Why does a Civilian Police Officer have to save SOLDIERS on a military base????Who thought of that great idea that our Military be disarmed on bases?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
502
Reaction score
9
Location
San Diego
Why does a Civilian Police Officer have to save SOLDIERS on a military base????Who thought of that great idea that our Military be disarmed on bases?

The officer who responded deserves a medal of valor for her bravery and taking hits to stop the mainiac, and should be honored. But this brings up the question as to why did she have to be there on a Military Base full of soldiers? If they were armed this would have been a whole different story, no trial would be necessary. It makes no sense that these men and women will deploy to Iraq, Afganistan or wherever, but on their own base go unarmed. Armed forces??? Anybody have any idea why? :confused:
 
Register to hide this ad
I have read two memoirs of American soldiers in Iraq. They have to be unarmed on the base even there, in a war zone, with a real possibility of insurgent attacks.

Soldiers have to put their lives on the line, but they cannot be trusted with firearms on their base.

It really baffles me.

I just read in a book by Jim Cirillo that for the management it is more important to avoid accidents that to provide proper tools of the trade for their subordinates. It is really, really sad that political correctness has taken us to this point.
 
Somewhere in my reading, I learned that an Imperial German soldier, at least before 1920, was liable for punishment if caught anywhere out of his barracks unarmed. They wanted the soldier to be always mindful that he was a warrior.
 
At least they were real cops. Too many "secure locations" in this country only have rent-a guards (like Wackenhut, etc.) providing security.

Unfortunately, our military is run by bean counters and politicians, not military leaders.
 
It makes absolutely no sense to me that highly trained military personnel are not allowed to be armed on post (at home, etc.).

Civilian cops and rent-a-cops are allowed to be armed 24 X 7 and are often far less prepared to do so.


Even if everyone on a base can't be armed for some reason I haven't thought of, then there should at least be more security echelons armed than currently are. Perhaps those who use are armed could be determined by a level of qualification (skill, training results, normal responsibilities of duty, etc.).

The current system just defies common sense.
 
Like many other terrible travesties levied upon us, the disarming of military personnel while at a US base can be laid squarely upon our good friend Jimmy Carter.
 
Like many other terrible travesties levied upon us, the disarming of military personnel while at a US base can be laid squarely upon our good friend Jimmy Carter.

You don't, by any chance, have a link to the EO or directive on this?

I do remember Clinton requiring the bolts be removed from parade rifles on several occasions when he was to be present.
 
At least they were real cops. Too many "secure locations" in this country only have rent-a guards (like Wackenhut, etc.) providing security.QUOTE]


They were rent-a-cops at Ft. Hood. On the base that I work as a civilian we also have rent-a-cops for general security. All in all they are good people who do a good job. I don't know if they are better or worse than having military on the gates and patrol routes.

On the other hand we also have a USMC Security Force for certain parts of the base. They are not resposible for general security though. They just have a very specific job. They all take their jobs seriously, especially after what happened at Ft. Hood.
 
In the Concealed Carry Methods and Issues Forum there is a string, "No CC on military bases..", one of the board members cites an order issued by Slick Willie greatly restricting the carrying of small arms by AD personnel. As I noted in a couple of my responses the Army is really a very pantywaist organization when it comes to small arms proficiency, the gun buff is considered a "nut", the crack shot a potential psycho, the Expert Rifleman's badge sneered at-the "Bolo Badge". It is the clerk at the typewriter, the NCO with his clipboard and the officer who knows how to pencil whip the records and official reports who admired, respected-and promoted.
 
In Korea, in the early 50's we were expected to be armed off post (checked out at the armory). On post only those on guard duty were armed and actually had ammunition. OD had a .45 with one loaded magazine, nothing up the spout.
In Japan, same time period, even those on guard duty were not armed. Gate MPs had .38s, but I think no ammunition. The OD had limited access to ammunition, but practically everyone was disarmed.

As near as I could ascertain the thinking was that someday, somewhere, someone, just might have an accident, which would require lots of paperwork and might be an impediment to some VIP's career.
 
Most military bases went to contract/DoD civilain police for law enforcement type duties, to free up military police/security forces for deployment. When I was in Iraq, 2004-2005, approximately 1 out of 3 troops were dedicated to base security; sometimes it was infantry troops, other times it was other combat troops, mostly artillery/ADA, crossed trained to do MP functions. MPs/SPs were assigned to convoy escort and detainee operations.
About being unarmed in Iraq, we had to carry a weapon 24/7, wherever we were. Inside the wire (on-base), we carried at least one fully loaded magazine for each weapon (M9 & M4). The magazines were not allowed to be locked into the weapon unless were we under attack (depending on where you were, that could happen daily), or as specified by the U code. U1 was normal uniform U2 required IBA and helmet to be worn during specified hours, U3 required IBA and helmet 24/7, U4 was all of the above plus loaded weapon. Whenever we went outside the wire, it was U4 plus loaded chamber.
 
Is an army base the perfect example of "where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"?
Ask the people of Ft. Hood.
clipper1
 
I was an Air Policeman (USAF) and when I went to Viet Nam, my AR15 was kept in my locker in my hut when not on duty, along with several loaded magazines as well. When we went to chow or the shower, or to the base movie, the weapons stayed in our huts, only coming out when we went on duty. We were allowed to drink beer and whiskey in our huts, and the weapons did not have to be locked up while doing so. No one ever took their weapon out while drinking and no one gave it a second thought that we kept our guns in our huts. I even had a hand grenade in my locker for several weeks before I decided I didn't need it and turned it in.
 
As much as I'd like to blame Jimmy Carter, military personnel have not been routinely armed, at least in my experience, on U.S. military bases for a very long time if ever! They certainly were not back in the 60's when I was in service except for Military Police and a few specialty situations. Except for periods when personnel were in the field or engaged in weapons training, I cannot remember any reason to be armed. I am surprised that most of the post security seems to have been taken away from Military Police and given to civilians. However, some posts, depots for example, have always had civilian guards rather than MP's.
 
Most general base security is contracted out. Military personnel are too expensive. Base security is considered a "tail" function and the Military has been pounded on for years by Congress to improve the tooth to tail ratio, regardless of what it did for safety, sea/shore rotation or quality of life. Part of this is trying to lower costs. Part of it is Wackenhut makes political contributions; the sailor at the gate usually doesn't.
 
The case in point....Fort Hood specifically....The civilian police that I might add went to the gunfire and stopped the slaughter,,,Who did they work for. The city, The Base, and what were their area of responsibilities.????Nobody seems to have said or indicated. They did every thing you can ask of any LEO no matter who they were employed by. But just who is the convening authority???Of course POTUS will choke before he calls the perpetrator a Muslim terrorist. We will wake up but will it be in time???Just curious about the authority of the brave officers that stood their ground while our warriors were relegated to throwing chairs and stuff trough no fault of theirs. We no longer use MPs for base law enforcement?????A new world not sure we are making much progress in this new PC world....Just a old coot Cop...USMC old Corps
 
21 years in the military.... the only time I was ever armed was for the occasional "qualification".
 
I hate to break the news but there are nuts in the service that have no reason to have a weapon.Just like anyother group of people.
Az'ol in Ft.Hood was one.I knew of others that scared the heck out of me.Not that they were muslem,they were just "touched".
Then there was the ones that just wern't confident or proficiant and I could never figure out how they made it in the service in the first place.
Remember it only takes one bad apple.
AGAIN I'm not making excuses for this idiot in Ft.Hood. He's another thing all together and I hope he rots in hell,with all his brothers.

D.G.
 
Unarmed soldiers

I find humorous that most of the ranters in this thread haven't served and simply don't know *** they're talking about. Soldiers on military posts are almost NEVER armed unless they are in a specific training situation. Firearms and ammo are returned and locked up after the training session. If you've served you'd know instantly why this is necessary.

We had arms and live ammo in basic ONLY when closely supervised. At my permanent duty station, the only armed soldiers were MPs when on duty and the OD(who had no freakin' idea what to do with his pistol). Even then we had several instances of MPs who got off base with a loaded 1911.....in one case the guy got smashed and shot holes in our cabin.

Think about it.......young guys with more testosterone than common sense and alcohol. DOH
 
Expect many more shootings and suicide bombings at military bases.

For someone who doesn't care about dying, the FT Hood event is a real eye opener regarding the security status of bases and posts.


The only thing going in the favor of the military, is the fact that terrorists would much rather kill completely innocent civilians.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top