…will let us carry personal weapons on post or off post in uniform?
Me thinks the answer is …oh, hell no. But apparently every American not in uniform thinks the NDAA for '16 will do it for us - right, wrong or indifferent.
Thoughts?
I routinely carried concealed while in uniform and would not consider going into public except to the sterile parts of an airport without a handgun. I also routinely carried on various installations. Yes, I’ve been pulled over on post. No, I did not tell them that I had a weapon. They can all go screw themselves - I operated under my own set of rules when it comes to my safety and I did so knowing the consequences if I was caught. At the same time, I was VERY smart with how I concealed my weapons.
If you are going to choose to stay in the military under the command of the incompetent boobs that now lead our armed forces, at least have the common sense to protect yourself at all times. If you do not take personal responsibility for your own welfare, I promise that none of the senior military and civilian leadership will.
Perhaps the most intelligent thing I’ve ever read on this forum.
Risky? Yes.
Potential to be portrayed as a possible shooter if caught? You bet.
Probably what I’d do in your situation? I hope.
Rebel you are. 
Hell, in any kind of modern BDU-type uniform CCW would be rather easy, i.e. if you can’t hide it in ACU’s you’re carrying Dirty Harry’s Model 29! Now the old “pickle suit” from the 70’s? Yeah, might have been difficult. However, any of the modern fatigues from O.D. jungles, BDU’s, and up through the ACU/Multicam is a no-brainer.
Negative.
Not I said the duck.
I’m thinking outloud here, but does it violate posse commitatus?
Self-defense and law enforcement activities are two entirely different things IMHO.
That said, no, I don’t think they’ll go for it. If Ft. Hood didn’t do it this incident won’t either (unfortunately).
No way. It won’t happen.
Not under this Muslim-in-Chief. POSSIBLE if a conservative were to be elected. Which brings up a question:
Can the President ALONE make that call? If the C.I.C. were to issue an order allowing it, is that all it would take?
Defense has already said it is not in favor. Cited the typically things… Negligent discharges, etc
Sent from my PRC-104 using phonetics
Oh yeah, try scoring a 300 on an APFT while a G26 smacks you in the junk every step of the…whole…two…miles.
I was actually wondering this myself.
From what I’ve read, the DEPSECDEF under George H.W. Bush enacted a DoDD 5210.56 that restricted carry of firearms in 1992.
It was reissued under Obama in 2011. The reissuing implements 10 USC § 1585 which authorizes civilian employees of the DoD to carry firearms when assigned certain duties (investigations, gate guard, etc) by SECDEF. It also incorporates DoDI 5200.08, which charges commanders with protecting their installation and empowers them with the tools to do so.
From what I can tell, 5210.56 never mentions a legal necessity to restrict the arming of base personnel, only that you won’t arm base personnel in general unless there is an imminent threat or their specific mission requires it. So I’m guessing that the President or SECDEF can rescind it without having to deal with the Congress Critters.
From a policy perspective, the main question is always going to be, will you save more lives than you will now lose due to NDs? This is an old article, but it says in 2003, there were 18 injuries and 4 fatalities as a result of NDs in Afghanistan by US Military personnel. Recruiting stations are soft targets compared to a base even at the current readiness levels, so disregarding the Tennessee shootings, how often do base personnel get attacked by a mass shooter already within the base?
Enough that it has happened two times on Fort Hood with 33 killed and 46 injured (not counting the as-clowns terrorists that did it). That is a lot more then a few NDs.
Odierno partially walked back his objections today, saying he thought the question specified arming ALL service members. There’s a significant amount of heat being applied to DoD over this nonsense right now and if you don’t think parents of potential new recruits aren’t concerned over this, you’d be mistaken. With DoD’s obsession with Command & Control over all other considerations, it’s a completely uphill battle. Without resounding support from the public, it would never come to pass. But for Pete’s Sake, they recommended closing the effing blinds as an additional “security measure” today. Can anyone that stupid actually withstand scrutiny? :fie:
I don’t think so unless you use it while under orders and acting against the civilian population.
In a related story, Ray Odierno is retiring next month as Army Chief of Staff. He’s the one who had a problem with members of the armed forces being, well, you know, armed.
Hey Ray, one last question before you hit the road. What taste saltier - Obama’s jizz or Biden’s balls?
GOLF CLAP.
It makes some small amount of sense assuming a mass shooter’s goal is to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible before he knows he will be stopped. Locking your door and shutting your blinds makes him waste time on your office or building or whatever, making it more likely he’ll move on instead of trying.
It’s not about being objectively the most hardened room possible, it’s about being hardened just enough that theoretically he won’t waste his fleeting time left on this world breaking down every single door. Because if he did, the amount of offices he could get to is significantly less than if he can just walk through a hallway, looking into each room really quickly to find people to shoot.
That being said, I’d still rather have a gun.
I’m impressed with SMA Dailey so far, I’d like to think he would push the issue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought - for a very brief second over the weekend - that the steamroller effect of opinion would be too much this time. And like you guys have stated, every excuse in the world’s coming out of the woodwork to slow this thing down.
I’m now waiting for someone to actually say, “let them eat cake.”