July 27, 2015:
Eight days I posted this opinion article:
Congress pushes to allow troops to be armed on military bases - Stripes:
July 17, 2015
WASHINGTON – Congressional leaders said Friday they will direct the Pentagon to allow troops to carry guns on base for personal protection following a deadly shooting rampage in Tennessee that killed four Marines and seriously wounded a sailor at a recruiting center.From here, it sounds as if someone in Washington has finally removed their cranial box from their customary rectal depository, but ... you know Politicians.
If the cameras stop rolling, the suits start strolling. Usually whistling a tuneless ditty, as if they're merely engaged in a casual stroll across the Capital Mall, and ...
They waffle
"Oh, excuse me? Sorry, I was misquoted" they say .. if there is any chance that they may NOT have to actually follow through on their promises to arm U.S. military in unsecured public areas in CONUS.
Because our guys are, like, in Gun Free Zones.
(I may have mentioned my dislike of GFZ before. As in: February 2008 - May, 2013 ... for starters)Unfortunately, the Army's Top Brass has less confidence in the quality of our troops than has Congress!
(From Fox News:)
The Army's top officer said Friday they would review security at military recruiting and reserve centers in the aftermath of the deadly shooting in Tennessee, but urged caution amid growing calls to arm more soldiers to protect against these kinds of attacks.[emphasis added]
Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters that arming troops in those offices could cause more problems than it might solve.
"I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries."
A day later, I had this article to reinforce the argument AGAINST arming American Service Persons Domestically.
But wait .. there's more!
Today, I have enough of a counter-argument to make my original article worth posting:
Washington (CNN)Lawmakers in Washington are moving quickly on legislation to allow trained members of the military to carry guns on bases and recruiting centers, but Pentagon officials and military commanders are exploring whether the possible legal change could raise additional security concerns.
Yes, American Politicians and Military Leaders (but I repeat myself!) are still unwilling to commit to Trusting Our Service Men And Women with firearms outside of the direct control of senior officers, outside of a War Zone.
I deplore this attitude, but I don't really blame them. When you give the okay to carry firearms to untrained civilians, you can't tell what kind of training or maturity you can expect.
Oh, but wait a minute! These are NOT "untrained civilians".... these are professional military personnel for whose training these same senior military officers are responsible!
So we come back to the same question:
"Do you feel lucky .... Punk?"
Well .. do you?
4 comments:
Many in our military are less they highly trained. Shooting a magazine or two once a year for familiarization hardly constitutes highly trained. Negligent discharges are a real concern, and the top brass is very risk adverse. Imagine the expense of putting a clearing barrel in front of every recruiting station in the nation.
The MP's and the Security Police (USAF) are trained for this. they provide perimeter security on bases, so why not recruiting centers?
Because there are not enough MPs and security police.
Recruit more, duh.
Post a Comment