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?
- Thread starter .460V & XVR Magnum Man
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,426
- Reaction score
- 1,341
Our armed forces have had a problem with the idea of weapons being available to the troops for a long, long time. Read any good history of Pearl harbor and how they had to break into arms lockers and storage chests to get weapons and ammo to fire back at the attackers. The politicians and their body guards don't trust our troops any more than their commanders. When Roosevelt reviewed Patton's troops in Morroco the secret service insisted that all ammo had to be secured from the troops. Only Patton himself seemed to think that was a stupid idea in what was still a war zone. I am sure there are many reasons why this is, fear of misbehavior, accidents maybe even rebellion but this has been policy for a long time.
m1gunner
US Veteran
You are right about keeping guns away from the kiddies on base. But I have a problem with non certified security folks providing the only protection for the bases.
Real MPs are the only base security I remember, I thought that was their primary mission.
This new cost cutting environment will cost us big time in the long run.
When I was in Kosovo and Afghanistan, our troops carried their weapons with them everywhere they went, on base or off.
Here's a link to the Marine Corps Civilian Police website:
Marine Corps Civilian Police Program
Here's a link to the Marine Corps Civilian Police website:
Marine Corps Civilian Police Program
DeathGrip
US Veteran
oldRoger
US Veteran
It should be obvious to even our bureaucrats that security is necessary. What seems to be happening is that the Feds are shifting the costs of security from the Military to the local jurisdiction. The cost of local LE coverage for a military Post evidently lands on the local citizens.
The Military then gets what the local citizens can afford to provide.
I am by no means convinced that this cost shifting is our best interest.
The Military then gets what the local citizens can afford to provide.
I am by no means convinced that this cost shifting is our best interest.
armsmaster270
US Veteran
I was a Career M.P. and on posts M.P.'s, M.P.I.'s and C.I.D and the O.D. and Post Commander if he wanted were armed. The officers involved in the Ft. Hood shooting were D.O.D Police officers, Fully Accredited. They replaced the M.P.'s as so many are overseas in the sand box and surrounding areas. My National Guard unit has rotated over there 4 times since Desert Storm.
george minze
Member
Thank you for an answer to my question, especially Safearm and Muley Gil and others....DOD hires police for installations based on specific needs. the Marines have a like program. Interesting information and again thanks. this forum seems to always have somebody knowledgeable about just about every subject. sometimes you have to glean the facts from opinion, but in this PC world it is refreshing to have that choice......Again Thanks
phenson
US Veteran
I was in the Army for 24 years. My observation is that unfortunately most soldiers are not highly trained on small arms. Most qualify only twice a year in a very controlled environment, receive hardly any training and then do not touch a weapon again until the next time to qualify. I think this has happened for a few reasons. First and biggest one is it costs lots of money to train with weapons when actually shooting ammo. We trained every day on physical fitness, but twice a year on weapons. Why? Pushups are free. Second reason, the military is a reflection of society. Most officers are now of the generation that saw every television series at one time or another run the anti gun episode. Most of them have never handled a gun except to qualify themselves and they are basically afraid of guns. These are the decision makers in our military. Lastly, the military has become so PC that if a private accidentally discharges his weapon, everyone in his chain of command is going to suffer for that mistake. So, the very officers in reason 2 decide it is safer for their career if they never let soldiers have loaded weapons. I wonder how many hours I drug around an unloaded weapon on exercises and deployments. I think this is one of the largest flaws with our military and really don't see it changing any time soon.
george minze
Member
Well said! Maybe we should get some Israeli trainers over here. Now that's not PC is it? Talk about "Enemy at your gate"
user
Member
It's obvious that making a rule preventing anyone from defending himself effectively will keep everyone safe, right? (Just ask the folks who live in Prince George's County, Maryland.)
Btw, Heller applies on every federal enclave, reservation, and territory.
Btw, Heller applies on every federal enclave, reservation, and territory.
Ray
Member
Quote :The current system just defies common sense.
Political correctness defies ANY sense.
Regards, Ray.
Political correctness defies ANY sense.
Regards, Ray.
Ray
Member
This is from today´s World Net Daily
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOMELAND INSECURITY
How 'gun control'
aided Nidal Hasan
Exclusive: John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPré
indict Clinton-era military rule on firearms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 14, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you hear about the two handguns that inexplicably shot and killed 14 people (one unborn) and wounded 30 at Fort Hood on Nov. 4? To hear some people tell it, radical Muslim and Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan did not kill people – his guns alone did.
According to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley – who is now arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court for the power to disarm law-abiding Chicagoans – it was not Maj. Hasan's radical Muslim beliefs that drove him to murder innocent colleagues; it was the fact that "America loves guns." Daley explained, "We love guns to a point that we see the devastation on a daily basis."
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence also jumped at the chance to blame guns first, stating two days after the shootings, "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough." (Hasan's handguns have issued no statement in response.)
By this twist of logic, America's love of airplanes led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The solution to stopping the 9/11 Islamic terrorists, you see, was fewer people in fewer airplanes in fewer places.
As for Fort Hood, the Brady Campaign got it exactly backwards. Generally, thanks to a 1993 Clinton-imposed order, Army posts are an anti-gun advocate's dream, a microcosm of a "gun-free" society: Only the police are allowed to carry weapons, service weapons are signed out only for training or maintenance, and any personal weapons must be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal. Strangely, the same soldiers whom we trust with automatic weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq are not allowed to carry weapons on an American post or base. And yet all such "gun-control," which the Brady Campaign-types support, did nothing to stop Hasan from sneaking in two personal handguns. Killers with no regard for others' lives are hardly going to blink at anti-gun rules. Gun control only controls the law-abiding.
Thus, despite being "heavily fortified," Fort Hood had an unarmed population living under a deadly combination of a false sense of security and no means of self-defense. While soldiers should never have to worry about attacks from one of their own, forcing them to be unarmed makes them more vulnerable to traitors and saboteurs than the embattled enemy. Maj. Hasan knew this, and to maximize his evil plot he did not attack the armed MPs – he attacked dozens of soldiers and officers at the Soldier Readiness Center whom he knew would be unarmed. And they were unarmed precisely because of the "gun-control" measures at Ft. Hood.
Our college campuses suffer from the same deadly "gun-control" policies. On April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho, armed with a pair of handguns, massacred 32 fellow students and faculty and injured 25. Even then, the anti-gun fanatics rose up and condemned the guns. But Virginia Tech's campus, like most colleges, was a so-called "gun-free zone" where students and faculty were not permitted to carry weapons. This made people on Virginia Tech's campus, like those on Fort Hood, an easy target for a lone, suicidal, gun-wielding murderer.
What the Brady Campaign failed to mention is that it took "gun violence" to stop the gun violence at Fort Hood and Virginia Tech. Armed police officers brought down Hasan last week; and it took armed police breaking into the building where Cho had barricaded himself before he took his own life. But that means that until the armed police arrived, Hasan shot 42 people and Cho shot 57.
How much sooner would either spree have ended had any one of the hundreds of other soldiers or students (or even faculty) been armed? How many more unarmed victims in "gun-free" zones or cities have to die? How many of these shooting sprees would be deterred in the first place if the shooter knew his intended targets might also be armed?
The fantasy of a "gun-free" zone continues to be thwarted by practical truth, and it always will be. In 1775, Revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine explained that the fallacy of the pacifist Quakers was their failure to account for the fallen nature of man:
Could the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and the art of war would be wholly extirpated: But we live not in a world of angels. … I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation: but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven he has put it in my power.
The problem is not weapons, be they firearms, knives, fists or airplanes; the problem is that man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
With each news report about Maj. Hasan, it becomes more evident that political correctness handicapped the will of the Army and federal agencies to adequately investigate him and respond to the many indicators of his increasingly radical Muslim beliefs. Radical Islamic terrorists belong in front of our troops, not among them. Hopefully, America and her armed forces have finally learned that radical Muslims deserve purging, not promoting.
Nor should we be led to believe the politically correct lie that taking guns out of law-abiding hands is the solution to stopping the use of guns by the wrong hands. A "gun-control" law stops bullets as effectively as the paper it's printed upon. Until the homicidal sociopaths and the radical jihadists of the world "lay aside the use of arms" (or airplanes, or IEDs, etc.), the right of the people, students and soldiers to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPré serve as legal counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law, a religious-liberties organization founded by Judge Roy Moore in Montgomery, Ala.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOMELAND INSECURITY
How 'gun control'
aided Nidal Hasan
Exclusive: John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPré
indict Clinton-era military rule on firearms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 14, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you hear about the two handguns that inexplicably shot and killed 14 people (one unborn) and wounded 30 at Fort Hood on Nov. 4? To hear some people tell it, radical Muslim and Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan did not kill people – his guns alone did.
According to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley – who is now arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court for the power to disarm law-abiding Chicagoans – it was not Maj. Hasan's radical Muslim beliefs that drove him to murder innocent colleagues; it was the fact that "America loves guns." Daley explained, "We love guns to a point that we see the devastation on a daily basis."
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence also jumped at the chance to blame guns first, stating two days after the shootings, "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough." (Hasan's handguns have issued no statement in response.)
By this twist of logic, America's love of airplanes led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The solution to stopping the 9/11 Islamic terrorists, you see, was fewer people in fewer airplanes in fewer places.
As for Fort Hood, the Brady Campaign got it exactly backwards. Generally, thanks to a 1993 Clinton-imposed order, Army posts are an anti-gun advocate's dream, a microcosm of a "gun-free" society: Only the police are allowed to carry weapons, service weapons are signed out only for training or maintenance, and any personal weapons must be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal. Strangely, the same soldiers whom we trust with automatic weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq are not allowed to carry weapons on an American post or base. And yet all such "gun-control," which the Brady Campaign-types support, did nothing to stop Hasan from sneaking in two personal handguns. Killers with no regard for others' lives are hardly going to blink at anti-gun rules. Gun control only controls the law-abiding.
Thus, despite being "heavily fortified," Fort Hood had an unarmed population living under a deadly combination of a false sense of security and no means of self-defense. While soldiers should never have to worry about attacks from one of their own, forcing them to be unarmed makes them more vulnerable to traitors and saboteurs than the embattled enemy. Maj. Hasan knew this, and to maximize his evil plot he did not attack the armed MPs – he attacked dozens of soldiers and officers at the Soldier Readiness Center whom he knew would be unarmed. And they were unarmed precisely because of the "gun-control" measures at Ft. Hood.
Our college campuses suffer from the same deadly "gun-control" policies. On April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho, armed with a pair of handguns, massacred 32 fellow students and faculty and injured 25. Even then, the anti-gun fanatics rose up and condemned the guns. But Virginia Tech's campus, like most colleges, was a so-called "gun-free zone" where students and faculty were not permitted to carry weapons. This made people on Virginia Tech's campus, like those on Fort Hood, an easy target for a lone, suicidal, gun-wielding murderer.
What the Brady Campaign failed to mention is that it took "gun violence" to stop the gun violence at Fort Hood and Virginia Tech. Armed police officers brought down Hasan last week; and it took armed police breaking into the building where Cho had barricaded himself before he took his own life. But that means that until the armed police arrived, Hasan shot 42 people and Cho shot 57.
How much sooner would either spree have ended had any one of the hundreds of other soldiers or students (or even faculty) been armed? How many more unarmed victims in "gun-free" zones or cities have to die? How many of these shooting sprees would be deterred in the first place if the shooter knew his intended targets might also be armed?
The fantasy of a "gun-free" zone continues to be thwarted by practical truth, and it always will be. In 1775, Revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine explained that the fallacy of the pacifist Quakers was their failure to account for the fallen nature of man:
Could the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and the art of war would be wholly extirpated: But we live not in a world of angels. … I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation: but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven he has put it in my power.
The problem is not weapons, be they firearms, knives, fists or airplanes; the problem is that man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
With each news report about Maj. Hasan, it becomes more evident that political correctness handicapped the will of the Army and federal agencies to adequately investigate him and respond to the many indicators of his increasingly radical Muslim beliefs. Radical Islamic terrorists belong in front of our troops, not among them. Hopefully, America and her armed forces have finally learned that radical Muslims deserve purging, not promoting.
Nor should we be led to believe the politically correct lie that taking guns out of law-abiding hands is the solution to stopping the use of guns by the wrong hands. A "gun-control" law stops bullets as effectively as the paper it's printed upon. Until the homicidal sociopaths and the radical jihadists of the world "lay aside the use of arms" (or airplanes, or IEDs, etc.), the right of the people, students and soldiers to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPré serve as legal counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law, a religious-liberties organization founded by Judge Roy Moore in Montgomery, Ala.
armsmaster270
US Veteran
Another reason to not have the soldiers armed stateside is the influx of gang members in the military. They have found that the military is the best way to learn and practice tactics that they can use against rival gangs & the Police. Look in some of the pictures from the current theater you will see American "gang graffiti" on buildings over there. When I was a M.P. we would have Gang fights between the east L.A. and west L.A. gangs in separate units.
Last edited:
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?
The answer to the original question here is:
Bill Clinton. By executive order soon after he took office.
Thanks a lot, Bill.
Last edited:
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Well..... I thought about it. And after due thought, I think it sounds like liberal gun-grabbing logic. A society where guns, alchohol and testosterone exist? Oh no... press the ban button.
Again, you bring NOTHING to the table and are in error.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
I guess another reason to not allow civilians to be armed in society is because of the influx of gang membes in society?
The notion that we must disarm the law abiding in order to deal with criminals is the foundation of liberal gun-grabbing logic.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Of course! Just ban guns and all will be well. Gang members, jihadists, criminals... and the ever-evil young men with testosteron, will just shrivel up and go away.
- Status
