Representative Louie Gohmert wants to override commanders and allow service members to openly carry guns on base. This is a bad idea. Help us stop it by dialing 888-907-7125 to connect to your U.S. representative directly and ask them to vote NO on the Gohmert Amendment. Vote happening around 6pm today.
Not only trained to use; Soldiers are also trained in levels of force and to include use of deadly force. I will say at least you are consistent PN; that is exactly the type of response I expected from you. Typical DEM approach; bring up another "pressing" situation as opposed to addressing the issue at hand.
HMJC: Yes - it's more "phone and pen" sleight-of-hand at work. It is clearly their intent to erode Constitutional requirements by any regulatory means possible. It was reported yesterday that they're also "picking up the pace" on their executive orders. (I suspect they see the handwriting on the wall that the Senate will change hands in November.) See:
Fortunately, as Obama demonstrated in the months after replacing Dubya, his regulations and executive orders can be tossed out the same way he put them in - once we get adult leadership back in the White House. The Dems are also going to regret changing the filibuster rule to a simple majority once the GOP regains control in the Senate.
FYI: While irrelevant to this blog string, it's worthwhile to get the facts straight: the Gohmert amendment was "adopted" by the House on May 18:
and then withdrawn yesterday based on a promise by House leadership that that the proposal would be discussed during conference negotiations with the Senate:
"why is it a bad idea to have people trained to handle guns carry them?"
I have a bad feeling about this one. I guess it's based on the idea that especially when you arm people, you are expecting them to act like responsible adults ALL OF THE TIME. I've seen too many squabbles escalate to fist fights and knife fights, and I just wonder what restraint would prevail if those folks were carrying a sidearm.
I don't believe that unlimited "open carry" is a specific provision of the 2nd Amendment, just as nobody in their right mind proposes that mortars, grenade launchers and bazookas should be in the common possession of ordinary citizens. There has to be some common sense somewhere. I haven't seen a single post, camp, base, or station commander come out in favor of what Gohmert proposes, because I'm sure they feel that the risks far outweigh the rewards.
I think they need to look at a hybrid option. Based on past and present events; it makes sense to have more of an armed presence on military installations. This could be in the form of each battalion having their own armed security patrol. Based on events past it would also make sense to have an armed presence at large gathering/servicing areas. In all three occasions; if a armed presence was proximate to the scene; it would have played out more differently. Every Soldier, no. However a more serious approach needs to be formulated to coincide with the reality at hand. It is also important to remember that when Soldiers do deploy; they have a weapon and basic load of ammo at all times so it would not be a be an unfamiliar requirement. Even with all of this said I do concede that a better plan is needed,
HMJC: Reminds me of the "courtesy patrols" I was part of in Germany and at Fort Hood while I was on active duty. Unfortunately, we only carried sticks and were mainly a symbolic presence. But the incidents the patrols were designed to prevent did decrease in frequency, but probably not enough (in my mind) to justify the extra duty I had to pull on top of my normal responsibilities.
Perhaps they should look at NOT downsizing the MPs during this contraction of the armed forces. They could justify it based upon the "hybrid" option you suggest. I'd much rather have a bunch more armed MPs than arming the rank-and-file.