Queso1 said:

---

Now that this important matter was attended to, they can let us know the results of their investigation into the drones at bases.

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Now that this important matter was attended to, they can let us know the results of their investigation into the drones at bases.

---

We have to shoot them down first.

---

maverick2076 said:

---

13B said:

---

I have mixed emotions about it. On the one hand I can agree with the above sentiments with exception that not everybody carries nor are entrusted weapons while deployed. You "should" be able to trust military men and women to carry.

BUT

Tell me you have never lived in Enlisted Dorms or with some Officers for that matter without telling me you never have. Not all members of the military are trained up with weaponry like those that utilize them as a regular part of their jobs. You are going to put security forces in much more danger when they have to respond to a domestic disturbance (which happens just about every night or multiple times) or the dumb, drunk kids in the dorms. Hell, they Barney Fife'd us during Desert Shield/Storm and OEF by keeping our pistols locked in one box at the back of the jet and the bullets locked up at the front of the jet because of dip$#!+s fast drawing them and spinning them around their fingers while were transit to the war zone.

I could be wrong but I have seen too many bad things happen because of immaturity or just pure dumbness and am afraid that this will only exacerbate that situation to a greater level. I hope I am wrong.

---

You can say the same things about college dorms, apartment complexes in college towns, or anywhere else. The "blood in the streets" arguments have been made against concealed carry, open carry, campus carry, church carry, Constitutional carry, etc. None of them have ever come to fruition. None of those feelings trump God-given rights to self-defense.

---

13B said:

---

I have mixed emotions about it. On the one hand I can agree with the above sentiments with exception that not everybody carries nor are entrusted weapons while deployed. You "should" be able to trust military men and women to carry.

BUT

Tell me you have never lived in Enlisted Dorms or with some Officers for that matter without telling me you never have. Not all members of the military are trained up with weaponry like those that utilize them as a regular part of their jobs. You are going to put security forces in much more danger when they have to respond to a domestic disturbance (which happens just about every night or multiple times) or the dumb, drunk kids in the dorms. Hell, they Barney Fife'd us during Desert Shield/Storm and OEF by keeping our pistols locked in one box at the back of the jet and the bullets locked up at the front of the jet because of dip$#!+s fast drawing them and spinning them around their fingers while were transit to the war zone.

I could be wrong but I have seen too many bad things happen because of immaturity or just pure dumbness and am afraid that this will only exacerbate that situation to a greater level. I hope I am wrong.

---

maverick2076 said:

---

13B said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

13B said:

---

I have mixed emotions about it. On the one hand I can agree with the above sentiments with exception that not everybody carries nor are entrusted weapons while deployed. You "should" be able to trust military men and women to carry.

BUT

Tell me you have never lived in Enlisted Dorms or with some Officers for that matter without telling me you never have. Not all members of the military are trained up with weaponry like those that utilize them as a regular part of their jobs. You are going to put security forces in much more danger when they have to respond to a domestic disturbance (which happens just about every night or multiple times) or the dumb, drunk kids in the dorms. Hell, they Barney Fife'd us during Desert Shield/Storm and OEF by keeping our pistols locked in one box at the back of the jet and the bullets locked up at the front of the jet because of dip$#!+s fast drawing them and spinning them around their fingers while were transit to the war zone.

I could be wrong but I have seen too many bad things happen because of immaturity or just pure dumbness and am afraid that this will only exacerbate that situation to a greater level. I hope I am wrong.

---

You can say the same things about college dorms, apartment complexes in college towns, or anywhere else. The "blood in the streets" arguments have been made against concealed carry, open carry, campus carry, church carry, Constitutional carry, etc. None of them have ever come to fruition. None of those feelings trump God-given rights to self-defense.

---

Like I said, I could be wrong about it (with exception of it making it exponentially more dangerous for security forces responding to disturbances), I hope I am but based off of my almost 25 years in the military, I can understand why things were the way they were. Time will tell. Hopefully, military personnel will step up and treat their weapons with the respect they demand. I've seen too many distraught young people in stressful situations that would have possibly made really bad decisions with ready access on base/post.

---

Almost 26 years in myself, just retired last year. Carry on base was verboten because risk-averse senior leadership thought the "commoners" were too stupid to be entrusted with firearms.

None of the arguments against carry on post have any evidence behind them, just emotion. Those same emotional arguments have been made against every other restoration of self-defense rights, and they've never borne fruit.

Will there be more firearm incidents on base? Most likely. Will they be any more common than incidents among similar demographics off base? Doubtful. Are any of these incidents valid reason to restrict self-defense rights? Absolutely not.

---

bobbranco said:

---

If nothing else those who violate the UCMJ can be separated easily. Nothing wrong with using firearm violations to root out the unsavory.

---

maverick2076 said:

---

Ridgeback85 said:

---

I had no idea that was a thing. Who decided it was in the best interest of safety disarm the military?

---

Risk averse senior officers who treat enlisted members and junior officers like children.

---

Fdsa said:

---

I'm a little neutral on this…with the exception of the Marines, I would say fewer than 30% of military members are actually proficient with small arms. Their jobs don't require more than an annual qualification. What would be great - opportunity to get folks more time on the range, some equivalent to a concealed carry qual, and then let them carry on base.

---

Schrute Farms said:

---

That's not the logic 13B is stating.

You're officially an asset once those papers are signed. No one cares about your rights. You exist to meet the needs of those you signed your life to. Part of ensuring assets are available is "risk management" and that's the lens 13B is offering.

I support carrying on base. However, let's be real. There's a higher chance we'll do something dumb than something valorous. It's just a numbers game.

---