• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

A chance to speak to Generals

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Article: One Year After The Fort Hood Rampage.

WHEN will the Generals of our great country start acting on their oaths of office to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" by obeying our Supreme Court-recognized right to keep and bear arms? It's utterly insane that I can protect and defend myself and my family in nearly all our 50 states via either open carry or concealed carry, yet I, a retired member of the military sworn to uphold and defend the same Constitution as have the generals who set military base policy, am barred from protecting or defending myself and my family on the same military bases I've served close to half my life.

WAKE UP!

Please forward this to each and every one of your representatives, as well as the commander in chief of our troops.
 
Last edited:

ChiangShih

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
628
Location
KC
I'd have to agree, I never understood the idea of not allowing the same men we trust with the worlds most powerful military technologies/weapons to carry their own private weapons on base.
 

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,068
Location
Lawton, OK USA
Unarmed Victim Zone

I completely understand. 21 yrs in the military, and our stateside bases are the largest UVZ in the US. (notice heavy breathing). Not saying anymore for security reason.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Private property laws folks... Thats how they get away with it...

The federal "government" is actually a corporation, and as such, all its property has the same rights as any other corporation--including banning private carry of firearms by law abiding citizens.

And as employees you're "rights" can be limited just like any other corporate employer...
 

XDUser

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
58
Location
WA
Name another company that forces you to 8 years of services if you want the job, involuntary call up and jail time if you do not comply.
Don't get me wrong I loved the service but so much BS associated with it.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The military ain't General Electric.

They must know that the folks that they "hire" will follow orders--even those that will almost surely result in their deaths.

GE doesn't quite need that level of commitment from their employees. Comparisons between the military and employers are inapt.
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
As Sergeant Major, (retired) I have often wondered how we can trust our soldiers our soldier/airmen and marines to use and carry the deadliest weapons and munitions and cannot allow them to safeguard themselves at home. My son is a DoD uniformed officer that guards the gates of Ft Riley. He's told me on several instances that he has had to detain soldiers and confiscate weapons that most thankfully were in the proper carry method. Usually they just send them to the Provost Marshall for a temporary registration so they can get their Commanders to sign off on them. Just to have to put them in the Arms Room.
While stationed in Germany in 79-82 I lived off the military installation in Post Quarters. I had cleared my quarters in February of 82, and just below my bedroom window was the entrance to the boiler room. Had I still been in quarters I would have been able to prevent a murder. A soldier forced a young woman down those steps and slashed her throat. You cannot know how hard it is to live with that. I had moved out just two days prior.
 

DustoneGT

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
97
Location
, ,
Not Private Property

Private property laws folks... Thats how they get away with it...

The federal "government" is actually a corporation, and as such, all its property has the same rights as any other corporation--including banning private carry of firearms by law abiding citizens.

And as employees you're "rights" can be limited just like any other corporate employer...

Apples to oranges.

Federal installations are far worse than a private employer when it comes to RTKBA. A private employer can only fire you for carrying against policy, and in most states you might get a misdemeanor trespassing charge if they decide to press charges and the local DA wants to take the case. You can get another job and keep your guns. But do the same on a federal installation and it'll be a felony charge, a stay at club fed, and loss of firearms rights.

So NO, a private employer cannot limit your rights like the feds can.

Plus, government property is not private property. It's public property. You and I are the owners, they are our servants. NOT the other way around. If anything they should require that all base personnel be armed, from the general right on down to the janitor at the PX in case of another Ft. Hood incident or worse.

If we can't trust them with guns, why do we trust them with the safety of the United States?
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
Military personnel 'are' in essence 'Government Property'. Any concern for your health and welfare ultimately centers around your ability to function as an 'effective' in the military mission. You've all heard 'The needs of the service come first?'

Quote: "Plus, government property is not private property. It's public property. You and I are the owners, they are our servants. NOT the other way around." Hehehe... yeah, OK... source law: Public Law 81-831 begat DOD Directive 5200.2 DoD PERSONNEL SECURITY PROGRAM for starters. I don't have access to the resources that I used to (IHS does a much better job of that than the GPO or DoD.)

Personally... I think personal sidearms should be issued to select Senior NCO's/Petty Officers, Warrant Officers and Officers on duty, but NOT everybody willy-nilly unless directly in performance of military duties. Not all milpersonnel are saints, on or off-station.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Military personnel 'are' in essence 'Government Property'. Any concern for your health and welfare ultimately centers around your ability to function as an 'effective' in the military mission. You've all heard 'The needs of the service come first?'

Quote: "Plus, government property is not private property. It's public property. You and I are the owners, they are our servants. NOT the other way around." Hehehe... yeah, OK... source law: Public Law 81-831 begat DOD Directive 5200.2 DoD PERSONNEL SECURITY PROGRAM for starters. I don't have access to the resources that I used to (IHS does a much better job of that than the GPO or DoD.)

Personally... I think personal sidearms should be issued to select Senior NCO's/Petty Officers, Warrant Officers and Officers on duty, but NOT everybody willy-nilly unless directly in performance of military duties. Not all milpersonnel are saints, on or off-station.
Yet MOST of them are citizens; just like you and I. Why deny their Rights, based upon some arbitrary paygrade level or other metric of your chosen discriminatory practice?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Military personnel cannot be "government property."

What a degrading and horrible thing to say. They are (I was) people who hold all the rights that all people do. They have (I had) agreed voluntarily to suspend our exercise of certain rights for a period of time in exchange for the pay and benefits offered. That is simply a contract. We all enter into contracts where we agree to give up choices we have a right to make in favor of a promise to take a certain course of action that we have the right not to take. Of course, the enlistment contract is probably the starkest example of voluntarily agreeing to submit to the authority of others.

Some entered into this contract solely for the pay and bennies, for a job. Some did because of a sense of duty to the Republic that they loved. To refer to those who choose to serve as essentially slaves is inexcusable and disgusting.

Shame.
 

rotorhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
862
Location
FL
After being retired now for just over a year, I've had some decent time to look back and reflect a little.

Some of these rules and regulations people see (or live with firsthand even) seem silly and ignorant but the problem is, many of these regulations came about as a result of a problem in the past. The sad fact is that most of these regulations were the result of idiotic behavior at one time or another. I was never big of mass punishment on any level while serving, but there are times when leaders have to make decisions that affect the whole in an effort to stem a small tide of bad behavior.

SO while today it seems asinine to restrict military member's carrying options on post, I can bet that, at some point in time, the restrictions were much more lenient until such time as a few morons had accidents which caused others to die. As a result, Post Commanders restricted the carrying and use of POWs on post.

The vast majority of military members would probably never have an incident while carrying, but those highly publicized idiots who do are going to be the ones you hear about. And worse, they will be the ones commanders react to every time.

I have no hard numbers to post here, but I have to think that many regulations we see these days came about as a result of bad behavior. While punishing those who acted wrongly, commanders also took steps to reduce future incidents through what I would call "mass implementation" policies designed to mediate unplanned incidents.

So what does all this mumbo jumbo mean? Simply put, many regulations that apply to everyone on post or base are probably the result of some ass-monkeys who messed it up for everyone. You can look at it a couple ways. From one side you can see how it's needlessly restricting good members of the military who would be responsible while carrying on and off duty. On the other hand, you can also see (based on bad behavior in the past that military commanders and communities had to deal with) why commanders would take steps to reduce adverse incidents.

Simply place yourself in the Post Commander's position for a moment. You get the annual report of accidental shootings and you don't like the numbers. You've tried to take steps in the past to curb them such as training, supervision at the lowest levers, etc, yet you are still having these problems.

What do you do?

Again, while it does seem restrictive and unwarranted at first glance, there's probably a decent reason why such a policy is currently in place. That. of course, is not to say that a legitimate review shouldn't be in order from time to time. Maybe it's time they look at the subject again?
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
Military personnel cannot be "government property."

What a degrading and horrible thing to say. They are (I was) people who hold all the rights that all people do. They have (I had) agreed voluntarily to suspend our exercise of certain rights for a period of time in exchange for the pay and benefits offered. That is simply a contract. We all enter into contracts where we agree to give up choices we have a right to make in favor of a promise to take a certain course of action that we have the right not to take. Of course, the enlistment contract is probably the starkest example of voluntarily agreeing to submit to the authority of others.

Some entered into this contract solely for the pay and bennies, for a job. Some did because of a sense of duty to the Republic that they loved. To refer to those who choose to serve as essentially slaves is inexcusable and disgusting.

Shame.

De Jure you are correct, De Facto you are incorrect. If a private goes on liberty/leave, etc., and does something that causes him to be unfit for duty, you can bet your sweet bippy that he will be given a minimum of an article 15 for rendering government equipment (him/herself) unfit for use and could be brought to court martial for the same. If hurt bad enough to qualify for a medical discharge you can bet on the court martial and a dishonorable or an other than honorable discharge with zero VA benefits.:cuss:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
De Jure you are correct, De Facto you are incorrect. If a private goes on liberty/leave, etc., and does something that causes him to be unfit for duty, you can bet your sweet bippy that he will be given a minimum of an article 15 for rendering government equipment (him/herself) unfit for use and could be brought to court martial for the same. If hurt bad enough to qualify for a medical discharge you can bet on the court martial and a dishonorable or an other than honorable discharge with zero VA benefits.:cuss:

Yes, I have heard that myth. Care to cite a case where that line of reasoning has actually been used in a proceeding? In my 20 years, the myth was repeated often, but no one could ever cite a single case where it happened.
 

Deleted_User

Guest
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
807
I have seen Article 15s handed out but I've yet to see this go to anything higher. Either the soldier doesn't challenge it, or it falters before going to trial.

Oh by the by, the Article 15s I saw was for 1 broken leg during a race and one was for a soldier getting a sunburn "Destruction of Government Property." He wasn't destroyed, just crispy or temporarily crippled. I nearly crapped a brick. People can't be property, but NJP goes through like this, or did in 2000.

It'd NEVER float in trial
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I have seen Article 15s handed out but I've yet to see this go to anything higher. Either the soldier doesn't challenge it, or it falters before going to trial.

Oh by the by, the Article 15s I saw was for 1 broken leg during a race and one was for a soldier getting a sunburn "Destruction of Government Property." He wasn't destroyed, just crispy or temporarily crippled. I nearly crapped a brick. People can't be property, but NJP goes through like this, or did in 2000.

It'd NEVER float in trial

I call BS. You are going to tell me that you can't, but here goes anyway. Cite?

In my twenty years, I don't know of a single case. It's a myth. One that, for credibility and to impress those around them, is often accompanied with the insistence that the teller knows someone who knows someone who this actually happened to! Really!

Bull.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
All this 'cite' stuff is B.S. You do something to yourself on purpose or thru some dumb stunt that renders you unfit for duty in the military and you'll get written up. 'On Report'. Show up drunk... stoned or been in a barroom brawl 'n beat up... 'Don't matter. Get some STD (the clap) more than a few times and you'll be restricted to the ship or station where you can't do that anymore.

There are places posted off-limits where you cannot go. You cannot go further than anywhere in a 50 mile radius on liberty w/o written permission. On duty days... you must remain in off-base quarters if not actually on watch or one place with a phone number on station (such as the club, gymn or hobby shop). You will conform to the Uniform of the Day... no matter what it may be. You can be written up for being out of uniform if you don''t comply. There are certain articles of civilian attire that cannot be worn on or off station/ship. If you have certain levels of security clearance, there are places and people you cannot associate with. Any off-duty civilian part-time employment must be approved before you can take the job. Anything that interferes with your military duties or ability to perform those duties is forbidden. The military is one of the only types of employment where you can go to jail for not showing up for work or 'quitting'. Now... tell me again you're not considered 'Government Property'?
 
Last edited:

DustoneGT

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
97
Location
, ,
Off Topic

I think we're getting off topic.

Whether military personnel are government property or not is largely irrelevant. Our most sensitive areas are huge victim disarmament zones. They've done nothing to prevent another Ft. Hood incident, and probably never will. You see, they'd rather have the soldiers disarmed and vulnerable at home than risk giving them the means of self-defense. That ain't right.

Keep in mind that there are many civilians working on base these days. They are absolutely not government property, and are denied RTKBA. Many of them had to pass intensive background checks to get clearance, so we can trust them with our nation's most secret secrets, but not with a firearm?

And let's not forget that these people commute in, sometimes over great distance, to get to work.

So now we have hundreds if not thousands of people every day who are knowledgeable of classified information driving back and forth disarmed. The enemy (whoever they are) can hijack these people freely knowing they are disarmed and beat them with a wrench until they give up the secrets.

Does any of this seem like a good way to run things?
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
I think we're getting off topic.

Whether military personnel are government property or not is largely irrelevant. Our most sensitive areas are huge victim disarmament zones. They've done nothing to prevent another Ft. Hood incident, and probably never will. You see, they'd rather have the soldiers disarmed and vulnerable at home than risk giving them the means of self-defense. That ain't right.

Keep in mind that there are many civilians working on base these days. They are absolutely not government property, and are denied RTKBA. Many of them had to pass intensive background checks to get clearance, so we can trust them with our nation's most secret secrets, but not with a firearm?

And let's not forget that these people commute in, sometimes over great distance, to get to work.

So now we have hundreds if not thousands of people every day who are knowledgeable of classified information driving back and forth disarmed. The enemy (whoever they are) can hijack these people freely knowing they are disarmed and beat them with a wrench until they give up the secrets.

Does any of this seem like a good way to run things?[/QUOTE]

Of course not. The military is always doing a balancing act between practicality and control... based on percieved mission necessity. The emphasis is usually on control. Individual desires are secondary or not a consideration, depending upon circumstances. There is 'no good way' that will satisfy all concerned. As a single senior enlisted, i lived off station... but I also lived aboard ship. Suffice to say... I made do with inventiveness concerning my personal weapon(s).
 
Top