Firstly, this is talking about Personally Owned Weapons. Not Prisoners of War. Also, this thread is not to discuss current policies, but the logic. Thanks, me.
hug.gifOk.
For those of you who have served in the military, you might be familiar with the condition of issue weapons. They are converted M16A1's, with the occasional M16A2. They are rusty, worn and broken, at least, they are in our arm's room.
Now, I'm not here to bash the armourer. I probably should, but I won't. Those of you who know me know I have my very own Ar15 I converted for tactical use in combat operations overseas. It's new, clean, and functional.
So my question is this.
If it is the same caliber, the same style, and the same magazine well, why is it not authorized to travel overseas?
I honestly can't think of any logical reason. It's easy enough to add to the arms records, and it's certainly more lethal than what they are issuing. I'm sure a bunch of people are reading this wanting to pounce on me, but I'd really like to know. Now, I can understand not permitting sidearms. But why on earth would you NOT allow something that increases my ability to defend myself, especially if it's interchangable with the current issue?
I hope there's a retired officer in here who can answer this, because our BC certainly can't. It was included in the packing list restrictions as well. No POW's.
Anyway. Technically, Eotech's arn't weapons. Neither is my Tactical Rail or Sling. And what about my Bushnell Mil Dot Scope? That's not a weapon. Guess what's going in my personal box! ALL OF IT!
Seriously though. I know the army sometimes (99%) of the time lacks common sense, but I'd really like to hear someones reasoning behind this.
Anyone?