Posted on 04/17/2014 10:37:41 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
The murders at Fort Hood have resulted in renewed calls to lift Bill Clinton’s ban on personally owned firearms on military bases. This latest attack was the third on a military installation in the past five years, so common sense, no, common DECENCY dictates that a change in policy is necessary. Those who essentially hate the military and think the worst of its members have had their way long enough. Their “because we say so” policy has never made sense. It has to end because it’s killing people and destroying lives.
The arguments against allowing our military personnel the means to defend themselves...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
they don’t allow soldiers to be armed w/loaded weapons at their inaugurations b/c they don’t trust them.
But they want the gangs of Chicago to be armed?
bkmk
The kind of mental characteristics necessary to maintain firearms (and other weapons) in good working order are usually not present in the mind of the typical lefty.
Orderliness, discipline, problem-solving skills, linear thinking... without these, complex weapons become useless junk.
People who can think like that are not going to turn into rabid supporters of kooky left-wing emotionality.
Of all the comments that came out of the recent Texas Bundy Ranch/BLM fiasco, the one that really stuck with me was something to the effect of "look what people will do for a paycheck," referring to the BLM employees who were lined up with their weapons and their Ford Excursions.
A basic problem for the Left is that - since their movement is based on dishonesty - they can't count on their soldiers carrying on once things get nasty, and the paychecks stops, and the food stops, and things start getting really harry.
Basically, they're bluffing. To call their bluff will be expensive, but they'll never back it.
Even the leaders of the USSR couldn't back it. Not indefinitely.
I served under both Carter and Reagan.
The policy was the same then.
My father served under Truman and Eisenhower...the policy was the same then.
We had a FReeper right here on FR claim soldiers, sailors, and airmen would “trip over their slings...and kill massive amounts of people” if they were allowed weapons. This from an Army officer of Bradley vehicle units. He and his dad, another freeper, got pissed when I called him on it. They basically said everyone else’s child in the military were idiots that shouldn’t be allowed weapons, even if they could obtain a concealed weapons permit in civilian life. The mere fact they were in the military somehow made them idiots unworthy of weapons in their eyes.
The military has never allowed personal arms in Barracks, the ship, family housing etc.
And will never do so.
That started under Bush I. Then reinforced under Clinton.
They don’t want the soldiers armed because they are afraid those soldiers may march against them in revolt. It is that simple.
“Personal arms had to be checked into the armory, and checked out with a chit from your unit XO or designee.
The military has never allowed personal arms in Barracks, the ship, family housing etc.
And will never do so.”
Bullchit! I owned weapons and kept them in base housing. All I had to do was register them with PMO. Active Duty from 1984-2007
I think Mariner is talking about privately owned weapons in barracks. You’re correct, as long as you registered your private weapon with the Provost Marshal you could store it in your family quarters. But the principle has existed for a long time going back to the 1960’s if not further.
I had my personal firearms in my wall locker in the barracks back in 1982. Top and the CO inspected barracks monthly. They never said boo about personal firearms.
/johnny
My father (Navy) was required at times to carry a gun to work. I feel safe when I am around military men carrying guns.
I kept my personal weapons in my base quarters for years. As did many others. It’s a stupid, senseless rule that has no place in the military mindset.
It was that way long before Bush. I went in under Reagan, and it was policy then. Maybe Bush/Clinton formalized it under the law, but it was in effect long before Clinton.
As noted above, others have stated it's been that way since long before Reagan, as well.
After a second shooting at Fort Hood, it is reasonable to ask why the shooter again was the only one with a gun on a military base.
The cure for this anomaly is simple. If the military position held by an individual means a sidearm is issued when deployed, then it must be part of the daily working uniform while in garrison. If officers and NCO’s cannot be trusted with pistols on base, then why are they trusted with such dangerous equipment when overseas?
“Personal arms had to be checked into the armory, and checked out with a chit from your unit XO or designee.
The military has never allowed personal arms in Barracks, the ship, family housing etc.
“
Maybe on some pussified base/post you’ve been on but not the Air Force bases I have been on.
Gun grabbers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.