Should Soldiers Today Be Able to Bring Back Weapons?

As far as BATFE is concerned, there is no reversing a full-auto to a semi. Once auto, always auto. This is why CMP can sell Garands but not M-14s or M-16s.

I dunno. So a guy finds an AK or Dragunov and wants to bring it home? No big deal. but you know full well it leads to guys stuffing RPGs in their bags. Honestly, I see no real reason to allow it. It would also be extending a privilege to soldiers that civilians don't enjoy. You want an AK? Buy a civilian one.

mljdeckard said:

As far as BATFE is concerned, there is no reversing a full-auto to a semi. Once auto, always auto. This is why CMP can sell Garands but not M-14s or M-16s.

I dunno. So a guy finds an AK or Dragunov and wants to bring it home? No big deal. but you know full well it leads to guys stuffing RPGs in their bags. Honestly, I see no real reason to allow it. It would also be extending a privilege to soldiers that civilians don't enjoy. You want an AK? Buy a civilian one.

Click to expand...

Or join the Army/Marines and defend our rights and bring that AK,dragunov,Enfield,Henry-martin,sks, TT-33,makorov, M-1, M1 carbine or random shotgun home with you. It kills me to see us destroy these things. Every weapon I listed I have personally seen destroyed after the intel guys were done with them.

I strongly belive that our soldiers should be allowed to keep any and all legitamitely obtained weapons, whether it's a retired M16 they bought, or a captured Taliban AK. As for full auto guns, well, they're already the best trained people in the world who I trust the most with them, so why not?

Because soldiers shouldn't be allowed to keep weapons that regular citizens can't.

Sharps, what's your idea of easily?

I am a veteran of both gulf wars, and I will not in any way support the idea that soldiers should be allowed to bring home and keep anything that regular citizens can't own.

It would also be extending a privilege to soldiers that civilians don't enjoy.

Click to expand...

Because soldiers shouldn't be allowed to keep weapons that regular citizens can't.

Click to expand...

Yea because they didn't give up any of their privileges (being home, drinking beer, not killing people and having to deal with that, so forth and so on, that civilians enjoyed while they were at it.

Thats what I was thinking HSO, but when I think of my brother, father and all of the others on here who have put their lives on the line it is more than just the weapon, it is a symbol that they faced that weapon and won. Perhaps even lost friends to that same gun. Maybe even family.

100% yes, they should be able to bring back whatever the heck they want to. It is well deserved.

Yea because they didn't give up any of their privileges (being home, drinking beer, not killing people and having to deal with that, so forth and so on, that civilians enjoyed while they were at it.

Click to expand...

But they volunteered for it. Believe me. I am all for giving my guys a pat on the back and gratitude. I like those, myself.
But the moment you give them "special rights" you stopped the standing Army from being "of the people, by the people."

When I deployed we were briefed on this, I had asked my CO if we were a collector of firearms what we would have to do to be able to take some back to add to a collection of war related firearms. His response was that if I could show him documentation of being a collector, and that it was okay with my local sheriff that it would be truly considered on allowing me to bring home pieces of history.

Now note the wording not trophy 's, but pieces of history. They do not want to endorse war trophy's so people do not end up making necklaces of towelhead ears. While most of you think of war trophy's as rifle parts, vehicular parts, spent round casings and so on and so forth. The warrior who has lost a friend with true hate in his heart for the enemy has a very different view on what war trophy's are; ear's, scrotums, teeth, and the list goes on.

The latter are the main reason war trophy's are no longer allowed.

I strongly belive that our soldiers should be allowed to keep any and all legitamitely obtained weapons, whether it's a retired M16 they bought, or a captured Taliban AK. As for full auto guns, well, they're already the best trained people in the world who I trust the most with them, so why not?

Click to expand...

You would think differently if you witness a Range Safety Officer put a new hole in his foot because he thought it would be cool to blow through 400 ish rounds in a M16 in about 3 minutes. Then still have a round in the chamber as he "control carried" the weapon on the way to his target. Round cooked off right into his foot. Funnest thing I have ever seen honestly. If you have ever had to deal with RSO's on a military firing line you will understand.

A lot of these guys are coming home with PTSD. PTSD and full auto weapons don't mix too well.

We are trying to convince a lot of the world that we are the good guys, a country worth befriending and emulating. This is where psychological warfare against our enemies comes in; convincing the civilian population where we fight, that we are better for them than the entrenched resistance. "War trophies" could hurt that a lot.

Imagine you are living, a civilian, in a middle eastern country fighting with itself. Into this, comes a large, occupying army, telling you they are here for your own good (as all occupying armies do). Imagine you're not sure what to think of them. But your friend and neighbor hates them, joins the insurgency. Takes the rifle he has used for years to defend his family. One day he is killed by the army. A soldier takes his rifle for a trophy. Maybe even some other valuables he had. How would seeing this effect your opinion of this occupying army, only here for your benefit?

Just trying to offer outside perspective on why it's disallowed these days.

Shhhhhhh...I have a secret for you. The unfortunate sad truth is that too many, not all, but way too many Flag and General officers are politically driven, do not actually like small arms, don't really trust their soldiers and Marines with them and view small arms in the possession of their Marines/soldiers as too often a "career risk" to their next star.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. It is surprising, but the military is anti gun.

Vern Humphrey said:

Because first of all, it is part of the warrior culture. And secondly, it is an insult to a man who has used his weapons in the defense of his country.

Click to expand...

I asked why it was "the height of stupidity" to prohibit war trophies. Because war trophies are a part of tradition does not make changing tradition a height of stupidity. What will be the results of changing tradition that make it the "height of stupidity"?

It is not an insult to someone to expect them to do their job without taking personal bonus items home with them. Again, this does not rise to the height of stupidity.

Vern Humphrey said:

And you say this based on your own combat experience?

Click to expand...

HA! I see what you're trying to do here!

Neither traditional warrior's rights nor the role of the modern military are likely to be informed by my, or anyone else's, combat experience, but thank you for trying to make it about me.

DammitBoy said:

If you want to send men to wars, don't fight in half measures. Scorched earth, winner takes all, no mercy to the vanquished and take all the trophies you want. Leave the politicians out of the military strategy sessions.

Click to expand...

Um, yeah, no. Politicians (the civilian government) are the ones who get to decide the goals of military action.

Winner take all is short-sighted and impossible, unless you're suggesting genocide. That winner take all, no mercy to the vanquished kind of an attitude led to conditions ripe for the rise of a mad dictator after WWI. We learned from that and rebuilt rather than punished Germany and Japan after WWII. (And, no, I don't think that the same strategy will necessarily be equally effective on ethnically shattered states without strong centralization, but that's getting a bit far afield.)

As I said before, I fully appreciate an individual's motivation to take trophies and souvenirs but that does not change the fact that it is unprofessional and potentially damaging to the long-term goals of a mission to do so.

I think it would be far more prudent to offer better physical and mental health services to vets than to worry about bringing home guns. It's not like there has never been a traumatized vet come home and shoot his family or drive his car into a bridge abutment... Or how about the thousands of guys suffering after Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome which still are not being treated without massive red tape? How about the guy down in the park who can't find a place to sleep? We have better things to worry about in the real world for these guys.

It sounds like many of those in favor just want another market to buy guns from, caring little about the actual veterans themselves.

Besides, anyone else remember the stories from WWII/Korea/Vietnam about leaving booby traps on dead soldiers so they set off a grenade or mortar shell when a blonde-haired, wide-eyed Iowa farmboy picks up a helmet or a cool sword? I think that's one of the reasons these rules are in place now.

^ Thank you my thoughts exactly

Heck no they shouldn't. There have been enough stories of misdeeds of soldiers without the added incentive of collecting weapons as war trophies. You go, and you do your job, you aren't there to plunder ...period.

Apuuli, that was beautifully put.

There are a great number of things that have been "accepted practice for generations" that are the right of the occupier, the invader, the victor, the liberator to take, plunder, loot, rape, destroy, desecrate, vandalize (where did THAT term come from, anyway? ) and claim as "spoils" of war.

It is a mark of distinction that our soldiers are not sent to battle for such gains, and are neither encouraged nor allowed to act as the age-old conquerors did. It may be a fiction we tell ourselves that war can change and that WE do not use force to pursue unenlightened ends. But, if so, it is one we work very hard to maintain.

Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with allowing soldiers to bring back the abandoned/surrendered lawful property of the opposing army. (Which is quite different from the robbery of civilians of their arms as mentioned by Driftertank.) However, a U.S. soldier in any context has no more right to OWN a fully-automatic firearm than does any other citizen. (He does not OWN his issued weapon, and may not possess it outside of ordered duty.) It is a bedrock principle of this country that a soldier is not a special class of citizen with more rights than anyone else.

Well said! In all truth an understatement.

Soldiers are singularly an extension of FORCE........not social workers, and most importantly NOT nation builders. You defeat the purpose of the solder by minimizing both his mission and esprit de corps. Worse still, you set a pattern that is best reflected in every single conflict we've engaged in since 1945.

War has one purpose.........to defeat the enemy by killing or disabling him by any means possible!

Nations are built from the inside out and our model is not one acceptable to those of far different cultures.............frankly, some of those posting herein really need to read history in context of it's time and the forces that shaped it's direction.



This was intended to address DAMMIT BOY'S post #47.

[...] frankly, some of those posting herein really need to read history in context of it's time and the forces that shaped it's direction.

Click to expand...

I love how you put forth the notion of history *in its own time* and you're applying the pre-50s (mostly WW1, though) to the 2012 armies.
The last thing I will say on this one is that *right now* *this Army* is an Army of counter insurgents, nation builders, humanitarians and sometimes even social workers. And the leadership as well as followership of *this* Army is quite content following the direction of this *democratically* elected civilian government.

Whether you feel this is appropriate ... well. You have your right to your undemocratic opinion.

You can buy and own full auto AK trigger groups legally.

Just don't drill a third hole in the receiver.

Accord to my COC there is no general order about bringing things back. But individual commands put the stops in place. According to out training room all it would take is to fill out the paperword to import whatever it is. Knife jewels non NFA weapon and wait. But it takes a form at company batt and bde to get it do and at any point the unit could take it as a unit trophy.