Here`s how they do it in Pakistan.
They got nuts n` terrorists there, we got `em here-
WHAT`S THE DIFFERENCE??!!
So? What do you say we change that? Terrorists have already targeted Americans on American soil, and American military bases. Our service personnel deserve the ability to protect themselves, or at least have that option.
I don't know how far back that goes, but I suspect quite a ways. I was in the army at a missile repair base out in the desert, back in the early 1960s. We were never armed, except when we were on "guard duty," stationed around the perimeter with its chain-linked fence and barbed wire. I put "guard duty" in parentheses, because we were issued rifles, but no ammunition.
And, yes, the MPs were armed, presumably so they could bring in any troublemakers when necessary. Their usual duty in my experience was dealing with drunks or speeders.
It's an old custom in most military organizations to keep the weapons in an armory, and only issue them when a battle is anticipated.
I went to Ft. Knox for basic in 1960, and no one had ammunition.
I served 8 year in the Md. National Guard and no one had ammunition—at least not officially.
As far as I know it has always been the policy of the military not to issue ammunition unless it’s considered needed.
And in the Navy and Air Force only a very small percentage of the personnel are trained in the use of firearms beyond very basic training, and very few are even issued, or need to be issued any sort of weapon to do their job.
A higher percentage in the Army and Marine Corps would be trained and have weapons issued, but that would still be a minority unless in a combat zone.
The answer is probably increased security, or more military police who are armed and trained in police tactics.
I imagine that would arm a small army right there.
Of course, I still blame draft-dodging, American-hating, serial-lying Clinton. He was aware of the threats and nevertheless deliberately and intentionally chose inaction on the matter.
Why are we dying in “no gun zones”?
Here`s how they do it in Pakistan.
They got nuts n` terrorists there, we got `em here-
WHAT`S THE DIFFERENCE??!!
When I was in OCS, we trained on 45s....
Why? Just for fun? Cripes, train ‘em, let ‘em use ‘em.....
Oh the Bush dynasty??
Could you post this in the "Day in the Life" thread?
The fans, or fanatics, will really appreciate it...
Be sure to describe the clothing he and Ms. Bush were wearing at the time, and post some attractive pics along with it.
Thanks!!!
This is only meaningful it this policy was a significant change from the previous policy, which is unlikely. More likely just a restatement.
Until somebody posts something showing that previous policy allowed or required soldiers to be armed on base.
Somebody should ask what happened to all the MPs that were relied upon after these orders to disarm the soldiers were issued. They’re not there because they’re in Afghanistan, teaching Afghans how to shoot our MPs in the back.
Hey, look! It’s Bush’s fault!
No matter who issued it, it’s bad policy. Yesterday’s horror proves that.
Since 9/11/01, the entire United States is a combat zone.
Bush 1 and every president since is responsible for keeping this policy in effect.
I grew up on Army bases, from the early fifties to the mid sixties. I don’t recall ever seeing anyone except MPs openly carrying weapons on a regular basis.
Thanks!