Should The Marines In Chattanooga Have Been Armed?
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 5 months ago
There is in the news today a call for the Marines at the recruiting station in Chattanooga to have been armed, since “we are at war” with radical Islam. A different take on the subject can be found (via WRSA) from Mason Dixon Tactical. Here are some excerpts.
The question is somewhat easy to answer. “Should they have been armed?” The short answer is “No.”, at least not from an “On Duty” perspective. I find it interesting that some who have been crying to high Heaven about the “Jade Helm” exercise being a lead in to martial law, are some of the same ones saying the Marines should have been armed, and that we should arm all Service Members in CONUS. Those Marines were not acting in their combatant military capacity in those centers, they were there performing other duties. There was no reason for them to be armed anymore than the average citizen on the street, whom I might point out is just as much a soft target for terrorists, if not more so, from a “lack of training and awareness” standpoint. You want to arm the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen within the U.S., fine, but not before every citizen who is not legally restricted from firearms ownership, get’s to be similarly armed for self defense as well.
[ … ]
Being armed while on duty (especially visibly), unless you are operating in a Military Police, or base Security Forces specialty, is not something that should be, or technically can be authorized. Most don’t even realize that the majority of service members never even fire a handgun while in the service, let alone qualify with and carry one on a regular basis. That’s not even mentioning the logistics nightmare of having to train and qualify every Service Member, and then issue them a handgun for self defense, which they would have to turn in at the end of the duty day (No, you can’t take it home), and only then (off duty) would they be able to carry a personally owned weapon.
More on that in a moment. The most idiotic thing I have ever read from a General comes from Odierno, via Mike Vanderboegh.
“I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I’m not talking about where you end up attacking each other,” Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters. Instead, he said, it’s more about “accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries.”
Analysis & Commentary
Special Operations routinely carries handguns even when armed with rifles, and at the time “green on green” attacks began I advocated that all Marines be qualified to and armed with a handgun when deployed and under arming orders, and this having been the case could possibly have stopped a great many of the attacks perpetrated on the USMC in the Helmand Province.
As to whether this is feasible or a logistics nightmare, there is no question that it could be done if the decision is made to do it. I’ve seen what Marines do to waste time. “Lance Corporal, have your fire team move this pile of dirt from here to the building roof, and when it’s done, call me.” Lance Corporal – “Aye Sergeant.” Call made, Lance Corporal – “Sir pile of dirt moved as ordered.” Sergeant – “Ahh … made a mistake because I was distracted ordering the Corporal to take out the trash, move the pile of dirt back, and then police the grounds for cigarette butts and gum wrappers. And then head over to watch the PowerPoint presentation on base safety protocols.” And on it goes.
I call bullshit on the notion that a Marine cannot qualify on a pistol just like he qualifies on his rifle. The Marines make big stuff out of 500 yard rifle qualifications, and the DMs and Scout Snipers go much farther than that. Muzzle discipline, weapons clearing and malfunctions, weapons maintenance, rules of gun safety, etc., etc., are all taught as if straight from the Bible, and if you fail at any of it, you visit the “room of pain” for a while, and never fail again. There isn’t any reason this cannot be laterally transferred to handguns as well. There simply isn’t any reason.
Odierno’s objection isn’t stupid because he really believes what he said, it’s stupid because he is toeing the party line and cannot come up with something better. But it must be observed that all of this has to do with Marines who are deployed and under arming orders.
As for when the Marines are stateside, we have dealt with this before too.
If I am not mistaken NCOs could never have personal weapons on reservation property, and officers could only with base commander approval. But what this MARADMIN appears to do is expand the stipulations even farther. Take note of the requirement for “government family housing … privately-owned firearms will be stored in a fully-encased container that is capable of completely enclosing the firearm and must be locked with a key or combination lock. All firearms will be fitted with a trigger lock.”
This expands the rules to property off of the federal reservation, and if you live in housing that is in any way subsidized by the government for families, your personal weapons must not only be in a container large enough to contain the whole of the weapon, and locked, but it (or they) must also have a trigger lock(s) on it (them), even while inside the container.
Damn. Heads of households had better hope they aren’t the victims of crime. Their families are completely unprotected and unsecured. This, from a Marine Corps Commandant who is alleged to be trying to secure his Marines from harm. Oh well. This is also from a Commandant who was allegedly involved in illegal command influence in investigations under his charge. Readers already know what I think of airman Amos. When Daniel graduated from Boot Camp I presented him with a present. It included several things signed by Marine Corps Commandant Alfred Gray, with personalized notes to him. I’ll never request anything like that from Amos.
Airman Amos was a worthless, spineless sniveling lackey crap-weasel and a traitor to the USMC. Notice that the MARADMIN that is the subject of the post had to do with personal weapons off federal reservation property. Marines couldn’t even have those unlocked, within arms reach and ready to be deployed without risking NJP or dishonorable discharge. As best as I know, this MARADMIN is still in effect.
As for whether the Marines in the recruiting office in Chattanooga should have been armed, the answer is a resounding yes and no. Mason Dixon Tactical raises a very important point. It wasn’t too many hundreds of years ago in our history where men were required to carry long guns to worship, practice with the other men after worship, and use the day for fellowship and training. This could one day become more regular in America as the security situation degrades.
But at the moment, LEOs are the only ones who regularly openly carry pistols (and sometimes patrol rifles). This has been the source of much mistrust, and may yet prove to be the catalyst for worse things than mere mistrust. The history of the use of the military for battling insurrection is complex and varied. But the armed forces carrying weapons in the states just doing battle with anyone or everyone is a dark road to start. We don’t want to travel that road. I have been critical of Operation Jade Helm, and for what I consider to be good reasons (I will hold in abatement the question of what I think of Robin Sage, since it isn’t an analogue to Jade Helm given than Jade Helm involves not just the armed forces but coupling with law enforcement – which I think is the most dangerous part of it – and scenarios that paint locals as the enemy).
The effectiveness of pistols in a situation where the shooter is in a stand-off position putting rounds through glass is dubious anyway. The best defense against a rifle is another rifle and better training, but remember, whatever Soldiers and Marines get to carry, we should too.
There was no reason whatsoever that the Marines should have been carrying armory-issued weapons in a recruiting center, as no training was occurring and no one was at the range. That “we are at war” isn’t a salient objection, as Congress must declare war in order for it to be legal. Arming orders were not issued, and moreover, they shouldn’t be in the states (the exception I have often advocated is arming orders for troops at the Southern border) excepting an invasion.
But also remember that self defense is a God-given right, and those Marines in Chattanooga, if they had chosen, should have been able to carry personal weapons for self defense. Odierno’s objection is ridiculous. Negligent discharges can be trained out of people, and as for consequences of NDs harming others, we who carry on a daily basis learn to cope with and minimize that risk every day. We are just as liable to do time in the penitentiary for reckless endangerment or negligent homicide as a Soldier or Marine, perhaps more so, and certainly more so than LEOs.
Should those Marines have been armed? No, not in an official capacity. Let’s don’t go down that dark road. But yes, in a personal capacity if they understood and took seriously their God-given duty of self defense and the Marine Corps allowed it (which they don’t). It’s important to understand and properly categorize the reasons for arming Soldiers and Marines.
UPDATE #1: Washington Post – “The FBI has recovered a pistol that might have been privately owned and used by one of the Marines killed here Thursday during the shooting at the Navy Operational Support Center, according to law enforcement officials.
Investigators are trying to determine based on forensics whether the pistol, a 9mm Glock, was used in an exchange with the shooter, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, and possibly wounded him, officials said.
The standard-issue pistol for military personnel authorized to carry a sidearm is a variant of the 9mm Beretta 92. According to the Marine unit’s commanding officer, Maj. Mike Abrams, Marines are not authorized to carry personally owned firearms while at the support center.”
On July 20, 2015 at 6:35 am, Frank Clarke said:
Well laid out. We should all be armed as and when we deem necessary and prudent, and Marines should not be an exception by virtue of being Marines, nor should we by virtue of not being Marines.
On July 20, 2015 at 6:40 am, Justsomeguy said:
I agree. The first thing that needs to be done is remove the restrictions on concealed carry both on and off base.
On July 20, 2015 at 7:01 am, jaquebauer said:
U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said he’s not sure whether the no-gun policy at military installations should be lifted. He questioned whether the policy shift could “cause more problems than it solves.”
This has to be one of the most ignorant statements ever issued by a military leader in time of war. Oh certainly it will cause some problems…The body count of wanna be Bin Laden’s will rise in the Homeland as armed soldiers are able to respond to the terrorist threats. And we all know that Obama has a love for all things Islam, so heaven forbid he has to explain to his Saudi masters that young Muslims are getting shot dead as they attack Homeland military facilities. Since Obama pulls the career puppet strings of the Officer Class, and since Odierno wants to make it to retirement, he remains obedient to his master, Obama.
As for the stated legal issues that are the “reason” why stateside soldiers are disarmed while on duty, that can be easily solved “with a phone and a pen.” And not every one in uniform needs to be armed. But at minimum, members of the Armed Forces in uniform and working in public must be given a fighting chance. To willfully take away their right and ability for armed self defense, is unconscionable. Recruiting stations should carry a few long arms, and every one manning a recruiting center should carry a side arm open carry style.
If the nations leadership continues to act as if the US homeland is still as peaceful as Mayberry, and Islamic terrorism is only in the minds of “Islamophobes” then its time to change the leadership, beginning with the incompetent traitor Barack Hussein Obama. The Army Chief of Staff needs to be replaced too, and while he may be a great warrior, his ignorance of the current threats stateside tells me he has outlived his usefulness.
On July 21, 2015 at 4:30 am, DAN III said:
Ray “Lapdog” Odierno is a political hack, as is every .mil public servant wearing stars on his shoulders.
On July 21, 2015 at 4:36 am, DAN III said:
“…..not everyone in uniform needs to be armed.” True. Agreed. However, every American citizen should have the right, uncompromised and not infringed, to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise, knife or handgun, when that citizen feels the need. Practice and training should accompany the responsibility of carrying protection devices.
On July 20, 2015 at 7:49 am, UNCLEELMO said:
“The effectiveness of pistols in a situation where the shooter is in a stand-off position putting rounds through glass is dubious anyway.”
I would think if the shooter realized he was having fire returned, even if it wasn’t particularly effective, he might have had second thoughts about what he was doing and retreated. It might have saved at least one life.
I realize this is hypothetical thinking, but it’s my honest opinion.
On July 20, 2015 at 8:28 am, madoradataman said:
What is really going on here is bureaucratic managers asking themselves: How will this action get me in trouble? Nobody is asking how to protect people.
On July 20, 2015 at 9:42 am, FedUpWithWelfareStates said:
First Issue, Military Installations: Agree, logistical nightmare trying to arm, issue daily, accountability, training, etc. of firearms just to carry them around base. CONUS military installations are STILL part of America & the Bill of Rights STILL applies, so both military & civilian workers on base should be allowed to practice the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS of carrying personal weapons. Security at all government installations & facilities should be enhanced by armed & visible security to deter & defend against Islamic Terrorists & other idiots. Second Issue, Recruiting Stations: If the military is going to still insist that recruiters be posted in open stations like strip malls, etc., then they MUST be armed with locked & loaded side arms, w/rifles available in weapons bags. The other option would be to conduct all recruiting on-line, with the potential recruit reporting to the nearest military installation for further processing & testing, where the recruiters have now set up shop.
On July 20, 2015 at 5:57 pm, Mrs. Patriot said:
“Accountability?” “Training?” You don’t trust adults with the tools they need to do their jobs? Honestly. Do you regard our military as children, incapable of handling WEAPONS?? Incredible. Get over your fear of your fellow man, especially those who have volunteered to PROTECT YOU.
On July 20, 2015 at 10:16 pm, James Chris Dodge said:
Be careful what you’re willing to give up, (soldiers walking the street armed, especially with a long gun) just to feel safe and “protected”,. They are not in CONUS to protect you, they are here to train and be ready to protect you OCONUS. Remember, the Patriot Act was passed during a similar emotional roller coaster, and look where that put us as civilians.
On July 21, 2015 at 3:36 am, DAN III said:
Dodge,
You want to bemoan the hypothetic of .mil soldiers “walking the street armed” and that they are NOT “in CONUS to protect you”. Granted, the vision your remarks conjure up of troops in battle-rattle “walking the street armed” is not what I want either. Nor should anyone else. But we have that now except, in addition to multicam and M4 and body armor equipped scoundrels, acting under color of law, they also wear BADGES !
The point I MADE at WRSA that you didn’t like was that those Marines killed at the recruiting station did not take their PERSONAL safety seriously. They failed to carry PERSONAL weapons on their person, USMC and DoD directives be damned. They chose to be politically correct and they paid the ultimate price.
You appeared to me, to attempt to argue “NO” arming for military personal until all Americans can be armed the same. You used that argument to justify your assinine argument of “military protocol” makes .mil carry of firearms forbidden. Sorry pal….the God-given right to defend one’s life trumps military protocol everytime. As I’ve written elsewhere on the blogosphere, those Marines were United States CITIZENS FIRST before they were Marines ! Maybe in your world that means little or nothing. But in MY world citizenship is the final arbiter of my belief, that those who spew the mantra and exercise their belief that .gov and .mil employment/membership overrules the rights of citizenship, are simply equivalent to traitors.
Simply put, I BELIEVE those citizens WORKING as enlisted Marines had EVERY right as CITIZENS to be armed for personal protection at their workplace. Your military protocol be damned !
As an aside, I have often found your use of the English language confusing. In your remarks you use that “us vs them” euphemism calling CITIZENS “civilians”. Get a copy of Websters and read the definitions and understand the distinction. I am a CITIZEN !
Tell me Dodge, what part of the 2nd Amendment do you not understand ? “….shall not be infringed” is pretty simple.
Those citizens killed in Chattanooga had the right to self defense. They should have ALL been practicing PERsonal SECurity and carrying concealed. They should have been armed !
In closing I suggest your take this axiom to heart: “It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.”
PS: You should understand who your audience is and drop the military jargon, i.e., “civilians” and acronyms like CONUS, OCONUS, etc.
On July 21, 2015 at 6:23 am, James Chris Dodge said:
First, I don’t want LEO “troops” (rifle toting) on the streets anymore than I’d want .mil troops on the streets. Second, those Marines chose to follow regs (apparently one didn’t) so they didn’t get in trouble in a job they volunteered to do. Third, The point I made was that the military is not a special class deserving of any more “access” to the right of self defense than a civilian, and if we don’t stress that, we’ll end up with the Us vs Them scenario evertbody bitches about with the police. The choice those Marines made is the same choice thousands of civilians make every day. Violate the “rules” and carry, or follow the rules and run a risk.
On July 21, 2015 at 6:31 am, Lewis Bogbeagle said:
Agreed. They voluntarily contracted to become part of an organisation which precludes the carriage of personal firearms … except under very specific circumstances.
In other words, they have waived their Right to bear arms.
The situation is analogous to drinking at Starbucks. If the Starbucks’ policy is “No guns”, then you abide by it, OR take your business elsewhere.
The argument re Constitutional protection, would hold some water if those soldiers were conscripted. Otherwise, they have essentially swapped their RKBA for pay and pensions.
On July 20, 2015 at 11:07 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Listen to the point Dodge makes below. Those same Marines or Soldiers could also turn their guns on you or other patriots if, by a stroke of a pen or a vote of authorization by Congress, it is decided that folks like you think the *.gov feds are tyrannical and their power needs to be curtailed, because, you know, you no longer “support” the U.S. and are the internal enemy of the U.S.
On July 21, 2015 at 4:44 am, Dana King said:
Agree 100%. As the talking heads on tv started talking about the military ordering the “arming” of Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers in the states it got me thinking about a standing army and just how dangerous that ground is. Some of these talking heads cannot see the forest for the trees. On the other hand, if the “individual” Marine, Sailor, or Soldier desires to carry their personal arms because it is their god given right as an American, that’s a little different. I definitely have a problem with an “armed military” under orders to walk around and patrol the streets of the USA, but not so much if they are acting independently as individuals making a conscious choice to arm themselves.
On July 21, 2015 at 4:50 am, DAN III said:
Dana,
Ka-Chingggg ! You stated it perfectly. Being armed has notning to do with one’s organizational affiliation. Rather it is everyone’s God given right to self-defense that allows one to choose to be a defenseless victim or not.
Thank you for expressing your thoughts.
On July 21, 2015 at 9:06 am, Fred said:
Yup. When one of them (us) shoots an American civilian then where are we as a nation spiritually, morally, ethically, historically, legally. Which road shall we have chosen? Where does that road lead? What happens to nations that have armed soldiers in the streets? Bad things that’s what.
What happens to a soldier who rightfully defends their self?
Not much compared to leaving loved ones behind.
There is a distinction to be made.
On July 21, 2015 at 4:41 am, DAN III said:
Mrs. Patriot,
I applaud your patriotic enthusiasms. But understand THIS: the .mil employees protect neither you nor I. They only protect their pocketbooks. Only you or I protect ourselves. No one else does that for us.
Hell, how can you argue that .mil employees protect us when they can’t even protect themselves
On July 20, 2015 at 9:54 pm, sidpits said:
Military personnel are subject to the Uniform Code Of Military Justice,not the Bill Of Rights.
On July 21, 2015 at 3:49 am, DAN III said:
Sidpits,
So when one joins the military of the USA they renounce their rights as citizens under the United States Constitution ? Please provide a citation where ANYWHERE in Department of Defense Form 4/1and Form 4/2 it states one’s Constitutional rights are now usurped/renounced/suspended by virtue of now working for the .mil ? Please explain to me where the UCMJ makes the US Constitution void ?
I believe there is something radically wrong with your thought process. No wonder soetoro-obama got annointed twice !
On July 21, 2015 at 12:52 pm, James Chris Dodge said:
Dan, please tell us about their “right” to freedom of speech (or the lack thereof) in the military. Anyone that enlists gives up certain “rights”, because they become part of something bigger.Privacy is at a minimum in the military, especially for lower enlisted guys. You make a decision, and you live with it. Imagine a military where personnel ignored the rules they don’t like. If there was a draft on, I’d be more sympathetic, but just like being a resident of a state that doesn’t allow carry permits, you deal with it, or you leave. Do I think it’s right? No. Do I think it’s a personal choice you make? Yes. You can’t say personal choice was void in this situation, if so you’re distorting facts.
On July 20, 2015 at 11:59 am, madoradataman said:
We could change the regs back to an earlier time, or to practice the 2A the way the Swiss, and sometimes the Israelis, (and others) do. They take their military weapons and ammo home with them!!!! Nobody can disarm the nation by raiding the armory because the weapons will (mostly) not be there. Marines used to carry their weapons in their seabags (the bolt was extracted and carried separately, but it made “storage” easier). Electronic devices, or even air rifles/pistols, or extensive dry-fire can be used to improve shooting capability. And yes, their are always personal weapons. Layers of bureaucracy can be removed with fresh and creative thinking!! All of the excuses about how hard it would be is bureaucratic bunkum manufactured to assuage the pain associated with having to THINK differently!!!!
On July 20, 2015 at 3:10 pm, Backwoods Engineer said:
The Founders greatly admired the Swiss way, and wanted to adopt that for America. But now we have anti-gun people in power everywhere, even running the military. As a nation, we did not and will not listen to the Founders, and now we will suffer for it.
On July 20, 2015 at 1:37 pm, Fred said:
We need to have a grown up discussion on this before over reacting. Knowing that we fought a revolution partly over armed solders in the streets is important to remind folks about. The “shot heard ’round the world” was fired by armed soldiers. This was of course the last straw in a long train of abuses but non the less. That Military members can’t carry while off duty in their own (Government) home and neighborhood is abhorrent. That all said I have some questions for digestion before making an emotional decision. If soldiers (Used as a general term. No offense intended to specific services) are armed then what do we do when one of them (us) shoots an American while in uniform? What do we do when one of them (us) shoots an American while in the conduct of duty? Having been armed while on duty, in CONUS, on base, as a posted guard I am mulling over whether one or more of the Marines or Sailor should have been armed and acting as a posted guard. Surely laws for a rented facility for recruitment could be made to be eligible for “military property status” while under valid lease. This could be close to quartering (Third Amendment) but if the lease is voluntary by both parties this could work. I do get the logistics challenge of this. I’m still praying and mulling.
On July 20, 2015 at 3:53 pm, madoradataman said:
Actually, there is precedent for at least one of the service people being armed and “on duty” as a sentry or whatever: During the last part of the 20th century, there was a period where troops carrying weapons in the field for an exercise risked having those weapons stolen. All they had were blanks to shoot, and armed robbers could easily relieve them of the weapons.
On July 21, 2015 at 8:06 am, Fred said:
Thank you for your additional and thoughtful perspective. The “what if” is more of a “when”. It will happen sooner or later if soldiers (as we say in Tennessee) go armed. If a soldier shoots someone he/she may be OK as you state. My concern is coming from a “state of our nation” thought. When one of them (us) shoots an American civilian then where are we as a nation spiritually, morally, ethically, historically, legally. Which road shall we have chosen?
On July 21, 2015 at 4:23 am, DAN III said:
Those working as American military personnel CAN carry firearms. They just have to do it discreetly with on-body concealment. Are they in violation of some bullshit .mil diktat ? Perhaps. But, ultimately they have responsibilities to themselves and their loved ones. No regulation, no directive, no law trumps that !
Remember. It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
“….shall NOT be infringed”.
On July 21, 2015 at 8:35 am, Fred said:
No gun signs in TN carry force of law. I would never admit to a (as you so eloquently put it “bullshit diktat”) misdemeanor violation of the law because that would be rather foolish. I agree with you from a threat analysis point of view. my personal daily choice is a not unreasonable fine for defending myself, my family, and other innocents in the vicinity or being gunned down by some unstable vermin with mommy issues hopped up on psychotropic drugs. Which is the bigger threat to me? um, duh!
What would happen to a soldier who rightfully defended their self? probably not much. What happens to nations that have armed soldiers in the streets. Bad things.
There is a distinction to be made.
On July 20, 2015 at 3:07 pm, Backwoods Engineer said:
As a country, we have circled back to the beginning point, where we are asking ourselves, “do we want a standing army among us, continually armed?” The obvious answer to this question is the reason the Founders despised standing armies to start with. The people always lose control of them, and standing armies become just another instrument of tyranny.
In modern America, the standing armies not only include the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines, but the big-city police forces, and multiple armed Federal departments, including the weather office (NOAA)!
This country is nothing like what the Founders envisioned. We should have paid attention to the Founders’ wisdom. But we didn’t. Now, America will likely fall. We may be destroyed by the very standing army we helped create.
On July 20, 2015 at 11:12 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I’m not sure that in the emotional reactions to this event people get what you’re saying, but it is the same thing I’m saying.
On July 21, 2015 at 4:15 am, DAN III said:
We HAVE a standing army domestically….they are no longer known as peace officers or cops. Rather they proudly call themselves law ENFORCEMENT ! And the serfs chime right in. Bade thugs….today’s LEO ! There is your standing army.
On July 20, 2015 at 3:24 pm, Bryan Nimmo said:
It looks now like at least one of the Marines in Chattanooga WAS armed, with a personally-owned Glock pistol. Obviously, it didn’t help very much.
On July 21, 2015 at 4:49 am, Dana King said:
A pistol isn’t a very good counter to someone with a rifle. Maybe you should try to convince the cops to walk around unarmed since it will never help, at least according to you?
On July 20, 2015 at 3:42 pm, sage419 said:
Agreed. Gun free zones should be abolished. Military personnel should be able to exercise their rights to the extent of any other American, and vice versa (this should also apply to LEOs, politicians, etc., i.e. no special carve-outs). Concealed carry if appearance is the issue.
On July 20, 2015 at 5:54 pm, Mrs. Patriot said:
Being given life carries with it the obligation to safeguard my life, as well as all life. Because my life goes with me wherever I go, I WILL take measures to be able to safeguard it, and that includes being as armed as I deem necessary. Wherever I go.
Of course, I’m not a progressive tyrant who doesn’t regard life as a precious gift…
On July 21, 2015 at 8:47 am, Fred said:
You have a more complete understanding of “thou shalt not kill” than most. good for you but disappointingly your understanding is better even than among most of those that claim Christ. Thank you.
On July 20, 2015 at 10:51 pm, will_ford said:
ARMED, HELL YES!!!
On July 20, 2015 at 10:55 pm, ensitue said:
When Generals and Admirals start to die……….that is when Marines will be armed
On July 21, 2015 at 12:21 am, Chief D said:
Too bad none of you youngsters remember that prior to VietNam a weapon was issued to a service member in boot camp and stayed with him until discharge or death. Refer to old pictures of service Members traveling from one post to another with their rifle/side arm slung along with their duffel bag. I also suppose none of you slept in a barracks with rifle & pistol racks down the center aisle of bunks!
On July 21, 2015 at 1:27 am, madoradataman said:
On the points made about Standing Armies and the possibility of federal — or state — weapons being turned on the people: Yes, those are possibilities we need to guard against, but that might happen anyway. You won’t prevent government oppression by leaving service people vulnerable to slaughter in their daily tasks.
Whether or not service people are routinely armed for self-defense is a different issue with different dynamics than military oppression. If the government(s) want to oppress, they will just issue weapons and send out troops/cops, etc. anyway. It won’t happen any worse or any faster just because a greater percentage of them are already armed. And indeed, cops, et al, ARE already armed.
AND, … yes, what happened in Tennessee is an “emotional issue.” BUT, the pavlovian fear of the armed citizen practicing the 2A, including those citizens (and wanna be’s) in the armed forces, is also highly emotional. (like OMG, DO YOU WANNA GIVE PEOPLE GUNNNNNZZZZ!!!!!!)
On July 21, 2015 at 5:00 am, DAN III said:
Mr. Smith,
Thank you for allowing me the numerous postings here on this topic. I’m passionate about a citizen’s right to be armed.
I appreciate the venue you provide for your commentary and the associated, public responses.
On July 21, 2015 at 9:44 am, Will said:
Here’s my 2 cents worth. Do Soldiers(Marines, Airmen, Sailors) need to be armed, either personal or issued, on base? No, probably not, shootings on base are extremely rare. The last one I remember,( Ft.Hood and Naval Station Norfolk not withstanding, both by ID card holders) that wasn’t a husband catching his wife cheating, was way back in the 80’s at Ft. Bragg. (There could be one I’ve forgotten, I said “that I remember”, so don’t get all snarky if I forgot one.) Should Soldiers on recruiting duty(at the strip mall storefronts we’ve all seen) or fulltime Reservists/Guardsmen at their respective Armories and Reserve Centers be armed? ABSOLUTELY!!! I don’t care if it’s issued sidearms or personal weapons, if the serviceman is qualified on that weapon, let them carry it. Getting the ones qualified who aren’t, is an easy process. Those places are soft targets and since it seems the enemy has now figured that out, we, unfortunately, can expect more of these kinds of attacks. So unless we want to replace Chattanooga with Raleigh, Lexington, Anytown, USA, then we have to give these men and women a way to defend themselves that doesn’t include disrobing and pretending not to be service members. I agree with the statement that pistols vs. rifles isn’t exactly a great match up, but it beats shooting rubber bands at them from behind your desk.
On August 4, 2015 at 11:54 pm, will_ford said:
People here just make me want to say one thing S.T.F.U.! LET THESE PEOPLE ARM THEMSELVES EVERYONE SHUT UP!