Pentagon plan will allow troops to carry personal firearms on base.....

[MMC]

This is good news indeed.....The Pentagon is making the move as they now know that BO peeps yes men wont be running the show anymore. A Direct mental slap to BO peeps face. As in take your ass out to pasture as you wont be screwing things up with the Military anymore.


Of course the Anti Gun nuts wont like it.....but they wont be able to do anything about it. What say ye?





U.S. troops may soon get to bring personal firearms on base, thanks to a Pentagon directive released late last week.


“Arming and the Use of Force” was published Nov. 18 by the Department of Defense. The document, approved by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, gives military commanders, O-5 and above, the ability to grant “permission to DoD personnel requesting to carry a privately owned firearm (concealed or open carry) on DoD property for a personal protection purpose not related to performance of an official duty or status.”


“Written permission will be valid for 90 days or as long as the DoD Component deems appropriate and will include information necessary to facilitate the carrying of the firearm on DoD property consistent with safety and security, such as the individual’s name, duration of the permission to carry, type of firearm, etc.,” the document continues, Military Times reported (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/21/dod-releases-plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html) Monday.


The Pentagon’s directive is noteworthy since Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley was publicly against allowing servicemembers the ability to carry personal firearms on post.


Applicants for the Pentagon’s new policy must be 21 years of age or older, and they must own a concealed handgun license that is valid under federal, state, local or host-nation law where they are stationed, the website reported.......snip~


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/22/pentagon-personal-guns-firearms-allowed-on-base/

[Crepitus]

This is good news indeed.....The Pentagon is making the move as they now know that BO peeps yes men wont be running the show anymore. A Direct mental slap to BO peeps face. As in take your ass out to pasture as you wont be screwing things up with the Military anymore.


Of course the Anti Gun nuts wont like it.....but they wont be able to do anything about it. What say ye?





U.S. troops may soon get to bring personal firearms on base, thanks to a Pentagon directive released late last week.


“Arming and the Use of Force” was published Nov. 18 by the Department of Defense. The document, approved by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, gives military commanders, O-5 and above, the ability to grant “permission to DoD personnel requesting to carry a privately owned firearm (concealed or open carry) on DoD property for a personal protection purpose not related to performance of an official duty or status.”


“Written permission will be valid for 90 days or as long as the DoD Component deems appropriate and will include information necessary to facilitate the carrying of the firearm on DoD property consistent with safety and security, such as the individual’s name, duration of the permission to carry, type of firearm, etc.,” the document continues, Military Times reported (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/21/dod-releases-plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html) Monday.


The Pentagon’s directive is noteworthy since Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley was publicly against allowing servicemembers the ability to carry personal firearms on post.


Applicants for the Pentagon’s new policy must be 21 years of age or older, and they must own a concealed handgun license that is valid under federal, state, local or host-nation law where they are stationed, the website reported.......snip~


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/22/pentagon-personal-guns-firearms-allowed-on-base/

First I say who the fuck is Bo peep? You Trumpkins are the populists you know.

Second, there is a reason they lock up the arms on a military base. They spend time actively building aggression in the troops. Add beer and a female or two and There is a good chance this will not end well for some.

[MMC]

First I say who the fuck is Bo peep? You Trumpkins are the populists you know.

Second, there is a reason they lock up the arms on a military base. They spend time actively building aggression in the troops. Add beer and a female or two and There is a good chance this will not end well for some.

BO = Barack Obama.....the Peep. The man that has to practice putting bass in his voice while stuttering. Even us Rubio supporters know who BO Peep is. Only the less educated in the country don't know. The illiberals. Your kind of people.

Looks like you wont get to cheer on anymore converted Jihadists to kill our Troopers on base anymore.

[Crepitus]

BO = Barack Obama.....the Peep. The man that has to practice putting bass in his voice while stuttering. Even us Rubio supporters know who BO Peep is. Only the less educated in the country don't know. The illiberals. Your kind of people.

Looks like you wont get to cheer on anymore converted Jihadists to kill our Troopers on base anymore.

Are you functionally retarded?

[Common]

First I say who the fuck is Bo peep? You Trumpkins are the populists you know.

Second, there is a reason they lock up the arms on a military base. They spend time actively building aggression in the troops. Add beer and a female or two and There is a good chance this will not end well for some.
You are one tool buttercup lol

[Common]

I wouldnt have expected them to allow personal firearms on base.

[MMC]

Are you functionally retarded?

Nah thats you, remember. You're the one that's got the itis that you explained out. Have you started functioning properly yet?

[MMC]

I wouldnt have expected them to allow personal firearms on base.
When I was in during NAM. Officers carried, if they chose to. So did the SGT Major of the base.

[Private Pickle]

First I say who the fuck is Bo peep? You Trumpkins are the populists you know.

Second, there is a reason they lock up the arms on a military base. They spend time actively building aggression in the troops. Add beer and a female or two and There is a good chance this will not end well for some.
Preventative crime fighting by stripping people of their rights is the quickest path to deserved oppression.

[Cletus]

It is good that they are requiring at state issued concealed handgun license. That means the carrier has received at least some minimal handgun training.

Military handgun training sucks.

[Crepitus]

Nah thats you, remember. You're the one that's got the itis that you explained out. Have you started functioning properly yet?

I'm not the one who thinks anyone would cheer about our troops getting killed.

[MMC]

I'm not the one who thinks anyone would cheer about our troops getting killed.

But you are the one that follows lock stock and barrel with the illiberal mentality around here. Which you have shown repeatedly, and they do.

When you run with the flock.....then you are part of it. Just the way it is.

[Standing Wolf]

I have some seriously mixed feelings about this, actually. For one thing, it seems to be designed to solve a problem that barely exists; aside from the Fort Hood incident, how many on-base shootings have there been? (I'm not suggesting there haven't been any - I just can't recall hearing about any recently.)

The other is a bit harder to explain. I knew any number of men (and women) in the Navy with whom I wouldn't have a problem being armed on base - and also any number whom everyone watched very, very carefully when it was time to do pistol quals. Unfortunately, I can also imagine some of the latter group being the first to want to participate in this plan. Unless you're talking about the very elite units, the Special Forces components and that sort of thing, every one has their individuals, officers and enlisted, who may be very good at their jobs, but in terms of personality they are just plain weird and unpredictable. Not to the extent that they need to be made civilians, necessarily - but arming them? Bad idea.

In terms of military training and discipline, generally speaking I have to believe that the Marines and Army, in that order, are preeminent over the Navy and Air Force...so if you told me that this program was going to be implemented among Marines and Army, I wouldn't have that much of a problem - so long as every precaution was taken to exclude the flakes, the show-offs, and the Travis Bickles. Not to denigrate the other services, one of which of course is my own, or any individual veteran of them - it's just that I met and worked with enough Navy and Air Force people in the course of twenty-one years to make me skeptical about the wisdom of putting guns in some of their hands unnecessarily.

[Chris]

You are one tool buttercup lol

Don't call names. Tool, Buttercup is just snark.

[Crepitus]

But you are the one that follows lock stock and barrel with the illiberal mentality around here. Which you have shown repeatedly, and they do.

When you run with the flock.....then you are part of it. Just the way it is.

Actually you are incorrect. I agree more often with the liberal point of view than the conservatives, but I follow my own road.

[MMC]

Actually you are incorrect. I agree more often with the liberal point of view than the conservatives, but I follow my own road.

Actually agreeing with those who aren't about the truth and that deny reality......isn't saying much. Try walking a Righteous path rather than the lonely road.

[resister]

If they cant be trusted with a gun, why are they in the military to begin with?

[Tahuyaman]

Second, there is a reason they lock up the arms on a military base. They spend time actively building aggression in the troops. Add beer and a female or two and There is a good chance this will not end well for some.

You continually make the dumbest comments......

[del]

Are you functionally retarded?

does the pope shit in the woods?

[del]

You continually make the dumbest comments......
don't worry

your lead is safe

[Tahuyaman]

There's proof of my analysis.

[del]

^

33, 845 in a row

someone call guinness

[donttread]

It's about time.

[Standing Wolf]

If they cant be trusted with a gun, why are they in the military to begin with?

Aside from the eighteen months I spent with the Master-at-Arms force at Pearl, where I carried a sidearm every day, and a few times as a photographer during Vietnam, I had very little contact with firearms in my 21 years on active duty. Qualifying with a .45 pistol every year or so was just about it...and, depending on one's specialty and where they're stationed, I probably had more than most.

Again, there are people who are very good at their jobs and they contribute a great deal to the Service...just not with a firearm.

[Peter1469]

When I was in during NAM. Officers carried, if they chose to. So did the SGT Major of the base.

When I was active, the medics who had morphine always had sidearms. In the reserves we did as we pleased.

[Peter1469]

I understand the issue of soldiers and carry conceal. I have 25 years in the military and I say - no, except when security is raised to a high level.

Then, and only then allow conceal carry on post.

[Crepitus]

Actually agreeing with those who aren't about the truth and that deny reality......isn't saying much. Try walking a Righteous path rather than the lonely road.

You're as bad as tahuyaman (or however that's spelled). Anything to the left of Hitler is bad as far as you're concerned.

[Crepitus]

does the pope shit in the woods?


Apparently so.

[donttread]

Aside from the eighteen months I spent with the Master-at-Arms force at Pearl, where I carried a sidearm every day, and a few times as a photographer during Vietnam, I had very little contact with firearms in my 21 years on active duty. Qualifying with a .45 pistol every year or so was just about it...and, depending on one's specialty and where they're stationed, I probably had more than most.

Again, there are people who are very good at their jobs and they contribute a great deal to the Service...just not with a firearm.

But that doesn't address his point. Obviously you were trustworthy with a firearm regardless of how often you carried one. This is a can carry not a must carry order. Military bases as quasi "gun free zones" is ridiculous and invites attack. As do all "gun free zones"

[Chris]

Are you functionally retarded?

Don't call names. Stick to topic.

[MMC]

You're as bad as tahuyaman (or however that's spelled). Anything to the left of Hitler is bad as far as you're concerned.
Nah, I know quite a few good looking liberal women. But they aren't illiberals. So they can be reasoned with to a point.

[Crepitus]

Nah, I know quite a few good looking liberal women. But they aren't illiberals. So they can be reasoned with to a point.

As usual that reply makes no sense.

[Standing Wolf]

But that doesn't address his point. Obviously you were trustworthy with a firearm regardless of how often you carried one. This is a can carry not a must carry order. Military bases as quasi "gun free zones" is ridiculous and invites attack. As do all "gun free zones"

There are certain people with whom I work today who would make me very nervous if I knew they were armed - even more so in the Service. In at least some cases, these would be the very people at the front of the line wanting to carry.

The Services spend a lot of time emphasizing the ostensible grand masculine glamor of the job - that's one of the reasons women in the Service are given such a hard time there; many men, especially the young ones, are resentful that a woman is able to do their job, even if that job is keeping records or wrangling a screwdriver. Heck, they joined in the first place because the guys in the commercials were jumping out of planes and climbing mountains to fight dragons, and such. Now they've got a mundane job that they even let women do; what's heroic or exciting about that? A clerk or a technician, someone with a non-firearms-related job, given the chance to walk around in uniform strapped? That would be a dream come true for a lot of people, at a very personal level, and wanting to look cool is not the best motivation for wanting to be armed, in my opinion.

[MMC]

As usual that reply makes no sense.

It does.....but you not able to discern the meaning. Is your limitation. Comes with your kind and why that intelligence is lacking so much for illiberals.

[donttread]

There are certain people with whom I work today who would make me very nervous if I knew they were armed - even more so in the Service. In at least some cases, these would be the very people at the front of the line wanting to carry.

The Services spend a lot of time emphasizing the ostensible grand masculine glamor of the job - that's one of the reasons women in the Service are given such a hard time there; many men, especially the young ones, are resentful that a woman is able to do their job, even if that job is keeping records or wrangling a screwdriver. Heck, they joined in the first place because the guys in the commercials were jumping out of planes and climbing mountains to fight dragons, and such. Now they've got a mundane job that they even let women do; what's heroic or exciting about that? A clerk or a technician, someone with a non-firearms-related job, given the chance to walk around in uniform strapped? That would be a dream come true for a lot of people, at a very personal level, and wanting to look cool is not the best motivation for wanting to be armed, in my opinion.

Perhaps we should make less war, downsize the military, vet people better. If you don't trust your "coworkers" with a gun on an Army Base how can we trust them in villages , with civillians , half way around the world. ( I think we both know that the answer is in many cases we cannot as evidenced by rape and murder)
Still the idea of a soldier not being able to carry on base just seems like one more "gun free zone" "In other words "here we are psychotics and those who want to die sendiing a message. You can start killing people in the heart of our military structure and we can't stop you until the MP's get here. " You get 144 virgins!

[donttread]

Perhaps we should make less war, downsize the military, vet people better. If you don't trust your "coworkers" with a gun on an Army Base how can we trust them in villages , with civillians , half way around the world. ( I think we both know that the answer is in many cases we cannot as evidenced by rape and murder)
Still the idea of a soldier not being able to carry on base just seems like one more "gun free zone" "In other words "here we are psychotics and those who want to die sendiing a message. You can start killing people in the heart of our military structure and we can't stop you until the MP's get here. " You get 144 virgins!


On the lighter side it must be my age but who has the energy to teach sex to 72 women? Why not a couple of vigins ' a porn star and a really talented hooker instead?

[Crepitus]

It does.....but you not able to discern the meaning. Is your limitation. Comes with your kind and why that intelligence is lacking so much for illiberals.

Not my fault I don't speak Moron.

[Standing Wolf]

Perhaps we should make less war, downsize the military, vet people better. If you don't trust your "coworkers" with a gun on an Army Base how can we trust them in villages , with civillians , half way around the world. ( I think we both know that the answer is in many cases we cannot as evidenced by rape and murder)
Still the idea of a soldier not being able to carry on base just seems like one more "gun free zone" "In other words "here we are psychotics and those who want to die sendiing a message. You can start killing people in the heart of our military structure and we can't stop you until the MP's get here. " You get 144 virgins!

It seems as though stateside military installations would be a prime target for terrorists...and yet they aren't. Not just anyone can drive on; there are both physical and administrative barriers to get past. I drove up to the gate of a tiny little National Guard facility out in the boonies a couple of years ago to get my retired ID renewed and was met with a maze of concrete and metal barriers and a giant man in full tactical gear and the biggest rifle I'd ever seen.

[MMC]

Not my fault I don't speak Moron.

Nor the truth.....as all here has been shown. :kiss:

[donttread]

It seems as though stateside military installations would be a prime target for terrorists...and yet they aren't. Not just anyone can drive on; there are both physical and administrative barriers to get past. I drove up to the gate of a tiny little National Guard facility out in the boonies a couple of years ago to get my retired ID renewed and was met with a maze of concrete and metal barriers and a giant man in full tactical gear and the biggest rifle I'd ever seen.

I was thinking more of a Fort Hood situation. But , I have been on base, through security points with reason requested, but never searched.

[Peter1469]

There are certain people with whom I work today who would make me very nervous if I knew they were armed - even more so in the Service. In at least some cases, these would be the very people at the front of the line wanting to carry.

The Services spend a lot of time emphasizing the ostensible grand masculine glamor of the job - that's one of the reasons women in the Service are given such a hard time there; many men, especially the young ones, are resentful that a woman is able to do their job, even if that job is keeping records or wrangling a screwdriver. Heck, they joined in the first place because the guys in the commercials were jumping out of planes and climbing mountains to fight dragons, and such. Now they've got a mundane job that they even let women do; what's heroic or exciting about that? A clerk or a technician, someone with a non-firearms-related job, given the chance to walk around in uniform strapped? That would be a dream come true for a lot of people, at a very personal level, and wanting to look cool is not the best motivation for wanting to be armed, in my opinion.
No we don't need active duty guys armed, unless it is clear that they are on duty.

[resister]

Should police check there guns at the door(assuming they are not entering a correctional facility)

[Standing Wolf]

Should police check there guns at the door(assuming they are not entering a correctional facility)

Don't know if it's a majority, but a large percentage of active duty military personnel seldom if ever touch a gun, and their jobs have absolutely nothing to do with them in any way. Given the secure nature of stateside military installations, arming a bunch of clerks, mechanics, technicians, drivers, cooks and janitors just seems like an unnecessary wild card to toss into the situation - a bad accident looking for a place to happen. And as I suggested before, many of the guys who'd be first in line to get their permits would be the people you'd least want to see walking around with a loaded weapon in your workspace...the ones to whom being able to carry a weapon at work would be a major novelty; at least some of them would not handle it well. If things like Fort Hood happened a lot, I'd doubtless have a different opinion - especially since I have a son doing his medical residency at Fort Hood at the moment - but they don't.

[resister]

Don't know if it's a majority, but a large percentage of active duty military personnel seldom if ever touch a gun, and their jobs have absolutely nothing to do with them in any way. Given the secure nature of stateside military installations, arming a bunch of clerks, mechanics, technicians, drivers, cooks and janitors just seems like an unnecessary wild card to toss into the situation - a bad accident looking for a place to happen. And as I suggested before, many of the guys who'd be first in line to get their permits would be the people you'd least want to see walking around with a loaded weapon in your workspace...the ones to whom being able to carry a weapon at work would be a major novelty; at least some of them would not handle it well. If things like Fort Hood happened a lot, I'd doubtless have a different opinion - especially since I have a son doing his medical residency at Fort Hood at the moment - but they don't.

Well , why in the world are people in the world allowed 2 carry?

[Standing Wolf]

Well , why in the world are people in the world allowed 2 carry?

Do you have armed guards and entrance restrictions on visitors to your place of work? Or where you eat lunch, if you're eating out, or where you go shopping for groceries? The world is, for the most part, pretty wide open and unguarded; military installations, by comparison, are - you should excuse the expression - safe spaces.

[resister]

military installations, by comparison, are - you should excuse the expression - safe spaces.That's absurd, many of these guy's go on to be cops.

[Standing Wolf]

That's absurd, many of these guy's go on to be cops.

And more don't.

[Peter1469]

Don't know if it's a majority, but a large percentage of active duty military personnel seldom if ever touch a gun, and their jobs have absolutely nothing to do with them in any way. Given the secure nature of stateside military installations, arming a bunch of clerks, mechanics, technicians, drivers, cooks and janitors just seems like an unnecessary wild card to toss into the situation - a bad accident looking for a place to happen. And as I suggested before, many of the guys who'd be first in line to get their permits would be the people you'd least want to see walking around with a loaded weapon in your workspace...the ones to whom being able to carry a weapon at work would be a major novelty; at least some of them would not handle it well. If things like Fort Hood happened a lot, I'd doubtless have a different opinion - especially since I have a son doing his medical residency at Fort Hood at the moment - but they don't.
They do in the army. You were Navy, right?

[donttread]

Don't know if it's a majority, but a large percentage of active duty military personnel seldom if ever touch a gun, and their jobs have absolutely nothing to do with them in any way. Given the secure nature of stateside military installations, arming a bunch of clerks, mechanics, technicians, drivers, cooks and janitors just seems like an unnecessary wild card to toss into the situation - a bad accident looking for a place to happen. And as I suggested before, many of the guys who'd be first in line to get their permits would be the people you'd least want to see walking around with a loaded weapon in your workspace...the ones to whom being able to carry a weapon at work would be a major novelty; at least some of them would not handle it well. If things like Fort Hood happened a lot, I'd doubtless have a different opinion - especially since I have a son doing his medical residency at Fort Hood at the moment - but they don't.


Again , I don't think anyone is promoting "must carry". At least I'm not, I'm talking about can carry. Likely on any given day 80% or better of them wouldn't carry on base , but they could. Which foils mass shooters before they start. If 25% of teachers carried Sandy Hook probably never happens.
BTW, if you live on base and not in the barracks can you carry in your housing complex?

[donttread]

Again , I don't think anyone is promoting "must carry". At least I'm not, I'm talking about can carry. Likely on any given day 80% or better of them wouldn't carry on base , but they could. Which foils mass shooters before they start. If 25% of teachers carried Sandy Hook probably never happens.
BTW, if you live on base and not in the barracks can you carry in your housing complex?


I guess age is another issue. I have long thought the military should change enlistment age to 21 for many reasons, including brain development and imposing a quasi limitation on Military size. Right now many of our servicemen can't get either a beer or a gun permit off base. So perhaps the instability that you fear Wolf , is based upon our insisitence on putting kids in the most stressful of adult roles? We do this why? Because 18 year olds believe recruiter bullshit , take orders and march on in the front line without thought , much better than 21 year olds do.

[MMC]

That's absurd, many of these guy's go on to be cops.

Use to be that way.....not anymore. The psych test now knocks out most. But many do go into armed security.