So . . .
. . . are we for military personal being allowed to carry weapons or are we a'gin' it?
Based on much of the preceding discussion, I can't tell. I don't pretend to understand military culture, but the discussion seems to have bogged-down in why it's a bad idea based on cultural, logistics, and training issues rather than whether or not these men and women should be allowed the means to protect themselves.
I'm for it, and I don't see how the barracks can be excluded. But I think it will come with costs that people should be aware of and consider before forming their own opinion. But if the cost is too high, or (especially) too spectacular, I can see it coming back to bite all of us... "If the trained military can't handle assault rifles (sic), how can we possibly justify civilian ownership!" they will cry on the pages of Slate.
Why not do something about that kind of behavior - whether you allow weapons or not? If it's really that bad, it's seems too dangerous whether firearms are involved or not.
The Army cultivates behaviors that value surprise, speed and violence of action in the infantry. From the limited amount of time (3 months) I spent with 2/2 Marines, they encourage that behavior as well.
It's like a family or a gang... nobody is allowed to mess with your little brother except you... to get a sense of military hierarchy, you just expand the number of people and change the terms; brother = squad member, cousin = platoon, etc. You want that esprit de corps, familiarity and trust in units, and in a culture predicated on violence and kicking ass, asses get kicked. You want that, even if you don't think you do (royal "you," not Rhino specifically). So if "an armed society is a polite society" the addition of firearms may have little effect.