It can't be overstated that the military is FAR more concerned with command and control than readiness. It doesn't matter whether the military COULD train and arm military personnel to defend themselves, but that it would contradict every precept of their command philosophy.
Yes I know. But the Generals and Admirals have to follow orders too, do they not? If they don't like it tough chit. For the record I know there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this happening, but it's still pretty maddening.
Same basic reason they keep sailors on ships unarmed. I could only imagine the fear of our Govt and citizens if Generals ever gave orders overthrow our own govt. It may be farfetched but a military coup scares crap out of me.
Nope I'm for keeping arms locked up on our soil and during peace time.
A military coup with M9s? I would think it would be very short lived. Besides, there are all manner of weapons available if that were their plan. I'm advocating making the standard issue side arm a permanent part of the uniform in case it didn't get through to everyone.
Maybe not a full on govt coup, but same thing could happen with buildings hospitals ect. Would only take a few M9s to do some serious couping.
While every soldier may be asymptomatic of PTSD, it's a hella chance to arm possible PTSD soldiers during down time on our bases. That could be catastrophic. We owe them better security on our home soil but I don't think arming every single soldier on base would prevent these acts.
I can only imagine giving a soldier a M9, who suffers from PTSD, and then having another soldier kill them. That's my dilemma.
It is impractical on such a large scale for a host of reasons. The police/soldier comparison is apples and oranges. I appreciate the question but I'm not in the mood to type it all out again. The old threads on this subject are probably still out there if you do an advanced search.
Most soldiers that have been down range will come back with some form of PTSD of varying severity. Advocating a blanket law to disarm service members solely on whether they have PTSD is going to be a very widespread disenfranchisement of rights for those that have given the most. It would be very easy for a service member to lose their constitutionally protected right due to a govt. assessment. I am not cool with that.
IMO this is very similar to the argument against armed teachers. "What if a teacher goes nuts and shoots up a school?" My response to that argument is "What's stopping them from doing that now." If you are going to break the law by murdering people, you don't give two schits about the legality of having a gun on campus. In fact, it would make it more attractive since you know there will be no armed resistance.
The same principles apply here. A soldier with PTSD that wants to shoot up a base doesn't need someone to arm him or care about the base's policy of firearms. He knows there is going to be no armed resistance and thus has less reservation about doing a massacre than he would if he knew that there would be several armed soldier there to take him down.
Now all this being said, I understand the concern in letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry on post carry. After all it is not unheard of for gang members and the like serving in the military. But allowing officers or senior enlisted to carry a sidearm would certainly be reasonable.
Lurker this is exactly where we are today and this thought process is precisely why they are disarmed. I just can't see how things are different today than say in the Continental Army? Did they have the same PTSD issues? I think they were probably at least as bad and probably far worse. And I can just imagine how it would have went over if Washington had tried to disarm his troops when not in the field. This is a classic case of putting the masses in danger to protect the few.
I LOL at this whole dammed thread. You all sound like a bunch of libs.
You all champion constitutional carry, and yet wish to limit the military because they "might" have PTSB? Are you freeking serious?
Gang members in the military? Really? Gangs don't exist in the civilian world? LOL. .
Ever watch WWII/Korea/Vietnam vets describe their experiences on tv shows? To a man they shed a tear for lost comrades. Obvious PTSD by todays definition. Should we deny them the right to own a firearm?
Some of you need to go back and read your own thread, and rethink your opinion.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Colorado Voters Approve 6.5% Excise Tax on Their Guns and Ammunition- Latest: golddigger14s
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
