JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
...The next ideation of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) included provisions to allow …

...Tragically, no US commander has had the guts to implement the allowances granted by law...
This authorization is granted only to the top level commander of a base. If the installation is small the decision making authority defaults to the higher level base that the remote installation is attached to and … this is the big one … it does nothing to remove or shelter said commander from the liability stemming from a misuse of arms.

You are correct in that no base commander has chosen to implement this policy. You are way off base in calling this gutless move; it's an incredibly smart move for many reasons already mentioned in this thread. As long as the commander is liable for the actions of all armed personnel under their watch … they have every right to control who has access to arms.

I'm sure you did not mean it in this fashion, but calling these commanders gutless is inflammatory and highly offensive.

Just as a bit of context regarding my posts in this thread. I'm a former Marine. The Marine Corps is famed for it's marksmanship and the fact their "every Marine is a rifleman first" ethos. Each and every Marine qualifies with the rifle once per year, regardless of their MOS. Overall, they are the best trained in small arms in the entirety of the US Armed forces. I'm not trying to put down the other branches here, just stating the reality of differing missions causing differing types and levels of training.

So, even with the level of firearm training you would find on a Marine Corps base … I still would not in any way shape or form think it a good idea to allow free reign for private arms or the allow even a small minority to be armed 24 / 7. The professionally trained MPs and a few other security force types are the only ones who should have access full time. Now … once off base did I arm up with a legally concealed weapon … you bet your *ss I did!
 
This authorization is granted only to the top level commander of a base. If the installation is small the decision making authority defaults to the higher level base that the remote installation is attached to and … this is the big one … it does nothing to remove or shelter said commander from the liability stemming from a misuse of arms.

You are correct in that no base commander has chosen to implement this policy. You are way off base in calling this gutless move; it's an incredibly smart move for many reasons already mentioned in this thread. As long as the commander is liable for the actions of all armed personnel under their watch … they have every right to control who has access to arms.

I'm sure you did not mean it in this fashion, but calling these commanders gutless is inflammatory and highly offensive.

Just as a bit of context regarding my posts in this thread. I'm a former Marine. The Marine Corps is famed for it's marksmanship and the fact their "every Marine is a rifleman first" ethos. Each and every Marine qualifies with the rifle once per year, regardless of their MOS. Overall, they are the best trained in small arms in the entirety of the US Armed forces. I'm not trying to put down the other branches here, just stating the reality of differing missions causing differing types and levels of training.

So, even with the level of firearm training you would find on a Marine Corps base … I still would not in any way shape or form think it a good idea to allow free reign for private arms or the allow even a small minority to be armed 24 / 7. The professionally trained MPs and a few other security force types are the only ones who should have access full time. Now … once off base did I arm up with a legally concealed weapon … you bet your *ss I did!

You do realize i am citing the article,......right?
 
Apparently not ... my mistake. I was reading on my phone and jumping between screens. So I apologize to you and amend my statement to a more general stating that calling these folks gutless is offensive. I'll also go back and edit my additional post to correct my error.
 
Apparently not ... my mistake. I was reading on my phone and jumping between screens. So I apologize to you and amend my statement to a more general stating that calling these folks gutless is offensive. I'll also go back and edit my additional post to correct my error.

All cool man. I've slipped and jumped ahead plenty too.

I was mostly praising the commanding officer who said F&@#(%&* policy I am going to do the right thing and save my men. Being former INF i respect people who will take action vs sit and wait for higher to make decisions on a radio while your guys are getting waxed.
 
Everyone wants to give their two cents in regards to firearms on a military base or the restriction of such. Unless you were in the military I personally think you do not have room to talk. There is a reason that the rules are in place. And the immaturity of the current junior and senior military members mixed with firearms is a costly mixture. I have witnessed first hand what can be done when guns are mixed with barracks mischief. Plus there is a lot of litigation when it comes to storing, accountability and safe usage of those weapons. The military world is nothing like the civilian world. And even though it's hard to believe not every service member is a respectable super hero.
 
All cool man. I've slipped and jumped ahead plenty too.

I was mostly praising the commanding officer who said F&@#(%&* policy I am going to do the right thing and save my men. Being former INF i respect people who will take action vs sit and wait for higher to make decisions on a radio while your guys are getting waxed.
With that being said if you got a solid head on your shoulders and want to carry on base more power to you. As long as you own it if you get caught. I personally agree with you. I'd rather have it and not need it then watch my marines get smoked. I'd gladly take the court martial if it meant saving lives. But to open it up for all military members to be allowed to carry and have guns free floating around I think would be a major mistake.
 
Okay. So... if a trained group of men and women; whom signed up for service in the Military, cannot be trusted to be responsible for their own security and safety with firearms.. then the corollary should also apply to citizens who are not even trained, that constitute the Unorganized Militia spoken of (all able bodied men 18-45 per the Selective Service registry?)?
So basically... we should absolutely not trust the People with the immense responsibility of being gun owners; just like the Military does not trust the servicepeople with the immense responsibility of being armed on bases/depots/U.S. lands?

Sure I aint ever served, but worked with NAVAIR at a MCAS post 9/11 and sure my father served the AF then US Army for 33 yea I'llrs before retirement; sure I was an Army brat... but it is a little insulting to paint the majority of our Armed Service personnel as being incapable of having the responsibility for being armed outside the duties of warfare... my opinion... the Armed Services should trust their personnel. Doesn't mean arm everyone, nor does it mean having ready access to arms and ammunition by everyone either. What I'm thinking is more along the lines of enhanced SP/MP/Security Forces protocols and training and duties.. of course this would include vetting by the COs and Sgts to figure who would be eligible for such duties in addition to LEOs... similar to whats been proposed for CHL holders?
 
Sooooooooooooooo, you are being trained to operate a device that can unleash almighty hellfire on anybody on the ground or in the air without coming to harm, but you are NOT trusted to carry a personal sidearm for self-defence, given the appalling history of mass-shootings on military bases in CONUS.
 
Just as an aside, the shooting incident was 'observed' by three of the shooter's 'buddies' who, instead of taking some kind of preventative action, whipped out their cell-phones instead and began making movies. They have all been arrested as being possibly complicit in the shooting, and making a record for their fans.

Watch this space.
That seems to be SOP these days! Cell phones rule.
 
Sooooooooooooooo, you are being trained to operate a device that can unleash almighty hellfire on anybody on the ground or in the air without coming to harm, but you are NOT trusted to carry a personal sidearm for self-defence, given the appalling history of mass-shootings on military bases in CONUS.
The military is held to a higher standard and police their own. I don't expect you to understand why military members aren't allowed to carry their own person firearms on the installation. If you've spent time in the fleet you would understand.
 
Gentlemen, lets not go there! Combative responses to each others posts will get threads locked down! :eek:
Consider this a friendly warning!;)
My apologies. Not trying to hurt any feelings here. Just trying to explain my experiences from being in the military.
 
So are we saying that Tac is tackless? ;)

Got the smiley to show ...

There is supposed to be a smiley face here, but I can't get it to show.
 
Last Edited:
tac was in the British Army for 33 years all but ten days.

tac was the longest-ever serving Chief Instructor at a certain British Military Intelligence establishment - five years, five months and three days, not that he was counting.
 
Last Edited:
So are we saying that Tac is tackless? There is supposed to be a smiley face here, but I can't get it to show.

1576010525159.png
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top