Only those with side arms training, u8se of force training, and current range certification, should be considered to carry side arm. Just the same as law enforcement officers.
Submitted by Tom Burns (not verified) : Oct 8, 2015 4:59pm
I spent four years in the Army and only became range certified with a pistol because I had a cool CO that allowed me to become certified. Most soldiers only become certified with their rifle as only certain officers and MPs are issued pistols.
Submitted by Jonnyboy (not verified) : Oct 8, 2015 5:19pm
There should be a blanket policy not one that varies from location to location. It is not a carry or no carry question. It's a complex matter of who can or can't and when they can or can't and where they can or can't.
Submitted by David Feagles (not verified) : Oct 8, 2015 5:19pm
Back in "the day", all of the military pistols we had available to us were M1911A1's from WWII and earlier which hadn't been maintained and weren't much use. Now that there are better sidearms available, this is a decision best left to post/base commanders. (We used to carry UNLOADED M1911's around the FRG to try to bluff the Baader-Meinhhof terrorists. How stupid was that?)
Submitted by Robert Qualls (not verified) : Oct 8, 2015 6:40pm
I think that local commanders should establish local rules, with guidance from their military departments and seniors. Certainly anyone carrying a pistol should be trained, either by the military or other trainers qualified to prepare the user for a local government permit. Conditions vary widely among bases, with some spread out and perhaps not even having cell phone coverage to permit a call for assistance, while others may be in metropolitan areas not far from criminal areas. I was stationed at two naval ammunition depots where we had demonstrators and few snipers who took shots at our security detail. The Naval Station, San Diego had slums outside the gate. In both areas I would like to have had the ability to get a permit or other authorization to carry, even when "off" duty.
Submitted by James K. Poole (not verified) : Oct 8, 2015 10:33pm
It has been a lot of years since i served and everyone carried a firearm while on duty, but a lot has changed since then, and not for the best. I think all troops should be trained in the use of firearms and carry a firearm while on DUTY. actually i thought they already did.
Submitted by Clair Shaffer (not verified) : Oct 9, 2015 6:56am
I think it's a dirty shame that anyone who is ask to put their life on the front line for any reason should be denied the right to carry and be able to defend their own life while off duty
Submitted by William T (not verified) : Oct 9, 2015 7:13am
The only reason a person should be denied is if they are so mentally unbalanced that a weapon in their hands would be unhealthy for them and everyone else
Submitted by William Thompson (not verified) : Oct 9, 2015 7:20am
Unfortunately Cora, many slip through the cracks and not only conceal their backgrounds, but are clever enough to hide their true selves until they snap.
Submitted by JAF (not verified) : Oct 9, 2015 11:30am
I hope none of you have forgotten the Fort Hood incident in 2009. Commanders should be able to call the shots, no pun intended, on this issue. After the "Tet Offensive" in 1968 and another breach in our perimeter defenses two weeks later at Can Tho RVN. We (mostly Cobra pilots) were ordered to wear our steel pots and personal sidearms at all times including trips to the shitter or showers. We found this very annoying and silly and retaliated by wearing only those two items and perhaps a pair of flip flops when we used the facilities. The "hooch maids" found this hysterical and later the order was lifted by the Base Commander.
Submitted by Jim Creagan (not verified) : Oct 9, 2015 10:13am
I will say this over and over and have said it for many moons. it is better to have a gun and not need it then not have a gun and need it. if I join the military I expect them to have enough confidence in me that I can be trained to handle a side arm and when I am in uniform will have a side arm on me at all times. if one does not feel comfortable with a side arm so be it.
Submitted by Don A. (not verified) : Oct 9, 2015 9:38am
Post/Base security is the responsibility of Military Police, contract security, and guard details. A blanket policy allowing personal weapons being carried on duty is detrimental to good order and discipline. As a Non-Commissioned Officer, I wouldn't be comfortable disciplining one of my problem Soldiers while he had a nine tucked in his waistband. What would happen if some Soldiers got into a drunken fight late at night in the barracks with loaded guns right there? If a local commander deems it necessary for security and force protection to authorize designated NCOs/Officers within individual units to carry issued weapons on duty, then so be it. Military members can own personal firearms, but must comply with DoD and base policies in transporting and storage. A military installation is not the wild west. Concealed carry is not authorized on post and should not be for the health, welfare, and safety of all service members. I can tell you from 26 years active duty in the Army, there are problem Soldiers with sketchy backgrounds, concealed criminal history, gang members and mentally unbalanced. They are not all weeded out by the enlistment process or in basic training. Many get by for a long time before they reveal their true selves. What about the high rate of suicides? Would it make sense to have a blanket policy that would give a mentally unstable Soldier easy access to a means to end his or her life right there in the barracks? The DoD policy that bans personal weapons on military installations takes into consideration many factors that most civilians do not realize or understand. As a former NCO with 2 and half decades of active duty experience, I do understand and support that policy, but do agree that in certain locations with inadequate security, authorized ISSUED weapons should be allowed for designated leaders/personnel.
Submitted by JAF (not verified) : Oct 9, 2015 11:23am
I believe that the Commanders should be allowed to make their own policy, with some guidelines of course. They know their post better, and they understand their soldiers needs better. Sadly, not every soldier gets trained on pistols since its not their primary weapon. Im thankful I was an MP and got to train on all sorts of weapons. They also need to make training class for it, with qualifications. Ive seen enough idiots on a range to know that not every soldier regardless of rank can handle that responsibility.
Submitted by April Peters (not verified) : Oct 10, 2015 1:33am
As one who qualified on every pistol the Army had in its inventory up to 1997 I say yes. In my MOS the side arm was my primary weapon even though in my four combat tours I carried both a side arm and a rifle of one sort or another. In the current state of on base shootings (gun free zones) it's only fitting that those with concealed carry permits be allowed to carry on post. We are all trained to recognize the proper target before engaging with lethal force. If you don't know the basics of weapon safety then you don't need to carry a weapon in peace time or in conflict. Sorry for those who say that MP's can do the job. Yes they are well trained but when seconds counts they are minutes away.
Submitted by Jeff Brady (not verified) : Oct 10, 2015 9:30am
I want all of you to remember one thing. a police officer carries a weapon for his or her protection not yours. how long does it take for someone after a 911 call to get to your location. How much damage can be done in that amount of time. I was in nam for 14 months. 66 & 67. I have slept with a weapon from day one since I came home. I respect the way each of you feel about this problem but what I get from a lot of your answers is government knows what is best for us, sorry but I can think for myself and I did not live this long being stupid. Don A.
Submitted by Don A. (not verified) : Oct 10, 2015 9:35am
Our troops are defending the United States Constitution; the supreme law of the land. They are also American fighting men and women, Add it up and it comes down to this: unless doing so:
1) jeopardizes national security (a way overused term; e.g. areas or missions involving the protection, use or storage of special weapons, special security areas, etc.
2) OR when imbibing or in places serving alcohol such as the em or o clubs),
3) or when indicted or charged with a serious crime, determined to mentally unstable, or found to be a drug abuser
no one - NO ONE- in uniform should lose the very 2nd Amendment that they are fighting to defend. Too many CO's will allow their own personal anti-2nd Amm bias to override this Constitutional guarantee,
Submitted by Ron Godwin (not verified) : Oct 12, 2015 5:09pm
This has nothing to do with 2nd Amendment rights. It's about safety and sensibility. The 2nd and 3rd Amendments were both designed to protect civilians from the governmental military. What about conscientious objectors who join up? Should they be forced to carry weapons or should we just not accept them? Some have won the Congressional Medal of Honor with never having used or carried a firearm.
Submitted by Jim Creagan (not verified) : Oct 12, 2015 9:50pm
Comments
Only those with side arms
Only those with side arms training, u8se of force training, and current range certification, should be considered to carry side arm. Just the same as law enforcement officers.
Don't they all have that
Don't they all have that training? If not, why not?
I spent four years in the
I spent four years in the Army and only became range certified with a pistol because I had a cool CO that allowed me to become certified. Most soldiers only become certified with their rifle as only certain officers and MPs are issued pistols.
Agree with Tom Burns
Agree with Tom Burns
I think you are right, Tom,
I think you are right, Tom, but I still think the commander should set all policies on his base.
There should be a blanket
There should be a blanket policy not one that varies from location to location. It is not a carry or no carry question. It's a complex matter of who can or can't and when they can or can't and where they can or can't.
if you are on duty you should
if you are on duty you should be armed as to being qulified evey troop should be so
Back in "the day", all of the
Back in "the day", all of the military pistols we had available to us were M1911A1's from WWII and earlier which hadn't been maintained and weren't much use. Now that there are better sidearms available, this is a decision best left to post/base commanders. (We used to carry UNLOADED M1911's around the FRG to try to bluff the Baader-Meinhhof terrorists. How stupid was that?)
I think that local commanders
I think that local commanders should establish local rules, with guidance from their military departments and seniors. Certainly anyone carrying a pistol should be trained, either by the military or other trainers qualified to prepare the user for a local government permit. Conditions vary widely among bases, with some spread out and perhaps not even having cell phone coverage to permit a call for assistance, while others may be in metropolitan areas not far from criminal areas. I was stationed at two naval ammunition depots where we had demonstrators and few snipers who took shots at our security detail. The Naval Station, San Diego had slums outside the gate. In both areas I would like to have had the ability to get a permit or other authorization to carry, even when "off" duty.
It has been a lot of years
It has been a lot of years since i served and everyone carried a firearm while on duty, but a lot has changed since then, and not for the best. I think all troops should be trained in the use of firearms and carry a firearm while on DUTY. actually i thought they already did.
I think it's a dirty shame
I think it's a dirty shame that anyone who is ask to put their life on the front line for any reason should be denied the right to carry and be able to defend their own life while off duty
The only reason a person
The only reason a person should be denied is if they are so mentally unbalanced that a weapon in their hands would be unhealthy for them and everyone else
In which case, they should
In which case, they should NOT be in the military. They should be in the local loony bin.
Unfortunately Cora, many slip
Unfortunately Cora, many slip through the cracks and not only conceal their backgrounds, but are clever enough to hide their true selves until they snap.
I hope none of you have
I hope none of you have forgotten the Fort Hood incident in 2009. Commanders should be able to call the shots, no pun intended, on this issue. After the "Tet Offensive" in 1968 and another breach in our perimeter defenses two weeks later at Can Tho RVN. We (mostly Cobra pilots) were ordered to wear our steel pots and personal sidearms at all times including trips to the shitter or showers. We found this very annoying and silly and retaliated by wearing only those two items and perhaps a pair of flip flops when we used the facilities. The "hooch maids" found this hysterical and later the order was lifted by the Base Commander.
I will say this over and over
I will say this over and over and have said it for many moons. it is better to have a gun and not need it then not have a gun and need it. if I join the military I expect them to have enough confidence in me that I can be trained to handle a side arm and when I am in uniform will have a side arm on me at all times. if one does not feel comfortable with a side arm so be it.
Post/Base security is the
Post/Base security is the responsibility of Military Police, contract security, and guard details. A blanket policy allowing personal weapons being carried on duty is detrimental to good order and discipline. As a Non-Commissioned Officer, I wouldn't be comfortable disciplining one of my problem Soldiers while he had a nine tucked in his waistband. What would happen if some Soldiers got into a drunken fight late at night in the barracks with loaded guns right there? If a local commander deems it necessary for security and force protection to authorize designated NCOs/Officers within individual units to carry issued weapons on duty, then so be it. Military members can own personal firearms, but must comply with DoD and base policies in transporting and storage. A military installation is not the wild west. Concealed carry is not authorized on post and should not be for the health, welfare, and safety of all service members. I can tell you from 26 years active duty in the Army, there are problem Soldiers with sketchy backgrounds, concealed criminal history, gang members and mentally unbalanced. They are not all weeded out by the enlistment process or in basic training. Many get by for a long time before they reveal their true selves. What about the high rate of suicides? Would it make sense to have a blanket policy that would give a mentally unstable Soldier easy access to a means to end his or her life right there in the barracks? The DoD policy that bans personal weapons on military installations takes into consideration many factors that most civilians do not realize or understand. As a former NCO with 2 and half decades of active duty experience, I do understand and support that policy, but do agree that in certain locations with inadequate security, authorized ISSUED weapons should be allowed for designated leaders/personnel.
Thank the heavens for the
Thank the heavens for the sanity of JAF, who is right on target. Thank you for your service and rational thinking.
I believe that the Commanders
I believe that the Commanders should be allowed to make their own policy, with some guidelines of course. They know their post better, and they understand their soldiers needs better. Sadly, not every soldier gets trained on pistols since its not their primary weapon. Im thankful I was an MP and got to train on all sorts of weapons. They also need to make training class for it, with qualifications. Ive seen enough idiots on a range to know that not every soldier regardless of rank can handle that responsibility.
As one who qualified on every
As one who qualified on every pistol the Army had in its inventory up to 1997 I say yes. In my MOS the side arm was my primary weapon even though in my four combat tours I carried both a side arm and a rifle of one sort or another. In the current state of on base shootings (gun free zones) it's only fitting that those with concealed carry permits be allowed to carry on post. We are all trained to recognize the proper target before engaging with lethal force. If you don't know the basics of weapon safety then you don't need to carry a weapon in peace time or in conflict. Sorry for those who say that MP's can do the job. Yes they are well trained but when seconds counts they are minutes away.
I want all of you to remember
I want all of you to remember one thing. a police officer carries a weapon for his or her protection not yours. how long does it take for someone after a 911 call to get to your location. How much damage can be done in that amount of time. I was in nam for 14 months. 66 & 67. I have slept with a weapon from day one since I came home. I respect the way each of you feel about this problem but what I get from a lot of your answers is government knows what is best for us, sorry but I can think for myself and I did not live this long being stupid. Don A.
Our troops are defending the
Our troops are defending the United States Constitution; the supreme law of the land. They are also American fighting men and women, Add it up and it comes down to this: unless doing so:
1) jeopardizes national security (a way overused term; e.g. areas or missions involving the protection, use or storage of special weapons, special security areas, etc.
2) OR when imbibing or in places serving alcohol such as the em or o clubs),
3) or when indicted or charged with a serious crime, determined to mentally unstable, or found to be a drug abuser
no one - NO ONE- in uniform should lose the very 2nd Amendment that they are fighting to defend. Too many CO's will allow their own personal anti-2nd Amm bias to override this Constitutional guarantee,
This has nothing to do with
This has nothing to do with 2nd Amendment rights. It's about safety and sensibility. The 2nd and 3rd Amendments were both designed to protect civilians from the governmental military. What about conscientious objectors who join up? Should they be forced to carry weapons or should we just not accept them? Some have won the Congressional Medal of Honor with never having used or carried a firearm.