FORT HOOD

[Rush Creek]

imported post

Similar to the post-9/11 debate over arming airline pilots in the cockpit - the advertised disarmed condition of the general population on military installations is an invitation to this type of terrorist act.

At least ONE designated person per every increment of 10 personnel( duty officer, CQ, etc) should be assigned to carry a side-arm concealed specifically to twart this type of act. This pool of undercoverpersonnel should have a special security classifcation similar to an access security clearance in order to eliminate unstable, disgruntled, or questionable risk factors.

 

[zack991]

imported post

Rush Creek wrote:

Similar to the post-9/11 debate over arming airline pilots in the cockpit - the advertised disarmed condition of the general population on military installations is an invitation to this type of terrorist act.

At least ONE designated person per every increment of 10 personnel ( duty officer, CQ, etc) should be assigned to carry a side-arm concealed specifically to twart this type of act. This pool of undercoverpersonnel should have a special security classifcation similar to an access security clearance in order to eliminate unstable, disgruntled, or questionable risk factors.

That may work but in reality cause more issues, other soldiers are going to be pissed that they are having to rely on hidden police to protect them verses them protecting themselves. If there is another shooting and not one of those personal are there to doing what they where meant to do then it only enforces my point. Either give everyone the ability to protect themselves out of uniform or not at all.

 

[fully_armed_biker]

imported post

zack991 wrote:

Rush Creek wrote:

Similar to the post-9/11 debate over arming airline pilots in the cockpit - the advertised disarmed condition of the general population on military installations is an invitation to this type of terrorist act.

At least ONE designated person per every increment of 10 personnel ( duty officer, CQ, etc) should be assigned to carry a side-arm concealed specifically to twart this type of act. This pool of undercoverpersonnel should have a special security classifcation similar to an access security clearance in order to eliminate unstable, disgruntled, or questionable risk factors.

That may work but in reality cause more issues, other soldiers are going to be pissed that they are having to rely on hidden police to protect them verses them protecting themselves. If there is another shooting and not one of those personal are there to doing what they where meant to do then it only enforces my point. Either give everyone the ability to protect themselves out of uniform or not at all.

...And what do you do about military bases where civilians out number military? I happen to work on one such military base...civilians out number military5 to 1. I would venture to say I'm as good a shot as, if notbetter than,the vast majorityof themilitary stationed here too (and the rent-a-cop gate guards too)...I would be more than willing to go thorugh whatever certification/qualification process they wanted to throw at me to be able to carryon post.

 

[zack991]

imported post

fully_armed_biker wrote:

zack991 wrote:

Rush Creek wrote:

Similar to the post-9/11 debate over arming airline pilots in the cockpit - the advertised disarmed condition of the general population on military installations is an invitation to this type of terrorist act.

At least ONE designated person per every increment of 10 personnel ( duty officer, CQ, etc) should be assigned to carry a side-arm concealed specifically to twart this type of act. This pool of undercoverpersonnel should have a special security classifcation similar to an access security clearance in order to eliminate unstable, disgruntled, or questionable risk factors.

That may work but in reality cause more issues, other soldiers are going to be pissed that they are having to rely on hidden police to protect them verses them protecting themselves. If there is another shooting and not one of those personal are there to doing what they where meant to do then it only enforces my point. Either give everyone the ability to protect themselves out of uniform or not at all.

...And what do you do about military bases where civilians out number military? I happen to work on one such military base...civilians out number military5 to 1. I would venture to say I'm as good a shot as, if notbetter than,the vast majorityof themilitary stationed here too (and the rent-a-cop gate guards too)...I would be more than willing to go thorugh whatever certification/qualification process they wanted to throw at me to be able to carryon post.

I never said civilians shouldn't be allowed, I think everyone should go through a free class for those who wish to carry on post. It would make no sense to not allow both to have this right to protect themselves.

 

[SlackwareRobert]

imported post

One of the many reasons I couldn't support McCain or Bush. They
both cannot see how dangerous it is to be unarmed targets.
Even when they catch people scoping out bases they don't
have the common sense to change policy.
Israel has no problem with people walking the streets or going
in for a cup of coffee with a gun slung on their back, and I bet they
also are loaded and work.
Virginia & Georgia have no problem with a GI carrying, only the commander
and chief can't stand it.

I guess we should all be greatfull that Nancy and BHO haven't gotten around
to enacting a similar policy banning civilian police from enforcing laws on
military bases to make things even with off base law.:banghead::banghead:
Lets hope the paralysis protects the 72 virgins from him.

Is it double jeopardy if you try him in military court where he has a lot less
rights first? Would like to go for the firing squad for this offense in time of war.

Can the state of Texas charge him for shooting police on federal property?
They have the death penalty express lane.

 

[fully_armed_biker]

imported post

zack991 wrote:

fully_armed_biker wrote:

zack991 wrote:

Rush Creek wrote:

Similar to the post-9/11 debate over arming airline pilots in the cockpit - the advertised disarmed condition of the general population on military installations is an invitation to this type of terrorist act.

At least ONE designated person per every increment of 10 personnel ( duty officer, CQ, etc) should be assigned to carry a side-arm concealed specifically to twart this type of act. This pool of undercoverpersonnel should have a special security classifcation similar to an access security clearance in order to eliminate unstable, disgruntled, or questionable risk factors.

That may work but in reality cause more issues, other soldiers are going to be pissed that they are having to rely on hidden police to protect them verses them protecting themselves. If there is another shooting and not one of those personal are there to doing what they where meant to do then it only enforces my point. Either give everyone the ability to protect themselves out of uniform or not at all.

...And what do you do about military bases where civilians out number military? I happen to work on one such military base...civilians out number military5 to 1. I would venture to say I'm as good a shot as, if notbetter than,the vast majorityof themilitary stationed here too (and the rent-a-cop gate guards too)...I would be more than willing to go thorugh whatever certification/qualification process they wanted to throw at me to be able to carryon post.

I never said civilians shouldn't be allowed, I think everyone should go through a free class for those who wish to carry on post. It would make no sense to not allow both to have this right to protect themselves.

I wasn't trying to imply you were saying that...I was agreeing with you and adding that, that included all qualified personnel and I would gladly carry at work if allowed.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

I was online with the Shepard Smith LIVE CHAT today @ 3pm eastern.

There were many comments about how difficult it would be to stop this from happening. Many people even admitted that no matter how hard you made it for people to get weapons, if they wanted to they can. BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Yet every comment I tried to post DID NOT MAKE IT ONLINE.Huh. Imagine that. They want to cry about how helpless the situation is but don't want to hear a peep about how to prevent these events.

my comment:
"I'm concerned about people saying this event was unavoidable. How about assigning handguns to all soldiers on the base? This is why "GUN FREE" zones are falling out of favor with American Citizens."

I also tried sending it without the final sentence.
No dice.

Just more oh-my-god-how-horrible-too-bad-we-can't-do-anything but live scared.

 

[r6-rider]

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

Israel has no problem with people walking the streets or going
in for a cup of coffee with a gun slung on their back, and I bet they
also are loaded and work.

have you personally witnessed citizens in Israel carrying weapons? iv heard alot of talk about how everyone carries but i havent been able to find their laws about it (or talked to someone who has first hand experience.) in all the pictures i see of the IDF it looks like they always have their rifles in condition 4

 

[Milbars]

imported post

UtahJarhead wrote:

The Air Force doesn't have a ton of training on the M16 from what I've heard, and perhaps their time is better used elsewhere, but I figure if you were to go to a warzone, you should be given however much training is required to be proficient and safe with your gun/rifle.

No, we don't. Luckily I've been overseas and to Iraq enough that I'm really comfortable with it. Our training consists of an online CBT and once you receive orders to an overseas post like Korea or a deployment, you get a half day of training. Classroom mixed with some very static gun range time. Many times have I heard the Army snicker when they see AF personnel walking on base with M16's. Very sad to see how confused the AF is right now, 8 years after 9/11 and almost 6 after Iraq.

 

[Sealgar]

imported post

I wrote both Texas senators that this insane policy of the Army needs to be changed. All officers and senior nco's should be openly armed at all times. Junior nco's to be armed at the descretion of the company commander and the First Shirt. Remove the stupid policy of the oic's career going down the tubes if someone has an AD. That should be on the individual only.

With all the training and experience of today's soldiers there is no reasonfor an American soldier to be helpless.



Of course, nothing will come of it, but I tried.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

I wrote both of my VA senators. What do you think?

--------------
Dear Esteemed Senator Warner,

I am distraught with the news reports of the massacre at Fort Hood. Unfortunately, I am not surprised that this could be accomplished.
I remember the first time I had a work call to a military base. First, it was huge, encompassing lots of land. Secondly, my lawfully concealed handgun had to be left with these large, competent looking soldiers at the front gate. No problem! I mean, its a military base, right?
Wrong! Those 4 guards at the front gate were the ONLY armed men I saw my entire visit and all subsequent visits. This has held true at all the military bases I have made deliveries / work calls to.
Although these were military bases, the only thing I could think about my safety was, "This is a GUN FREE ZONE(GFZs)."
As a rule, I do what I can to avoid GFZs. The airplanes of 9/11 were GFZs. Columbine High is a GFZ. The Oklahoma mall was a GFZ. The Utah mall was a GFZ. Virginia Tech is a GFZ.
If we have learned anything, it is when you have an urban center (READ:Target Rich Environment), it is not probable to have a First Responder close enough to stop multiple casualties.
I disagree with these GFZs, but they are GFZs due to the decisions of CIVILIANS. These civilians make these mistakes because the do not fully understand a Citizens responsibilities to Liberty, and wrongfully believe the police and government must and can protect them at all times.
The military, conversely, KNOWS they are responsible for themselves, and KNOW that THEY are the protectors.
I can understand the failure of thought of my fellow civilian Citizens, but it is INEXCUSABLE from the ARMED forces. The SOLUTION to this problem is SIMPLE. Require a large portion of the soldiers to WEAR A DUTY SIDEARM whenever in uniform, and for God's sake, let properly licensed off duty personnel carry their personal handguns on base. Currently, I, a simple truck driver, am better able to defend myself -while eating breakfast at Denny's- than a U.S. soldier while deployed stateside in the middle of military base.
There is a military acronym for this, its called FUBAR.
The elegance of this reality is its simplicity. It works regardless of the manner in which a weapon is obtained on base, and is unaffected by the possible failings of mental health services and/or intelligence to identify a personality becoming unstable.
I make no judgements on the Mental health of Nidal Malik Hasan, or of any intelligence related to him. It is an important avenue that needs to be explored in depth by those qualified. It may lead to some new insight in how to prevent some assailants. It will not, however, lead to any answers on how to stop mass shootings.

Respectfully,
Joseph G Simmons
Citizen, United States of America

Member:
National Rifle Association(NRA)
International Defensive Pistol Association(IDPA)
Virginia Citizens Defense League(VCDL)
Owner-Operator / Independant Driver's Association(OOIDA)


"An armed society is a polite society." -Robert A. Heinlein

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

www.OpenCarry.org
www.VCDL.org
-----------------------------

Any good?

 

[Huck]

imported post

Rush Creek wrote:

At least ONE designated person per every increment of 10 personnel ( duty officer, CQ, etc) should be assigned to carry a side-arm concealed specifically to twart this type of act. This pool of undercoverpersonnel should have a special security classifcation similar to an access security clearance in order to eliminate unstable, disgruntled, or questionable risk factors.

They should all be authorized to carry weapons.With combatarms personnel it should be required! They are after all, trained and in most cases these days, experienced combat troops.

It all boils down to trust. IMHO, if these troops can be trusted with loaded weapons in a combat zone they can and should be trusted with them stateside as well!

What happened at Fort Hood should not have happened!It should be suicidally dangerous for anyone to attack a U.S. Miltrary base. Instead, because of totally retarded regulations,it's no more hazardous to shoot up GIs on a Military base than it is to shoot students at a college. That's pathetic!

 

[r6-rider]

imported post

i hope they roll out the firing line for this jihad POS

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

r6-rider wrote:

i hope they roll out the firing line for this jihad POS

Current military execution protocol is lethal injection, period. IMO this should not be, as it would be inexpedient under war zone conditions if the situation were to require evacuation of the condemned to the States. In the case of a spy, whose execution is authorized y the Geneva Convwntions because a spy carries damaging info among other things there would be too great an escape risk.

Traditionally military executions have historically been by either firing squad or by hanging, with the firing squad being for officers and for such as deserters (to give them a chance to face a bullet with honor) and the noose reserved for murderers, traitors, saboteurs and spies; this being a "less honorable" death.

Thus I must take issue of your reccommendtion of a firing squad for this mook, his crime deserves a noose and a trapdoor. As it is he will likely get the needle, and it is too bad they cannot omit the barbiturate knockout dose in this case.

 

[r6-rider]

imported post

i know too bad. itd be a good example to the world that we arent going to go lightly on terrorist. but americas going soft anyways

 

[heliopolissolutions]

imported post

Ok this is going to sound a little bit paranoid:
Is it possible that these restrictive GFZ measures are a safeguard to prevent coup against the government?
Soldiers unable to arm themselves, or operate mechanisms of war in rebellion?

Not to get OT, but can we think about that for a second?

 

[codename_47]

imported post

Is it possible that these restrictive GFZ measures are a safeguard to prevent coup against the government?
Soldiers unable to arm themselves, or operate mechanisms of war in rebellion?

No. Soldiers have guns at their homes, and that isn't what would cause/stop a rebellion.

 

[Gator5713]

imported post

I have heard ONE 'decent' reason for not allowing 'combat trained soldiers' to carry weapons, however, I do not entirely agree with it, it is the best one I have heard, so I will share it with you here:

While our 'soldiers' are trained to be proficient with firearms, they are also trained to dispatch threats in the most expedient manner possible. That is for ANY and ALL threats... I think you can extrapolate from there...

Like I said, I do not entirely agree with it, but it is the 'best' reason I have heard so far.

 

[PrayingForWar]

imported post

At FT Hood, from what I understood the rule to be in 2004, NO ONE was allowed to keep personal weapons. Regardless of the living conditions, or rank, all weapons had to be stored in the company arms room, and registered with the Provost Marshal. CHL's didn't apply on post, even for civilians.

I can certainly understand concerns about soldiers getting drunk (that's what we do) and then shooting someone for some asinine reason [EDIT] (So very few ever have compared to the civilian population). Some have done so, and in typical gov't fashion, the policy comes out that restricts everyonewith some arbitrary and myopic policy that allows sociopaths a building full of helpless victims until police arrive.

So far as I'm aware, there's only been one rampage in theater where multiple people were killed by a fellow "soldier". I don't remember how it ended, but I'm pretty sure the SOB didn't have 5 minutes to execute "infidels" before "the proper authorities" responded. When I first got to BagramAfganistan in 2007, nearly EVERYONE I saw had a mag in their weapon. Don't recall any problems there.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

It's the same B.S. anti-gunners have always purported. The average joe (or g i joe) can't be trusted to make sound decisions without the direct oversight of some superior intelligence. Same elitist crap.:cuss:

Implying the average soldier will shoot someone because their fantasy football lineup is threatened is like saying if you cut the Terminex man off in traffic he'll poison 237 generations of your family.:banghead:

I carry a gun 24/7/365 since 2004. I've gotten into arguments, I've gotten cut off about a million times (I drive an 18wheeler so I'm not exaggerating.) I've been in a few fist fights.:lol: I was even the intended victim of a strongarm robbery. Yet somehow, I never even thought about drawing my gun in anger.

:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

Guess I must be better than everyone else and all must bow to me.
Obviously my judgement is superior.
From now on if you wish to OC/CC you must get a permit from me.
you can see the requirements and apply for a permit online at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0