Me 'n u both.:D
Printable View
Um, in Kansas City they're something like this.
Absolutely... but I'm having trouble envisioning the "concealed" aspect of it all, both for the weapon and the ammunition supply!
Good luck with that. I kept running for quite a while in hope that a foot injury would work through, eventually had to take up cycling when it became clear that it was not going to work through, and that repeated impact is no longer in the picture. Fortunately I've come to like cycling.
There are places where age just gets you, and recovery is one of them. When the ortho guy starts invoking "long term management" as the goal, beware. Didn't believe him for a while but at a certain point the message becomes unmistakable. Pain doesn't lie.
And much like an old and wise NCO told Tom "(a machete) doesn't click on empty" :cool:
Ken,
I was referring to perhaps the worst stage (of over abusing the use of Anti and Pro Second Amendment) of the Clinton and NRA era together under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. As I said, I'm an NRA life member and have a nice collection of practical firearms in addition to having had concealed permits. What I don't take stock in is the empty and ludicrous use of "Second Amendment" to support or destroy an argument that is far more complex.
Because most of us herein are military and/or law enforcement, and the subject has more to do with what happens on a military base, I take our opinions and concerns much more seriously. Much more per se than someone arguing for or against gun ownership, standing on the Second Amendment soap box, in a heated political debate without ever having fired a weapon :wry:
I, too, am a combat veteran, lifelong shooter, own and carry guns and I am an NRA member as well.
So what?
Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein own guns and have permits to carry concealed…’nuff said.
The way you simply dismiss the 2A/RKBA argument is far more telling when it comes to your credibility regarding the issue of gun ownership; whether on post or elsewhere. Furthermore, being military or law enforcement doesn’t make any of us all that special…where I live you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who is either current or prior military/LE. It doesn’t make me (or you) any more or less qualified to comment on this thread.
Back to original point of this thread…
The two points I made in my earlier post were that I was frustrated with the notion that we can’t trust soldiers to handle weapons safely and with the surprising number of military and LE personnel (albeit a minority) who are opposed to the idea of the right to own and carry guns as an individual right but rather as something that should only belong to a protected class of citizens of which they are always a part.
I also notice a certain inconsistency in the argument that on the one hand “we (military/LE) are special” while on the other hand “stupid privates” can’t be trusted not to shoot themselves or others in a drunken orgy of destruction in the barracks on any given day; as if “stupid privates” are even LESS qualified to own and carry firearms than their civilian counterparts. Which one is it?
Finally, I am very uncomfortable with this tendency to lump military and law enforcement personnel together. We are very, very different. The fact that many in LE are former military does not change this.
Though the tread has drifted at times (bow and machete toters:D. Tomahawks anyone?), it seems that there are a number of SWJ forum members that think there is merit in the letter's argument.
How do we get CCWs recognized on DoD installations? Is the National Park model a good one?
That's actually not a bad idea...at least as far as the issue of whether or not anyone (for example a retiree visiting the commissary) can carry on post. Doesn't fix the issue of whether soldiers are allowed to do so.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I submit that every soldier should be issued an M11 pistol and a concealment holster and required to qualify with it. On post and off duty carry become mandatory. It's no longer a CCW issue, but rather a force protection issue. No different than making every soldier carry a weapon on the FOB.
I'm not all that confident that the rent-a-cops do much to keep military facilities secure. Seems to me a second line of defense of trained, armed soldiers will do a hell of a lot more to make them hard targets.
I don't know how relevant to the discussion this is, or whether it will change any opinions, but a couple weeks ago here on the Monterey Peninsula we had a captain (non-Navy type) who managed to discharge his concealed, personal weapon in class. Thankfully, no one was hurt.
If something were to be instituted, I don't think rank, age, or time in service would necessarily be good criteria for determining whether someone is allowed to carry on post. We've had Canadian Major General have a multiple negligent discharges in theater so it's not a 100% guarantee. I think some key positions other than MP should probably be armed for the sake of security and I don't think it's something that everyone should be able to do.
For every weapon introduced on post you're increasing the potential for an incident and that is something that should be reasonably mitigated against, but as some have mentioned there are also advantages and those should be weighed in as well.
No flame here. Substitute M16/M4/Galil/Tavor for M11 and this seems roughly the Israeli approach. All combat arms soldiers, and many support soldiers, are required to take their rifle and one or two loaded magazines whenerver they leave the base including home on pass.
Somebody say accidental discharge. Redneck 911 call:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja-dg89wr-s
Copperhead,
Thanks for a better detailed post than your previous !
Good point, similar to my distaste with flying the Second Amendment flag vs stating something of substance.
Don't know them personally, have no real desire to listen to politicians who purport to hold both the NRA card and spout...could care less too.
Perhaps you consider my posts to be a dismissal of the Second Amendment where I try not to mask things and hop on that soap box. I'm of the opinion that it is little more than a crutch vs stating and backing up one's opinion with facts. Because this current thread concerns concealed carry on a military installation vis-à-vis what is permitted off-base in Texas, who else would be more qualified to discuss the subject ?
Who else should then be making this relatively significant decision? Yet another politician instead of the military that have to live with what comes next. I think those that are opposed to the idea have been up front with why.
I think I made it quite clear that most of the nut cases were not stupid privates. In fact, I argued that rank and age was not nearly enough to gauge responsible firearms use.
We are different. But, I don't know anyone else that has sufficient background on concealed carry on a military installation and I could care less what Chuck thinks.
Agree competence, not rank, is the more important critieria. But I think there is the assumption on the part of some that if one is not an MP/LEO they are automatically either or both incompetent or untrustworthy when it comes to firearms. That is both wrong and unamerican IMHO.
RE: incidents. I propose it would take an awful lot of ND incidents to rack up the total of 13 dead and 40 wounded that happened at Fort Hood in 10 minutes in NOV 2009 (even in Redneck areas :D)
Not too sure about being un-American as that presupposes some sort or norms which we obviously don't have. We are also taking about concealed weapons which, in my opinion is a sidearm. Other than specific MOSs, which I believe I was clear about earlier, most soldiers are not trained to use sidearms and certainly not trained to employ a concealed weapon. Probably why a seasoned LEO is a credible source herein.
I would like nothing more to agree with you, but my 23 years tells me otherwise.
To say that LEOs are automatically competent with firearms and non LEO are automatically incompetent with firearms, short of some objective measure, seems to be a "some are more equal than others" approach and thus unamerican IMHO.
Stan - I imagine you are a great guy but if I get the honor to meet you, pardon me if I stand a couple of meters away. You seem to have had a lot of bad stuff happen within bursting radius of you when you were on active duty:D. In my double digits of years, been around a couple of NDs but, thank God, never had anyone I knew injured by one.
Sorry, but it was not a hit on you in any way shape or form.
When you get to know Slap (and me) a little better, you'll understand :D
We can always disagree. It's that, or the next thread we post together in will be real short... But we'll all be happy :rolleyes:
Regards, Stan
Hey DVC,
OK, I'll give it a break :o
So long as everybody completes the Army's (or equivalent service's) close quarters marksmanship course (and the heck with it, the LEOs all have to requalify too) :cool:
According to the FBI's safe distance tables you may want to make that 300 meters, deminer's helmet with visor, ear plugs optional and decent flack jacket :D
Take care... I'm off to dinner with my better half !