Understood. Still, it seems these guys must be at least as competent and trustworthy as the local cop in some small town who graduated high school last year and spent a few months at the police academy. They let him carry a loaded weapon.
Not arguing, just trying to figure out a way this would make sense. Maybe it just doesn’t.
My oldest friend is an Air Force Officer who served from the end of Bush I until the present. He is a huge fan of Clinton. Our military members almost certainly vote GOP in larger numbers than civilians but I bet they vote Democrat at around 20-30%.
That seems about right from what I saw in the Army times around election time.
I left the regular Army in 91, the reserves in 94. In my time in green, I never saw a weapon that had its bolt stored seperately from the receiver unless it was undergoing some sort of extended maintenance, or was in transit but not under the direct supervision of someone. All of my unit’s arms rooms were reinforced rooms with heavy steel doors. The weapons we tended to have on hand were:
M-3
M-16 (A1 & A2)
M-1911
M-203
M-240
M-60
M-2
Yes, I’ve been on guard duty w/o ammo. These were in low-priorty places that, were we civilians, would’ve employed unarmed security guards.
I’ve also been on guard duty at a few higher priority places where we did recieve ammo: typically, an M-16 clip w/5 rds. in it, and duct tape across the top. We often joked that it would be quicker to simply throw the M-16 at someone (followed by some handy rocks) than try to peel off 5 year-old duct tape to insert the clip.
During the Short Victorious War, most of that nonsense went away. Ammo aplenty was issued to everyone in my company; I’d imagine it was the same at battalion and probably brigade level as well. The division weenies may have been far enough back that they didn’t bother issuing ammo to the cooks, the bakers, the candlestick makers.
A related question… I don’t know if this deserves its own thread: Why does the military employ so many civilian guards?
I worked on a naval base for a couple of projects in grad school and the folks checking IDs at the gate were all civilian. Wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to use military personnel? There’s a lot of them around, and they’re trained to guard things. Perhaps not, given the actual policy.
I second this, publicly criticizing the CoC is actually punishable under UCMJ, POTUS is literally the head of the Armed Services and is treated as such. As has already been mentioned, when do troops just walk around with weapons outside of combat. The only time I ever drew a weapon and wasn’t on the way to prep for a range or to actually fire was to walk my weapon to the solvent tank and clean it.
As for the gate guard question… Congress controls very exactly the # in uniform. They do give the Services X 's for security. So the DoD keeps the uniform folk in jobs pulling triggers around the world (generally speaking) and uses the Security to hire guards. My post just went to civilians ~2 yrs ago. Only difference is noone gets saluted at the check point anymore, no biggie.
In private, however… 
It’s not for the safety of the locals. It’s more for the safety of the private handling the weapon. Sadly, many privates can’t be trusted with a loaded weapon. When they go to Combat, then it’s safer if they HAVE ammo, but for mundane stuff in Garrison, it’s a liability. The risk outweighs the need, so they are not given ammo.
Yes it’s sad. But true.
Your friend can read the minds of hundreds of thousands of women and men that he’s never met? That should answer your question.
Martin Hyde – excellent points.
Not only is that complete and utter BS, but when you stop to think about it, this kind of Urban Legend, contrary to what its vectors may think, is not just an attack on Bill Clinton (who was a lot of things but not particularly paranoid) but also slanderous towards the members of the U.S. Armed Forces. I suspect the officer-promotion system tends to favor professionals who know where to leave their personal not-relevant-to-the-job feelings…
I commissioned into the military in 2000 but my four years of ROTC were under Clinton. I found that while I was in college, I never had to bite my tongue about the chain of command, the competence / intelligence / policies of then-President Clinton. However, once I commissioned and began to serve the current President, I found that I did a whole lot of shutting up.
Since the OP’s friend is military too, he ought to try shutting up some time.
I forgot to ask something: Is the friend actually ex-military or does he just say he’s ex-military?
I’m not sure I’m following this part.
Firing into a clearing barrel (if I’m correctly interpreting what that is*) would seem to be exactly the opposite of negligent discharge.
I always thought the clearing barrel was there in the case of accidental discharge of the weapon while clearing it.
Anecdotally, I know a guy who s ex-US Navy. He is fervently pro-Bush, anti-Clinton, pro-Iraq war, and anti-liberal (we never discuss politics in order to get on!). Yet on the wall of his study, in pride of place, is a picture of him shaking hands with Clinton. Because during his career, he had the honor of meet the president.
Wasn’t that a militiary guy always about 20 feet from him holding the nuclear codes? Weren’t those Marines flying the helicopter he was on? Weren’t those Air Force guys flying the plane carrying him? Weren’t those military guys standing with rifles guarding the White House when he was inside?
They were all “our troops”, and they were armed – I’ve seen pictures of them with guns. I suppose the guns could have been empty, but that seems pretty unlikely.
OK, that makes more sense, then.
Don’t forget the voting demographics of the U.S. armed forces. Twenty-five percent are black, fifteen percent are female, and nine percent are hispanic —three groups that traditionally have voted more for Democrats than Republicans.
Those clearing barrels are not so you can unload a loaded weapon. It is to ensure that if you are a dumbass who doesn’t know how to properly clear a weapon the bullet you neglidently fire will not kill you or someone unlucky enough to be near you. Unfortunately they seem to be needed way too often.
If you say “accidental discharge” in the military you will have about 10 people shouting at you. It’s negligent discharge. One of the few times that I agree with a corporate buzzword. If a bullet shoots out of the barrel when you don’t want it to it’s not an accident, it’s negligence.