Reason Why Military Doesnít Have Access To Armories
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Reason Why Military Doesnít Have Access To Armories

  1. #1

    Reason Why Military Doesnít Have Access To Armories

    Some wonder why soldiers don’t have unlimited access to the armory. They think that easy access to weapons would prevent terrorist acts from occurring on military bases, like in the Ft. Hood incident. Imagine if this guy had his military-issued weapon. This jerk deserves what he got and some.
    https://www.yahoo.com/newsroom/vibes....tsrc=newsroom
    Lefties like guns, too . . .

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Phillydog1958 View Post
    Some wonder why soldiers donít have unlimited access to the armory. They think that easy access to weapons would prevent terrorist acts from occurring on military bases, like in the Ft. Hood incident. Imagine if this guy had his military-issued weapon. This jerk deserves what he got and some.
    https://www.yahoo.com/newsroom/vibes....tsrc=newsroom
    Here you go, smearing the military now. If it was a guy at a Midas Muffler shop would you care? No, of course not.

    The Place to Be

  4. #3
    yeah, imagine if BLM, The Black Panthers or ANTIFA got access.........or even worse those lunatics at MoveOn.org scary......
    DEFENDIT INFIRMOS

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Doogie View Post
    yeah, imagine if BLM, The Black Panthers or ANTIFA got access.........or even worse those lunatics at MoveOn.org scary......
    In most CONUS locations you aren't issued a firearm unless it's required for your duties or while on watch and most individual units have access through their own armories. The weapons are usually passed down from watch to watch. Base wide armories are usually reserved for MAA or MP types charged with base security and police functions. Bottom line, most people aren't carrying around a CONUS base.

    OUTCONUS or forward deployed are at the discretion of base commanders for a specific threat or threat level or by theater commander. Their rules are pretty similar to CONUS though in non combat areas.

    War zones or designated combat areas are task designated and it varies based on the function of each individual as assigned by leadership. Almost all have some sort of weapon and are solely responsible for it and some grunt types do modify their weapons in various ways. Lots of people modify the rest of their kit in different ways including gloves, sunglasses, boots etc.. but all of your issued gear is still your responsibility.

    The idea that the lowlife in the article would have an issued weapon off base is not even close to a possibility fortunately. The issuance of weapons is very tightly controlled in and out of CONUS. When the idea of issuing weapons on all bases to all personnel was brought up recently as a good idea, most everyone I know said no, bad idea.

    The Place to Be

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by niceshootintex View Post
    Here you go, smearing the military now. If it was a guy at a Midas Muffler shop would you care? No, of course not.

    The Place to Be
    Not smearing the military. I’m a veteran. The point is that troops are just like everyone else. They are a cross section of society and suffer from the same issues that all groups within the greater society suffer from. After the Ft. Hood incident, many non-veterans asked why soldiers didn’t have weapons available. Many felt that our military should be armed with government-issued weaponry even when off duty, which would be a terrible mistake. That’s all I’m saying. I do not bash the military. I served.
    Lefties like guns, too . . .

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Phillydog1958 View Post
    Not smearing the military. Iím a veteran. The point is that troops are just like everyone else. They are a cross section of society and suffer from the same issues that all groups within the greater society suffer from. After the Ft. Hood incident, many non-veterans asked why soldiers didnít have weapons available. Many felt that our military should be armed with government-issued weaponry even when off duty, which would be a terrible mistake. Thatís all Iím saying. I do not bash the military. I served.
    I posted with essentially the same message. People in the military have the same problems and headaches we all do and we have our own demographic of malcontents and those lacking morality.

    The Place to Be

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Doogie View Post
    yeah, imagine if BLM, The Black Panthers or ANTIFA got access.........or even worse those lunatics at MoveOn.org scary......
    This is a wacky response and I won’t address it. Out . . .
    Lefties like guns, too . . .

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillydog1958 View Post
    This is a wacky response and I won’t address it. Out . . .
    Only because you know it's true. Face it.........liberals area violent uncontrollable group. Arming them could only result in a complete breakdown of our social fabric and total uncontrollable anarchy. Your response proves you're in complete denial and are probably one of them. But I digress.
    DEFENDIT INFIRMOS

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillydog1958 View Post
    Iím a veteran.
    You don't sound like any veteran with whom I ever served.

    The point is that troops are just like everyone else. They are a cross section of society and suffer from the same issues that all groups within the greater society suffer from. After the Ft. Hood incident, many non-veterans asked why soldiers didnít have weapons available. Many felt that our military should be armed with government-issued weaponry even when off duty, which would be a terrible mistake. Thatís all Iím saying. I do not bash the military.
    Sure sounds like bashing to me. In fact, you're making the same blitheringly idiotic "But what if one bad guy" arguments made my libtards and Demoncraps, while simultaneously failing to realize that for every mass-murdering nutcase out there are some 10,000 sane individuals who could stop him if only they were armed.

    Currently, roughly 3% of law-abiding U.S. citizens carry all the time, with approximately 10% carrying occasionally. That's a sizable armed citizenry out there, and they're hard at work preventing at least 650,000 to 800,000 violent crimes every year.

    Yet by your thinking, you'd disarm 9,999 just to disarm the 1 nutcase, without realizing there are other enemies out there for which the 9,999 -- or even 3% of them -- must remain armed. Far, far better that honest, law-abiding citizens -- including if not especially members of the military -- remain armed to defeat both the enemies without as well as the enemies within.

    The entire point our Founding Fathers made by penning the Second Amendment in our Constitution is that it's better that everyone be armed and that we police our own rather than infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    Your fears to the contrary are way off target.
    It is to one's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel (Pro 20:3) // I came here to build Pro-2A consensus to help our country, not trade insults like a fifth-grader. If you're on ignore, well, now you know why.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast