Army opposes legislation to release surplus pistols to CMP?
- Thread starter Tinpig
- Start date
- Status
leadcounsel
member
It's not just officers. The anti-civilian-gun ownership is practically bred in the military ranks through overt actions and passive aggressive negativity toward guns in the hands of anyone but someone actually in the moment of being on a combat operation.
That whole "sworn to uphold the Constitution" bit is a laugh. Most members of the military can't give you the names of 5 signers, 5 of the enumerated BoR, or the basic concept of the document in question. For the majority, it's a job that pays the bills with good benefits and some level of prestige and basic concept of service.
The military makes gun ownership extremely painful so folks submit without question, and individual rights is nearly bred out of military folks. Ownership on base is a huge hassle and requires registration and often storage in the unit arms room. No carry allowed on base. Moving with more than a few guns is a hassle... and a long list of other infringements.
I've had countless conversations with SENIOR NCOs and Officers who frowned on personal gun ownership - demonstrating shockingly very elitist attitudes such as, "What do civilians need assault weapons for?" or "Why do you need to carry a concealed gun?" which obviously is wrong on so many levels.
Let's not forget this is an organization that is so intensely paranoid of its own members. For an organization that claims to have the most well-trained and professional experts at arms, it has MASSIVE amounts of negligent firearms usage, NDs, ADs, lost, stolen, and unaccounted for guns, suicides, homicides, etc. The military won't let any non-MPs carry loaded weapons on base. It almost never lets SMs carry loaded weapons IN COMBAT ZONES on bases and typically only lets one lock and load when stepping off the secured installation.
I served for many years, and never expected to work for such a hyper-paranoid organization as the US Army at mistrusting even it's own members with weapons. It comes as no surprise that the military doesn't want civilians to own guns.
And that is a massive failure of leadership from the Commander in Chief all the way down to the bottom.
It's a shame because a lot of awesome guns are held up in Korea (M1 Garands), these 1911s, old M16s which were destroyed over the years, shotguns, and MASSIVE piles of AKs, Mosins, Mausers, SKSs, Enfields, Glocks, Tokarevs, Makarovs, Hi Powers, MP5s, STG44s, Drugunovs, etc. and you name it that were probably destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the irrational fears and red tape of transporting them home.
It is just sickening to me the wastefulness, selfishness, and total failure to honor their duties to uphold the Constitution of our .gov. This is just one of a zillion examples. Those guns will be kept in storage or destroyed before we'll get them... GRRRRR....
Last edited:
HankB
Member
And things seem to have gotten worse . . . for example, many returning WWII GI's brought home all manner of non-NFA firearms with the military's blessing, including Arisakas, Nambus, Lugers, P-38s, Mausers, Walthers, and so forth and so on.
Ask a veteran of today's middle eastern war(s) what sort of war trophy guns they were allowed to bring back.
DHJenkins
Member
Certain surplus items must be destroyed (rendered useless) before they can be removed from base (by the winning bidder). Seems like they could just as easily have a rule that says all surplus firearms must be marked before leaving base.
The military wouldn't have to pay for anything new and the guns wouldn't be destroyed. Win-win.
The military wouldn't have to pay for anything new and the guns wouldn't be destroyed. Win-win.
Except that the folks in Washington at the White House don't give a rip about the money (value) and would rather see anything related to small arms - pistols in particular - destroyed rather then have them fall into the hands of civilians.
Guns are evil, and civilians with guns are not to be trusted.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,143
I'll answer that for you. Nothing modern. There were several war trophies I tried to bring back with "tried and true" methods such as taking them apart and shipping home in pieces. Still confiscated. The only bring backs that are allowed are firearms made before 1898, yeah they are that specific about the year. Takes a boatload of paperwork. A friend of mine made a killing bringing home some authentic Henry Martini rifles from an Afghan Bazaar where he only spent $100 each.
ol' scratch
Member
This is even bad for the Huffington Post. Wow. The headline was horrendous and the lead was irresponsible. What a joke.
CoalTrain49
Member
Those guns are Army property. If they surplus those I suppose they can melt them down or donate them to whoever they wish. A lot of LE agencies have been getting surplus MRAP's and other kinds of gear from the Army including M16's. If they want to surplus them to the CMP they can. If they don't, they won't. Lots of M1's carbines and Garands have been surplused to the CMP, I'm not following their thinking on this one. The Army isn't fighting crime in the streets anymore then I am. I can assure you they will be more expensive to buy than a RIA 1911.
dogrunner
Member
I beg to differ, those guns are NOT the property of the Army. They are the property of the PEOPLE of the United States and the Army is bound by the Constitution to comply with the authority of civil law!!!
CoalTrain49
Member
Right. If those guns are your property then all you have to do is go to the Army base where they are stored and demand that you, an American citizen, are there to claim your property. Obviously you have never been in the military. Congress only funds the military, the prez and joint chiefs direct them. They dispose of surplus just about anyway they want, including giving it to small time dictators who turn it over to the next well armed group who rolls through town.
Last edited:
leadcounsel
member
The point is that if the options are to store them indefinitely at a high cost, or to return them to the taxpayers indirectly through the CMP, or to melt them down... well clearly there is only one satisfactory option. And that is to return them to the taxpayer. The other options are fiscally and morally irresponsible government waste. And I am sick of government waste.
I'd rather someone get them, even for free, than these historic guns be warehoused or destroyed.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,143
CoalTrain49 said:
THIS.
A handful (100K) 1911s is a drop in the bucket of military waste. I watched multi million dollar vehicles get handed over to locals just because command didn't want us to have them anymore. And my rank was way too low at the time to have a dissenting voice.
Ibmikey
Member
Coyote, I too bought my DCM Remington 1911 in the year 1963 while serving our country in the military. The pistol has served me ever since as protection in an ever disintegrating society and has always remained ready to protect this country in time of need. I guess future generations should expect their personal protection from Homeland Security.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,143
Sounds awesome. If I had the option to buy issued firearms I would have started saving my paychecks years ago. I had this particular M4 that connected with me very well. Now they punish soldiers for taking a $20 foregrip. And even worse if the part they try to swipe has a serial number.
CLP
member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,397
There's a problem with punishing theft?
sherman123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 395
Gotta love the gratuitous use of the term "military grade" so often used by "credible" media outlets such as Huffington Post. That and any other scary adjectives they can throw in there along with "semi-automatic".
What if the Army just wants to keep them around in case they need them? They're often criticized for "still fighting the last war." Maybe they are.
Keeping them is fine with me if there's a chance they might be needed some day. On principle, I'd rather see them sold to collectors than melted down into scrap. Or even donated to museums - why not do that? But in the grand scheme of things, they're probably worn out old rattletraps that would be far eclipsed by a mid-range current production 1911 or any Glock or SIG. Destroying them would be stupid though.
Keeping them is fine with me if there's a chance they might be needed some day. On principle, I'd rather see them sold to collectors than melted down into scrap. Or even donated to museums - why not do that? But in the grand scheme of things, they're probably worn out old rattletraps that would be far eclipsed by a mid-range current production 1911 or any Glock or SIG. Destroying them would be stupid though.
General ap.hill 47
Member
in reality there are no gun show loopholes,just the ones made up by the media.
Double_J
Member
I don't believe that the Department of Defense will release those pistols for sale to any civilians without serious "persuasion." Posts 13 and 28 sum up the mindset of almost every officer/command rate I have seen; and for the record I spent 3 years as a civilian contractor in a restricted area of a navy base. We (everyone behind the wire, including the Marine Security Detachment) had serious restrictions on what size pocket knife could be carried, not to mention other items. The Captain in charge of that command did not like having ANYONE armed, including the Marine Security Detachment, security officers, Navy Police, N.C.I.S. Special Agents, etc.
I talked to a senior Marine N.C.O. about the policies that were in place and he made it known that he did not agree with the mindless restrictions that were in place. He could not speak freely as he was a Marine first and did not disrespect his superior officers, but the point was made. Some of the things he did not like included no magazines in the rifles/sidearms until inside the Limited Area, no round chambered unless told to do so by proper authority, etc. He made it known to the command that he did not approve of unloaded weapons being carried while on security duty. He was over-ruled and was ordered back to work.
The military does not want ANYONE armed except for the people they give guns and ammo to for that duty assignment. We will likely never see those pistols on the open market unless things are drastically changed.
I talked to a senior Marine N.C.O. about the policies that were in place and he made it known that he did not agree with the mindless restrictions that were in place. He could not speak freely as he was a Marine first and did not disrespect his superior officers, but the point was made. Some of the things he did not like included no magazines in the rifles/sidearms until inside the Limited Area, no round chambered unless told to do so by proper authority, etc. He made it known to the command that he did not approve of unloaded weapons being carried while on security duty. He was over-ruled and was ordered back to work.
The military does not want ANYONE armed except for the people they give guns and ammo to for that duty assignment. We will likely never see those pistols on the open market unless things are drastically changed.
Lycidas Janwor
Member
It's very sad to see that as the presidency goes, so goes the military. Isn't the military supposed to protect the constitution?
Lycidas Janwor
Member
I have a friend who served in Vietnam as a Navy Seabee and he brought back an AK/Variant that he said he "liberated" from the enemy. I'm not sure how he got into the US, but he did.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,143
CLP said:
Theft? Nope. Punish the theft. But make the punishment equal to the crime. I watched an E3 soldier get busted to E2 because he didn't ask for disposable ear plugs out of a box, at the range from his team leader first. Yeah, ear plugs. Lost rank and pay. I don't miss active duty at all.
I don't believe that there is 100,000 1911's still in inventory. When I was in the Army assigned in Alaska, they still had 1911s, M16a1s, and even 90mm Recoiless Rifles. About six months after I got there, they exchanged the A1's for A2's, 90mm's for TOW II's, and the .45's were cut in half tossed in a wooden crate and exchanged for Beretta's. Even out old bayonets were traded in for M9 bayonets.
I think they are more concerned about Beretta M9's, since there are plenty of those in all branches of service. It's also about how you word things. The Huffpost article wrote about how the Army would turn over "surplus" rifles to the CMP. That makes it sound like there are M16's being turned over to civilians to be sold to civilians, not 75 year or older rifles from WW I or WW II.
I also think that Army officers and senior NCOs have been indoctrinated into the "cover your ass" mentality. There are exceptions to every regulation, IF you can get your commander to sign off on it. I have never met one who would, because it would mean putting your future career on the line or even worse, in the hands of a 18-21 year old private.
I think they are more concerned about Beretta M9's, since there are plenty of those in all branches of service. It's also about how you word things. The Huffpost article wrote about how the Army would turn over "surplus" rifles to the CMP. That makes it sound like there are M16's being turned over to civilians to be sold to civilians, not 75 year or older rifles from WW I or WW II.
I also think that Army officers and senior NCOs have been indoctrinated into the "cover your ass" mentality. There are exceptions to every regulation, IF you can get your commander to sign off on it. I have never met one who would, because it would mean putting your future career on the line or even worse, in the hands of a 18-21 year old private.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked