12 dead in Washington, D.C.

[nevada]

You would be surprise by the amount of Sailors that are NOT allowed to carry a weapon because their chain of command has recognized they are not responsible with one.

then they shouldnt be there in the first place, and should be removed, or replaced.

 

[soj1057]

if our national security is in jeapordy because people on base are allowed to carry, then those people shouldnt ever have been allowed on base to begin with. there has already been a break in security.

which takes us back full circle, to the OP.

This is inaccurate. There are thousands upon thousands of civilian contractors around the country. They do everything from food service to adjusting temperature gauges on nuclear weapon silos. To require and expect them all to be proficient and competent in the use of firearms is ridiculous. Also, people get compromised, people go crazy, and people make mistakes. The idea is to try and control the risk as much as possible.

The reality is that we have seen firsthand, that we are unable to protect from attacks from within military ranks from our own. Why add another variable to make that job even harder?

I’ve stood security with top secret clearance, nuclear and biological weapon facilities. I’ve stood security on pedestrian entry gates in the gulf as well. At no point did I consider the bulk of civilian contractors that worked around me to be better off if they had been armed.

 

[soj1057]

then they shouldnt be there in the first place, and should be removed, or replaced.

You are aware that the military functions on the back of people that never have need to carry or even fire a weapon? The inability to be proficient in the use of a firearm does not always mean they are useless. I’m just saying, they have their place.

 

[nevada]

This is inaccurate. There are thousands upon thousands of civilian contractors around the country. They do everything from food service to adjusting temperature gauges on nuclear weapon silos. To require and expect them all to be proficient and competent in the use of firearms is ridiculous. Also, people get compromised, people go crazy, and people make mistakes. The idea is to try and control the risk as much as possible.

The reality is that we have seen firsthand, that we are unable to protect from attacks from within military ranks from our own. Why add another variable to make that job even harder?

I’ve stood security with top secret clearance, nuclear and biological weapon facilities. I’ve stood security on pedestrian entry gates in the gulf as well. At no point did I consider the bulk of civilian contractors that worked around me to be better off if they had been armed.

if the mere addition of a firearm suddenly makes those people a security risk, they shouldnt be there to begin with.

You are aware that the military functions on the back of people that never have need to carry or even fire a weapon? The inability to be proficient in the use of a firearm does not always mean they are useless. I’m just saying, they have their place.

who said anything about proficient? im not saying they need to be on thbe front lines. but if they are legally allowed to carry, then they SHOULD be allowed to carry.
cue the bolded above again...

 

[soj1057]

if the mere addition of a firearm suddenly makes those people a security risk, they shouldnt be there to begin with.

Again, this is not accurate. There are plenty of people that are great at what they do but not competent to carry a firearm. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed on a military base.....Should we block a scientist who is the top in his field from entering a military research facility because he cannot pass the proficiency portion of a weapons test?

 

[nevada]

Again, this is not accurate. There are plenty of people that are great at what they do but not competent to carry a firearm. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed on a military base.....Should we block a scientist who is the top in his field from entering a military research facility because he cannot pass the proficiency portion of a weapons test?

apparently you arent reading what i type.

thats ok. i dont give a shit. have a nice day.

 

[soj1057]

if the mere addition of a firearm suddenly makes those people a security risk, they shouldnt be there to begin with.
who said anything about proficient? im not saying they need to be on thbe front lines. but if they are legally allowed to carry, then they SHOULD be allowed to carry.
cue the bolded above again...

Was the tragedy in the Navy yard on the front lines? On the front lines most everyone carries any way, there’s a little wild west attached to being on the front lines of a combat zone…. That’s not the point.

My point is that not everyone who can carry has a reason to carry and it will do more harm than good on most military instillations. Plus, there’s no need. If you don’t want to be without your side arm, don’t work on a military base.

 

[soj1057]

apparently you arent reading what i type.

thats ok. i dont give a shit. have a nice day.

I read what you wrote, it just doesnt make any sense. Have a good one. :deadhorse:

 

[SV_Dude]

So, what we know about the shooting so far is that he did it with a SHOTGUN not an AR, and that he was given security clearance at a US military base after repeated run-ins with the law....including two that involved discharge of a weapon.... and numerous reports of mental illness, including the man himself seeking help. Now, tell me how would a Feinstein-type AWB have prevented this? This incident proves that evil people will find a weapon to do harm if an "assault rifle" isn't available. It also proves that "background checks" can easily fail and people slip though the cracks with no one ultimately held responsible. So, despite what some might have you believe, there is no easy answer to this all-to-common occurrence.

In my mind, a security clearance is irrelevant. Someone with their mind set on creating a mass casualty scenario will do it wherever it is best to suit his intent. If he didn't have access to a naval yard then he would have done it elsewhere. The security clearances do need to be a little tighter though and there needs to be at least updates on your clearance status any time you get arrested for ANYTHING!

As far as a threat to national security... come on! Anything on a military installation that has any secret documents or classified materials are secured in a secure area. Within those secure areas are cameras, guards and a decent amount of surveillance. Anyone who works in a secure area like that only have access to the areas that pertain to their specific jobs. You aren't allowed to remove items from these secure areas without special permission. I don't see how having a sidearm will jeopardize national security. Does it give someone the ability to shoot someone? Of course, but it also gives everyone else the ability to defend themselves.

 

[Quatre Coureur]

"You've reached the Suicide/Homicide hot line - Hold please" :wacko:

 

[KCcarguy]

In my mind, a security clearance is irrelevant. Someone with their mind set on creating a mass casualty scenario will do it wherever it is best to suit his intent. If he didn't have access to a naval yard then he would have done it elsewhere. The security clearances do need to be a little tighter though and there needs to be at least updates on your clearance status any time you get arrested for ANYTHING!

As far as a threat to national security... come on! Anything on a military installation that has any secret documents or classified materials are secured in a secure area. Within those secure areas are cameras, guards and a decent amount of surveillance. Anyone who works in a secure area like that only have access to the areas that pertain to their specific jobs. You aren't allowed to remove items from these secure areas without special permission. I don't see how having a sidearm will jeopardize national security. Does it give someone the ability to shoot someone? Of course, but it also gives everyone else the ability to defend themselves.

I was just trying to point out that the "Universal background checks" Obama and company are promoting as the answer to these attacks will not work. If a crazy guy can slip through the cracks and get clearance at a military base, it's pretty likely the same could happen with background checks for weapons purchases.

 

[SV_Dude]

I was just trying to point out that the "Universal background checks" Obama and company are promoting as the answer to these attacks will not work. If a crazy guy can slip through the cracks and get clearance at a military base, it's pretty likely the same could happen with background checks for weapons purchases.

I completely agree with that point as far as a background check may be flawed if the security clearances are flawed. But I don't think that any of this will compromise national security.

 

[SV_Dude]

Ill just leave this right here.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...arms-federal-and-state-installations/VrZ4Y0MY

 

[BrianSD_42]

He may have had a "clearance" but the media hasn't said what type.

Was it temporary
Was NOFORN, SECRET, TS ?

I doubt it was secret or higher since that would have required an intensive background check and it sounds like he would have been disqualified.

Anyone who has undergone an SSBI knows what I am referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Scope_Background_Investigation

This individual likely had some type of temp access for base work. Hence the media saying he was cleared for access to work at the base.

 

[nevada]

In my mind, a security clearance is irrelevant. Someone with their mind set on creating a mass casualty scenario will do it wherever it is best to suit his intent. If he didn't have access to a naval yard then he would have done it elsewhere. The security clearances do need to be a little tighter though and there needs to be at least updates on your clearance status any time you get arrested for ANYTHING!

As far as a threat to national security... come on! Anything on a military installation that has any secret documents or classified materials are secured in a secure area. Within those secure areas are cameras, guards and a decent amount of surveillance. Anyone who works in a secure area like that only have access to the areas that pertain to their specific jobs. You aren't allowed to remove items from these secure areas without special permission. I don't see how having a sidearm will jeopardize national security. Does it give someone the ability to shoot someone? Of course, but it also gives everyone else the ability to defend themselves.

yes, this is what i was saying.
just the presence of a firearm wont suddenly make someone a threat. and if it DOES, that person was ALREADY a threat.

 

[KCcarguy]

 

[soj1057]

As far as a threat to national security... come on! Anything on a military installation that has any secret documents or classified materials are secured in a secure area. Within those secure areas are cameras, guards and a decent amount of surveillance. Anyone who works in a secure area like that only have access to the areas that pertain to their specific jobs. You aren't allowed to remove items from these secure areas without special permission. I don't see how having a sidearm will jeopardize national security. Does it give someone the ability to shoot someone? Of course, but it also gives everyone else the ability to defend themselves.

It adds another more dangerous variable to the threat matrix, is what I am saying. Controlling an area or zone of responsibility can be difficult enough without adding 23 other firearms into the equation. Now instead of maintaining control of an area a sentry has no control and 23 other possibles to worry about instead of the random soldier going sideways. 23 is a random number but you see what I am saying.

 

[LINY4Runner]

I am a firm supporter of the second amendment and gun ownership and carry. However I cannot rationalize allowing civilians or "contractors" to carry on a military installation. I do believe that every serviceman on that base should at the very least be allowed a concealed weapon or a sidearm while in uniform.
This is not a trample on the civilians rights, it's simple logistics; you have an active shooter who's a civ or "contractor"...most likely he's in plain clothes...if you have more than one person in civilian clothes firing a weapon, it's pretty likely the wrong person is gonna get shot.
Same with a school; I think teachers and faculty should be armed. Anyone else entering the building should have to check their weapon into a safe or leave it in their vehicle.

I understand the need/want to carry everywhere you go because it's your right but sometimes you need to check your emotions, as the media often needs to do as well.

Would you, then, also demand to carry on airplanes?

Like I said, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who supports gun rights more than I do, but just like we advocate common sense over emotion, we also have to practice what we preach.

 

[nevada]

I am a firm supporter of the second amendment and gun ownership and carry. However I cannot rationalize allowing civilians or "contractors" to carry on a military installation. I do believe that every serviceman on that base should at the very least be allowed a concealed weapon or a sidearm while in uniform.
This is not a trample on the civilians rights, it's simple logistics; you have an active shooter who's a civ or "contractor"...most likely he's in plain clothes...if you have more than one person in civilian clothes firing a weapon, it's pretty likely the wrong person is gonna get shot.
Same with a school; I think teachers and faculty should be armed. Anyone else entering the building should have to check their weapon into a safe or leave it in their vehicle.

I understand the need/want to carry everywhere you go because it's your right but sometimes you need to check your emotions, as the media often needs to do as well.

Would you, then, also demand to carry on airplanes?
Like I said, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who supports gun rights more than I do, but just like we advocate common sense over emotion, we also have to practice what we preach.

yes.

 

[KCcarguy]

yes.

Come on, now. :brick: