• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Marine kills two colleagues at Quantico base

Yea, but you have to have special authorization to get your car on base too. You aint been around the military much, have you?
If you live on base?

I don't live on base and they just let me in...They scan my CAC wave me on through. I've never had to have special permission for my car.
 
I was speaking of the value of government gun control to the safety of military installations.
Gun control on a base is not about public safety. It's about the government maintaining positive control at all times. If there's an active shooter, the MPs see someone with a gun and the MPs don't already know who that is, they can shoot to kill.

The increased safety comes from the very fact that most of the bases population is current or former military, a demographic with a lower crime rate to begin with. The average civilian does not go through any kind of right-of-passage to earn their status as an American, which means Americans have a weaker tie to each-other than do servicemen who've never met before. There is no civilian version of a spirit de corps among the masses.
 
Last edited:
Wait, this happened on a marine base with other marines? What happened to having guns deterring people from committing crimes? Surely being one of america's most highly trained and powerful armed service people with access to firearms would have stopped this from happening as per the declarations of the NRA and the guntards? Surely this guy was shot and stopped by some courageous gun weailding soldier....Oh wait, he was shot by himself, so i guess that counts? Oh, and wouldn't this have been a legal gun owners shooting people?
Wow, you are very misinformed. Military bases have probably the tightest gun restrictions of anywhere. If you own a gun on a military base, and live in the barracks, it is required to be kept in the armory at all times. The barracks are subject to random inspections by the leadership of the servicemembers command that would turn up any firearm not registered. If you would like to draw your weapon for use, you have to pre-arrange drawing it and turning it in. If you live in base housing, you must register it (no matter the type of gun) with the base Military Police. These restrictions are tougher than anywhere you will find. Nowhere else are people required to keep THEIR firearms in an armory or register EVERY firearm they own with Law Enforcement authorities. Yet, shootings still occur. This proves the point that no matter what we do, gun violence will happen when and where sicko's want it to. The least we can do is allow other, sane citizens the ability to defend themselves.
 
It's about the government maintaining positive control at all times.

Exactly, they don't want unauthorized people carrying weapons. Sound policy!
 
They don't do that safety bro. They do that for quick identification of Enemy Combatants. If there's an active shooter, the MPs see someone with a gun and the MPs don't already know who that is, they can shoot to kill.

The increased safety comes from the very fact that most of the bases population is current or former military, a demographic with a lower crime rate to begin with. The average civilian does not go through any kind of right-of-passage to earn their status as an American, which means Americans have a weaker tie to each-other than do servicemen who've never met before. There is no civilian version of a spirit de corps among the masses.

Gun control on a base is not about public safety. It's about the government maintaining positive control at all times.
To caveat off of Jerry's excellent point, most military members are also not drug dealing losers with no HS diploma and no future. They, at the very least, have the guarantee of a paycheck twice a month, a roof over their head, and food to eat 3 times a day. Most military members value life more than your average citizens as well. They see friends around them die and know that death is merely a stray mortar, hidden IED, or bullet away for ALL of them. No matter their MOS. All of these things prevent careless taking of life by most military members.
 
Exactly, they don't want unauthorized people carrying weapons. Sound policy!
I'm pretty good at keeping my eye on the ball, I can't be distracted like that. Troll smarter, not harder.
 
To caveat off of Jerry's excellent point, most military members are also not drug dealing losers with no HS diploma and no future. They, at the very least, have the guarantee of a paycheck twice a month, a roof over their head, and food to eat 3 times a day. Most military members value life more than your average citizens as well. They see friends around them die and know that death is merely a stray mortar, hidden IED, or bullet away for ALL of them. No matter their MOS. All of these things prevent careless taking of life by most military members.

Yes, even though soldiers are more disciplined and well behaved they still don't let them carry guns around without special authorization. So why would we just let anyone have guns outside of military installations?
 
I stand by this - "military and civilian personnel are prohibited from possessing weapons without special authorization." I think that is sound government policy!
inB4 someone quotes the 2A as 'special authorization'

This weekend my 9 y/o was talking about lego police and whatnot...he's under the firm belief that bad guys have to do what good guys say because of, his words, 'bad-guy law'. He explained to me that if someone brakes the 'good guy law', by robbing a bank for example, he has to do what the good guys say because that's the 'bad-guy law'.

I asked him "what happens if the good guys do bad things"...he says "that's impossible, they're good guys, they have to follow good-guy law".

I think of him when I read anti-gunners posts because you both have an extremely immature view of how the world works.
 
Last edited:
inB4 someone quotes the 2A as 'special authorization'

The military does not consider that adequate authorization.

This weekend my 9 y/o was talking about lego police and whatnot...he's under the firm belief that bad guys have to do what good guys say because of, his words, 'bad-guy law'. He explained to me that if someone brakes the 'good guy law', by robbing a bank for example, he has to do what the good guys say because that's the 'bad-guy law'.

I asked him "what happens if the good guys do bad things"...he says "that's impossible, they're good guys, they have to follow good-guy law".

I think of him when I read anti-gunners posts because you both have an extremely immature view of how the world works.

Are you trying to say you don't trust those on military bases who are authorized to carry weapons?
 
Are you trying to say you don't trust those on military bases who are authorized to carry weapons?
I trust the government to do everything it can to attain infinite control.
 
Yes, even though soldiers are more disciplined and well behaved they still don't let them carry guns around without special authorization. So why would we just let anyone have guns outside of military installations?
Because they aren't military installations.
 
Yes, the military evidently takes gun safety much more seriously.

Actually, it was President Clinton that imposed the current regulations. While he was Commander in Chief at the time, it was at the beginning of his term and he had no military service going in.

I don't know too many people in any branch of the military that feel the current regs make things safer.
 
Actually, it was President Clinton that imposed the current regulations. While he was Commander in Chief at the time, it was at the beginning of his term and he had no military service going in.

I don't know too many people in any branch of the military that feel the current regs make things safer.

The Commander in Chief is the head of the military. And if it would make things safer for everyone to carry, why didn't they drop the gun control when there was a new Commander in Chief?
 
If they are disciplined and well behaved why are they not allowed to carry guns?

Are you, of all people, really astonished that the military leadership could make a poor decision? :confused:
 
Actually, it was President Clinton that imposed the current regulations. While he was Commander in Chief at the time, it was at the beginning of his term and he had no military service going in.

I don't know too many people in any branch of the military that feel the current regs make things safer.

I don't. It's ridiculous that I can be safer off-base (where I can carry) than I am on.
 
YOu have to show proof of insrusnce and all that stuff. Have you ever noticed those DOD decals in people windshield.
If you live on base?

I don't live on base and they just let me in...They scan my CAC wave me on through. I've never had to have special permission for my car.
 
Yes, the military evidently takes gun safety much more seriously.
No, evidently you don't understand the point (surprise surprise). The point is that military installations are:

A) Safer due to the people, not the lack of guns. We don't have losers with 10 kid by 10 different women dealing drugs and having turf wars on military bases. That's the point Jerry and I are making. If you want to solve gun violence there is only one answer to it. Let's all have a utopian, medicated society that loses all need to be individuals.

B) A military base is a protected area due to the very nature of what it is. It's a friggin military base. There are national security implications far beyond your scope. You see this as a social issue. It ceases to be a social issue aboard a military base. It is now an issue of national security more than social.

C) Speaking of guns on military bases. You can go aboard MCB Camp Lejeune right now and I guarantee you will see hundreds, yes hundreds, of Marines carrying their issued M16A4 or M4 carbine around like it is a back pack. 5.56mm ammo is very easily accessible to all of us as well. I could go to the rifle range and simply keep all of my rounds if I wanted to. I could hide them in my pack and leave the range with them. Then, I could wait until the next time I go to the field to train, put them in a mag, and go to town. But, I don't and neither do any other Marines. Why? Because it's against our nature to inflict pain upon those we care about and are to protect. Once again, it's people that make a difference, not the guns.
 
Back
Top Bottom