[ethorman]

With the recent debates over should millitary service members be allowed to carry on a millitary installation, and the recent incident at Ft. Hood. I would be curious as to see what the fellow Amercians, feelings towards this situation would be. So here is the question:

Do you feel that Military memebers should be allowed to carry on a Military Installation, provided that they have completed all necessary training for their state that their base is located in, and/or any other traning that would be required by the Department of Defense for them to meet the necessary requriments that they have every right to set forth?

Keep in mind that they are allowed to carry off post and when in "plain/civilan" clothes (I have found nothing saying about in Uniform off post either being against regulations), but are not allowed to carry on a military installation, because they are property of the United States Government.

My vote is Yes

 

[archer51]

Actually anyone who is licensed to carry by the state should be allowed to carry on base in my opinion. As a retiree I have to travel disarmed when I want to go to the commissary or exchange, so I rarely go on base.

 

[rolyat63]

and civilians too.

 

[Jim Macklin]

From a practical standpoint, even if Major Hassan was armed, if a dozen other trained and qualified troops were also armed, he would have been shot and stop almost instantly, perhaps with no loss of life.

But the irrational authorities wanted to be sure that a killer had plenty of time to raise the body count, at least that was the effect of the GFZ.

Maybe, to fit with the control model, the Pentagon and base commanders can be required to allow those officers and NCO who request to carry on base and in uniform if they have both a civilian CCW/CCH/CWP and have attended a MP class and qualified and have a clean record that includes at least 4 years service.

 

[sleepyhead]

The right to keep and bear arms is inalienable. This right has been ours forever, before we had fire, before we became civilized, and certainly before we created government. And it will always be our right, forever, regardless of what laws are passed, and certainly regardless of one's military status. This right is as much a part of a person as the heart pumping blood. And it can no more be taken away from anyone than you can take away their heart!

In other words, I vote YES

 

[Saber]

Been in and around the military all my life, and I’m also a retired service member. Still, I simply can’t imagine how any post/base commander would ever go along with carry weapons. Besides, this whole Ft Hood thing will effectively slam-dunk any attempt towards such provisions. Also, I worked some investigations and I was shocked to see what goes on inside some of those base housing units. Admittedly, if other friendly's were carrying in the medical processing area, things may have turned out differently.

 

[sleepyhead]

I simply can’t imagine how any post/base commander would ever go along with carry weapons.

Why? You must have some VERY convincing data to support the violation of the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Although, I will admit, I will never be convinced that such a violation is acceptable, so maybe we will just have to agree to disagree

 

[JerryM]

Why? You must have some VERY convincing data to support the violation of the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Although, I will admit, I will never be convinced that such a violation is acceptable, so maybe we will just have to agree to disagree

When you enter military service you do not have either 1st or 2nd Amendment rights.

Military commanders have a unique job, and must have a great deal of authority over their commands in order to be able to do their jobs. I personally agree with not permitting carry on post.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[Jim Macklin]

When you enter military service you do not have either 1st or 2nd Amendment rights.

Military commanders have a unique job, and must have a great deal of authority over their commands in order to be able to do their jobs. I personally agree with not permitting carry on post.

Regards,
Jerry

There is no reason why 10% of those assigned to an installation could not be qualified and "under orders" to carry.
Having an active shooter unopposed for 4-5 minutes is just unacceptable.

 

[JerryM]

There is no reason why 10% of those assigned to an installation could not be qualified and "under orders" to carry.
Having an active shooter unopposed for 4-5 minutes is just unacceptable.

Where would the 10% be?
This was a tragedy that could have been prevented if it had not been for PC. But this one instance does not make a case for soldiers being permitted to carry on post.

If I were going to try to protect from such things by more people carrying I would have more MPs as my choice. Under no circumstances would I permit carrying on base. I might could be talked into permitting field grade officers to carry if they had the right training. Yes, the guy was a field grade officer, but that doesn't change things for me.

This debacle was preventable and the lack of courage by those officers and others who knew of this guy are guilty, and some should be disciplined up to the highest rank that had an indication of his background and activities.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[Sig 210]

This debacle was preventable and the lack of courage by those officers and others who knew of this guy are guilty, and some should be disciplined up to the highest rank that had an indication of his background and activities.

Excellent post.

 

[edr9x23super]

1) We ask these brave soldiers to go risk their lives with death or life-altering injuries, as well as the mental trauma they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.
2) We pay these people a terrible wage, considering what we ask them to do and endure in our good names.

I think the least we can do is allow them the means to defend themselves at all times. I personally would fire any commander who did not trust those under his command with firearms......

 

[First Sgt]

When you enter military service you do not have either 1st or 2nd Amendment rights.


Regards,
Jerry

Please cite your reference on military members losing their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. I'm not sure a citizen gives up their rights just because they are a member of the military. Actually, a member takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution", so seems a bit unusual they would lose thier own rights while defending the rights of others. JMO

Also, I believe you mentioned in an additional post that perhaps you would allow Field Grade Officers the opportunity to carry on base. Is there something that gives Officers more qualification to carry, than say, a Senior NCO, or perhaps a WO, given "proper training" as you say?

Just curious and look forward to gaining more insight into your views.

I personally support a military members right to carry just as I do a civilians right to carry. Unfortunately, they cannot carry, when out of uniform, on a military installation, just as retirees and/or civilians cannot carry when entering the installation. However, there should be more provision for armed "on duty" members. Again..JMO

 

[TheSaiga308]

I am a newly naturalized citizen but I'm also curious as to where it says in the Constitution that military members lose their 1st and 2nd amendment rights when serving their country. That just doesn't make sense to me at all. History indicates that most mass murders seem to occur where people are forced to be disarmed. I am a realist and realize that people ignore the Constitution all the time but that doesn't make it right. It does mean that we should have more courage to defend the constitution and other citizen's rights. If we don't, it won't take long before OUR rights are also taken away.

 

[hengst]

From a practical standpoint, even if Major Hassan was armed, if a dozen other trained and qualified troops were also armed, he would have been shot and stop almost instantly, perhaps with no loss of life.

But the irrational authorities wanted to be sure that a killer had plenty of time to raise the body count, at least that was the effect of the GFZ.

Maybe, to fit with the control model, the Pentagon and base commanders can be required to allow those officers and NCO who request to carry on base and in uniform if they have both a civilian CCW/CCH/CWP and have attended a MP class and qualified and have a clean record that includes at least 4 years service.

Outstanding! Well put +1:congrats:

 

[sleepyhead]

When you enter military service you do not have either 1st or 2nd Amendment rights.

Not true. Do you have references that state otherwise?

I agree that the SCOTUS has allowed limits on service members' freedom of speech, but they most certainly did not remove them!

However, we are not discussing freedom of speech. Do you have specific references regarding the 2nd Amendment and military service?

Military commanders have a unique job, and must have a great deal of authority over their commands in order to be able to do their jobs. I personally agree with not permitting carry on post.

Regards,
Jerry

This still does not answer the question. How would allowing soldiers to carry weapons on base make it harder for military commanders to do their job?

 

[sleepyhead]

I am a newly naturalized citizen but I'm also curious as to where it says in the Constitution that military members lose their 1st and 2nd amendment rights when serving their country. That just doesn't make sense to me at all. History indicates that most mass murders seem to occur where people are forced to be disarmed. I am a realist and realize that people ignore the Constitution all the time but that doesn't make it right. It does mean that we should have more courage to defend the constitution and other citizen's rights. If we don't, it won't take long before OUR rights are also taken away.

+1

Congrats on your citizenship!

 

[Rossman]

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

 

[RETSUPT99]

IMHO, anyone who voted "No" in this poll needs to be investigated.:image035:

 

[goldshellback]

A lot of it has to do with training and the requirements for carrying while stationed AND in a duty status while state-side. The most-basic line of thought is that AD members (and I'm active duty) are in the military for war-fighting purposes and carrying a firearm while in the CONUS isn't part of our job discription. Having soliders carrying would bring up a LOT more questions.

Specifically training AD members to allow them to carry, in uniform while at 'home', would cost time and money the military dosn't have. I'm not saying it's right, that's just the way it is.


Having said that, I still voted 'yes'.