Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
DrMark wrote:
DrMark wrote:
Hope the scroll wheel on your mouse is well-lubricated.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Calling All Military!
- Thread starter PointofView
- Start date
hp-hobo
Regular Member
imported post
I guess this person has it all wrong also. :?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/
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.
I guess this person has it all wrong also. :?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/
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.
Milbars
Regular Member
imported post
I love knee-jerk politics!
I love knee-jerk politics!
hightecrebel
Regular Member
imported post
Alright,
First of all, yes, if we live on base in anything but E1-4 dorms we can keep firearms at home. The point of this thread, if I read it correctly, was to bring up the fact that we can't OC/CC while on base, in uniform or out. Personally, I think that we should be authorized to, as long as we follow all applicable safety regulations (not carrying while drinking, for example). But then again, what do I know. I'm just an enlisted guy.
Alright,
First of all, yes, if we live on base in anything but E1-4 dorms we can keep firearms at home. The point of this thread, if I read it correctly, was to bring up the fact that we can't OC/CC while on base, in uniform or out. Personally, I think that we should be authorized to, as long as we follow all applicable safety regulations (not carrying while drinking, for example). But then again, what do I know. I'm just an enlisted guy.
hp-hobo
Regular Member
imported post
hightecrebel wrote:
And looky here, another guy who gets it;
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/john-lott-ft-hood-end-gun-free-zone/
Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. Mandy Foster's husband had been shot but was fortunate enough not to be seriously injured. In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband "still scheduled for deployment in January" 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. Unfortunately, most of CNN's listeners probably didn't understand the rules that Ms. Foster was referring to.
The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal. Hasan not only violated the army's ban on carrying a gun, he also apparently violated the rules that require soldiers to register privately owned guns at the post.
Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. Ten minutes must have seemed like an eternity to those trapped in the attack at Ft. Hood. All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. -- in which more than three people have been killed -- have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.
For several days now, some in the media and various gun control groups have focused on a so-called "cop killer" gun that Hasan used. The five-seven is a conventional semi-automatic pistol. In fact, the bullets that it fires are relatively small, only being in the .22 caliber class. Unlike rifles, even higher caliber handguns don't fire publicly available ammunition at sufficient velocity to penetrate a police officer's vest. There is a special type of handgun ammunition that can penetrate some types of body armor, but under federal law it is not legal to manufacture or import that ammunition for sale to the public.
For the safety of our soldiers and citizens, we hope that this simple fact about the Ft. Hood attack and the role that gun-free zones played in allowing yet another multiple victim public shooting becomes part of the news coverage itself. The political debate about guns would be quite different if even once in a while a news story clearly explained that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun-free zone.
I wonder if John Lott is also incorrect?
hightecrebel wrote:
Which is why I specifically addressed the OC/CC issue first in my initial post in this thread.
And looky here, another guy who gets it;
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/john-lott-ft-hood-end-gun-free-zone/
Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. Mandy Foster's husband had been shot but was fortunate enough not to be seriously injured. In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband "still scheduled for deployment in January" 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. Unfortunately, most of CNN's listeners probably didn't understand the rules that Ms. Foster was referring to.
The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal. Hasan not only violated the army's ban on carrying a gun, he also apparently violated the rules that require soldiers to register privately owned guns at the post.
Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. Ten minutes must have seemed like an eternity to those trapped in the attack at Ft. Hood. All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. -- in which more than three people have been killed -- have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.
For several days now, some in the media and various gun control groups have focused on a so-called "cop killer" gun that Hasan used. The five-seven is a conventional semi-automatic pistol. In fact, the bullets that it fires are relatively small, only being in the .22 caliber class. Unlike rifles, even higher caliber handguns don't fire publicly available ammunition at sufficient velocity to penetrate a police officer's vest. There is a special type of handgun ammunition that can penetrate some types of body armor, but under federal law it is not legal to manufacture or import that ammunition for sale to the public.
For the safety of our soldiers and citizens, we hope that this simple fact about the Ft. Hood attack and the role that gun-free zones played in allowing yet another multiple victim public shooting becomes part of the news coverage itself. The political debate about guns would be quite different if even once in a while a news story clearly explained that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun-free zone.
I wonder if John Lott is also incorrect?
hp-hobo
Regular Member
imported post
Hey, what's this?
"It is DoD policy:
4.1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried..."
[align=left]http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf[/align]
[align=left]Kinda like what I said several posts ago. All I hear now is crickets.[/align]
Hey, what's this?
"It is DoD policy:
4.1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried..."
[align=left]http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf[/align]
[align=left]Kinda like what I said several posts ago. All I hear now is crickets.[/align]
NCjones
Regular Member
imported post
I agree. It always pisses me off how you are not responsible enough to carry a weapon until they need you to pick up a rifle and go defend America.
I believe an honorable discharge should be a federal license to carry. All the feel-good talk about all the sacrifices we vets have made for our country, oh "but you can't carry a weapon. We don't trust you that much."
I agree. It always pisses me off how you are not responsible enough to carry a weapon until they need you to pick up a rifle and go defend America.
I believe an honorable discharge should be a federal license to carry. All the feel-good talk about all the sacrifices we vets have made for our country, oh "but you can't carry a weapon. We don't trust you that much."
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
NCjones wrote:
And the rules are enforced by bases commanders who want to get promoted. That's why you have to wear a leather gimp suit and an orange vest to ride a motorcycle on base and a helmet on abicycle and carry a moonbeam when you go for a run and all the other BS safety regs, even though you're expected to literally walk through bullets when they tell you.
NCjones wrote:
That's because you're not really defending America. You're just carrying out foreign policy.
And the rules are enforced by bases commanders who want to get promoted. That's why you have to wear a leather gimp suit and an orange vest to ride a motorcycle on base and a helmet on abicycle and carry a moonbeam when you go for a run and all the other BS safety regs, even though you're expected to literally walk through bullets when they tell you.
Statesman
Regular Member
imported post
hp-hobo wrote:
hp-hobo wrote:
Collectivism has little regard for individual rights.
UtahJarhead
Regular Member
imported post
PointofView wrote:
PointofView wrote:
I'm just curious, but why are you under the belief that you can't post your real name to an internet forum? Barring you actually having been given an order from a superior, I can't think of a reason you can't post your real name if you so want to. You are NOT obligated to, I'm just curious why you think the UCMJ prevents this.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
UtahJarhead wrote:
UtahJarhead wrote:
He could tell you, but then he'd have to kill you. And everyone else who reads the forum!
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
imported post
UtahJarhead wrote:
Yes... Please... DO tell...
I don't remember anything in the UCMJ that specifically prohibits you from publishing your name ANYWHERE, and I became somewhat of an expert on the UCMJ during my 22 years' service.
I've read some articles more closely than others...
Specifically, the ones I was charged with violating. :what:
Having spent some time standing in front of the Green Felt Tablecloth looking either 6" above the CO's head or at the inviting pitcher of ice water with accompanying spotlessglass tumbler, I consider myself rather well-versed with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 1928 Manual for Courts Martial. :idea:
UtahJarhead wrote:
Yes... Please... DO tell...
I don't remember anything in the UCMJ that specifically prohibits you from publishing your name ANYWHERE, and I became somewhat of an expert on the UCMJ during my 22 years' service.
I've read some articles more closely than others...
Specifically, the ones I was charged with violating. :what:
Having spent some time standing in front of the Green Felt Tablecloth looking either 6" above the CO's head or at the inviting pitcher of ice water with accompanying spotlessglass tumbler, I consider myself rather well-versed with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 1928 Manual for Courts Martial. :idea:
ABNinfantryman
Regular Member
imported post
MSC 45ACP wrote:
You too?
I think he's refering to the parts which say you as a military member are not allowed to publicly endorse political issues/parties/whathaveyou as to not make it seem that the military endorses those politics. Which kind of defeats the purpose any how seeing as how he's already made mention of the fact that he's air force.
MSC 45ACP wrote:
UtahJarhead wrote:
Yes... Please... DO tell...
I don't remember anything in the UCMJ that specifically prohibits you from publishing your name ANYWHERE, and I became somewhat of an expert on the UCMJ during my 22 years' service.
I've read some articles more closely than others...
Specifically, the ones I was charged with violating. :what:
Having spent some time standing in front of the Green Felt Tablecloth looking either 6" above the CO's head or at the inviting pitcher of ice water with accompanying spotlessglass tumbler, I consider myself rather well-versed with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 1928 Manual for Courts Martial. :idea:
You too?
I think he's refering to the parts which say you as a military member are not allowed to publicly endorse political issues/parties/whathaveyou as to not make it seem that the military endorses those politics. Which kind of defeats the purpose any how seeing as how he's already made mention of the fact that he's air force.
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
imported post
ABNinfantryman wrote:
Actually, you can publicly do all of the above, you just can't do it WHILE IN UNIFORM... Same with Boy Scouts and many other organizations that want to keep politics out of their normal business.
I remember when I was NCOIC of my unit's Honor Guard, I received a request for a "military color guard" at a "community event". It turned out to be a church function. One of my people told me afterward that he felt "uncomfortable" about the gig when several church members had "shared" their religious views on him. After that, I was VERY careful to screen requests for any hint of impropriety. I also tactfully told the person that requested our services I didn't appreciate being misled about the gig.
ABNinfantryman wrote:
Actually, you can publicly do all of the above, you just can't do it WHILE IN UNIFORM... Same with Boy Scouts and many other organizations that want to keep politics out of their normal business.
I remember when I was NCOIC of my unit's Honor Guard, I received a request for a "military color guard" at a "community event". It turned out to be a church function. One of my people told me afterward that he felt "uncomfortable" about the gig when several church members had "shared" their religious views on him. After that, I was VERY careful to screen requests for any hint of impropriety. I also tactfully told the person that requested our services I didn't appreciate being misled about the gig.
cato
Newbie
imported post
So far all I've seen is policy which can be enforced against gov./mil. "personal". The federal "facilities" gun ban only criminalizes possession in qualifying "buildings".
What charge if any would be brought against a private person not employed on base for otherwise lawful possession?
And I understand one could be asked/forced to leave the base. I looking for the criminal liability for mere possession if any.
So far all I've seen is policy which can be enforced against gov./mil. "personal". The federal "facilities" gun ban only criminalizes possession in qualifying "buildings".
What charge if any would be brought against a private person not employed on base for otherwise lawful possession?
And I understand one could be asked/forced to leave the base. I looking for the criminal liability for mere possession if any.
ABNinfantryman
Regular Member
imported post
You can do that in civilians as long as you don't convey your views as being a military standard, regardless of whether or not you're in uniform. You can't say "Well I'm in the army and most of the guys I know are republican/democrat" because it implies the military supports a specific group. Regardless, I was saying he was probably confused about the rule.