Petition to immediately repeal DOD Directive 5210.56...

  • Thread starter Thread starter ezkl2230
  • Start date Start date
E

ezkl2230

Guest
Guys, I know that the White House probably isn't going to do anything with this, but it also helps to serve notice on our legislators that we are angry about the attacks that occur on our military bases because our military personnel are prohibited from protecting themselves.

DOD Directive 5210.56, signed by Dep. Secretary of Defense Donald Atwood under Pres. George H.W. Bush, essentially turned our military bases into gun free zones dependent on local law enforcement for their defense. While strategic/nuclear assets are constantly under armed guard, on the bases themselves military personnel are prohibited from carrying firearms - either their duty weapons or personal firearms. Even security personnel (many of whom are contracted) who are permitted to carry their weapons are required to carry them in condition 4 - no magazines inserted, and no rounds chambered.

Since 1994, there have been more than 17 attacks on stateside military bases, including the recent attack at Ft. Hood.

This must stop.

Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56. Arm our military personnel. MILITARY SECURITY for military bases. No more shelter in place orders.

Our military personnel defend US. Now, let them defend themselves.

This petition needs 100,000 signatures by May 3. Please sign the petition, and then pass this on.

Link Removed

For those who are unfamiliar with this directive, here are the most important parts. Emphasis is added.

"a. DoD personnel, to whom this Directive is applicable, shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.

b. ARMING DOD PERSONNEL WITH FIREARMS SHALL BE LIMITED AND CONTROLLED. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required
for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. Evaluation of the necessity to arm DoD personnel shall be made with the consideration of the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of those arms. However, THE OVERRIDING FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO ARM ARE THE MISSION AND THREAT. ARMING DOD PERSONNEL (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) SHALL BE LIMITED TO MISSIONS OR THREATS AND THE IMMEDIATE NEED TO PROTECT DOD ASSETS OR PERSONS’ LIVES. DoD Components have the discretion to keep designated staff personnel qualified and available or on call to perform duties."


Since this is the US, guarding a military installation (with the exception of certain strategic/nuclear assets) is considered to be a low threat mission. On many military installations, security either carry weapons at condition 4 (no mag inserted and no round in the chamber) or they carry no weapons at all. The Beirut bombing was possible in part because the base guards were required to carry their weapons at condition 4. By the time they inserted their mags and chambered rounds, the bombers had already cleared the gates and were closing in on the barracks.

The base CO has no authority to override this directive. The fact is, all weapons not being used for training purposes or actual missions are locked in the armory, and unless an order is received to distribute those arms, they are unavailable for use by all base personnel. Even personal firearms must be secured. The CO may keep designated personnel available or on call, but not on continuous duty according to this directive unless there is an imminent threat.
 
In a recent MSNBC debate with John Lott, Col. Jack Jacobs (ret) told him, ""Be quiet," Jacobs said, turning directly into the camera. "Arming everybody on post and the attending danger in doing that is not a solution to protect the lives of people who serve and sacrifice for us. Now you can say what you want to say," 'Be Quiet!' Medal Of Honor Vet Shuts Down Advocate For More Guns On Military Bases (VIDEO). He also made the remark that "...prudent commanders have to be prudent in how much risk they are going to take,” Medal of Honor veteran tells John Lott to ?be quiet!? during debate on arming military bases (VIDEO).

Only one problem with that statement - prudence has nothing to do with the decision to arm base personnel. The DOD Directive is very specific on this point. Arming personnel is only permitted for high threat missions/conditions. Everyone else has to take their chances.

As it happens, this shooting ended the same way so many other mass shootings ended - with the shooter committing suicide when confronted by a good guy carrying a gun. he was finally confronted by an armed MP and took his own life.

Unlike the good colonel, I have more faith in the ability of our disciplined and trained fighting men and women. He claims that arming all soldiers would have resulted in
"an enormous mass fratricide," yet the MP who confronted the bad guy did not automatically pull the trigger - and I am confident that our other soldiers would exercise the same level of discipline.
 
Heh, I wonder how many military folk disregard the rule of no-carry on installation b/c it's worth the risk? For those who know me, what do you think I do?

Anyway, I think that keeping our weapons in our vehicles would at least be a starting point! Sheesh! I'm trusted to shoot some poor, Afghani farmers but not trusted to protect myself and fellow service members stateside w/ equal force... AmeriKa.
 
The Medal of Honor signifies great courage under fire. It doesn't indicate great wisdom or intelligence (or poor wisdom or intelligence either). The fact that the colonel is a Medal of Honor recipient doesn't add any weight to what is simply his personal opinion. It is as irrelevant to the subject under discussion that he received the Medal of Honor as it would be that he won his 6th grade spelling bee.
 
How many self defense shootings involving lawful carriers have turned into turkey shoots that left innocents dead? None that I'm aware of, and that's in CIVILIAN society. Supposedly our military personnel are trained to a higher level of discipline, so fratricide is the very least of my worries.

Also, the good colonel's condescending behavior was unexcusable. You're going to ORDER a civilian to be quiet and then GIVE HIM LEAVE to speak? That may have worked in the military, but not off the base.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,662
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining
Back
Top