*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*

Sparhawk

Sparhawk

GasBandit said:
It's reigniting the debate about soldiers being armed while on base (currently they're not allowed to carry firearms).

While on the one hand it seems counterintuitive to me to ban soldiers from carrying firearms, I can understand the logistical nightmare of checking out/tracking/inventorying 50,000 weapons. There should be some sort of middle ground in this. Perhaps allow those with CCW certification to carry personal sidearms.

Of course, that's just my attempt to be reasonable/compromise. If I had my druthers, it'd just be universal open carry.
Click to expand...
Actually the rule used to be that you could carry a personal firearm, not a government issue firearm, while on duty on base, for all services. You had to report it to your commander, so they knew who had what, but it could be either open carry or concealed. The Sec of the Army today said that he just wants to rely on the MPs to protect everyone and not let service members be armed again.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Sparhawk said:
Actually the rule used to be that you could carry a personal firearm, not a government issue firearm, while on duty on base, for all services. You had to report it to your commander, so they knew who had what, but it could be either open carry or concealed. The Sec of the Army today said that he just wants to rely on the MPs to protect everyone and not let service members be armed again.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the article mentions it started under Bush 41's watch.
 
Sparhawk

Sparhawk

GasBandit said:
Yeah, the article mentions it started under Bush 41's watch.
Click to expand...
I personally think that was a huge mistake.

Some bases, they're small, easily covered by MPs and really aren't an issue to security (1 or 2 entry points, completely fenced, etc), others, like Ft. Hood or Ft. Polk (just as two examples) have huge amounts of land with them, don't have secure perimeters, and even can have public roads running straight through parts of the base. There aren't enough MPs to cover that type of situation. Sometimes you have to have different rules for different situations.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Sparhawk said:
I personally think that was a huge mistake.

Some bases, they're small, easily covered by MPs and really aren't an issue to security (1 or 2 entry points, completely fenced, etc), others, like Ft. Hood or Ft. Polk (just as two examples) have huge amounts of land with them, don't have secure perimeters, and even can have public roads running straight through parts of the base. There aren't enough MPs to cover that type of situation. Sometimes you have to have different rules for different situations.
Click to expand...
I do not believe you to be incorrect.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Oddly enough, I actually feel more okay with trained soldiers carrying weapons around Fort Hood than I do with police officers doing the same. At least if something happens involving a soldier, there is an actual, likely chance that they will be punished for it.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
As of right now, none dead and the guy who did it is in custody as he couldn't just blow his head off. I'd say this is a win for gun control people, regardless of how the NRA will use it to show that the problem isn't guns.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
As of right now, none dead and the guy who did it is in custody as he couldn't just blow his head off. I'd say this is a win for gun control people, regardless of how the NRA will use it to show that the problem isn't guns.
Click to expand...
The second amendment isn't about hunting or home defense. Its use or misuse as an implement of crime, or the prevention thereof, is irrelevant to its necessity as the final trump card against unobstructed tyranny.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Dei said:
I think calling it a 'win' for anyone is sad. :p
Click to expand...
I get your point, but the NRA and gun nuts are going to point to this and scream how it can happen even without guns. It's already started, in fact.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Charlie Don't Surf said:
until there's a mini-nuke in every stove pot, you're irrelevant lmao
Click to expand...
no lmao u r irrelevant

Soldiers don't carry (keep or bear) nukes - they can't be "kept" or "borne". When you get issued your kit to hit the beach, they don't hand you a nuke to carry to the front. It's the same old argument over and over again. The second amendment is about weapons that can be borne by an able bodied militiaman. It wasn't about Cannons or Ships then, it's not about Tanks or Nukes now.
Gilgamesh said:
I laugh every time I hear it.
Click to expand...
I know. It's your defense mechanism. A very common one, from what I hear.
 
Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
I know. It's your defense mechanism. A very common one, from what I hear.
Click to expand...
Look who's being defensive. You seriously don't find it the least bit amusing that one of the Pro-Gun arguments is that the government will become a tyranny that will put everyone on lock down if you don't have your guns top stop the military? Cmon, really?
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Gilgamesh said:
Look who's being defensive. You seriously don't find it the least bit amusing that one of the Pro-Gun arguments is that the government will become a tyranny that will put everyone on lock down if you don't have your guns top stop the military? Cmon, really?
Click to expand...
Historical precedent is a funny thing, I'll give you that.
 
Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Oh you love it when anything, man. That's what you do. You... you... gigglepuss.
Click to expand...
I'm only liberal when it's a social issue, I'm also not even anti-gun. I just prefer more logical and conversation worthy responses than thinking a few armed rednecks will stop the military OR that the US government would even do something even remotely like another country like Ukraine or Egypt. I find it as funny as people who wear tin foil hats on their heads. It has the same logic.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Gilgamesh said:
I'm only liberal when it's a social issue, I'm also not even anti-gun. I just prefer more logical and conversation worthy responses than thinking a few armed rednecks will stop the military OR that the US government would even do something even remotely like another country like Ukraine or Egypt. I find it as funny as people who wear tin foil hats on their heads. It has the same logic.
Click to expand...
A few million armed rednecks, you mean. How many million active servicemembers are there? 1.3 I think? And so long as the 2nd amendment guarantees it, the government surely won't. But without these guarantees, we're never more than one election away from potential tyranny, and you're laughing that the high-wire unicyclist thinks he needs a net because clearly only tinfoil hat crazies think he'll fall.
 
jwhouk

jwhouk

Also, I studied Constitutional law. The one thing the Founding Fathers had was a healthy distrust of a strong central government.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

This country was pretty much founded on the idea that the government in charge at the time was doing so much of a disservice to its people that those people felt they needed to Do Something About It. It would be egregious (or else blind denial of the absolute highest order) for that newly-formed government to think it impossible that such a situation would never again arise.

--Patrick
 
Sparhawk

Sparhawk

Gilgamesh, why would you think that jwhouk's comment was "funny." That's a true statement backed up by lots of writings by most of the founders. They basically wanted a government was working against itself. Divide the powers, don't let one branch of the government to have too much of the power, and keep as much as possible in the hands of the individual States. Much of that has been eroded, to the detriment of all.

Honestly, if you think that the military is one solid unit that would do anything their commanding officers told them... We take an oath when we went in, to "obey lawful orders" from superiors and to defend the country from enemies "foreign and domestic." The military would be fighting itself, and I'm not sure what the outcome would be.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Sparhawk said:
Gilgamesh, why would you think that jwhouk's comment was "funny." That's a true statement backed up by lots of writings by most of the founders. They basically wanted a government was working against itself. Divide the powers, don't let one branch of the government to have too much of the power, and keep as much as possible in the hands of the individual States. Much of that has been eroded, to the detriment of all.

Honestly, if you think that the military is one solid unit that would do anything their commanding officers told them... We take an oath when we went in, to "obey lawful orders" from superiors and to defend the country from enemies "foreign and domestic." The military would be fighting itself, and I'm not sure what the outcome would be.
Click to expand...
Because as long as he's laughing he can put us in the same box as Charlie, the "things I laugh at" box, and sleep contentedly.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Pretty much. Its the same thing as the hipsters disaffected sarcasm parading as intelligence. Just more annoying.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
He apparently attacked TWO Jewish places - a community center and a fucking assisted living facility. Police say he "may" have had white supremacy ties. You don't say?

Fucking idiot.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
He apparently attacked TWO Jewish places - a community center and a fucking assisted living facility. Police say he "may" have had white supremacy ties. You don't say?

Fucking idiot.
Click to expand...
I think they mean he had a support structure as opposed to just being one lone lunatic.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
GasBandit said:
I think they mean he had a support structure as opposed to just being one lone lunatic.
Click to expand...
He's a former KKK leader who founded a white supremacy group that is ultra-violent. He's not alone, he's just the only one who acted out in this event. And the dude is 70!
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Eh, retirement home, federal prison - the guy probably believes those "our inmates get better treatment than our elders" crap and thought it'd be a nice way to spend the rest of his life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top