Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:42 AM Apr 2014

You know who objects strongly to this sort of crap? The MILITARY

This man wants to degrade the security of our military bases. Because he's so patriotic.

It's not like a bunch of effete liberals shoved these base security measures down the military's throat. The US military does not want everyone on base carrying concealed weapons.

Rep. Mike McCaul said Wednesday’s tragedy at Fort Hood is another reminder that members of the military should be able to carry concealed weapons on base.

“I personally think, if you’re trained for combat, you ought to be able to carry a weapon,” the Texas Republican said on Fox News’s “The Kelly File” on Wednesday night in the wake of the shooting that left four dead and more than a dozen injure at the Texas military base.

A bill to that effect has been introduced in Congress but has not gone anywhere. The legislation was inspired in part by the previous tragic shooting at Fort Hood, by Army Maj. Nidal Hassan in 2009, as well as an attack at Washington’s Navy Yard last year...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/mike-mccaul-fort-hood-105334.html

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Loudly

(2,436 posts)
1. So where is this polling of base commanders which indicates that they DON'T want guns on base?
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:46 AM
Apr 2014

And is there an explanation I can read anywhere as to WHY they don't want guns on base?

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
4. You require a poll to demonstrate that current military policy is desired by the military?
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:54 AM
Apr 2014

Some folks would stipulate that policies set by the military are what the military set as policy, and probably not using a Ouija board, but for some perceived purpose.

But that wouldn't be much of a distraction.

 

Loudly

(2,436 posts)
8. OK, I understand now. From DoD Directive AD-A272 176 (2/25/1992):
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:31 PM
Apr 2014

"The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel only when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms."

As though the mere presence of guns and ammo in civilian society isn't enough to give rise to the reasonable expectation that shooters are going to show up on base.

The modified directive should read as follows: All personnel are hereby encouraged to carry guns on base because DoD recognizes that America is absolutely fucking gun crazy and that base security is not impervious to being breached.

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
5. I know if I had had a gun during Basic and AIT there would be some dead drill sargeants
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:08 PM
Apr 2014

Soldiers are under a lot of stress and are bossed around by other soldiers to a degree civilian bosses would NEVER attempt. Anyone that has ever served would understand this.

sarisataka

(18,577 posts)
7. I never had any urge
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:21 PM
Apr 2014

To kill my DIs just because they were stressing me. Come to think of it I never have wanted to kill someone just for pissing me off.

The only times I have used lethal force have been against people trying to kill me.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
2. These tragedies aside, we don't live in a combat zone. Combat training Rep. McCaul -
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:48 AM
Apr 2014

where one lays down a barrage of bullets in many cases - would not work well in our society, although a lot of gun fanciers seem to believe it would. In a combat zone, innocents get shot too often. I don't think we really want that. Again, I recognize gun fanciers are primarily concerned about themselves and their gunz, and collateral damage means little to them (if it did, they wouldn't have a gun strapped on while standing in line at Chuck E Cheese).

bluedigger

(17,086 posts)
3. I'll consider McCaul's amateur opinion with all the gravity it deserves.
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:51 AM
Apr 2014

What with all his fancy history reading and lawyering experience to draw on and all.

librechik

(30,674 posts)
6. the military would love it if they were the only ones with weapons.
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:14 PM
Apr 2014

and things would be very safe on the streets, I suppose. We'll probably be able to experience it first hand in a few years, since democracy doesn't work anymore to curb these brutes. Remember when Democrats were for peace and thought it was a good thing?
yeah, not really….

Not that individuals owning weapons is any solution. That's crap too.

I think we have to reason from this point: "Fuck. We are Really Fucked. Seriously." and go from there. Everyone talks like the system still works and we can fix it with a little concerted effort.


How?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»You know who objects stro...