TexasCHLforum.com

The prohibition on servicemembers, not counting security/military police, carrying loaded firearms goes back to at least the Vietnam War. From what I can gather, via spotty information, is that the "upper brass" was worried about draftees shooting others. Once that threat ended, due to the draft going away, it became more of a thing where commanders didn't want bad marks against their careers due to Private Joe Junior accidentally/negligently discharging a weapon. This got to be an even greater concern once the Cold War ended and there was no longer a full-on enemy to counter. Then, top that off with a down-sized military, with fewer and fewer slots at the top. Any officer who has aspirations of higher command cannot afford a "safety incident" in their unit. That might show a "lack of leadership" or "poor training and accountability methods" and be logged on the officer's fitness report, and bye-bye future billet at the Pentagon, or some other higher headquarters, along with that birdy (colonel) or star (general). This has nothing to do with one service or branch, its just the way things work these days. Risk aversion is the safest path to take, "risk management"/safety first is a way of life in the US military. Even if Congress could push through a law allowing troops to carry on bases/posts, the brass would never let it happen. Too much risk.

I heard a 3 minute montage of main stream media anchors struggling to find a potential motive or reason for the attack by Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.

K.Mooneyham,

Yes.

However, the unarmed risk of death for the troops by terrorists, no big deal...

Topbuilder wrote:I heard a 3 minute montage of main stream media anchors struggling to find a potential motive or reason for the attack by Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.

Well, it couldn't have been terrorism. You know, "RoP" and all that.

Just another SJS event.

Meanwhile, the Enhancing Safety at Military Installations Act should get the Obamination stirred up:

"Congressman Scott DesJarlais, M.D. (TN-04) will introduce legislation on Monday that will allow military personnel who have received firearms training to carry firearms on military bases and United States military recruitment facilities..."

Of course, according to administration spokespeople, this proposal is too much and might create problems and might offend people.

So now under the banner of "never let a crisis go to waste" we have the O introducing new laws on SS citizens who have senility issues trying to purchase firearms. Another solution to a problem which does not exist. More policy which lays a foundation to be expanded on at a later date.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Topbuilder wrote:I heard a 3 minute montage of main stream media anchors struggling to find a potential motive or reason for the attack by Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.

Well, it couldn't have been terrorism. You know, "RoP" and all that.

Just another SJS event.

Meanwhile, the Enhancing Safety at Military Installations Act should get the Obamination stirred up:

"Congressman Scott DesJarlais, M.D. (TN-04) will introduce legislation on Monday that will allow military personnel who have received firearms training to carry firearms on military bases and United States military recruitment facilities..."

Of course, according to administration spokespeople, this proposal is too much and might create problems and might offend people.

Fiction becomes reality or reality becomes fiction?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8cRvZ ... detailpage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abraham wrote:K.Mooneyham,

Yes.

However, the unarmed risk of death for the troops by terrorists, no big deal...

Abraham, I admit I am pretty cynical about the whole thing. My 21 years in the USAF, plus having kids in the USAF, and friends and relatives in other services, led me to be this way. I promise I am not bad-mouthing every commander in every service, there are many great ones or the mission would never get done. However, by and large, I maintain that those with the power to change major policy are risk adverse and won't allow the average soldier, sailor, airman or Marine to carry on base/post, even if said service member has a concealed carry license. I feel they believe that the off chance of one of their troops being killed by a terrorist is much smaller than the risk to their career if a "safety incident" happens.

I guess it is safe to assume they may have forgotten who they work for. Ignoring the law of the land may be an even greater risk to their career and freedom - assuming one is passed.

Of course you've also just described the problem with politicians in general.

Governor Abbott taking a positive step.

http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release ... tent=txgov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just so none of you think I'm merely a bad-attitude guy or paranoid. Here you go, from one of America's top generals:

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/07/18/g ... bscriber=1

K.Mooneyham wrote:Just so none of you think I'm merely a bad-attitude guy or paranoid. Here you go, from one of America's top generals:

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/07/18/g ... bscriber=1

Interesting that it was from a Canadian news source.

mojo84 wrote:Governor Abbott taking a positive step.

http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release ... tent=txgov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And so has Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Jindal's Executive Order allows Louisiana National Guardsmen to be armed at military facilities

tomtexan wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Governor Abbott taking a positive step.

http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release ... tent=txgov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And so has Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Jindal's Executive Order allows Louisiana National Guardsmen to be armed at military facilities

And Arkansas Governor Hutchinson.

Gov. Hutchinson authorizes AR National Guard to arm full-time military personnel

Indiana's also. I imagine they coordinated there decision.

WildBill wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Just so none of you think I'm merely a bad-attitude guy or paranoid. Here you go, from one of America's top generals:

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/07/18/g ... bscriber=1

Interesting that it was from a Canadian news source.

According to his "logic" we would be safer if the police left their arms in the locker.??