Should Soldiers Today Be Able to Bring Back Weapons?

[rajb123]

I don't see why a fully auto is more dangerous to society than a semi auto or bolt action rifle. Gun grabbers have used the argument that faster firing guns must be more evil than slow guns.

Frankly, this is garbage...

 

[academy]

Open the NFA registry to returning servicemen who have seen combat, allow them one registration and call the cost of their weapon a "service bonus." It's economic stimulus and a legitimate bonus to servicemen as well. Once they have their service weapon or another bring back, the free market gives our veterans up to a 20k bonus.

But that idea makes far too much sense for our politicians to allow it...

 

[DammitBoy]

This is how our government treats soldiers with firearms:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/may/14/miller-injured-vets-guns-stolen-dc/

After being injured on his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, Lt. Augustine Kim spent the night in a D.C. jail for possessing unregistered guns.

Mr. Kim was transporting his firearms from his parents’ house in New Jersey to South Carolina when he stopped at Walter Reed in Washington for a medical appointment in the summer of 2010.

After being pulled over, handcuffed, arrested, thrown in jail overnight, his guns were confiscated by the city.

In the end, the platoon leader felt forced to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, which was later dismissed, but the District still refuses to return to him $10,000 worth of firearms and parts. The national guardsman will deploy to Kosovo this summer. The city should return his property before he leaves to serve our nation overseas for the third time.

Not surprising at all, considering this administration considers returning vets candidates for their "terrorist watchlist"...

 

[Nushif]

Well, he did go on a federal installation with a weapon that was arguably not registered to the base.

Did the cops (private contractors, probably, mind you) overreact? Definitely.
But is this factually a crime? Definitely.

Point is the administration has nothing to do with this one. A bunch of overzealous "private contractors" who are part of the wait for it .... military industrial complex were dumb. Newsflash, right?

 

[Cosmoline]

Uncle Sam owns it.

Sure, and (supposedly) we control Uncle Sam, so we could pass a law giving certain seized property to the soldiers. As it stands now, there is still abundant looting and pillaging, but the government doesn't share with peons. Only with corporate buddies. What's wrong with spreading the wealth a bit more?

 

[Agsalaska]

After reading much of this thread I am glad and a little surprised to see how many people truly understand why our soldiers are not allowed to take home weapons from the battlefield. It is great to have a professional army.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I understand the sentiment of most here encouraging the practice. However, I think this is a slippery slope and a bad PR idea. Why a slippery slope? Why stop with weapons? Once you open that door then where do you draw the line? Watches, jewelry, money, art, religious artifacts, computers, cars, where does it stop? We are Americans and we should set a higher standard by living that example.

Where was that slippery slope in WWI? In WWII? In Korea? In Viet Nam?

You're erecting false obstacles -- there never was a problem in previous wars with soldiers bringing home trophy weapons. If you say there was, show proof.

 

[Agsalaska]

There are plenty of war-time practices that have been accepted for generations, even millennia, that are now considered repugnant.

More to the point, the current objective of most war is not simply to crush, defeat, loot, and/or humiliate the enemy and take their land. Rather, the ultimate objective is often nation building to create a stable, economically prosperous, and strong ally (note the difference between how post-war Germany was treated after WWI and WWII).

Allowing individual soldiers to take trophies of war is questionable when a force is trying, from the very beginning, to win the hearts and minds of the locals in part by appearing disinterested and professional. Forbidding soldiers from taking trophies of war is a last step towards a purely professional military force.

Don't get me wrong. I personally would want to take an AK-47 or some other weapon of the enemy home, but I come from a long line of headhunters so what I would want to do as a soldier is not the same as what I would allow soldiers to do as a commanding officer.

Best post on this topic so far and should answer your question Verne. The only part missing is the argument of soldiers making decisions not in the best interest of his unit or command just to get a trophy. This is well documented and Sam1911 gave a good reference to a book on this subject.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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.

Fallacy of the False Delimma. We do not have to choose between allowing veterans to bring home trophy guns and giving them better care.

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.

You're coming very close to saying that no veteran can be trusted with a gun and that the reward for serving one's country should be to lose one's civil rights.\

Best post on this topic so far and should answer your question Verne. The only part missing is the argument of soldiers making decisions not in the best interest of his unit or command just to get a trophy. This is well documented and Sam1911 gave a good reference to a book on this subject.

Right. I'm amazed how people who have never been in combat know so much about that experience.

 

[Agsalaska]

Right. I'm amazed how people who have never been in combat know so much about that experience.

Ah yes. The been there argument. The argument most often used to silence critics in any circumstance. Also the least effective in rational debate. But I appreciate you bringing it again and again. The fact that someone has or has not experienced something does not eliminate them from having rational thought or opinion on a matter. Ever second guessed a football coach? Ever seen a doctor? EVer had an opinion on inner city violence? The fact that someone may or may not have experienced combat is completely irrelevant to the question posed by the OP. The fact that you say you did does not make you opinion any more legitimate.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As a side note, I recently read William Manchester's Goodbye Darkness and he recounted some very ugly incidents of the fairly common tendency of soldiers to become preoccupied with securing souvenirs from the battlefield, and/or the dead. These often resulted in men out of position, not performing their assigned duties, and all too often, seriously wounded or dead scavenging prized trophies.

And how often did this happen?

I personally saw many men taking up battlefield weapons -- I was an adviser with ARVN Infantry on my first tour in Viet Nam, and a Company Commander on my second tour. I never saw collecting weapons cause a problem.

In fact, it is standard practice to police the battlefield, gathering enemy weapons and equipment, emptying the pockets of enemy dead and prisoners and so on for information. Afterwards, those weapons which can be legally taken home -- the SKS, M1944 MN carbines, and so on, are shared out to whoever wants one.

So wherever William Manchester was, he wasn't in a company that had a good Company Commander, Platoon Leaders and NCOS.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Ah yes. The been there argument. The argument most often used to silence critics in any circumstance.

Ah, yes. The "My imagination is better than your hands-on experience" argument. The argument most often used to silence critics in any circumstance.

 

[Agsalaska]

Ah, yes. The "My imagination is better than your hands-on experience" argument. The argument most often used to silence critics in any circumstance.

With all do respect, only do because of your said combat experience, I do not believe most posters on this board who have defended the rule have done so using their 'imagination.' I also am quite certain there are plenty of people, including on this thread, who have 'been there' and still agree. But Im certainly not going to waist my day arguing with you. :banghead:

Have a good day.

 

[Sam1911]

So wherever William Manchester was ...

IIRC, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Guam, Peleliu, the Philippines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

...he wasn't in a company that had a good Company Commander, Platoon Leaders and NCOS.

He was a Marine Sergeant throughout the Pacific Campaign.

Goodbye Darkness is not about trophy hunting. He makes many observations about the Marines he served with and their officers. The descriptions of that sort of behavior are merely one tiny facet of a truly momentous book.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

IIRC, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Guam, Peleliu, the Philippines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Not possible -- different Marine divisions fought in those campaigns. For example, the First Division fought on Guadalcanal, New Britain, Peleliu, and Okinawa but not on Tarawa, the Phillippines or Iwo Jima. The divisions that fought on Iwo did not fight on Okinawa

He was a Marine Sergeant throughout the Pacific Campaign.

And fought in some battles, but by no means all.

Marines who fought in Viet Nam saw more combat than those in WWII -- albeit few Viet Nam battles were as intense as those of WWII in the Pacific. And the Marine Corps took more casualties in Viet Nam than in the Pacific.

Goodbye Darkness is not about trophy hunting. He makes many observations about the Marines he served with and their officers. The descriptions of that sort of behavior are merely one tiny facet of a truly momentous book.

So what you have are anecdotes -- not a serious study of the issue.

 

[Nushif]

So what you have are anecdotes -- not a serious study of the issue.

Following that logic, neither do you.

 

[Agsalaska]

Delete post.

 

[Agsalaska]

Following that logic, neither do you.

My thoughts exactly. He wants it both ways. Apparently now the amount of combat seen by Marines in WW2 is not good enough to have a 'been there' opinion. Which is, of course, the only way you can possibly have an opinion. :banghead:

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Ah, but I have more than anecdotal evidence -- I have observed many actions, and seen how the battlefield is policed. And my company was part of a battalion, which was part of a brigade -- so not only do I have my own personal experience, but I have the reports and communications of the whole force.

Find me an official report from any unit in WWII, Korea, or Viet Nam that said taking trophies "resulted in men out of position, not performing their assigned duties, and all too often, seriously wounded or dead scavenging prized trophies."

 

[Agsalaska]

Vern thats awesome. While I go act like I am digging thru official reports, can you explain to me again how your evidence and experience is somehow more relevant than a WW2 Pacific theater marines?


Never mind.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

The world may seem more sophisticated, and would like to think that it is, but war seems to still belong to the very basic of human nature. If you deny the warriors their due, you insult them. Period. To think that this can be done without repercussions is naive. We try to make soldiers operate in some type of socially imposed mental "cage". You can't have sex and/or girlie magazines. You can't have booze. You can't can't shoot HERE (pick a place on the map of you AO). You can't shoot back. You can't use THIS weapon, and you'd better not get caught with THIS one. You must bottle up all you aggressions; do not get in a scrap with your fellow soldiers. You can't write home about THIS, or take a picture of THAT, etc. Do the great thinkers really think they can ask all of this (and more) from today's soldiers, and built up stress and future problems won't result? I think they know, and it is just one of the many easy fixes for the moment. They do not REALLY care about the soldier, as long as he does his job, and either dies, or moves on. In earlier wars, we had the conscription of the "average Joe", and he also made up the officer corps. People who were not career military, and many of them really DID care about their subordinates, or comrades, and acted accordingly, often in contrast to orders, military discipline & rules, etc. I think they are missing from the ranks, and now we have too many passive automatons, people calling the shots that feel nothing about denying others basic acts of human nature. Often, we call a soldiers "release" acting out (some physical or violent release), as if it were an act. People NEED to blow off steam to keep their sanity sometimes. There is no provision for that in the regs. And, as noted, it has been a TIMELESS act to bring back weapons and souvenirs from wars by the combatants. It is human nature. To try to deny this is naive, and possibly reckless when you take in the consideration that it is earned by those combantants. To put it bluntly, again, it is an insult, and anyone denying our troops THAT does not deserve to be in a position to do so. Non combatant citizens, politicians, and any other pantywaisted talking heads can shut up, step out of the way, or become a combatant and earn the right to LEAVE weapons and souvenirs behind, if they don't want them. War is a totally different reality than that which the talkers understand. A souvenir is a very small token of compensation for what is stripped (innocence, dignity, faith, life; the list is endless) from a soldier in a war. Many soldiers would even prefer to leave EVERYTHING behind in order to get over the experience. Some never pick up a gun again. I do not fault either, nor would I attempt to tell them what they could or should do. I believe in freedom of choice, and this is just one of them.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern thats awesome. While I go act like I am digging thru official reports, can you explain to me again how your evidence and experience is somehow more relevant than a WW2 Pacific theater marines

First of all, you don't have "WW2 Pacific theater marines." You have anecdotes from one Marine.

Secondly, my opinion is based not only on personal experience, but on much wider experience across many units.

Third, the collection of enemy equipment, weapons and documents is automatic -- it always happens. So anecdotes relating to collection are irrelevant -- since we always do that.

So the only issue is what happens after weapons and equipment are collected.

Now explain to me what's wrong with allowing soldiers to pick trophies from a pile already collected?

 

[The-Reaver]

Seeing as I believe nothing should be regulated at all. I too believe that trophies off all types should be able to be brought home. I mean seriously do you know how hard it was for me to bring back a patch from Iraq... a Patch, not a gun, not mortar, but a patch. A piece of uniform that I got off an Iraqi police officer.

Might as well had to shove that thing in a dark little hole. Luckily no-one noticed it in my shoulder pocket when they did the search. =)

 

[Agsalaska]

The world may seem more sophisticated, and would like to think that it is, but war seems to still belong to the very basic of human nature. If you deny the warriors their due, you insult them. Period. To think that this can be done without repercussions is naive. We try to make soldiers operate in some type of socially imposed mental "cage". You can't have sex and/or girlie magazines. You can't have booze. You can't can't shoot HERE (pick a place on the map of you AO). You can't shoot back. You can't use THIS weapon, and you'd better not get caught with THIS one. You must bottle up all you aggressions; do not get in a scrap with your fellow soldiers. You can't write home about THIS, or take a picture of THAT, etc. Do the great thinkers really think they can ask all of this (and more) from today's soldiers, and built up stress and future problems won't result? I think they know, and it is just one of the many easy fixes for the moment. They do not REALLY care about the soldier, as long as he does his job, and either dies, or moves on. In earlier wars, we had the conscription of the "average Joe", and he also made up the officer corps. People who were not career military, and many of them really DID care about their subordinates, or comrades, and acted accordingly, often in contrast to orders, military discipline & rules, etc. I think they are missing from the ranks, and now we have too many passive automatons, people calling the shots that feel nothing about denying others basic acts of human nature. Often, we call a soldiers "release" acting out (some physical or violent release), as if it were an act. People NEED to blow off steam to keep their sanity sometimes. There is no provision for that in the regs. And, as noted, it has been a TIMELESS act to bring back weapons and souvenirs from wars by the combatants. It is human nature. To try to deny this is naive, and possibly reckless when you take in the consideration that it is earned by those combantants. To put it bluntly, again, it is an insult, and anyone denying our troops THAT does not deserve to be in a position to do so. Non combatant citizens, politicians, and any other pantywaisted talking heads can shut up, step out of the way, or become a combatant and earn the right to LEAVE weapons and souvenirs behind, if they don't want them. War is a totally different reality than that which the talkers understand. A souvenir is a very small token of compensation for what is stripped (innocence, dignity, faith, life; the list is endless) from a soldier in a war. Many soldiers would even prefer to leave EVERYTHING behind in order to get over the experience. Some never pick up a gun again. I do not fault either, nor would I attempt to tell them what they could or should do. I believe in freedom of choice, and this is just one of them.

I agree with most of that. Especially the part about a socially controlled cage. Bringing back War trophies is a timeless act. But there was a time when raping the local women, executing all men, and burning all of the fields was too. I think there is a line in the sand where you can expect more out of your soldiers and your army. I would agree that trophy weapons are probably right on that line. I can certainly see both sides of the story. I can see why the commanders, those that ultimately made the decision, did so. I can also see why soldiers who earned thru combat whatever it is they have in their possession feel they should be able to keep them. I dont believe, and have been playing around with Vern's responses, that the decision should be made in a vaccuum. There are always other considerations.

 

[Agsalaska]

First of all, you don't have "WW2 Pacific theater marines." You have anecdotes from one Marine.

That was singular. Hence the 'A' in front WW2 in my post. Not very good English I will have to admit. I should have said 'than that of a' or finished the sentence with 'Marine's observations'. I apologize for the confusing grammatical errors.




Vern. I shouldnt have responded to your earlier and am not going to now. Your right. I am wrong. I have no idea what I am talking about because I was not a Marine in Vietnam and should not even pay attention to comments being made on this thread by army officers, WW2 historians-writers-vets, or from my own experiences. There is nothing wrong with letting soldiers pick thru collected weapons to find guns that would be legal to own in the United States. Absolutely nothing at all. It could not cause any problems anywhere in the world and there is no logical argument against it.

Have a nice evening