NRA: Rule prohibiting military men from carrying guns on military installations is "outrageous"; urg
70 replies, posted
[quote]The National Rifle Association said after a deadly shooting at a military facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee, that the rule that prohibits U.S. military men from carrying firearms on military installations was "outrageous."
The powerful gun lobby on Monday called on the White House to repeal its Pentagon directive that regulates who can carry firearms and then for Congress to "pursue a legislative fix to ensure that our service men and women are allowed to defend themselves on U.S. soil."
Troops on recruiting bases aren't armed.
[B]"It's outrageous that members of our armed services have lost their lives because the government has forced them to be disarmed in the workplace,"[/B] said Chris Cox, the leader of the NRA's legislative and political shop.[/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/politics/nra-guns-military-recruiters/index.html[/url]
Oh boy :downs:
Even if you give them the right to, doesn't mean they will. Doesn't mean they can either, if it's legal at the federal level doesn't mean it is state-wise.
a good amount of states are already moving to allow (national guard only?) military personnel to be armed on duty
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48257083]Even if you give them the right to, doesn't mean they will. Doesn't mean they can either, if it's legal at the federal level doesn't mean it is state-wise.[/QUOTE]
States have no say on what goes on in federal facilities. Also if the federal government passes a law actively permitting something, then federal supremacy eclipses state law.
judging by how the shooting played out i think you actually could say it would have turned out differently if the men inside the drill center were armed and capable of shooting back
[QUOTE=GunFox;48257092]States have no say on what goes on in federal facilities. Also if the federal government passes a law actively permitting something, then federal supremacy eclipses state law.[/QUOTE]
But
[quote]The governors of Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Indiana on Saturday ordered National Guard members at offices and other facilities to be armed in the wake of attacks that left five servicemen dead in Tennessee.
"It is painful enough when we lose members of our armed forces when they are sent in harm's way, but it is unfathomable that they should be vulnerable for attack in our own communities," Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin said in a statement.
Governors Rick Scott of Florida, Greg Abbott of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Mike Pence of Indiana issued similar orders for National Guard members after four U.S. Marines and a Navy petty officer were shot and killed on Thursday in Chattanooga, Tennessee. One site where the shootings occurred was a recruiting office in a strip mall.
All six of the governors are Republican.
In Florida, Scott ordered six storefront Florida National Guard recruiting centers to be moved to the nearest Guard armory buildings.[/quote]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/19/us-usa-florida-recruit-idUSKCN0PS0P420150719[/url]
I mean, I know that they're National Guard, but surely a Pentagon directive would still be on top, no? Yet they're being armed.
I mean in the sense of concealed carry to work, I understand on federal premises it's their law but I mean otherwise.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48257101]But
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/19/us-usa-florida-recruit-idUSKCN0PS0P420150719[/url]
I mean, I know that they're National Guard, but surely a Pentagon directive would still be on top, no? Yet they're being armed.[/QUOTE]
National guard are not technically federal at all until the President requests them to be.
It is an important distinction for things like Posse Comitatus. Once they are federalized, they can no longer be used for law enforcement without special exception.
Even if it is passed, the current wording passes the approving authority down to the installation commanders, and no one wants to be the first guy in case it goes tits up.
Personally, I would just like to have it in my vehicle, so I don't have to commute unarmed.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48257145]National guard are not technically federal at all until the President requests them to be. [/QUOTE]
Yea TBH National Guard is mostly just a more official version of a state militia until the president requests them.
Why do I get the feeling that the NRA and their particular brand of government takeover prophecy bullshit were partly responsible for the ban in the first place....
Because every time anyone mentions second amendment they invariably say we all should have tons of guns because the military might takeover
[editline]21st July 2015[/editline]
All I can find seems to indicate that there isn't actually any law forbidding military branches from allowing open carry, its actually a policy of the actual military to not have everybody armed except for people who should be armed like guards
[QUOTE=GunFox;48257092]States have no say on what goes on in federal facilities. Also if the federal government passes a law actively permitting something, then federal supremacy eclipses state law.[/QUOTE]
Yet we've seen with the legalization of gay marriage that the state courts will completely ignore a federal ruling.
I don't really understand why they aren't allowed to carry on base anyway. If anything there's nobody more qualified.
This law restricting them from having fire arms was made by generals because they thought the risk of suicide outweighed the risk of having an active shooter. In terms of body count, they are right.
[editline]21st July 2015[/editline]
[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0727/Gun-control-Why-the-US-military-is-fighting-with-the-NRA[/url]
Fascinating article on the question btw.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48258191]This law restricting them from having fire arms was made by generals because they thought the risk of suicide outweighed the risk of having an active shooter. In terms of body count, they are right.
[editline]21st July 2015[/editline]
[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0727/Gun-control-Why-the-US-military-is-fighting-with-the-NRA[/url]
Fascinating article on the question btw.[/QUOTE]
US Military leadership logic right there. Treat problems causing suicide? No, just remove the most common method of suicide and leave em cry.
I do feel a bit vulnerable to and from post. Any criminal in this place knows that if someone has their uniform on, they are unarmed. The uniform paints a target on you, and you have nothing to mitigate a possible threat. I would love it if I could be armed.
They start leaving open crates of handguns everywhere, with a sign stating "USE AT OWN RISK".
[QUOTE=Jon27;48259634]US Military leadership logic right there. Treat problems causing suicide? No, just remove the most common method of suicide and leave em cry.[/QUOTE]
I think they probably should do a better job of counseling, but they also recognize that suicide is an impulsive act so the banning of fire-arms was an attempt at triage. As the article says, if a suicidal person goes to a bridge to jump and the bridge is closed, studies suggest they don't go find another bridge, they go home and think about it. Same with the presence/absence of firearms.
I guess adding more guns to the equation will fix everything.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48260490]I guess adding more guns to the equation will fix everything.[/QUOTE]
are you seriously making the argument that the military should not be armed
is this really what I am reading
Not going to be long before some soldiers are conceal carrying, against the law, on their persons while wearing their uniform because they're in that much fear for their lives. I know I would if I could. I always thought it was really really strange that our MILITARY bases are like almost the most vulnerable places because of that stupid law. Keep an armory or something, behind a locked door, if you're that concerned about suicides or.. OR.. Y'know... Increase counseling for those suffering from PTSD,etc.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48260555]are you seriously making the argument that the military should not be armed
is this really what I am reading[/QUOTE]
I think it's dangerous to assume all humans are rational actors and adding more guns might cause more deaths.
I'd feel more at danger if people were allowed to conceal or open carry on base. There are many people who I would not want to have guns on their persons, tbh some people think servicemembers are the epitome of highly trained professionals but I'd say that the overwhelming majority aren't and have little experience with combat and weapons training outside of basic. Also we have real people problems like Mental Health issues.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48260555]are you seriously making the argument that the military should not be armed
is this really what I am reading[/QUOTE]
No, the military is plenty armed, he's arguing that the NRA solution of throwing more guns to the mix is stupid. Allow the military to post MPs at recruitment centers instead, they're actually trained to deal with this stuff and it doesn't involve massive policy shifts in the military
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48260702]Also we have real people problems like Mental Health issues.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps the people with problems should be specifically banned from having weapons. Are these people being deployed?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48260671]I think it's dangerous to assume all humans are rational actors and adding more guns might cause more deaths.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but they're the military for christs sake. Are we gonna stop cops from carrying around guns?
[QUOTE=Sableye;48261350]No, the military is plenty armed, he's arguing that the NRA solution of throwing more guns to the mix is stupid. Allow the military to post MPs at recruitment centers instead, they're actually trained to deal with this stuff and it doesn't involve massive policy shifts in the military[/QUOTE]
Positioning MA's everywhere sounds like it would be an easy thing to do but I can guarantee you it's more complicated than you think. The MA force is already unable to maintain 24 hour coverage of Military bases, gate duty is usually contracted out to civilians even overseas. Now youre suggesting to station MA's at every recruiting station. Where are these MA's going to come from? Now we need to station single MA's locally away from Military bases. Where are they going to go for medical? Now we have to pay for their civilian medical treatment, off-base housing, food allowance, etc. What if they want to take leave or they get sick? They're the only ones who can do their job, so that means we need at least 2 people to cover 1 post. If we want 2 people to guard these facilities we would need 3 people at each station minimum now. Just things to think about.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48261593]Positioning MA's everywhere sounds like it would be an easy thing to do but I can guarantee you it's more complicated than you think. The MA force is already unable to maintain 24 hour coverage of Military bases, gate duty is usually contracted out to civilians even overseas. Now youre suggesting to station MA's at every recruiting station. Where are these MA's going to come from? Now we need to station single MA's locally away from Military bases. Where are they going to go for medical? Now we have to pay for their civilian medical treatment, off-base housing, food allowance, etc. What if they want to take leave or they get sick? They're the only ones who can do their job, so that means we need at least 2 people to cover 1 post. If we want 2 people to guard these facilities we would need 3 people at each station minimum now. Just things to think about.[/QUOTE]
We have 1.3 million active duty soldiers. All of whom are already being paid. If we can't find gate guards, then our military is worthless.
As for the recruitment centers, just issue them an M9 and call it a day. If they can't be trusted with a pistol, then fire them. How fucking hard does this need to be?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48260702]I'd feel more at danger if people were allowed to conceal or open carry on base. There are many people who I would not want to have guns on their persons, tbh some people think servicemembers are the epitome of highly trained professionals but I'd say that the overwhelming majority aren't and have little experience with combat and weapons training outside of basic. Also we have real people problems like Mental Health issues.[/QUOTE]
asserting that someone who has mental health issues or intent to harm would obey rules to not bring guns on base. Unfortunately you cant have base mps everywhere, on top of that there are guns in circulation within society, such to the point we have to either rid ourselves of all guns(Never gonna happen) or allow people to have a fighting chance in protecting themselves. Really the wild west of the 1st world. I fail to see why it is stupid or a problem with service members being allowed to conceal carry on base. Also muh feelings, because civilians can conceal carry without little training but they cant. I love it. People fail to realize most people who decide to take up conceal carrying a firearm requires a lot of responsibility, more often than not they do actually train with their firearm.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48261645]We have 1.3 million active duty soldiers. All of whom are already being paid. If we can't find gate guards, then our military is worthless.
As for the recruitment centers, just issue them an M9 and call it a day. If they can't be trusted with a pistol, then fire them. How fucking hard does this need to be?[/QUOTE]
I don't think you realize how many people it takes to maintain the United States Military. It might be easy to see looking from the outside in but I'll tell you there is so much more to it than just 'giving someone an M9 or assigning active duty to permanent gate duty' there's so many logistical arrangements such as healthcare, billet creation, funding, purchasing, housing, training, CONSTANTLY rotating people every few years and starting all over again. Shit will make your head spin. The bottom line is that we don't have the people to cover 100% of 'shit that needs to get done' that's why we hire contractors and civilian employees to support the force (saves money too).
Do they not have full-time armed guards to watch over the bases for these situations? If not, it's terribly short sighted to have a military this well-funded, and not have anyone actively guarding them on their own base.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.