Soldiers want OK to carry concealed weapons on base
On social media and elsewhere, soldiers have been speaking out about their inability to defend themselves at work in the wake of last week's shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. (Army)
In the wake of last week’s shooting on Fort Hood many soldiers and some lawmakers are calling on the military to reconsider allowing troops to carry concealed weapons on post.
On social media and elsewhere, soldiers have been speaking out about their inability to defend themselves at work.
“It’s the only place that a licensed soldier can’t carry,” said Staff Sgt. Jacob Wiley, who’s assigned to the 708th Contingency Contracting Team at Fort Campbell, Ky. “When you’re deployed,you have your weapon issued to you, and it’s mandatory that you carry it. Then you come back home and you come onto post, and ... the only people who are going to have weapons are military police ... and those who don’t care about the law.”
Wiley contends that soldiers are trained to carry and handle weapons.
“I don’t understand why it’s muscle memory downrange but not at home,” he said.
After the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Wiley said he and his fellow soldiers had to sit through ineffective active-shooter training.
“It’s ridiculous. All they do is put a Band-Aid on it, check the block,” he said. “The briefing told us to shut the door, turn off the light and hide behind the desk. And do what? Pray that someone with a gun comes to save me?”
A warrant officer, who asked to remain anonymous so he could speak freely, said he believes select soldiers should be allowed to carry weapons on post.
“If somebody is in a trusted position, someone with a security clearance, somebody who’s in charge of making sure a soldier’s welfare is taken care of, they should be carrying some sort of protection so we don’t have to wait 10 to 15 minutes for the police to show up,” said the warrant officer, who’s been in the Army since 2008 and is training to become a helicopter pilot. “That way we’re not forced to either run, which we don’t like to do, or use our bodies to protect somebody else, because that’s our only option right now.”
The warrant officer also said he believes potential shooters may think twice if he knows some soldiers may be carrying a concealed weapon.
“We can’t afford to have a military police officer at every building and every door,” he said.
Eric Chambers, a former Army medic and sergeant, agreed.
“At the very least, allow senior enlisted and company officers to carry handguns,” he said. “This way almost every area and soldier will have protection nearby. If we cannot trust our senior NCOs and officers to protect our troops, then who can we trust?”
Lawmakers are also speaking out.
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno if a hearing to discuss the issue was warranted.
“There’s clearly a difference of opinion on this,” Odierno said. “Our assessment is we probably wouldn’t initially support something like that, but all of this is worth a discussion.”
Odierno’s latest comments echo what he said April 3, also while testifying in front of the SASC.
“We have our military police and others that are armed, and I believe that’s appropriate,” he said in response to a question from South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. “I believe that allows us the level of protection necessary.”
Three soldiers were killed and 16 others wounded April 2 when a fellow soldier opened fire on them with a .45 caliber handgun.
The accused gunman, Spc. Ivan Lopez, killed himself after he was confronted by a military police soldier, officials said.
In a news briefing Monday, officials said Lopez opened fire after an argument. He then left and drove away, shooting at times from his car. The three soldiers who were killed were gunned down in separate locations.
Investigators said Lopez fired more than 35 shots in an eight-minute period.
As of Monday, 11 of the 16 injured soldiers have returned to duty.
A memorial service is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon on Fort Hood. President Obama is expected to attend.
In 2009, 13 people were killed by then-Maj. Nidal Hasan, who had said he was angry about being deployed to Afghanistan and wanted to protect Islamic and Taliban leaders from U.S. troops.
Since the time of the first standing armies, soldiers have always disarmed when returning home. The Great Arch in Rome, and later l'Arc de Triomphe in Paris, are places specifically set aside where soldiers lay down their arms and rejoin civilized society.
This is a necessity. The brutality of soldering needs to end when the soldiers are home, or the public cannot feel safe from those trained to do violence. So when those soldiers complain they want to carry weapons at home, they simply do not understand this dynamic.
Soldiers should not carry weapons at home except on their off time, and we should not pander to knee jerk reactions from indiscriminate violence that might be avoided through ahistoric means. The system we have works quite nicely.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
I have to agree, when soldiers come home from war they need to set their weapons aside. Not only it is a historical president it is also a major psychological one. Of course there is a need for training but the mental impact and symbol of turning in your weapon when your done with mission is huge.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Why not simply reverse the ex prez-Bush senior policy of banning it completely, go back to the previous one of allowing the base commanders the discretion of deciding who is allowed to carry? Those base commanders could then also at their discretion choose to recognize/allow soldiers with CCW to carry on base off duty. Don't be misled by the biased media, there are many degrees/nuances between allowing "everyone" on base to carry and our current policy which essentially is a complete ban unless you are on active duty, MP, police, or whatever.
I don't disagree with that. It's only the notion of a fully armed army at home that is of serious concern, as Rome learned when Caesar marched the troops in and turned a Republic into an Empire.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Here in the US we have a tradition anomalous to world historic norms, an armed civilian population. Against that background soldiers keeping small arms is less a threat for a military coup.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
Historically societies have been about split concerning whether they were armed. The Romans weren't disarmed but the average person didn't carry arms. Note too thought, that ultimate sidearm was the gladius which is not much more than a butter knife. It was the skill to know how to use a weapon that made the difference, and only soldiers and the land-owners/aristocracy had that.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote: Note too thought, that ultimate sidearm was the gladius which is not much more than a butter knife. It was the skill to know how to use a weapon that made the difference, and only soldiers and the land-owners/aristocracy had that.
The same is not true of a modern firearm to nowhere near the same degree...it does not take a lifetime of careful dedication to use a pistol (to say nothing of a shotgun) at close range against a would be assailant. A sixty year old grandmother with a short barreled shotgun can defend herself against a couple of young thugs breaking into her home, for instance. Even if they are armed too, they no longer have much of an advantage over her.
Michael Bloomberg: I’ve ‘earned my place in heaven’ for anti-gun crusade
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg waits to speak at a gun-violence summit Monday in Baltimore, where he outlined his proposal for federal gun-control measures. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (left) also addressed the gathering. (Associated Press)
Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, said it’s his work for more gun control — along with his anti-smoking and healthy eating campaigns — that have won him God’s favor and a sure spot behind the Pearly Gates.
His exact words, made in context of discussing his smoking cessation and anti-obesity pushes, as well as his concerted crackdowns on private gun ownership, to the New York Times were: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”
Pastor: Stand Your Ground law helps Black Americans
Local pastor speaks about Stand Your Ground laws
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -
In the wake of the shooting deaths of unarmed teenagers Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin groups of protesters have been calling for change to the controversial stand your ground law.
A stand-your-ground law is separate from traditional self-defense. The law gives individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without any requirement retreat from a dangerous situation.
Kenneth Adkins, Reverend of Greater Dimensions Christian Fellowship in Brunswick told Channel 4 that calling the law discriminatory against African Americans is false; Atkins said more often than not, the law actually helps African Americans.
"The majority of the people who have benefited from the stand your ground laws have been African American." said Adkins.
Adkins points to a Tampa Bay Times investigation done in 2012, that showed a significant number of African Americans in Florida used the stand your ground defense successfully.
"Why don’t people who don’t like stand your ground? Talk to the people who have benefited from stand your ground," suggested Adkins. "If it had not been for Stand Your Ground 24 African American families in the state of Florida, their loved one would have been in jail," said Adkins.
The Tampa Bay Times investigation looked at 200 stand your ground cases from around Florida. At that time, 70% of people who used the law as a defense, no matter race, won their case.
Supreme Court won't rule on carrying guns in public
WASHINGTON —The Supreme Court appears hesitant to wade back into the national debate on guns.
The court refused Monday to decide whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home. The justices won't consider a challenge to a New Jersey law that restricts most residents from carrying guns in public.
paperburn1 wrote:This is really a good thing, making this ruling could very well cement into law that gun laws are Federal domain not state domain.
Possibly...and especially true perhaps if Scalia sensed the vote might have gone to uphold New Jersey's law....better no ruling at all, at least for now.
