A Common Sense Gun Law

[Pete7469]

Of course it takes a Texan to introduce it and we all know the bed wetters will lose their minds at the idea because it will actually be effective. However Most Texans know liberals don't have a lot to lose in that category anyway.

Rep. Steve Stockman said he plans to introduce a bill to allow military personnel to carry concealed guns while on military bases in the aftermath of the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard that left 13 dead including the shooter.

I am personally delighted that political momentum favors such legislation, and rejects the asinine disarmament bullshit the bed wetters have been caterwauling for over the last 10 years. In spite of the LSM lies about AR15's, the truth came out thanks to modern communication technology.

Military personnel are entitled to the rights all Americans are, at least Americans in "Shall Issue" states. They should not be left defenseless when some jihadist asshole, or insane bed wetter makes it through enormous PC cracks in the system and decides to shoot up a military post.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course it takes a Texan to introduce it and we all know the bed wetters will lose their minds at the idea because it will actually be effective. However Most Texans know liberals don't have a lot to lose in that category anyway.

Rep. Steve Stockman said he plans to introduce a bill to allow military personnel to carry concealed guns while on military bases in the aftermath of the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard that left 13 dead including the shooter.

I am personally delighted that political momentum favors such legislation, and rejects the asinine disarmament bullshit the bed wetters have been caterwauling for over the last 10 years. In spite of the LSM lies about AR15's, the truth came out thanks to modern communication technology.

Military personnel are entitled to the rights all Americans are, at least Americans in "Shall Issue" states. They should not be left defenseless when some jihadist asshole, or insane bed wetter makes it through enormous PC cracks in the system and decides to shoot up a military post.

Thats fine except military bases are federal property and governed by federal law.

 

[TooTall]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

Name two of them.

 

[Pheonixops]

Of course it takes a Texan to introduce it and we all know the bed wetters will lose their minds at the idea because it will actually be effective. However Most Texans know liberals don't have a lot to lose in that category anyway.

Rep. Steve Stockman said he plans to introduce a bill to allow military personnel to carry concealed guns while on military bases in the aftermath of the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard that left 13 dead including the shooter.

I am personally delighted that political momentum favors such legislation, and rejects the asinine disarmament bullshit the bed wetters have been caterwauling for over the last 10 years. In spite of the LSM lies about AR15's, the truth came out thanks to modern communication technology.

Military personnel are entitled to the rights all Americans are, at least Americans in "Shall Issue" states. They should not be left defenseless when some jihadist asshole, or insane bed wetter makes it through enormous PC cracks in the system and decides to shoot up a military post.

What's wrong with that proposed legislation? I don't think that the particular "right" should be solely for military personnel, I think that civilians should have that same right as well.........

 

[Crackerjaxon]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

Name two of them.

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course it takes a Texan to introduce it and we all know the bed wetters will lose their minds at the idea because it will actually be effective. However Most Texans know liberals don't have a lot to lose in that category anyway.

Rep. Steve Stockman said he plans to introduce a bill to allow military personnel to carry concealed guns while on military bases in the aftermath of the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard that left 13 dead including the shooter.

I am personally delighted that political momentum favors such legislation, and rejects the asinine disarmament bullshit the bed wetters have been caterwauling for over the last 10 years. In spite of the LSM lies about AR15's, the truth came out thanks to modern communication technology.

Military personnel are entitled to the rights all Americans are, at least Americans in "Shall Issue" states. They should not be left defenseless when some jihadist asshole, or insane bed wetter makes it through enormous PC cracks in the system and decides to shoot up a military post.

Thats fine except military bases are federal property and governed by federal law.

Thus why it takes an act of Congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

Name two of them.

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

Being armed has nothing to do with Unit Cohesion, nor property control since they would have to carry their own weapon. Being armed has nothing to do with theft prevention either. As to weapon maintenance since they would be carrying their own weapon it is not an issue.

As to training exercises commands would just bar private weapons from them as they do now.

Not sure if I agree concealed carry is a good idea for uniformed military though. There are command issues that would arise, such as when and how a command could restrict them carrying. And who would decide who could carry? Units do have people that command might not want carry weapons around out side of a combat zone.

Further how would you designate the areas on the base where concealed carry was barred at all times?

 

[TooTall]

There are good, valid reasons why military personnel do not go armed while not in combat zones.

Name two of them.

1. Unit cohesion.

It certainly would raise morale

2. Control of government property.

Lose it you pay for it.

3. Theft prevention

Being armed would certainly deter a thief.

4. Weapon Maintenance

Keeping your weapon clean and in operating order is taught in basic training.

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

What the fuck do you think they are using in Afghanistan, sling shots?
Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

I know about the UCMJ since I served in the US military for 6 years. When you get a reason that makes any sense, I will be glad to critique it.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Name two of them.

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

Being armed has nothing to do with Unit Cohesion, nor property control since they would have to carry their own weapon. Being armed has nothing to do with theft prevention either. As to weapon maintenance since they would be carrying their own weapon it is not an issue.

As to training exercises commands would just bar private weapons from them as they do now.

Not sure if I agree concealed carry is a good idea for uniformed military though. There are command issues that would arise, such as when and how a command could restrict them carrying. And who would decide who could carry? Units do have people that command might not want carry weapons around out side of a combat zone.

Further how would you designate the areas on the base where concealed carry was barred at all times?

Of course it has to do with unit cohesion. Let's let them design their own uniforms and put flowers in their hats, too, eh?

If one member of the unit is armed, they should all be armed, no?

Where would personal weapons be stored, in foot lockers, under pillows?

I don't know what military you were in, but I had to have my personal weapon stored at the company armory. I checked it out when I had business with it, was off duty, and headed off base.

No one on base carried a concealed weapon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

Being armed has nothing to do with Unit Cohesion, nor property control since they would have to carry their own weapon. Being armed has nothing to do with theft prevention either. As to weapon maintenance since they would be carrying their own weapon it is not an issue.

As to training exercises commands would just bar private weapons from them as they do now.

Not sure if I agree concealed carry is a good idea for uniformed military though. There are command issues that would arise, such as when and how a command could restrict them carrying. And who would decide who could carry? Units do have people that command might not want carry weapons around out side of a combat zone.

Further how would you designate the areas on the base where concealed carry was barred at all times?

Of course it has to do with unit cohesion. Let's let them design their own uniforms and put flowers in their hats, too, eh?

If one member of the unit is armed, they should all be armed, no?

Where would personal weapons be stored, in foot lockers, under pillows?

I don't know what military you were in, but I had to have my personal weapon stored at the company armory. I checked it out when I had business with it, was off duty, and headed off base.

No one on base carried a concealed weapon.

The argument " because I didn't get to do it" holds no water. Firearms would have to be worked out with new regulations. I assume that if concealed carry were authorized, which I highly doubt it will be, new regulations would have to be in place and yes storage of firearms would likely become allowed in barracks.

I also assume regulations would determine process and procedure for authorizing concealed carry. And yes some people would be denied.

My personal opinion is that all that could be worked out BUT I do not necessarily agree it is a good idea nor do I believe it would ever pass Congress.

 

[TooTall]

Name two of them.

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

Being armed has nothing to do with Unit Cohesion, nor property control since they would have to carry their own weapon. Being armed has nothing to do with theft prevention either. As to weapon maintenance since they would be carrying their own weapon it is not an issue.

As to training exercises commands would just bar private weapons from them as they do now.

Not sure if I agree concealed carry is a good idea for uniformed military though. There are command issues that would arise, such as when and how a command could restrict them carrying. And who would decide who could carry? Units do have people that command might not want carry weapons around out side of a combat zone.

Further how would you designate the areas on the base where concealed carry was barred at all times?

Those are better answers than mine. I agree that it is questionable for GI's in civvies to have a concealed weapon. I do think a visible sidearm on uniformed soldiers/Marines would be a deterrent. The First Sgt could designate who gets the weapons issued and when they are authorized to wear them.

 

[Pete7469]

1. Unit cohesion.

2. Control of government property.

3. Theft prevention

4. Weapon Maintenance

5. Avoidance of armed conflict between unit members in high stress training situations.

Let me know if you need more. By the way, on duty military personnel (and they're on call 24/7) are bound by the UCMJ and do not have the same rights as civilians.

Being armed has nothing to do with Unit Cohesion, nor property control since they would have to carry their own weapon. Being armed has nothing to do with theft prevention either. As to weapon maintenance since they would be carrying their own weapon it is not an issue.

As to training exercises commands would just bar private weapons from them as they do now.

Not sure if I agree concealed carry is a good idea for uniformed military though. There are command issues that would arise, such as when and how a command could restrict them carrying. And who would decide who could carry? Units do have people that command might not want carry weapons around out side of a combat zone.

Further how would you designate the areas on the base where concealed carry was barred at all times?

Those are better answers than mine. I agree that it is questionable for GI's in civvies to have a concealed weapon. I do think a visible sidearm on uniformed soldiers/Marines would be a deterrent. The First Sgt could designate who gets the weapons issued and when they are authorized to wear them.

It seems more than reasonable to me for E5's and above to have the option of concealed carry. I can even understand the idea of commanders ensuring permitted carriers have a psyche eval in order to have clearance to carry on post but every soldier should have the ability to protect himself. We had how many millions of us armed with M4's, and all sorts of machine guns, never mind the explosives and everything else but as soon as we get back to the CONUS all of a sudden we can no longer be trusted?

Obviously the blanket "No Guns" bullshit is a detriment to security. It's an antiquated Clintonian era bed wetter policy that should never have been enforced.

 

[National Socialist]

Only gun law we need is called the 2nd amendment.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Only gun law we need is called the 2nd amendment.

Why would a national socialist endorse the 2nd amendment? Is that some kind of sick joke?

 

[National Socialist]

Let me guess you think Hitler took guns away from the people huh? He only banned Jews from owning guns...can't very well let your enemy who declared war on you having arms.

 

[Pete7469]

Only gun law we need is called the 2nd amendment.

Why would a national socialist endorse the 2nd amendment? Is that some kind of sick joke?

No, it's just an alt account from that ancapathiest asswipe.

No one else is that stupid.

 

[Pete7469]

Let me guess you think Hitler took guns away from the people huh? He only banned Jews from owning guns...can't very well let your enemy who declared war on you having arms.

The gun laws started with the Weimar Republic. Hitler never loosened them.

 

[National Socialist]

Only gun law we need is called the 2nd amendment.

Why would a national socialist endorse the 2nd amendment? Is that some kind of sick joke?

No, it's just an alt account from that ancapathiest asswipe.

No one else is that stupid.

Actually I had my name changed as I am not stinking capitalist.

Let me guess you think Hitler took guns away from the people huh? He only banned Jews from owning guns...can't very well let your enemy who declared war on you having arms.

The gun laws started with the Weimar Republic. Hitler never loosened them.

The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 – well after the NAZIs already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition.

Mmk...genius....

 

[National Socialist]

The Myth Of Hitler?s Gun Ban | The Propaganda Professor