Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:14:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/15/2010 12:15:06 PM EDT by Cavalry99]
I did a dupe search..........

April 15, 2010

Pentagon to adopt uniform rules on guns

By ANNE GEARAN
AP National Security Writer
The Pentagon will adopt a broad policy governing how privately owned guns can be carried or stored at military installations following the shooting deaths of 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas.

A disgruntled Army doctor is charged in the deaths.

Maj. Nidal Hasan had little or no access to military firearms in his job as a psychologist, but was able to buy two handguns and bring them onto the base.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered this week that a new comprehensive policy be developed to cover all branches of the military and its bases and offices. The standardized policy would replace or buttress a patchwork of regulations adopted by each service or individual military installation.

The weapons policy is among recommendations for security and administrative upgrades released by the Pentagon on Thursday. Gates ordered that an interim weapons policy be in force by June, and a permanent one is due early next year.

The new policy is expected to mirror restrictions already in place at some military installations that, for example, require guns brought onto a base to be registered with military police.

Gates also ordered changes in the way tips and information in criminal investigations are shared, and directed an internal review of personnel policies on health care records. An outside panel said those policies can prevent higher-ups from knowing about behavior or other problems that might be red flags.

Also Thursday, Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins R-Maine, said they will send subpoenas to the Pentagon and Justice Department if the administration doesn't provide more information on the Fort Hood case by Monday.

Lieberman and Collins — the two top senators on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee — launched their investigation into the Fort Hood shootings five months ago. They claim the administration is stonewalling their requests for access to FBI agents, documents or Hasan's personnel file from the Defense Department.

"Disclosure of some of the material you have requested could compromise the pending prosecution," administration lawyers wrote to the two senators this week.

The administration said it does not want to generate pretrial publicity that could taint a jury pool or make witnesses reluctant to cooperate, and wants to avoid a barrage of defense lawyer requests that could force the government to reveal information it wants to save for a criminal trial

Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:29:07 PM EDT
Because registering guns with the MP's is going to stop assholes huh?

I know a SF soldier whose CO told the boys they couldn't bring their carry guns to work anymore. This was before the asshole Hassan decided to be a fuck. I don't know about you, but I'd feel safe around 100 SF dudes with carry guns. Maybe it's just me...
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:32:20 PM EDT
Dont all bases require MP's to either know you have them, forbid them in barracks/ certain base housing and CCW is banned on base?

Didn't the highest ranking guy in Alaska take away all USAF's members ability to own a gun several years back, even off base in private housing?

I
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:33:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Chris_C:
Dont all bases require MP's to either know you have them, forbid them in barracks/ certain base housing and CCW is banned on base?

Didn't the highest ranking guy in Alaska take away all USAF's members ability to own a gun several years back, even off base in private housing?

I


I don't think he banned them for having guns ( alaska ) but he did ban them from carrying concealed
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:35:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/15/2010 12:35:57 PM EDT by Dave_A]
Said restrictions were near-universal anyways (ever post I've been to has the same set):

No POW carry
Register all POWs brought on post with the PMO/MPs
No POWs in the barracks (barracks residents must lock 'em up in the arms room, or keep 'em off post)
No POWs in vehicles unless unloaded/in a locked case...

(POW = Personally owned weapon - Army-speak for any gun not owned by Uncle Sam)....
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:36:25 PM EDT
They should make it illegal to kill people that would solve all the problems or if you are going to shoot up the place you need to give a 24 hour notice
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:37:04 PM EDT



i've got an idea. we should continue to ignore the REAL problems because they make some people uncomfortable, and instead make up some BS feel-good rules to address peripheral non-issues.


Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:40:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

some BS feel-good rules to address peripheral non-issues.



Nail, head. This is just reactionary "we must do something" policy from the job-security-seeking pencil pushers.

Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:40:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Said restrictions were near-universal anyways (ever post I've been to has the same set):

No POW carry
Register all POWs brought on post with the PMO/MPs
No POWs in the barracks (barracks residents must lock 'em up in the arms room, or keep 'em off post)
No POWs in vehicles unless unloaded/in a locked case...

(POW = Personally owned weapon - Army-speak for any gun not owned by Uncle Sam)....


Prohibiting service members who are not on duty / in uniform from lawfully carrying personal weapons in places other than federal property is not going to fly, especially after incorporation comes down.

I have very little hope for this turning out well if Gates is involved. He is terrifyingly shortsighted, overly political, and everything that man touches seems to turn to shit.

Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:42:23 PM EDT
I fail to see how registration with MPs will keep muzzy dirtbag psychos from going apeshit.

"Well, I guess I can't go on my personal fatwah, they know I have a gun in my name"
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:49:49 PM EDT
Its official then - Gates is an idiot.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 12:54:26 PM EDT
face + palm
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:00:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:05:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/15/2010 1:07:29 PM EDT by BangStick1]
And they say we are free when the men and women who defend those supposed freedoms
cannot be trusted with their own firearms.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:09:33 PM EDT
The military bureaucracy can be incredibly stupid and they do it quite often.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:09:43 PM EDT
Yeah, cause Hassan would have logged his guns into the armory rather than sneaking them in and shooting people.

FSoDG.

Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:11:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:14:06 PM EDT
My personal weapons were treated rather shabbily by armory personnel; back when I had to live in the barracks. Never do that again...
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:17:35 PM EDT
A disgruntled Army doctor is charged in the deaths.


Are you FUCKING kidding ME!!!

He was a self avowed Muslim Jihadist for crying out loud.

Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:19:34 PM EDT
Ok, let me get this straight. A psycho islamic terrorist gunned down a bunch of unarmed military men and women about to deploy. He was shot be an armed female police officer, who likely happened to be nearby. Otherwise he would have kept shooting. My question is, why were all the military folks unarmed at the time? What is the use of an unarmed military? It seems to be the same old stupid liberal argument that no guns means no violence, when no guns expect in the hands of no goodnicks means lots of unarmed and helpless targets.

The answer to that question kiddies is that there are too many liberals in the military, or better said that our military seems to be top heavy with liberals in leadership roles.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:21:38 PM EDT
OFFICIAL RELEASE
April 16, 2010
Office of the Pentagon

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

1. No Muslims are allowed to keep or own private weapons on base.


––-End transmission––-
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:25:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By flkyle:
OFFICIAL RELEASE
April 16, 2010
Office of the Pentagon

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

1. No Muslims are allowed to keep or own private weapons on base.


––-End transmission––-


that would make sense, so no.. never going to happen
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:27:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/15/2010 1:33:37 PM EDT by Chris0013]
I have the perfect solution.....all military personel are given handgun training in basic training and their military ID is a federal concealed carry permit. All military personel are required to be armed at all times.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:30:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Desert_AIP:
A disgruntled Army doctor is charged in the deaths.


Are you FUCKING kidding ME!!!

He was a self avowed Muslim Jihadist for crying out loud.



People, even AP writers, think life is better with their heads in the sand.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:42:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Said restrictions were near-universal anyways (ever post I've been to has the same set):

No POW carry
Register all POWs brought on post with the PMO/MPs
No POWs in the barracks (barracks residents must lock 'em up in the arms room, or keep 'em off post)
No POWs in vehicles unless unloaded/in a locked case...

(POW = Personally owned weapon - Army-speak for any gun not owned by Uncle Sam)....


Prohibiting service members who are not on duty / in uniform from lawfully carrying personal weapons in places other than federal property is not going to fly, especially after incorporation comes down.

I have very little hope for this turning out well if Gates is involved. He is terrifyingly shortsighted, overly political, and everything that man touches seems to turn to shit.


The thing is, all of the above IS with regard to federal property only...


Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:44:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shade_1313:
Yeah, cause Hassan would have logged his guns into the armory rather than sneaking them in and shooting people.

FSoDG.


As an officer, Hassan would not have been subject to armory check-in - only post registration.

Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:44:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By flkyle:
OFFICIAL RELEASE
April 16, 2010
Office of the Pentagon

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

1. No Muslims are allowed to keep or own private weapons on base.


––-End transmission––-

Sorry, unacceptable.

The military does not, and should not, discriminate amongst it's troops based on religious faith or ethnicity.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:46:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Oh that'll stop someone. "I would slaughter all of my comrades as I am divinely directed to do, but I would be violating a base rule."


I'm sure they just forgot it was always against the rules to kill other service members.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:48:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Desert_AIP:
A disgruntled Army doctor is charged in the deaths.


Are you FUCKING kidding ME!!!

He was a self avowed Muslim Jihadist for crying out loud.




Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:49:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/15/2010 1:50:14 PM EDT by shade_1313]
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By flkyle:
OFFICIAL RELEASE
April 16, 2010
Office of the Pentagon

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

1. No Muslims are allowed to keep or own private weapons on base.


––-End transmission––-

Sorry, unacceptable.

The military does not, and should not, discriminate amongst it's troops based on religious faith or ethnicity.


It sure discriminated amongst its troops when it ignored warning sign after warning sign in the name of preserving diversity.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:52:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
I have the perfect solution.....all military personel are given handgun training in basic training and their military ID is a federal concealed carry permit. All military personel are required to be armed at all times.


There are plenty of people in the military you don't want carrying a firearm.

Link Posted: 4/15/2010 1:57:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bullyforyou:



i've got an idea. we should continue to ignore the REAL problems because they make some people uncomfortable, and instead make up some BS feel-good rules to address peripheral non-issues.




Yeah...and continue to strip search old ladies and keep 2 year olds off planes.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:29:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By flkyle:
OFFICIAL RELEASE
April 16, 2010
Office of the Pentagon

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

1. No Muslims are allowed to keep or own private weapons on base.


––-End transmission––-

Sorry, unacceptable.

The military does not, and should not, discriminate amongst it's troops based on religious faith or ethnicity.


If they wanted to be effective in the elimination of a Jihad threat, and would stop worrying about offending pinkies like yourself they sure would. And should.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:37:19 PM EDT
So any future mass murderers will have to stop at the gate and register their weapons prior to the shooting spree.

Got it.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:44:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
I have the perfect solution.....all military personel are given handgun training in basic training and their military ID is a federal concealed carry permit. All military personel are required to be armed at all times.


There are plenty of people in the military you don't want carrying a firearm.



Yep.... Plenty.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:45:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PA452:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
I have the perfect solution.....all military personel are given handgun training in basic training and their military ID is a federal concealed carry permit. All military personel are required to be armed at all times.


There are plenty of people in the military you don't want carrying a firearm.



Yep.... Plenty.


Yeah...
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:47:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

some BS feel-good rules to address peripheral non-issues.



Nail, head. This is just reactionary "we must do something" policy from the job-security-seeking pencil pushers.



Much truth in both statements.

Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:47:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GySgtD:
My personal weapons were treated rather shabbily by armory personnel; back when I had to live in the barracks. Never do that again...


I used to be a company armorer. I would sometimes get asked by people living in the barracks and sometimes even people in on-post housing about putting a weapon of theirs in the arms room. Every single time, I would say, "Don't do it".

Once your weapon is in the arms room, it practically belongs to the unit commander. It has to be accounted for during his sensitive items inventories. You're technically supposed to get his written permission ahead of time when you know you'll be wanting to sign it out. It's ridiculous.

In my position, I could have kept one of my personal firearms in the arms room with less hassle than anyone else in the unit, and I would never consider such a thing. I always kept my stuff off post with a friend.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:51:01 PM EDT
So the Pentagon's answer to the massacre of unarmed soldiers is to make it more difficult for soldiers to be armed?

Like Hassan would have given a shit about registration? I mean honestly, WTF?

Get out of Washington Gates where the real world isn't neatly handled through placing every wish into typed rules.

Let me tell ya what had those soldiers been armed or even a few of them a lot less people would have died. That's a fact.

Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:51:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cavscouty:
Originally Posted By PA452:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
I have the perfect solution.....all military personel are given handgun training in basic training and their military ID is a federal concealed carry permit. All military personel are required to be armed at all times.


There are plenty of people in the military you don't want carrying a firearm.



Yep.... Plenty.


Yeah...


At my first duty station in GA, I found out about a free game lands type range about 45 minutes from post. That's where I did most of my shooting. I also sometimes shot at an indoor public range much closer. In both cases, I would sometimes see the kids straight out of high school or in their very early 20s, who never shot or touched a firearm in their life before they joined up, but then suddenly thought they were some sort of weapons expert because they'd been to basic training. They were frequently a scary sight.

The Army, at least in my experience, is terrible at teaching firearms safety.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:52:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By shade_1313:
Yeah, cause Hassan would have logged his guns into the armory rather than sneaking them in and shooting people.

FSoDG.


As an officer, Hassan would not have been subject to armory check-in - only post registration.



Riiiiiiiight

Maybe we should turn all military bases into gun free zones, like schools. Surround them with metal detectors, have a zero tolerance for aggresive tendencies, insitute anger time outs, and teach them the how to negotiate and express their feelings. That way gun violence will never occur on military bases, just like it never occurs in schools. We will just issue the troops sling shots and rubber knives. And the world will be such a better place. We can all live in peace in an earthly nirvana man. I mean how fucking cool is that?


Whatever shit your smoking dave, I want some. It must be some really groovy shit.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:55:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By flkyle:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By flkyle:
OFFICIAL RELEASE
April 16, 2010
Office of the Pentagon

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

1. No Muslims are allowed to keep or own private weapons on base.


––-End transmission––-

Sorry, unacceptable.

The military does not, and should not, discriminate amongst it's troops based on religious faith or ethnicity.


If they wanted to be effective in the elimination of a Jihad threat, and would stop worrying about offending pinkies like yourself they sure would. And should.

Out of the thousands of Muslims who serve honorably, 3 or 4 have committed some sort of attack against their fellow troops.

Your 'solution' is to discriminate against all of these honorable troops, because 3 or 4 who share a religion with them went traitor...

One would think that after WWII (and the many Japanese & German Americans who served THIS country with honor), we would have learned to treat Americans in the service as Americans until indications otherwise are found...

Sorry to disappoint you, but this has nothing to do with being a 'pinko'... It has to do with the fact that on an official level I don't give a flying fuck who the guy next to me prays to (Personally, I would hope they believe in Jesus for their own eternal salvation - but this has no bearing on 'on duty' activities) so long as he does his job...

It's an affront to all those who DO their jobs, to single them out because of 3 or 4 whackjob traitors...



Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:57:46 PM EDT
Overall, this kind of thinking is pretty typical in the military. One person does something wrong, intentional or unintentional, and whether it was controllable or not, we MUST do something, whether it makes sense or not.

We once had someone keep a pistol in the barracks who never touched a firearm before they joined the Army. He had a negligent discharge in the room above mine. Next thing you know, the entire brigade is having their barracks rooms searched for whatever, and then they collected the numbers of privately owned weapons from everyone in the brigade. Did that really help prevent another incident...of course not. On a side note, my company had the highest number of POWs in the brigade. The CDR and 1SG said it was mainly because of me.

Another time we had a guy hang himself in the shower. He wasn't found for several days because he did it on a long weekend. Again, they did a search of the barracks for the whole brigade. Why? We had to do something.

My unit had someone die on a motorcycle shortly after returning from Iraq in 2006. Seemed like right after that, they kicked in a hell of a lot more rules for motorcycle users. The guy was going 80 or 90 mph and had never been on a bike a couple months before. No amount of "training" is going to counter Darwin.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 4:57:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OklahomaSam:
Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

some BS feel-good rules to address peripheral non-issues.



Nail, head. This is just reactionary "we must do something" policy from the job-security-seeking pencil pushers.



Much truth in both statements.


Standard brass-hat thinking: Every infraction requires a new regulation.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 5:00:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Meadowmuffin:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By shade_1313:
Yeah, cause Hassan would have logged his guns into the armory rather than sneaking them in and shooting people.

FSoDG.


As an officer, Hassan would not have been subject to armory check-in - only post registration.



Riiiiiiiight

Maybe we should turn all military bases into gun free zones, like schools. Surround them with metal detectors, have a zero tolerance for aggresive tendencies, insitute anger time outs, and teach them the how to negotiate and express their feelings. That way gun violence will never occur on military bases, just like it never occurs in schools. We will just issue the troops sling shots and rubber knives. And the world will be such a better place. We can all live in peace in an earthly nirvana man. I mean how fucking cool is that?


Whatever shit your smoking dave, I want some. It must be some really groovy shit.

1) So my pointing out that it would have made no difference for Hassan draws the above sarcastic response? Maybe you read the post wrong...

2) Military bases effectively ARE gun-free zones now - save for Uncle Sam's issue weapons, family housing, the MWR range, and whatever training areas are open to hunting.

Enforcement is by random vehicle and/or person search at the gate and/or anywhere on post.


Link Posted: 4/15/2010 5:01:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By glock21guy:
Originally Posted By Chris_C:
Dont all bases require MP's to either know you have them, forbid them in barracks/ certain base housing and CCW is banned on base?

Didn't the highest ranking guy in Alaska take away all USAF's members ability to own a gun several years back, even off base in private housing?

I


I don't think he banned them for having guns ( alaska ) but he did ban them from carrying concealed


Yep. I was considering around that time reenlisting to go to Alaska, just because I really wanted to live there for a while, I'd never been there. When they pulled that shit, I scratched that idea. Actually, that incident was a contributing factor to my leaving the .mil altogether.
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 5:02:23 PM EDT
This is like the reductio ad absurdum of gun control. Violence on a military base! We must disarm the soldiers! Next thing you know they'll declare them a "gun free zone."

Link Posted: 4/15/2010 5:04:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/15/2010 5:05:10 PM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By PA452:
Overall, this kind of thinking is pretty typical in the military. One person does something wrong, intentional or unintentional, and whether it was controllable or not, we MUST do something, whether it makes sense or not.

We once had someone keep a pistol in the barracks who never touched a firearm before they joined the Army. He had a negligent discharge in the room above mine. Next thing you know, the entire brigade is having their barracks rooms searched for whatever, and then they collected the numbers of privately owned weapons from everyone in the brigade. Did that really help prevent another incident...of course not. On a side note, my company had the highest number of POWs in the brigade. The CDR and 1SG said it was mainly because of me.

Another time we had a guy hang himself in the shower. He wasn't found for several days because he did it on a long weekend. Again, they did a search of the barracks for the whole brigade. Why? We had to do something.

My unit had someone die on a motorcycle shortly after returning from Iraq in 2006. Seemed like right after that, they kicked in a hell of a lot more rules for motorcycle users. The guy was going 80 or 90 mph and had never been on a bike a couple months before. No amount of "training" is going to counter Darwin.

Remember that POS rat-hole barracks at Bragg that made the national news a few years back?

Result?

Post-wide 0-fuck-30AM SATURDAY search of all barracks buildings on Ft Lewis, by civilians from IMO.

Complete with said civvie fuckwit accusing me of stealing avionics from the Army, because I had some in my room that I bought on Ebay.

Why? To 'do something'... As if it was the troops fault that a condemned building at Bragg was fucked up, and the solution was to search every other building on an entirely different post to make sure soldiers weren't wrecking those too...
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 5:07:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Meadowmuffin:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By shade_1313:
Yeah, cause Hassan would have logged his guns into the armory rather than sneaking them in and shooting people.

FSoDG.


As an officer, Hassan would not have been subject to armory check-in - only post registration.



Riiiiiiiight

Maybe we should turn all military bases into gun free zones, like schools. Surround them with metal detectors, have a zero tolerance for aggresive tendencies, insitute anger time outs, and teach them the how to negotiate and express their feelings. That way gun violence will never occur on military bases, just like it never occurs in schools. We will just issue the troops sling shots and rubber knives. And the world will be such a better place. We can all live in peace in an earthly nirvana man. I mean how fucking cool is that?


Whatever shit your smoking dave, I want some. It must be some really groovy shit.

1) So my pointing out that it would have made no difference for Hassan draws the above sarcastic response? Maybe you read the post wrong...

2) Military bases effectively ARE gun-free zones now - save for Uncle Sam's issue weapons, family housing, the MWR range, and whatever training areas are open to hunting.

Enforcement is by random vehicle and/or person search at the gate and/or anywhere on post.



Hey I gotta have some fun. But you must agree that even the most effective gun free zones are not foolproof, and that historically at least some armed military personell would be around instead of armed civilians. In this case in part the sytem failed due to state side complacency, not found on more dangerous battle fronts or foward assembly areas. Terrorism apparently knows no borders and we are still learning this the hard way.

So are you going to share that virtual reality doobee or what?
Link Posted: 4/15/2010 5:09:56 PM EDT

Apparently, we can't trust military personnel with firearms.

Our country gets worse by the day.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top