the f-ckin' insane Muslims.

Allowing our military to carry out their oath unfettered would add close to 2 million to our daily security force.

Will there be some accidents? Yes. Will there be a PTSD guy or two? Yes (just like now).

This is the nature of things.

A military should be allowed to be armed when under threat of attack by an enemy.

We are seriously arguing that having guns is too unsafe for our military members and that we don't trust them with a weapon. Crazy.

Posse Comitatus is a good thing. But it was never intended to prevent them from defending themselves against enemy attacks.

(07-25-2015 09:29 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Will there be some accidents? Yes. Will there be a PTSD guy or two? Yes (just like now).

This is the nature of things.

A military should be allowed to be armed when under threat of attack by an enemy.

We are seriously arguing that having guns is too unsafe for our military members and that we don't trust them with a weapon. Crazy.

Posse Comitatus is a good thing. But it was never intended to prevent them from defending themselves against enemy attacks.

You are correct. But someone (with the initials BHO) would then have to admit that they are under enemy attacks.

(07-25-2015 11:02 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  You are correct. But someone (with the initials BHO) would then have to admit that they are under enemy attacks.

He and/or his administration spokespersons have effectively already admitted that by justifying the failure to lower flags to half mast on the basis that we don't do it for military personnel killed in the line of duty.

(07-25-2015 11:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 11:02 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  You are correct. But someone (with the initials BHO) would then have to admit that they are under enemy attacks.

He and/or his administration spokespersons have effectively already admitted that by justifying the failure to lower flags to half mast on the basis that we don't do it for military personnel killed in the line of duty.

Then if something bad happens to Obama, we won't lower the flags because he's Commander in Chief of the military.

I've got no problem with sidearms at the recruiting station. Does anyone know when this stopped being the norm? I was told that it was H. W. that discontinued the practice. The person that said it prefaced it by saying something like, I am a conservative Republican but the truth is ........... I have no idea myself, but he seemed to know what he was talking about.