Robbery outside Home Depot - Page 2

Brian Pfleuger · August 18, 2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Why are our soldiers unarmed??

Now there's a point we can agree on!

Pretty stupid isn't it? You can go to war and die for your country when you're 18, you can come home after seeing your friends die for your country.... but you can't have a beer when you get back and we can't trust you to be armed no matter how old you are....

:barf:

LightningJoe · August 18, 2009, 11:37 AM

Well, it's the Federal government. Unless they're planning to fight a battle at the Home Depot, how does the Federal government benefit from having soldiers armed there? They might get robbed every once in a while, but that doesn't affect the guys in Washington. Get real.

Hook686 · August 18, 2009, 03:34 PM

'Fragging' happens in the military. During the Vietnam era I was in the USAF. I had my hunting rifle and a handgun in my locker. One day I got back from my duty station. Lockers in each room in the barracks were open and any firearms were on the bunk, with a note to store the firearm and the base security police building. No penalties, no problem retreiving the firearms 24/7. I was on the base rifle team and kept ammo for that in my locker without any problems, just personal ammo was barred. Figure that.

It might have been inconvenient to wait until off base to load and holster a CCW handgun, but it was doable. With the tight security on base, what's to fear while on base ?

Rich Miranda · August 18, 2009, 04:05 PM

I drive a motorcoach (charter/tour bus) and I transport soldiers to and from Camp Bullis for training every so often. All of the soldiers carry their weapons (which is really cool because I get to see the SAWs and so forth) but no ammo is permitted, with the exception of exactly one magazine of 'security ammo' which is not permitted to be loaded into the weapon unless needed.

As soon as we arrive at the destination, a higher-ranking soldier (I don't know ranks) comes into the bus and takes back the ammo.

Of course, if anyone tried to anything, the sight of 40 M4s and M249s might be enough to scare them off, even without ammo.

hogdogs · August 18, 2009, 04:41 PM

Let the stupid ol' redneck opine on this a bit...
Anytime the armed forces are used in the states it brings all kinds of strife on them as "the armed forces shouldn't be against the citizenry..." Like in Alabama when we had the mass shootings near me and the sheriff asked Ft.Rucker for help. It was actually posted here on TFL. So soldiers leaving base armed to go buy ply wood at Homer's Depot would result in a jillion cell phone vids on you-tube and the mass lib media outlets worse than a couple open carrying folks in NH...
Brent

Lee Lapin · August 18, 2009, 05:40 PM

Brent,

That's because during Reconstruction after the Late War, troops WERE used to control the citizenry in the defeated South. That resulted in something called the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

Of course, in recent years, things have changed... http://www.homelandsecurity.org/jour...Trebilcock.htm .

And if you spent any time at all around most servicemembers, you'd be terrified at the thought of them carrying loaded weapons in public. The troops scare their own command structure so bad, they barely tolerate it even in combat zones. Trainer John Farnam rants about the level of firearms training our servicemembers get a lot- see http://www.sofmag.com/news/permalink...063929635.html , http://www.defense-training.com/quip.../04Sept04.html , http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2004/22Jan04.html etc.

On a more specific note, I was across the street from that Home Despot yesterday. It isn't in what you might call the best part of town, if it's the one on Skibo in Fayetteville. The wooded area is within just a few yards of the parking area and there is no visible barrier on the property line- no chainlink fence, etc. There are housing areas nearby. Definitely some vulnerabilities there for unarmed folk...

fwiw,

lpl

hogdogs · August 18, 2009, 05:47 PM

I realize we entrust service folks during combat with a different level of trust than peace time. But the fact remains that even if they were all 100% crack shots of the safest nature and guaranteed to not use their arms for anything that a citizen were not authorized... the populace would still feel they were in a police state type setting. I do, however, feel that service persons should be able to have a CCW on them whenever they wish as a LEO may.
Brent

wally626 · August 18, 2009, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Hooke686

With the tight security on base, what's to fear while on base ?

It is pretty rare but people have been known to kill people even on secure facilities. Happened last year (maybe the year before) at NASA JSC. They have armed guards at the gates and patrolling the grounds, they do random car searches coming and going and allow no weapons (except for security personnel, and a couple of other exceptions) on the center. All employees have extensive background checks. This did not stop a man from coming on the center with a personal weapon and killing, IIRC, two people. I have been on a few facilities with 100% search on entering and leaving, with lots of security, on those I feel pretty safe, on your typical federal facility you are lots safer than the bad part of town, but bad things can still happen.

Lee Lapin · August 18, 2009, 07:21 PM

...service persons should be able to have a CCW on them whenever they wish as a LEO may.

In a lot of places, even LEOs can't carry outside their own jurisdiction... the average citizen these days actually has more leeway with a concealed carry permit that's recognized in a lot of states.

I believe in the Lott Theory (More Guns, Less Crime - http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html ) as much as anyone, but unfortunately I don't get to make the rules...

lpl

MLeake · August 18, 2009, 09:31 PM

... if you were across the street, then you were probably at BW3, or maybe PetSmart or Dick's Sporting Goods.

I can't see you coming to town and going to Food Lion, or Michael's...

But yes, it's that Home Depot, and no, it isn't a great neighborhood.

As far as HogDogs argument, people might react badly to overtly armed troops, but how would they know if troops were carrying concealed?

If a soldier, marine, airman, or sailor qualifies for a CCW, why should he be more restricted than any other citizen?

Just my take on things.

BTW, the answer to the large percentage of troops who aren't necessarily proficient or skilled in firearms law is not less weapons, but more training, IMO.

Cheers,

M

Lee Lapin · August 19, 2009, 11:21 AM

One of the happiest days of my life was seeing Ft. Bragg in my rearview mirror for the first time as a newly retired uncivil serpent 8^). And I only come to Fayettenam any more to see my doctors. In this case I went home by way of PetSmart to get some woofer food.

Everyone has to go 'by the rulz' when going on post. I have a NC CCH, and can't carry on post- not that I have any reason to go back on post, since they issued my last ID with an indefinite expiration date. And since the DoD parking stickers on both vehicles are good till 2011, it'll be at least that long before I have reason to go back.

I know servicemembers with CCHs too- they can't carry on post. Why is that so? Because Uncle Scam wants it that way, and so it is. It isn't the way it ought to be, but that's the way the nanny-statists want it.

I remember that old "two armies" quote from Larteguy that a bunch of the old time SF NCOs used to have framed on their office walls or their desks...

I'd like to have two armies: One for display with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering generals, and dear little regimental officers who would be deeply concerned over their colonel's piles, an Army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country. The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflaged uniforms, who would not be put on display but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That's the Army in which I should like to fight.

One of my old friends, then a captain (most likely the oldest DOR captain in the US Army, too) had PT tee shirts printed up (back before there were official PT uniforms) that said: "If we could shoot, we wouldn't have to run." See why Uncle Mikee was a captain for so long? 8^)

That's always reflected my attitude too...

FWIW,

lpl

jgcoastie · August 19, 2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

How exactly does a base commander's standing order overrule state law when one is acting as a private citizen? (i understand that soldiers would obey the CO's order, but what is the legal authority for such an order?) And the preamble to that piece states as an uncontravertible fact that having soldiers carrying a concealed deadly weapon (could this be any broader? how about a nail file?) is a significant risk to the safety and welfare of the (this) command. Suppose the CO had a dislike for Sorel boots - could he forbid his soldiers from wearing them anywhere on or off base?

(Emphasis added by me)

Because all military members are subject to the articles set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) while on or off duty. From the day you swear in to the day you are discharged or retire, the UCMJ applies everywhere, local, state, and federal laws aside. Servicemembers may be charged with local/state/federal charges and still face judicial proceedings as applicable to the UCMJ.

The fine print's a real b***h...

EDIT: Why are our servicemen/women unarmed when out in public? B/c if we were constantly armed while in uniform, it would set the environment of marshall law. It may not be in effect, but I think the visual display of weapons would entice severe outrage amongst many citizens. Personally, it wouldn't bother me a bit, but everybody ain't like me.

SoupieXX75 · August 19, 2009, 08:31 PM

I can understand why ANY chain of command wouldn't want a base full of young soldiers carrying weapons. Young soldiers get into enough stupid stuff without the help of weapons.

Personally, when I was living in the barracks, I didn't like the idea of keeping my weapons in the unit arms room. I didn't like the thought of Pvt. Joe Snuffy messing with my gear. I just kept my stuff at the house of a trusted squad leader. It was a lot easier to get my weapons from them then from the unit arms room. Once I moved off post and got my CCW, I just locked and cleared my pistol before entering base. A hassle? Yes. But easy enough to get around post regs regarding concealed carry.

danbrew · August 22, 2009, 08:40 AM

As a former grunt who served at Ft Wainwright in the early 80s, I recall a gunfight between a bunch of drunk troopers in Alpha and Bravo Companies, 1/327th. These loons got liquored up one night and starting blasting rounds back and forth between the buildings. A handful of folks got busted - don't recall exactly what happened to them.

While probably not the reason for the restrictive policies on base in Alaska, it has to figure in the institutional memory. There were policies preventing POWs in the barracks before this incident, but things became much more restrictive afterwards.

As SoupieXX75 says, there's a lot to be said to restricting access to dangerous things to a bunch of young soldiers with no supervision. Whether that be guns, booze, fast motorcycles without helmets, etc.

For every "i can't believe somebody wrote a policy on that" regulation that you don't like, some moron was awarded the darwin award. I recall a guy in an aviation unit at Wainright had cut down a small pine tree as a Christmas tree. The resulting "regulation" was "No Christmas Trees", although that was later revised to "No open flame". He had put a bunch of candles on the tree and lit them and then passed out and the thing caught fire. Go figure.

N.H. Yankee · August 24, 2009, 06:03 PM

Well thats a switch, usually the ROBBERY is at the CHECKOUT!!!!!

Having retired from the Air Force ( lucky me ) I also could never figure out the unarmed soldier on base. I have heard of shootings on base, one in particular, a civilians enlisted wife's cheating with an airman, civilian goes to the dorm the airman lives at with a gun from his offbase home, confronts airman in parking lot, and BANG! The airman never had a chance, had he been armed when confronted he may have had a chance when things escalated. The airman shouldn't have been messing with the guy's wife, but he didn't deserve a death sentence either.

The Air Force feels that if you live on base, the SP's will protect you. Problem is on some bases, the SP's aren't supposed to shoot until shot at! Local commanders and wing also can play a role in firearm usage/storage. A female NCO was murdered within sight of the gate at March AFB years ago and the SP's at the gate could not shoot at the gangbangers, because it was outside the main gate!! I never understood why military personnel can have machineguns, grenades, etc while training or in a combat zone and be trusted then, but not allowed a personnal firearm on base. I guess the powers to be think your less likely to go ward 8 in a stressful warzone, than peacefully stateside on base.

I was fortunate enough ( or not ) to have written permission from command to carry concealed on base due to certain circumstances. I also had to have a copy of the letter on my person, the CC had a copy, SC had a copy, and the gate guardhouse had a copy. I always felt military members should have the right to protect themselves, especially on an open base. Not sure if there are any open bases left since 9/11.

Nnobby45 · August 24, 2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Why are our soldiers unarmed??

John Farnum has addressed the matter on a number of occasions. We have a gun paranoid military structure. An accident involving a weapon could be a career ender for a commander, which makes them paranoid, also.

Even non combat soldiers are taught how to use firearms, of course, in all military occupational specities. However, they ARE NOT taught how to actually carry and live with weapons.

At least for some troops, prior to shipping off to a war zone, the range qualification with the M16 is 40 rds, and troops don't even load their own magazines.

August 18, 2009, 11:37 AM	#27
LightningJoe Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2007 Location: DFW Metroplex (well, McKinney) Posts: 858	Well, it's the Federal government. Unless they're planning to fight a battle at the Home Depot, how does the Federal government benefit from having soldiers armed there? They might get robbed every once in a while, but that doesn't affect the guys in Washington. Get real. __________________ I believe in a world which consists of America, her friends, and her dead enemies.

August 18, 2009, 03:34 PM	#28
Hook686 Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2005 Location: USA The Great State of California Posts: 2,090	'Fragging' happens in the military. During the Vietnam era I was in the USAF. I had my hunting rifle and a handgun in my locker. One day I got back from my duty station. Lockers in each room in the barracks were open and any firearms were on the bunk, with a note to store the firearm and the base security police building. No penalties, no problem retreiving the firearms 24/7. I was on the base rifle team and kept ammo for that in my locker without any problems, just personal ammo was barred. Figure that. It might have been inconvenient to wait until off base to load and holster a CCW handgun, but it was doable. With the tight security on base, what's to fear while on base ? __________________ Hook686 When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.

August 18, 2009, 04:05 PM	#29
Rich Miranda Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2008 Location: San Antonio, not San Antone... Posts: 1,203	I drive a motorcoach (charter/tour bus) and I transport soldiers to and from Camp Bullis for training every so often. All of the soldiers carry their weapons (which is really cool because I get to see the SAWs and so forth) but no ammo is permitted, with the exception of exactly one magazine of 'security ammo' which is not permitted to be loaded into the weapon unless needed. As soon as we arrive at the destination, a higher-ranking soldier (I don't know ranks) comes into the bus and takes back the ammo. Of course, if anyone tried to anything, the sight of 40 M4s and M249s might be enough to scare them off, even without ammo. __________________ Read this!: I collect .38 Special and .357 Mag cartridges and I will PAY CASH for the headstamps I don't already have! Please PM me. Please donate blood, plasma, and platelets - people's lives literally depend on it.

August 18, 2009, 05:40 PM	#31
Lee Lapin Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2004 Location: SE NC Posts: 1,239	Brent, That's because during Reconstruction after the Late War, troops WERE used to control the citizenry in the defeated South. That resulted in something called the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Of course, in recent years, things have changed... http://www.homelandsecurity.org/jour...Trebilcock.htm . And if you spent any time at all around most servicemembers, you'd be terrified at the thought of them carrying loaded weapons in public. The troops scare their own command structure so bad, they barely tolerate it even in combat zones. Trainer John Farnam rants about the level of firearms training our servicemembers get a lot- see http://www.sofmag.com/news/permalink...063929635.html , http://www.defense-training.com/quip.../04Sept04.html , http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2004/22Jan04.html etc. On a more specific note, I was across the street from that Home Despot yesterday. It isn't in what you might call the best part of town, if it's the one on Skibo in Fayetteville. The wooded area is within just a few yards of the parking area and there is no visible barrier on the property line- no chainlink fence, etc. There are housing areas nearby. Definitely some vulnerabilities there for unarmed folk... fwiw, lpl __________________ Mindset - Skillset - Toolset. In that order! Attitude and skill will get you through times of no gear, better than gear will get you through times of no attitude and no skill. Last edited by Lee Lapin; August 18, 2009 at 05:49 PM.

August 18, 2009, 07:21 PM	#34
Lee Lapin Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2004 Location: SE NC Posts: 1,239	...service persons should be able to have a CCW on them whenever they wish as a LEO may. In a lot of places, even LEOs can't carry outside their own jurisdiction... the average citizen these days actually has more leeway with a concealed carry permit that's recognized in a lot of states. I believe in the Lott Theory (More Guns, Less Crime - http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html ) as much as anyone, but unfortunately I don't get to make the rules... lpl __________________ Mindset - Skillset - Toolset. In that order! Attitude and skill will get you through times of no gear, better than gear will get you through times of no attitude and no skill.

August 18, 2009, 04:41 PM	#30
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	Let the stupid ol' redneck opine on this a bit... Anytime the armed forces are used in the states it brings all kinds of strife on them as "the armed forces shouldn't be against the citizenry..." Like in Alabama when we had the mass shootings near me and the sheriff asked Ft.Rucker for help. It was actually posted here on TFL. So soldiers leaving base armed to go buy ply wood at Homer's Depot would result in a jillion cell phone vids on you-tube and the mass lib media outlets worse than a couple open carrying folks in NH... Brent

August 18, 2009, 05:47 PM	#32
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	I realize we entrust service folks during combat with a different level of trust than peace time. But the fact remains that even if they were all 100% crack shots of the safest nature and guaranteed to not use their arms for anything that a citizen were not authorized... the populace would still feel they were in a police state type setting. I do, however, feel that service persons should be able to have a CCW on them whenever they wish as a LEO may. Brent

August 18, 2009, 09:31 PM	#35
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Lee... ... if you were across the street, then you were probably at BW3, or maybe PetSmart or Dick's Sporting Goods. I can't see you coming to town and going to Food Lion, or Michael's... But yes, it's that Home Depot, and no, it isn't a great neighborhood. As far as HogDogs argument, people might react badly to overtly armed troops, but how would they know if troops were carrying concealed? If a soldier, marine, airman, or sailor qualifies for a CCW, why should he be more restricted than any other citizen? Just my take on things. BTW, the answer to the large percentage of troops who aren't necessarily proficient or skilled in firearms law is not less weapons, but more training, IMO. Cheers, M

August 19, 2009, 11:21 AM	#36
Lee Lapin Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2004 Location: SE NC Posts: 1,239	One of the happiest days of my life was seeing Ft. Bragg in my rearview mirror for the first time as a newly retired uncivil serpent 8^). And I only come to Fayettenam any more to see my doctors. In this case I went home by way of PetSmart to get some woofer food. Everyone has to go 'by the rulz' when going on post. I have a NC CCH, and can't carry on post- not that I have any reason to go back on post, since they issued my last ID with an indefinite expiration date. And since the DoD parking stickers on both vehicles are good till 2011, it'll be at least that long before I have reason to go back. I know servicemembers with CCHs too- they can't carry on post. Why is that so? Because Uncle Scam wants it that way, and so it is. It isn't the way it ought to be, but that's the way the nanny-statists want it. I remember that old "two armies" quote from Larteguy that a bunch of the old time SF NCOs used to have framed on their office walls or their desks... I'd like to have two armies: One for display with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering generals, and dear little regimental officers who would be deeply concerned over their colonel's piles, an Army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country. The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflaged uniforms, who would not be put on display but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That's the Army in which I should like to fight. One of my old friends, then a captain (most likely the oldest DOR captain in the US Army, too) had PT tee shirts printed up (back before there were official PT uniforms) that said: "If we could shoot, we wouldn't have to run." See why Uncle Mikee was a captain for so long? 8^) That's always reflected my attitude too... FWIW, lpl __________________ Mindset - Skillset - Toolset. In that order! Attitude and skill will get you through times of no gear, better than gear will get you through times of no attitude and no skill. Last edited by Lee Lapin; August 19, 2009 at 11:28 AM.

August 19, 2009, 08:31 PM	#38
SoupieXX75 Member Join Date: January 20, 2009 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 67	After six years in the Army... I can understand why ANY chain of command wouldn't want a base full of young soldiers carrying weapons. Young soldiers get into enough stupid stuff without the help of weapons. Personally, when I was living in the barracks, I didn't like the idea of keeping my weapons in the unit arms room. I didn't like the thought of Pvt. Joe Snuffy messing with my gear. I just kept my stuff at the house of a trusted squad leader. It was a lot easier to get my weapons from them then from the unit arms room. Once I moved off post and got my CCW, I just locked and cleared my pistol before entering base. A hassle? Yes. But easy enough to get around post regs regarding concealed carry.

August 22, 2009, 08:40 AM	#39
danbrew Member Join Date: October 27, 1998 Location: Chicago Posts: 72	As a former grunt who served at Ft Wainwright in the early 80s, I recall a gunfight between a bunch of drunk troopers in Alpha and Bravo Companies, 1/327th. These loons got liquored up one night and starting blasting rounds back and forth between the buildings. A handful of folks got busted - don't recall exactly what happened to them. While probably not the reason for the restrictive policies on base in Alaska, it has to figure in the institutional memory. There were policies preventing POWs in the barracks before this incident, but things became much more restrictive afterwards. As SoupieXX75 says, there's a lot to be said to restricting access to dangerous things to a bunch of young soldiers with no supervision. Whether that be guns, booze, fast motorcycles without helmets, etc. For every "i can't believe somebody wrote a policy on that" regulation that you don't like, some moron was awarded the darwin award. I recall a guy in an aviation unit at Wainright had cut down a small pine tree as a Christmas tree. The resulting "regulation" was "No Christmas Trees", although that was later revised to "No open flame". He had put a bunch of candles on the tree and lit them and then passed out and the thing caught fire. Go figure.

August 24, 2009, 06:03 PM	#40
N.H. Yankee Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2004 Location: Rural N.H. Posts: 1,586	Well thats a switch, usually the ROBBERY is at the CHECKOUT!!!!! Having retired from the Air Force ( lucky me ) I also could never figure out the unarmed soldier on base. I have heard of shootings on base, one in particular, a civilians enlisted wife's cheating with an airman, civilian goes to the dorm the airman lives at with a gun from his offbase home, confronts airman in parking lot, and BANG! The airman never had a chance, had he been armed when confronted he may have had a chance when things escalated. The airman shouldn't have been messing with the guy's wife, but he didn't deserve a death sentence either. The Air Force feels that if you live on base, the SP's will protect you. Problem is on some bases, the SP's aren't supposed to shoot until shot at! Local commanders and wing also can play a role in firearm usage/storage. A female NCO was murdered within sight of the gate at March AFB years ago and the SP's at the gate could not shoot at the gangbangers, because it was outside the main gate!! I never understood why military personnel can have machineguns, grenades, etc while training or in a combat zone and be trusted then, but not allowed a personnal firearm on base. I guess the powers to be think your less likely to go ward 8 in a stressful warzone, than peacefully stateside on base. I was fortunate enough ( or not ) to have written permission from command to carry concealed on base due to certain circumstances. I also had to have a copy of the letter on my person, the CC had a copy, SC had a copy, and the gate guardhouse had a copy. I always felt military members should have the right to protect themselves, especially on an open base. Not sure if there are any open bases left since 9/11. __________________ The real danger to America is not abroad but within.. Having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brains fall out! Save America, abort liberalism.