Uber_Olafsun
Regular Member
You are forgetting about military spouses which I was one for awhile after I got out. You signed up to serve you are stuck with it but if you are a spouse living on base you are restricted as well.
-
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.
military base carry debate
- Thread starter diablos30
- Start date
SFCRetired
Regular Member
Quite frankly, I would be far more concerned about the average commissioned officer's temperament and such. I trusted my young enlisted men and women a whole lot more than I trusted the majority of the officers (and warrant officers) I knew. One of the officers I knew had the annoying habit of putting on a "cute little girl" act (female officer) when speaking to senior enlisted. This West Point graduate is, the last time I looked, a lieutenant colonel and still doesn't have a clue.
On top of that, I, and most other senior NCOs (not the "lifer" sergeants), trained our soldiers. One of the things we trained was small arms marksmanship with an additional emphasis on safety.
I know a senior NCO on duty right now who assures me that the NCOs of the Army, and I would suspect of the other services, still actively train their soldiers in all of the soldier skills that I worked on.
For what it is worth, I am much more inclined to believe it is the Nervous Nellie civilians who pushed the "No Guns on Base" business than the military leadership.
Gil223
Regular Member
I completely agree with you, SFC! To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a scientific study done, so there are no statistics to quote. But, my 20+ years of experience in the military makes be believe that, on a per capita basis, the average junior officer is no better emotionally balanced than is a slick sleeve enlisted person. My personal belief is that the enlisted man will mature more rapidly, because the enlisted are charged with the hands-on responsiblity to schedule, assemble, inspect, maintain and repair mission essential equipment. They are also responsible for the hands-on logistics involved in the scheduling, loading, transport and issuance of that equipment - as well as support equipment and supplies. The officer corps is in-place primarily for "management" and "span of control". Who actually makes the military function? The enlisted Senior NCO, and his subordinates.
But, the real issue, as stated by the OP, is "temperament". I would be every bit as comfortable, if not more so, around armed junior enlisted personnel as I would junior officers. Enlisted don't seem to be as likely to 'throw a fit' when things don't go the way they planned. Pax...
Aknazer
Regular Member
That whole "maintaining good order and discipline" thing is the commerce clause of the military. They don't even have to have a reason for how it applies. Hell the whole thing about having to register guns that were offbase with the armory was done via the "good order and discipline" bit. Luckily congress stepped in for that one, but generally you're stuck dealing with it.
Also the fact that this is a 2A board probably has something to do with the focus on 2A infringements. Especially when the arguements for those infringements don't hold water.
Some of the founders, even warned against giving the federal government control of the militia because if all able bodied males were in the militia then regulating the militia was regulating the populace and could be used to do anything. Very similar to the warnings about the commerce clause.
Idk OC, we are pretty well set with our 5th amendment rights. Check out article 31 of the UCMJ
OC for ME
Regular Member
Great, my view of the 5th has been refuted, despite my personal experiences, point taken and conceded. The other ones are still on the table.
Bottom line, if we ain't 'in', anymore or ever, we ain;r got any skin in the game.
Bottom line, if we ain't 'in', anymore or ever, we ain;r got any skin in the game.
Someone do something naughty to you without a lawyer present?
Aknazer
Regular Member
I've talked with someone who was "interviewed" by OSI. Let's just say that they are very good at getting into your head and getting information. He now dislikes those that want to go the OSI route.
MilProGuy
Regular Member
I certainly agree with your assessment that this will never change.
At least, it's highly unlikely that it ever will.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I know I would have shot a few 1st Sgts when I was in .... instead I had to mow them down in my truck (its harder than it sounds!)
why would you say something like this on our forum?
edit: can a mod remove this? this showing up in a google search hurts our movement
Last edited:
Gil223
Regular Member
I'm going to guess that this post is a seriously failed attempt at "humor". However, the only thing I found 'funny' about it, was that the nurses let you access a computer there at the State Hospital! (The last thing a sane person would think about doing, would be come into a firearms related forum, and start jabbering about how they would be killing people!)
Last edited:
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
Begs the question, modus ponens, what are people in this context? Logically extending the question, are then "Son of a Gun" or "Knightman" people? Ranks are epithets.
Last edited:
Aknazer
Regular Member
So in other words you're admitting that you killed multiple 1st Sgts...since that is what it means when you say "instead had to mow them down in my truck." You also show part of the reason to carry. You were committed to killing them, couldn't use a gun, so you used your truck to kill them. Pity they couldn't be armed and at least try to defend theirselves.
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
+1, this a new poster who has advocated illegal acts in a number of threads. Time for him to go...
Gil223
Regular Member
I have never known a 1st Sergeant to be anything other than a person (although some may have had questionable humanity). So, according to modus ponens logic , "a few" 1st Sgts is equal to all people holding the rank of 1st Sgt (even if one of the premises is false). No matter how you look at it, McBeth's statement is scurrilous by impying that (under modus ponens) all 1st Sgts are worthy of injury or death by an act of violence.
Pax...P.S. IMNSHO he is :banana::banana::banana:!
Last edited:
MilProGuy
Regular Member
It certainly does nothing to promote the cause of this forum.
Eeyore
Regular Member
At the risk of necro-posting, I think this discussion will become timely again, given the obvious-but-not-offically-recognized-as-such terrorist attack in Chattanooga.
I assume that the powers that be will not even contemplate allowing military personnel to carry. They are and will continue to be targets, but military personnel are even less able to defend themselves than most civilians. We will be presented with the image of civilian police or rent-a-cops posted at recruiting offices, Reserve Centers, etc. in order to protect the soldiers. Anybody else find this supremely ironic?
I assume that the powers that be will not even contemplate allowing military personnel to carry. They are and will continue to be targets, but military personnel are even less able to defend themselves than most civilians. We will be presented with the image of civilian police or rent-a-cops posted at recruiting offices, Reserve Centers, etc. in order to protect the soldiers. Anybody else find this supremely ironic?