TexasCHLforum.com

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/18/re ... d-massacre" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More insanity from our "leaders".

More insanity - https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 8168126609" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The civilian police officers paid to protect the Navy Yard had radios that didn't work inside buildings and couldn't use the standard police frequencies, so they couldn't coordinate with Metro PD or any other law enforcement. They didn't have patrol cars, because the Navy was trying to save money, so they had to sprint the half mile to the building to search for the shooter.

The decision making of "leadership" is criminal. People should be held responsible for these egregious actions.

Why are we paying civilians to protect the Navy yard when we have Military People stationed in the states already on the payroll?

Right2Carry wrote:Why are we paying civilians to protect the Navy yard when we have Military People stationed in the states already on the payroll?

Im not sure if your question is political, rhetorical, satire or honestly a question. No wrong in any of those .. but assuming you are actually asking..

There have been civilian or federal police officers/ guards on military posts for as long as I have been in (28 years, 7 months, 13 days) Their use increasing 10 fold as our Military members deployed for war overseas.

Many posts have returned much of the guard duty to Military members out of a need (lack of funding).
It's not that we can not guard our self's.. its just that it was a better use of a military members available time to recover, regenerate after deployment, reset, rest, then start all over and equip, prepare, train and deploy them again.. Than to stand guard at a main gate checking ID's .... now that that option is no longer available due to congress and the president... we maintain the same deployment levels, but drop some of the rest, regenerate and training so we can stand guard and check ID's

baldeagle wrote:More insanity - https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 8168126609" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The civilian police officers paid to protect the Navy Yard had radios that didn't work inside buildings and couldn't use the standard police frequencies, so they couldn't coordinate with Metro PD or any other law enforcement. They didn't have patrol cars, because the Navy was trying to save money, so they had to sprint the half mile to the building to search for the shooter.

The decision making of "leadership" is criminal. People should be held responsible for these egregious actions.

Of course they should be held responsible, but instead, they will continue to point the finger at the gun.

E.Marquez wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:Why are we paying civilians to protect the Navy yard when we have Military People stationed in the states already on the payroll?

Im not sure if your question is political, rhetorical, satire or honestly a question. No wrong in any of those .. but assuming you are actually asking..

There have been civilian or federal police officers/ guards on military posts for as long as I have been in (28 years, 7 months, 13 days) Their use increasing 10 fold as our Military members deployed for war overseas.

Many posts have returned much of the guard duty to Military members out of a need (lack of funding).
It's not that we can not guard our self's.. its just that it was a better use of a military members available time to recover, regenerate after deployment, reset, rest, then start all over and equip, prepare, train and deploy them again.. Than to stand guard at a main gate checking ID's .... now that that option is no longer available due to congress and the president... we maintain the same deployment levels, but drop some of the rest, regenerate and training so we can stand guard and check ID's

I agree.

But its also because we are undermanned! If they allowed the military to remain armed, they would require more range time to keep proficient and which causes the need for more ammo ($$$). Who has time to leave their work/duties to go to the range? We are so under manned already, now they're talking reducing troop numbers. That's why there are rent a cops at the gates, somebody has to keep the planes in the air. (Speaking as an AF spouse)

E.Marquez wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:Why are we paying civilians to protect the Navy yard when we have Military People stationed in the states already on the payroll?

Im not sure if your question is political, rhetorical, satire or honestly a question. No wrong in any of those .. but assuming you are actually asking..

There have been civilian or federal police officers/ guards on military posts for as long as I have been in (28 years, 7 months, 13 days) Their use increasing 10 fold as our Military members deployed for war overseas.

Many posts have returned much of the guard duty to Military members out of a need (lack of funding).
It's not that we can not guard our self's.. its just that it was a better use of a military members available time to recover, regenerate after deployment, reset, rest, then start all over and equip, prepare, train and deploy them again.. Than to stand guard at a main gate checking ID's .... now that that option is no longer available due to congress and the president... we maintain the same deployment levels, but drop some of the rest, regenerate and training so we can stand guard and check ID's

I agree.

But its also because we are undermanned! If they allowed the military to remain armed, they would require more range time to keep proficient and which causes the need for more ammo ($$$). Who has time to leave their work/duties to go to the range? We are so under manned already, now they're talking reducing troop numbers. That's why there are rent a cops at the gates, somebody has to keep the planes in the air. (Speaking as an AF spouse)

Maybe I'm confused as to the questions.

My military career (Army Infantry and later Aviation) spanned from 1962-1984. I served in the U.S. and overseas. In the U.S., at all posts I was stationed at, gate guards were MP's and everyone else's weapon was locked in an "arms room" only to be taken out for training purposes. In Korea, MP's also guarded all gates, and all other weapons were similarly locked away except for training, or alert activation (impending threat at various levels of intensity). The only time I was armed 24/7 was in a combat zone (RVN). So whether it be MP's, AP's, SP's or Civilians at the gates today, at least since I began in 1962 no one else on base/post was armed. I don't think anything has changed. I could be wrong.

G26ster wrote:Maybe I'm confused as to the questions.

My military career (Army Infantry and later Aviation) spanned from 1962-1984. I served in the U.S. and overseas. In the U.S., at all posts I was stationed at, gate guards were MP's and everyone else's weapon was locked in an "arms room" only to be taken out for training purposes. In Korea, MP's also guarded all gates, and all other weapons were similarly locked away except for training, or alert activation (impending threat at various levels of intensity). The only time I was armed 24/7 was in a combat zone (RVN). So whether it be MP's, AP's, SP's or Civilians at the gates today, at least since I began in 1962 no one else on base/post was armed. I don't think anything has changed. I could be wrong.

Your not wrong..

But may I ask... How many insider threats or active shooter events happened on those military posts while you served?

Today is not then, nor even 12 years ago. I joined in 1985.. so I cant speak on your time frame.. But I don't believe there was a "need" in 84... however in the intervening years.. they has been. Such security measures are not worth protecting the governmental product, so it's never been done.
If The president had a son that looked like me, and the FBI, CIA, SS, all said there was an active insider threat or risk of terrorist act on his sons military base.. things would be different I believe.
But no felt loss or risk to those in the kingdom,,, no need to add security.

Hence security Theater only is performed by a mix of civilians, FPO's and Military.

E.Marquez wrote:

G26ster wrote:Maybe I'm confused as to the questions.

My military career (Army Infantry and later Aviation) spanned from 1962-1984. I served in the U.S. and overseas. In the U.S., at all posts I was stationed at, gate guards were MP's and everyone else's weapon was locked in an "arms room" only to be taken out for training purposes. In Korea, MP's also guarded all gates, and all other weapons were similarly locked away except for training, or alert activation (impending threat at various levels of intensity). The only time I was armed 24/7 was in a combat zone (RVN). So whether it be MP's, AP's, SP's or Civilians at the gates today, at least since I began in 1962 no one else on base/post was armed. I don't think anything has changed. I could be wrong.

Your not wrong..

But may I ask... How many insider threats or active shooter events happened on those military posts while you served?

Today is not then, nor even 12 years ago. I joined in 1985.. so I cant speak on your time frame.. But I don't believe there was a "need" in 84... however in the intervening years.. they has been. Such security measures are not worth protecting the governmental product, so it's never been done.
If The president had a son that looked like me, and the FBI, CIA, SS, all said there was an active insider threat or risk of terrorist act on his sons military base.. things would be different I believe.
But no felt loss or risk to those in the kingdom,,, no need to add security.

Hence security Theater only is performed by a mix of civilians, FPO's and Military.

Not addressing the need, only addressing that nothing seems to have changed with policy. I got the impression from some that this lack of being armed on post was something recent.

I've read this story floating the net and await the investigation. Were they told to stand down or were there enough LEO's already in the gun fight where adding more would be problematic?

G26ster wrote:
Not addressing the need, only addressing that nothing seems to have changed with policy. I got the impression from some that this lack of being armed on post was something recent.

Got ya.. I did not say or imply that far as I know,, and did not read it as such... but that may just be from my position and perspective.

E.Marquez wrote:

G26ster wrote:
Not addressing the need, only addressing that nothing seems to have changed with policy. I got the impression from some that this lack of being armed on post was something recent.

Got ya.. I did not say or imply that far as I know,, and did not read it as such... but that may just be from my position and perspective.

And I may have taken the wrong meaning from some posts, but not yours.

I will say though that there is now, and always has been a need for greater security on most military bases. Once inside, BGs can do an awful lot of damage with an unarmed population. The Ft. Hood shooting is a prime example. So today, yes there are perhaps greater threats as proven there, but in my day (60's -70's), there was certainly no love lost on the U.S. Military. Unlike today, there was little to no, "thanks for your service," but more like ...(well, I'll leave that out). We had the Vietnam War the Kent State shootings, and many anti gov't groups who proclaimed their hatred of all things gov't in plain view. So there was, even then, a need for more security, not just at the gates, but on the post as a whole.

When I was in '67 - '70, ALL gates were guarded by military personnel, which brings up a funny story, but anyway, when we moved to the NY Naval Shipyard (Brooklyn Navy Yard) more than half of the facility was rented out to civilians, and there was a civilian guard on the gate. When the Weather Underground started bombing reserve centers (we were then a reserve training destroyer) the decision was made to replace the usual armed sentries (E3 or under without ammo) with armed sentries (senior E4 and Junior E5 with ammo) and we added an armed watch stander at the gate. Let me tell thee that walk out to the gate to relieve the watch, and the walk back, was lonely, particularly since there was only one arm issued to the watch, and it stayed at the sentry post.

We were taught to challenge by yelling "HALT!" twice, then firing a warning shot, then "HALT!" again, fire for effect. The standard joke was that we would holler "halt halt" then the warning shot would, in the excitement be an aimed shot, then "halt" and then a shot in the air.

----------------------

My grandfather was a retired Army Brigadier General and was being treated for cancer on an outpatient basis at the hospital at West Point. Several weekends when I was home, my mother pressed me into service to go down and pick him up. Although I kind of resented the time out of my liberty, really enjoyed my grandfather's company and REALLY enjoyed driving through Main Gate in my grandfather's car with the flag sticker on the bumper, being saluted by E5s and E6s and I was just an E4, in my dress blues. He loved it.