Valid point. I think it would make sense to let or even require all NCO's and officers to be armed
That actually makes sense, little consolation to everybody else, but there will probably need to be a compromise.
Valid point. I think it would make sense to let or even require all NCO's and officers to be armed
Finally someone shows up who Recognizes that the Constitution actually applies to all Citizens equally... No, NCOs and Officers lives are not worth more than their Subbordinates. Every single Human Being has their Natural Right to Self defense, Preservation, and Freedom. Nor are they the only ones who are "Qualified" to employ their Firearm in Self Defense.
The 2nd Ammendment has no Clause, and says nothing about having to acquire a certain Rank or Social Status to be able to protect one's self. It also says nothing about needing to be Trained and/or Competent.
To think otherwise goes completely against self determination and freedom. It goes against the very foundations of both the 2A and natural rights of man. This is the same fatally flawed argument the Liberal Left, Anti Gun Agenda follows.
Finally someone shows up who Recognizes that the Constitution actually applies to all Citizens equally... No, NCOs and Officers lives are not worth more than their Subbordinates. Every single Human Being has their Natural Right to Self defense, Preservation, and Freedom. Nor are they the only ones who are "Qualified" to employ their Firearm in Self Defense.
The 2nd Ammendment has no Clause, and says nothing about having to acquire a certain Rank or Social Status to be able to protect one's self. It also says nothing about needing to be Trained and/or Competent.
To think otherwise goes completely against self determination and freedom. It goes against the very foundations of both the 2A and natural rights of man. This is the same fatally flawed argument the Liberal Left, Anti Gun Agenda follows.
Your logic is sound, except for one small part. The members of our military are there to protect our constitution, not live under its protections. Being an all voluntary force, it is a right willingly waived for the privilege of serving under our flag. Understanding the way chain of command and military discipline works would make this all much easier to understand. The military lives under a separate, but similar set of rules to our constitution, its called the U.C.M.J.
As far as selectively allowing(or requiring) military service members to carry a weapon, the platoon level command is probably the best equipped to make the initial recommendation as to the individuals ability to responsibly take charge of a weapon on a day to day basis, and let the individual unit forward the recommendation up to a base/division level for a sign off on the service record book.
Leaving the initial action on the small unit level gives a better security in the individual's mental state, and a more personal evaluation than a broad stroke of the hand that encompasses every single service member. I am sure the majority would be just fine, but the fact still remains that even in the military you will find those that probably shouldn't be trusted with guns.
what made you assume I have never served in the Military?
Are you really saying that as a Member of the US Military, also being a US Citizen, and having sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL Enemies, both Foreign and Domestic.... that we don't have a Natural Right to Defend our own selves, while on Base?
I rest my case. You seem to have answered your own question for me. If you have never heard the expression "you are here to defend democracy, not practice it" then I would assume then that you never served in the military, or were never there long enough to understand that democracy and personal freedoms are non-existent in a military that maintains good order and discipline. This does not mean that the leadership in our armed services do not respect the lower ranks, nor do they expect that they will be non-reactive in self preservation. Any "freedoms" that are witnessed or experienced while serving in the military is in fact just a liberty that has been granted from someone up your chain o command.
While it would seem that there are some freedoms, total oppression would make and sort of moral difficult, if not impossible to maintain. On the other hand, it could be something as simple as a dirty uniform that COULD potentially lead to the loss of most, if not all privileges that are granted to the general population of the military.
The case I was resting, since you seem to be ignorant to what I am trying to point out, is why I assumed that you never served. Reading the last post only reinforces that assumption.
If you read, and actually let in what I am trying to convey sink in for a bit, you may understand that what I am saying is that if you have never been there, then it is probably going to be difficult for you to wrap your head around.
In the interests of maintaining good order and discipline, personal freedoms are non-existent in the military. Plain and simple, not something that is up for debate. If you dont like it, keep your right hand down, go home and hang out back on the block. No harm, no foul. Any body who has been in those boots, especially anyone who has been in a position of leadership will confirm this as a simple, undeniable fact of life.
That said, for the most part, military life is not like living in a gulag. Live life as a screw up in the military, and you will wish you were in the gulag for the remainder of your contract. For the most part its not much different than any civilian job, but because of the nature of the mission of our military, there are times that discussion and democracy just will not work.
As far as a valid reason that just arming the military in its entirety and calling it good, I could write you a book on the reasons that this just wouldn't be a good idea.
First, and most glaringly obvious to me it the fact that a large majority are 18-19 years old. Given a mission, and a means to kill, there are very few of those young men that I served with that I would not trust with my life. Give them a gun and liberty, and sit back and wait, because most of them lack the maturity to make reasonable decisions on their own without some sort of leadership giving them direction. Somebody will end up doing something stupid, and there would be an uproar about why on earth we have thousands of young men and women running around with guns. Trust me, I have seen this many times before with liberties granted on other subjects. Give them enough slack, and just about any young service member will find a way to hang themselves.
Couple this with the fact that many of the youngsters that join the military do so not out of a devotion to the country, but as a way to escape the life they have created wherever it might be that they came from. It is not uncommon for someone to join the military simply with the intent to gain the training that is available to our soldiers. Some that are currently serving in our military arent even US citizens, and are serving their contract as a way to gain(earn) citizenship to this country.
Going all hands on deck to issue a weapon to every Fleet Marine, Army Soldier, Airmen or Seaman sounds good on the surface, but that is a knee jerk reaction that is no different than any one of the knee jerk reactions that this country makes after any other tragedy. Many of those same knee jerk reactions that many hear (most everyone, I believe) sees for what it is, and insist that we look at more closely to identify a reasonable, and effective way to solve a problem.
The military has protocol and procedure to lock things down, and ensure the safety of its bases in the very situation that happened at Ft Hood this week. The reasons that they do not always practice these methods is because the inconvenience that it does present anyone that has business being on any military installation. The greater good, and reasonable suspicion of threat are many things that our military leadership takes into consideration before making any decision (in theory anyways). Locking down a base, and posting armed guards on every corner of every building is always a possibility, but the inconvenience of that outweighs the perceived threat that the leadership sees.
I could go on all day, but I think it would be a waste of time and data. I think, for the most part, that we both agree that there needs to be change in the rules that allow our military to better defend themselves in these situations. The differences that I see seem to be more of a difference in perspective than a difference of ideals. I think that both of our energies and passion would be better served focusing on effecting change for those still in uniform, and not arguing over the details of the broad strokes that we can both agree on
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. You do know that such would allow for the possibility of arming 17 year olds right? There are TONS of social and legal issues to consider.
Let's just get our soldiers back to carrying FIRST, then we can bicker and debate over CC / OC / JFC, eh?
You can blame Clinton for the prohibition.
There are 18 year old MP's, and they are ARMED, while on duty !!!!!
I fail to see the logic with any of this. We give them fully automatic rifles in the battlefield, yet when on base we can't trust them with a handgun? Completely asinine and ripe with government logic... which there is none.
I fail to see the logic with any of this. We give them fully automatic rifles in the battlefield, yet when on base we can't trust them with a handgun? Completely asinine and ripe with government logic... which there is none.
The military views it as a numbers game. If you arm soldiers in garrison, a certain number will die from NDs. A certain number will be crippled by NDs and no longer be of use to the military. Not arming soldiers eliminates that, but leaves them vulnerable to active shooters. If the military thinks they lose more troops with option A, they will not allow option A.
Given how many soldiers die in peacetime training from NDs, its a fair point. It doesn't make the national news when it happens, but it happens. 70th Engineers lost two the first year I was at Ft. Riley, one dead and one with his hand amputated, due to a .50 cal ND.
The military views it as a numbers game. If you arm soldiers in garrison, a certain number will die from NDs. A certain number will be crippled by NDs and no longer be of use to the military. Not arming soldiers eliminates that, but leaves them vulnerable to active shooters. If the military thinks they lose more troops with option A, they will not allow option A.
Given how many soldiers die in peacetime training from NDs, its a fair point. It doesn't make the national news when it happens, but it happens. 70th Engineers lost two the first year I was at Ft. Riley, one dead and one with his hand amputated, due to a .50 cal ND.