Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was a sailor for 2 years, and in that time I carried for one day during which time I was transporting a prisoner. The rest of the time I had no reason to carry. My duties would have made it a nuisance.
I'm talking about if you want to. If you don't thats all you but why bar our upstanding men and women who's job is to protect us from enemies foriegn and domestic from carrying if they want to?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A
I mean really? They are the military. If anyone's is trustworthy enough to carry a gun while on duty its the military. So what was the logic behind banning them from carrying on base? It would've prevented things like Fort Hood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justus978
...there is none...
The Founding fathers basically said that if you are not fighting a war, you are a civilian. They actually agreed that they shouldn't have guns when not actually fighting.(federalist papers)
Yes with the belief that it is among the best armies in human history. Even after 15 years of war the belief remains that fighting between soldiers turning lethal is probably a greater danger than an attack from the enemy at most installations. And in most cases a guard force with less lethal weapons can hold the line long enough for the MP reaction force to stop the threat
The origin of the policy goes back to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement.
Members of the U.S. armed forces don’t routinely carry guns when they are not in combat or on military bases unless they are engaged in military policing duties.
And glancing over your article it didn't say anything about banning military personal from carrying firearms. It only bans them from acting as police on civilians.
The Founding fathers basically said that if you are not fighting a war, you are a civilian. They actually agreed that they shouldn't have guns when not actually fighting.(federalist papers)
Yes with the belief that it is among the best armies in human history. Even after 15 years of war the belief remains that fighting between soldiers turning lethal is probably a greater danger than an attack from the enemy at most installations. And in most cases a guard force with less lethal weapons can hold the line long enough for the MP reaction force to stop the threat
To use your logic, there have been police on police murders and they carry guns pretty much everywhere here in the US.
I mean really? They are the military. If anyone's is trustworthy enough to carry a gun while on duty its the military. So what was the logic behind banning them from carrying on base? It would've prevented things like Fort Hood.
Guns scare whussies!
Look at how so may are acting just because Trump won.
By that time "L.T." was being used and Lou was the term their fathers had used.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
