you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Explicitely? Why the fuck would he do that. Rhetorical q of course. It simply makes no sense, except signaling to voters.

Hegseth said he is signing a memo that will direct base commanders to allow requests for troops to carry privately owned firearms “with the presumption that it is necessary for personal protection.”

He said any denial of a service member’s request must be explained in detail and in writing.

Cheesus. Administrators on all US army bases are groaning and facepalming.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You have to get through armed guards to get onto a base. Why would soldiers need to be armed for personal protection?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    To protect themselves from the other armed off-duty soldiers, of course

    Any resulting violence will justify the need for more guns!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    I hear we aren't take taking sexual assault accusations seriously any more, but I doubt the reasoning is to allow women to defend themselves when they try to rape them. That would be very off-brand for this administration.

  • source
  • parent