Ft. Benning (GA) Sign

[pistolero57]

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[LibertyorDeath]

What weapons, I had this boating accident.

 

[The Duck]

<broken link removed>

Be it that the sign is pretty dumb in my personal opinion...

But; If you are a military member who lives on base, it is required for you to register your firearm and keep it in the base armory. You are allowed to check it out anytime you wish (within business hours) for your own use.

This policy has been in place for all military bases for years (i.e. 20 or so) with the idea of preventing recent returning personnel and gearing up personnel from going "nuts" (which includes suicide and violence on others).

Many people do not register there guns on base due to the inconvenience of having to go to the armory to check it out, but the policy does serve a valid purpose.

On another side note: The military can screen for previous mental conditions, but in no way can they test the limits of a persons mind and its breaking point. Most military "blanket" policies are spawned from necessity's due to events!

This might start a debate on gun rights.. but hey; if you sign the military contract, deal with what is required...

 

[Gunner3456]

Be it that the sign is pretty dumb in my personal opinion...

But; If you are a military member who lives on base, it is required for you to register your firearm and keep it in the base armory. You are allowed to check it out anytime you wish (within business hours) for your own use.

This policy has been in place for all military bases for years (i.e. 20 or so) with the idea of preventing recent returning personnel and gearing up personnel from going "nuts" (which includes suicide and violence on others).

What's to keep private gun owners from doing that?

Many people do not register there guns on base due to the inconvenience of having to go to the armory to check it out, but the policy does serve a valid purpose.

What valid purpose which would be any different from civilian gun possession?

On another side note: The military can screen for previous mental conditions, but in no way can they test the limits of a persons mind and its breaking point. Most military "blanket" policies are spawned from necessity's due to events!

Sounds like a good reason to take all of our guns away. After all, how can you be sure of anyone?

This might start a debate on gun rights.. but hey; if you sign the military contract, deal with what is required...

Why would I have to waive my constitutional rights just so I could work for the government? Sounds ominous to me.

Personally I wish that all of the military members had been armed when that Muslim guy went wacko in Texas recently. I think the outcome would have been different. I think that's the classic proof that "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

$.02

 

[Silver Fox]

Yea and I am sure Ft Hood has the same policy but that didn't stop a psychiatrist now did it?

SF-

 

[Artilleryman]

Be it that the sign is pretty dumb in my personal opinion...

You are allowed to check it out anytime you wish (within business hours) for your own use.

..

I wish I had been stationed at that place. The facilities I've been to never offered such convenience. Instead of a 'base' armory with customer service hours it was the unit arms room in the barracks basement. You could sign the weapon out- once you had gone through your chain of command to get a chance to talk to the c.o., get permission, safety briefing, etc, then coordinate a time for the armorer to retrieve it for you, then make sure you're there to turn it back in at whatever time the c.o. or armorer randomly determined was convenient....always a big annoyance to go through. I found it was much easier to store firearms off post. Less hassle that way....oh, and that sign is ridiculous and obviously conceived by an officer. Hopefully some drunk Soldiers will make it go away some weekend soon. That would be an easy target while returning to the barracks after a long night on the town.

 

[PosterGuy]

I wish I had been stationed at that place. The facilities I've been to never offered such convenience. Instead of a 'base' armory with customer service hours it was the unit arms room in the barracks basement. You could sign the weapon out- once you had gone through your chain of command to get a chance to talk to the c.o., get permission, safety briefing, etc, then coordinate a time for the armorer to retrieve it for you, then make sure you're there to turn it back in at whatever time the c.o. or armorer randomly determined was convenient....always a big annoyance to go through. I found it was much easier to store firearms off post. Less hassle that way....oh, and that sign is ridiculous and obviously conceived by an officer. Hopefully some drunk Soldiers will make it go away some weekend soon. That would be an easy target while returning to the barracks after a long night on the town.

It only has to be stored in the arms room if you live in the barracks. You can store it in your quarters on base, just not in the barracks.

You can say what you want about "rights" but the fact is that military members don't live under the same laws. Allowing soldiers to have firearms in the barracks would be DISASTEROUS.

 

[Artilleryman]

\military members don't live under the same laws.

...preaching to the choir on that; spent 12 years myself.

 

[jacknast76]

The fact that the sign implies you are a te4rrorist for not registering your firearm(s) is abit over the top.

I have an ominous feeling that'll be the rally cry of the anti gun folks

 

[Stomper]

Fine... then I'll be a terrorist... if that's how they frame the definition.

 

[PosterGuy]

This was probably put up by some half wit arms room NCO. It's definitely not an official document or approved sign.

 

[PosterGuy]

It makes me ashamed to be an American to think others on this forum believe that just because you are a member of the US armed forces that the Constitution does not apply to same. Where have we as a country gone so wrong in our educational system to allow such garbage thinking? No wonder we are in the toilet morally, economically and spiritually.

What on Gods green earth are you talking about? We don't THINK it doesn't apply the same, we KNOW it doesn't. It's always been that way, and NEEDS to be that way to maintain the greatest military on Earth. We haven't "gone wrong." By your definition, we must have been "wrong" from day 1.

 

[PosterGuy]

Sir: Please show me where in the US Constitution it specifically exempts members of the US military of protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. P.S. What use of a great military if it does not stand for the rights of all? Check out the Nazis for a clue........

Sorry, but you are VERY clueless on this matter. How about YOU check out the UCMJ:
<broken link removed>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice

In the words of Ricky Bobby,
"THAT JUST HAPPENED!"

P.S.-I've always had a theory about argueing. You can tell how strong or weak a person's arguement is by how quickly they reference Nazis.

 

[PosterGuy]

Sir: Please show me where in the US Constitution it specifically exempts members of the US military of protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. P.S. What use of a great military if it does not stand for the rights of all? Check out the Nazis for a clue........

Military members have an EXTREMELY limited freedom of speech. You can go to jail for disrespecting or bad mouthing the president or your chain of command.

You can have many freedoms limited or temporarily taken away non-judicially. A battalion commander can restrict soldiers to their barracks for a period of time with his or her own authority. And there are many other things...

 

[ZachS]

Sorry, but you are VERY clueless on this matter. How about YOU check out the UCMJ:
<broken link removed>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice

In the words of Ricky Bobby,
"THAT JUST HAPPENED!"

The relevant part of the Wikipedia article:

"Effective upon its ratification in 1789, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provided that Congress has the power to regulate the land and naval forces. On 10 April 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 Articles of War (which applied to both the Army and the Navy), which were not significantly revised until over a century later. The military justice system continued to operate under the Articles of War until 31 May 1951, when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect.
The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951. The word Uniform in the Code's title refers to the congressional intent to make military justice uniform or consistent among the armed services."

 

[PosterGuy]

The relevant part of the Wikipedia article:

"Effective upon its ratification in 1789, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provided that Congress has the power to regulate the land and naval forces. On 10 April 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 Articles of War (which applied to both the Army and the Navy), which were not significantly revised until over a century later. The military justice system continued to operate under the Articles of War until 31 May 1951, when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect.
The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951. The word Uniform in the Code's title refers to the congressional intent to make military justice uniform or consistent among the armed services."

 

[PosterGuy]

The Nazis had plenty of excuses/policies/laws to excuse eliminating 6 million people.

And straight into holocaust references, brilliant.

"You know, the Nazi's had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear."
-Peter Gibbons

 

[ZachS]

Sir: It is unthinking individuals such as you that allowed the Jews (and others) to be eradicated. Don't think it could happen here? Guess again. Do yourself and myself a favor and move to South America where your pro-military, anti rights attitudes would fit right in with the dictator of the month. Once again, you are an example of one who is TOTALLY CLUELESS of what this country stands for (or did stand for). The founding fathers were willing to go to war over a tax on a beverage; you are willing to deny members of the US military their rights just because they wear a uniform. How far we have fallen......

The founding fathers also went to war to enforce a tax on a beverage.

And as far as your invocation of Godwin's Law is concerned, the Jews (including many of my relatives) and other victims of the Shoah were slaughtered by "patriotic" nationalists who felt they had a very strong understanding of what their country stood for.

But keep digging if you want to.

 

[PosterGuy]

Sir: It is unthinking individuals such as you that allowed the Jews (and others) to be eradicated. Don't think it could happen here? Guess again. Do yourself and myself a favor and move to South America where your pro-military, anti rights attitudes would fit right in with the dictator of the month. Once again, you are an example of one who is TOTALLY CLUELESS of what this country stands for (or did stand for). The founding fathers were willing to go to war over a tax on a beverage; you are willing to deny members of the US military their rights just because they wear a uniform. How far we have fallen......

Well, you obviously haven't read the Constitution and haven't read the previous posts which directly reference it. Are you saying that the Constitution is wrong? To be honest, your arguement isn't even 1% coherent.

You have obviously never served in the armed forces. If you have, you are embarassment to the rest of us. I'm on a roll with movie quotes, so I leave you one more:

"You're the Milli-Vannili of patriots!"
-Cody, Tropic Thunder

 

[tionico]

that sign has to be bogus... someone's private pet position put onto plywood.

For one thing, I've studied the early colonial period, specifically in the Massachussetts Bay Colony area, and never saw any reference to the mentioned king's head being severed and on display in the town for fifteen years..... or even the referenced massacre. Yes, some groups of indians rose up against the settlers, having been provoked by outside meddlers. Some were killed in the ensuing battles. But the methodical slaughter of a whole group, and the beheading of their leader in this fashion, are events I've never seen mentioned. Anyone having knowledge of reliable sources to back this up, I'd like to see them.. and please, don't give me Wikipedia. that is NOT a reliable source, as anyone can write content for it without any vetting for accuracy, personal agenda, etc. No, a reliable source.

I can understand the thinking behind disarming soldiers, particularly in the barracks... they can be a rather wonky lot, I''ve had some crazy stories recounted to me. Get them a little drunk, throw in a bit on one-upsmanship, a measure of pride, a touch of bravado, add firearms and trouble ensues. BUT.. allowing arms at large on the base, I see no problem with that. As we saw at Fort Hoood recently, personal arms in competent hands could have preserved a number of lives.