Man talks about being against arming soldiers on Military bases

So I was browsing Yahoo Answers, and came across someone who made a comment about how military bases should allow their soldiers to be armed while on base. Every responder came on and bashed him; even several people who are in the military. You would think the military, being a defender and supporter of the U.S. Constitution would defend the 2nd Amendment EVERYWHERE, but the following post is absolutely unbelievable. I will copy and paste one of the answers..


"I hope you are having a great day. I truly understand your question. You are correct the military is to support and defend the Constitution. You are totally incorrect that all soldiers are “proficiently trained in firearms”. And please, do not arm them with pistols. How would you like too accidently get shot in the back, because a soldier dropped his/her pistol on the floor?

Hank, do you have any idea how many soldiers are killed or wounded from accidental discharge of firearms or friendly fire under combat or non combat conditions? There have been THOUSANDS (1000’s). This is something the military does not like to write or talk about. The military estimates friendly fire/accidental deaths since World War II thru Desert Storm at 10% to 14%. That does NOT include wounded data. The military will sometimes cover up the facts. I would like to give you two examples from my own experiences.

On October 9, 2010, I was invited to attend a Military Memorial dedication at Bishop Amat High School in Los Angeles. This high school lost eleven (11) soldiers in Vietnam. One soldier was in my outfit. I read each profile. One soldier was KIA “shortly following an airmobile return to the Platoon Base Camp, the M-16 of a squad mate discharged during cleaning. The round struck Stanley and mortally wounded him on the 26th of October 1967. Stanley received a posthumous promotion to sergeant. He was class of 1963.”

http://www.bishopamat.org/Articles.aspx?…

One other soldier also died from accidental discharge of a fire arm by his fellow soldier. Two soldiers died in helicopter crashes, and one died in a jeep accident. Hank, you can do the percentages??? The military is not what you see on television. The data does not mean much unless it was you, your son/daughter, or husband/wife…..10% to 14%....something to really think about.

I served in an elite assault helicopter company (part of the 101 airborne division) deep in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. Two days into Tet 68’ a mortar round hit a Huey Gunship. Ammo and rockets were flying all over the place. Hit photo #6-10 on web site below.
http://www.oldsite.336ahc.com/images/gus…

We had soldiers running all over the place. The whole small airbase opened up with M-79’s, fifties, and M-60’s. Red and green tracers were flying all over the base. Some soldiers were so scare they were seeing VC breaking through the perimeter. Some of their eyes were as big as watermelons. We were all in fear of getting killed by our own men. It took us ten minutes to finally get these soldiers to cease fire.

In your case Hank, if you arm every clerical soldier, every cook, every supply person, and every mechical worker on any military base, the Nidal Malik Hasan incident could/may have turned into uncontrollable mass hastier. Many soldiers could have died or been wounded. You have no idea of the panic, the stories, and roomers which could have started. There is no way in hell I would want to be on a military base in which all the soldiers were armed. You are assuming that all soldiers are trained.

Do you have any idea what happens to soldiers in a shoot out? I have witnessed soldiers in combat shoot off their own rotor blades and crash because of panic.

Okay Hank, I know by the thumbs downs and your question how you stand and think on this subject. Therefore let’s do it your way. We will arm every soldier on a military base. If I were a terrorist, I GUARANTEE I could take four (4) men at night and have soldiers on that base shooting at each other within fifteen (15) minutes. I know this as a fact and believe me the US Military also knows this as a fact. That is the reason all military soldiers are not armed on a military base.

Thanks for your excellent question. I know it is very hard to understand my answer unless you have seen men panic under combat conditions. You and your family have a great day. Peace, from Los Angeles."

A few thoughts. 1) some of the respondants were from the Vietnam era where the draft was in place. So if your feet weren't flat and you were in. So I would say that today's volunteer force is better motivated/educated/responsible than your average yahoo in the 60's. 2) ask for someone from Ft. Hood to respond and let us know what they think!

Disarming "everyone" on military bases also disarms people like me that are consultants and own and carry firearms every day other than when I go on base. I am responsible and can be trusted to be in McDonalds during lunch when lots of kids are around but an deemed too much a threat to even leave my carry piece in the car while on base.

Either you are for freedom and liberty or you are not. There are always consequences when people are given those and expected to act responsibly. So punish those who misuse their God given rights and not those who would use them for the benefit of all!

I served with and trained a lot of the young soldiers for twenty-one years. The vast majority of them are intelligent, mature, and very level-headed. They also take to properly administered training like a sponge. My son is now one of them and wears the stripes I wore when I retired.

From what I saw when I was AD and from what my son tells me, it isn't the soldiers that are hare-brained, it's far too many of their officers. When you have a first lieutenant with the ink barely dry on his orders chewing out a Sergeant First Class or Master Sergeant who has more time in grade than the lieutenant has in the Army, something is badly wrong. Yes, I saw it. Yes, the lieutenant made a total fool of himself. People like that get other people killed.

Would I trust our young men and women in uniform with a pistol, either issued or personal? You're doggone straight I would, but I would also hold their NCOs nose to the grindstone and make them train those young people in the proper, safe handling of thos pistols. That is what a NCO is supposed to do.

Link?

SFCRetired said:

I served with and trained a lot of the young soldiers for twenty-one years. The vast majority of them are intelligent, mature, and very level-headed. They also take to properly administered training like a sponge. My son is now one of them and wears the stripes I wore when I retired.

From what I saw when I was AD and from what my son tells me, it isn't the soldiers that are hare-brained, it's far too many of their officers. When you have a first lieutenant with the ink barely dry on his orders chewing out a Sergeant First Class or Master Sergeant who has more time in grade than the lieutenant has in the Army, something is badly wrong. Yes, I saw it. Yes, the lieutenant made a total fool of himself. People like that get other people killed.

Would I trust our young men and women in uniform with a pistol, either issued or personal? You're doggone straight I would, but I would also hold their NCOs nose to the grindstone and make them train those young people in the proper, safe handling of thos pistols. That is what a NCO is supposed to do.

Click to expand...

I could not agree with you anymore SFC. I'm active duty now and hold the rank of Sergeant. It takes a strong NCO to ensure that these Soldiers are properly trained and no one is in a better position than I to make that happen. As long as I and others do their job I cannot see any reason to not arm Soldiers while on post. They arm all of us when we deploy to combat zones for safety measures. Why not have us all carry our assigned weapons while in Garrison? Part of a Soldiers "Initial entry training" is "weapons Immersion" which is where a soldier is attached to his rifle to familiarize that Soldier with the proper handling and accountability of his weapon at all times. It could just be an extension of that training. Not all weapons need to be on Amber status while in garrison. Just have the soldiers carry it with the mag well empty and you can reduce the chances of negligent discharge. I know that doesn't work for us while OC with our personal weapons however that is how it is usually done over in the sandbox while on a large FOB.

25sierraman said:

I could not agree with you anymore SFC. I'm active duty now and hold the rank of Sergeant. It takes a strong NCO to ensure that these Soldiers are properly trained and no one is in a better position than I to make that happen. As long as I and others do their job I cannot see any reason to not arm Soldiers while on post. They arm all of us when we deploy to combat zones for safety measures. Why not have us all carry our assigned weapons while in Garrison? Part of a Soldiers "Initial entry training" is "weapons Immersion" which is where a soldier is attached to his rifle to familiarize that Soldier with the proper handling and accountability of his weapon at all times. It could just be an extension of that training. Not all weapons need to be on Amber status while in garrison. Just have the soldiers carry it with the mag well empty and you can reduce the chances of negligent discharge. I know that doesn't work for us while OC with our personal weapons however that is how it is usually done over in the sandbox while on a large FOB.

Click to expand...

While I would agree with the assessment that most of our military members are more than responsible enough to be trusted OCing on post, I'm not sure I'd have them carry their assigned weapons as an answer to the issue. Personally, I wouldn't want to be stuck carrying an M-60 around post every day as I go about my business.

I think the idea here is to discuss OC of POWs (Privately Owned Weapons) rather than assigned military weapons.

But, perhaps it's a misunderstanding on my part- Is the original intent here to discuss arming non-LEO members of the military during the duty day with their assigned weapons or is it to discuss military members being allowed to carry POWs on military bases while off duty.....or both?

Thanks!

Here is a broad description of what I think would be a reasonable regulation of carry on base that would respect the RKBA while recognizing the executive authority to regulate the military:

A military member may carry on a military installation any of the following:

1. A weapon for which he has been trained in the use and determined to be fully qualified, which has been issued to him, and which he is under orders to carry or given specific permission to carry.

2. A personally owned handgun for which he has been trained in the use and and determined to be fully qualified. [Of course this means that installations would have to make provisions for ensuring training is provided to its military personnel for their personal weapons.]

3. A weapon for which he is being trained in the use while under the direct supervision of a qualified person conducting that training.

Commanders may only restrict number 2 above for explicitly defined areas on the installation where materials and information currently require protection by armed guards. A system for securing weapons upon entry and return of weapons upon exit will be provided. Such a restriction will prohibit any arms (including issue arms) from being carried by anyone who is not specifically designated by the installation commander to carry arms in that area. The restriction cannot target only personally owned handguns.

Commanders may temporarily restrict carry of arms by a member who has been determined unfit to carry for a specific reason (mental illness, awaiting discharge, a prisoner, confined to quarters, awaiting court martial, [I am sure there are more reasons]). No permanent restriction can be imposed.
_____________________________

The above should maximize the RKBA by military members while still addressing unique security concerns on a military installation. My proposal does not address carry by civilian personnel, dependents, and visitors. That would need to be addressed too.

rotorhead said:

While I would agree with the assessment that most of our military members are more than responsible enough to be trusted OCing on post, I'm not sure I'd have them carry their assigned weapons as an answer to the issue. Personally, I wouldn't want to be stuck carrying an M-60 around post every day as I go about my business.

I think the idea here is to discuss OC of POWs (Privately Owned Weapons) rather than assigned military weapons.

But, perhaps it's a misunderstanding on my part- Is the original intent here to discuss arming non-LEO members of the military during the duty day with their assigned weapons or is it to discuss military members being allowed to carry POWs on military bases while off duty.....or both?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

By no means would I argue that they should be required to be armed with their assigned weapons throughout the day. I am suggesting that they should have the right as every citizen, to carry their personal owned weapons on base, when they so well please to do so.

Thought

Just a quick thought. I've been in the military more than 20 years, and a military base is one of the biggest unarmed victim zones in the world. They have so many ristrictions it's crazy. Why not let the bases at least follow the local state laws?

golddigger14s said:

Just a quick thought. I've been in the military more than 20 years, and a military base is one of the biggest unarmed victim zones in the world. The have so many ristrictions it's crazy.

Click to expand...

Would you believe that it didn't use to be that way? The Provost Marshal of Redstone Arsenal waaay back told me that I could carry on base until I got to where I was going to park for the day. I then had to place the weapon in the trunk. We had an open range for military and civilians every Wednesday.

How long ago was this? 1980 until 1985 is the time frame I know about.

I carried a two-and-three-quarter inch barrel Ruger Security Six in .357 Magnum. You should have see the looks on people's faces at the range the first time I fired it! Flame came out some twelve inches!!