Why in the world are our military personnel here in the states not armed? We are at war, and this means active duty personnel need to be armed to the teeth. Do you agree?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should all active duty military in the states be armed?
- Thread starter righteousdude2
- Start date
Generally speaking, I believe that all active duty military personnel in both the USA and also all of its territories and other possessions ought to be able to be armed, whether they are in a specialty that requires them to be armed while on duty (e.g., "security forces") or not.
However, military recruiters face a rather unique dilemma in which most of the time they'd be in violation of current laws, and thus they cannot be armed while performing the vast majority of their obligations to recruit people into the military.
Military recruiters spend the most of their time, not in their recruiting offices, but on HS or college property trying to recruit young people to enlist in our nation's armed forces at various assemblies and/or rallies in/on school property.
Under most current laws throughout our nation, practically all school property--from pre-schools on up to and including senior HS's, and even college campuses--are considered to be "Gun-Free Property."
IOW, if a military recruiter wishes to conduct any kind of assembly/rally, etc., he/she CANNOT be armed while he/she is on ANY school property.
While military recruiters should be permitted to have ready access to weapons in order to defend themselves while in their offices, once they leave their recruiting office(s), they basically would be violating the law once they set foot on any school property should they be carrying any kind of weapon--or even something that could be classified as a "weapon" [e.g., a hand grenade, etc.].
It's a frustrating situation indeed.
Moreover, once a military recruiter sets foot on any school or college campus, he/she is a "sitting duck" for anyone who could sneak onto that school's property, hide behind the bushes, and then, when he sees the recruiter in his/her military uniform either coming to or leaving whatever kind of recruiting program he/she is going to (or has gone to) put on, that person could simply jump from behind the bushes and open fire on that military recruiter--and NOBODY could stop that person from killing that military recruiter in cold blood!
It's a shame and disgrace that such a situation as this exists...but it does.
Unfortunately, I don't see any really good solution to the current dilemma that our military recruiters face--it's a lose-lose circumstance for them.
I hope that some reasonable alternative to protect our nation's military recruiters face when they leave their offices to do what they're required to do can be put into place...maybe some kind of "concealed carry" permission.
However, until the "powers that be" come up with some provision to allow our nation's military recruiters to be able to defend themselves wherever they may be, that's what our nation's military recruiters daily, 24/7/365, have to face.
It's a shame and disgrace to them and the vitally important duty they are required to perform.
I would hope that some reasonable method whereby our nation's military recruiters could defend themselves to be put into place--and SOON!
However, given the current federal government's anti-military attitude, especially that of our current Commander-in-Chief and his subordinates (Which, of course, are protected by our nation's military), I see very little prospect of that being enacted into federal law in the very near future.
God help our "Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave"!
However, military recruiters face a rather unique dilemma in which most of the time they'd be in violation of current laws, and thus they cannot be armed while performing the vast majority of their obligations to recruit people into the military.
Military recruiters spend the most of their time, not in their recruiting offices, but on HS or college property trying to recruit young people to enlist in our nation's armed forces at various assemblies and/or rallies in/on school property.
Under most current laws throughout our nation, practically all school property--from pre-schools on up to and including senior HS's, and even college campuses--are considered to be "Gun-Free Property."
IOW, if a military recruiter wishes to conduct any kind of assembly/rally, etc., he/she CANNOT be armed while he/she is on ANY school property.
While military recruiters should be permitted to have ready access to weapons in order to defend themselves while in their offices, once they leave their recruiting office(s), they basically would be violating the law once they set foot on any school property should they be carrying any kind of weapon--or even something that could be classified as a "weapon" [e.g., a hand grenade, etc.].
It's a frustrating situation indeed.
Moreover, once a military recruiter sets foot on any school or college campus, he/she is a "sitting duck" for anyone who could sneak onto that school's property, hide behind the bushes, and then, when he sees the recruiter in his/her military uniform either coming to or leaving whatever kind of recruiting program he/she is going to (or has gone to) put on, that person could simply jump from behind the bushes and open fire on that military recruiter--and NOBODY could stop that person from killing that military recruiter in cold blood!
It's a shame and disgrace that such a situation as this exists...but it does.
Unfortunately, I don't see any really good solution to the current dilemma that our military recruiters face--it's a lose-lose circumstance for them.
I hope that some reasonable alternative to protect our nation's military recruiters face when they leave their offices to do what they're required to do can be put into place...maybe some kind of "concealed carry" permission.
However, until the "powers that be" come up with some provision to allow our nation's military recruiters to be able to defend themselves wherever they may be, that's what our nation's military recruiters daily, 24/7/365, have to face.
It's a shame and disgrace to them and the vitally important duty they are required to perform.
I would hope that some reasonable method whereby our nation's military recruiters could defend themselves to be put into place--and SOON!
However, given the current federal government's anti-military attitude, especially that of our current Commander-in-Chief and his subordinates (Which, of course, are protected by our nation's military), I see very little prospect of that being enacted into federal law in the very near future.
God help our "Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave"!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I served in the Navy in the early 50's. In foreign ports, including North Africa, the watch posted on the dock carried an M1 rifle, but no ammunition.
A sufficient number of Military personnel on duty at any Military location should be armed to ensure that events like Fort Hood, Navy Bldg in DC, and the Chattanooga shootings could not occur.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Have you seen the pictures of the front door to the recruiting office? There are bullet holes all around the sign that says . . . GUN FREE ZONE.
the sign that says . . . GUN FREE ZONE.
that sign is another Obama idea that makes these men sitting ducks!!!!
I have to ask Obama if he'd go anywhere with Secret Service having a "Gun free zone?" what are your thoughts about this stupid gun free zone policy??????
that sign is another Obama idea that makes these men sitting ducks!!!!
I have to ask Obama if he'd go anywhere with Secret Service having a "Gun free zone?" what are your thoughts about this stupid gun free zone policy??????
poncho
Well-Known Member
My thought is gun free zones have gotten a lot of people killed by letting criminals know where they can find multiple targets that cannot return fire. As you say stupid.
But I don't believe we should arm "all" active duty military in the United States. Some should be armed yes at certain points in certain areas by certain well trained people.
If you're going to be dumb enough to hang a sign on your door that says "we can't shoot back" at least have the smarts enough to hang the sign on a door with bullet proof glass.
Last edited by a moderator:
No. Not at all. And the logistics of what you ask are astronomically complicated.
Consider: most military members do NOT live on base. Will you require them to carry their tax-payer bought weapons off base to their homes? Doesn't that make them (and their families) an even bigger target for criminals who want potentially automatic weapons?
Consider the logistics of retrieving a weapon each morning, going through clearing procedures and safety briefings; and then turn-in procedures each evening before leaving. You've either added at least another to their already 12+ hour workday; or subtracted an hour from the work they could have gotten done.
What do you do when they want to go to the bathroom? Do you really want them going armed to off-base meetings with contractors, local civilian groups, or even political figures? Again, making themselves targets for anyone who thinks they might get a fully auto M-4?
No, leave things as they are. Gate guards and security personnel are armed at most bases. Start arming them at the bases that aren't. If the ability to arm quickly is absolutely necessary, then have designated "quick reaction" armories. But don't make blanket policy as a knee-jerk reaction.
Consider the logistics of retrieving a weapon each morning, going through clearing procedures and safety briefings; and then turn-in procedures each evening before leaving. You've either added at least another to their already 12+ hour workday; or subtracted an hour from the work they could have gotten done.
What do you do when they want to go to the bathroom? Do you really want them going armed to off-base meetings with contractors, local civilian groups, or even political figures? Again, making themselves targets for anyone who thinks they might get a fully auto M-4?
No, leave things as they are. Gate guards and security personnel are armed at most bases. Start arming them at the bases that aren't. If the ability to arm quickly is absolutely necessary, then have designated "quick reaction" armories. But don't make blanket policy as a knee-jerk reaction.
Texas Governor Gregg Abbott made the decision today to allow the Texas National Guard to carry weapons with them on base. His decision comes following the killing of now five military personnel in Chattanooga, Tennessee, earlier this week.
From ABC:
In a released statement, Abbott said, “It is with a heavy heart that I issue this order. After the recent shooting in Chattanooga, it has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil. Arming the National Guard at these bases will not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base.”
http://www.youngcons.com/states-are-arming-military-personnel-in-response-to-chattanooga-shooting/
From ABC:
In a released statement, Abbott said, “It is with a heavy heart that I issue this order. After the recent shooting in Chattanooga, it has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil. Arming the National Guard at these bases will not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base.”
http://www.youngcons.com/states-are-arming-military-personnel-in-response-to-chattanooga-shooting/
KFSM, a local Arkansas TV station, reported that one of the marines killed in the Chattanooga attack was an Arkansas Native.
He continued, “I want to join in those who are calling for greater security at our recruiting stations and military installations. We’ve had numerous instances of attacks. Clearly they are a target, and for us to have unarmed military personnel makes no sense, which is why I am directing Major General Mark Berry to arm full-time personnel as he deems necessary at military installations.”
http://www.youngcons.com/states-are-arming-military-personnel-in-response-to-chattanooga-shooting/
He continued, “I want to join in those who are calling for greater security at our recruiting stations and military installations. We’ve had numerous instances of attacks. Clearly they are a target, and for us to have unarmed military personnel makes no sense, which is why I am directing Major General Mark Berry to arm full-time personnel as he deems necessary at military installations.”
http://www.youngcons.com/states-are-arming-military-personnel-in-response-to-chattanooga-shooting/
As I posted earlier, there is a "general" need for military people to be armed, BUT not all of them need to be "armed to the teeth" 24 hours a day--even recruiters don't NEED to be "armed to the teeth" 24 hours a day.
If a person is assigned to some form of guard duty, then he/she needs to be armed in order to perform the duties with which he/she is tasked. Once that person goes off guard duty and his/her replacement is on guard duty, there's no need for the first guard to remain "armed to the teeth."
He/she should secure his/her weapon in a safe, public place, most of the time that would be a specially-designed weapons storage locker of some sort that's located where an official third party can observe who, when, and for what official purpose has access to that locker---AND NOBODY ELSE!
The off-duty guards person should never carry his/her weapon to their living quarters (or anywhere else). This is to prevent not only that person from illegally using his/her military weapon, but also to prevent anyone else from gaining access to it. To do this is a violation of most all military rules and regulations, and anyone to violates these rules and regulations is subject to military discipline, ranging from an Article 15 to a Military Courts Marshall; additionally, that violator is also subject to civilian discipline if a murder or manslaughter occurs. Additional fines or other forms of discipline may also be assessed if the military person is found to be guilty of violating any form of laws and/or regulations.
For some 20+ years I lived in the Clarksville, TN, area which is directly adjacent to the Fort Campbell, KY, military base. On a weekly (sometimes daily) basis there were reports of off-duty soldiers killing either one of their fellow soldiers (possibly even someone in their chain of command) and/or their dependent wives or children for no really justifiable reason--and that was during a time when repeated deployments to hazardous places was not a common thing for the military based there.
With the increased ops-tempo that's subsequently been imposed on our military, PTSD only adds more to the mix than ever before. It doesn't surprise me one bit that many returning military people just can't seem to handle the stress of repeated deployments. To be honest with you, I'm surprised that there aren't more domestic (or otherwise) killings than what is reported in our nation.
My earlier post emphasized that there does need to be reasonable policies in place to protect those who wear the military uniforms of our nation....but NOT some unrealistic, knee-jerk reaction that ultimately results in a situation that is worse than having no policy at all.
I served almost 23 years in the military--not in a "security forces" position, but still long enough to know that there is a right way to handle a problem, serious as it is. OTOH, there is also a wrong way to address a serious problem. That is what we do NOT need.
I am conflicted. It's a sad state of affairs when any of us feel like people in our military need to be armed...at home. Makes me angry to think it's necessary.
But the enemy we face preys on the defenseless and I don't want to sacrifice one life for the sake of appearances.
That being said, I believe military personnel in uniform should be armed when outside the confines of a military facility, recruiters in particular. Unfortunately, wearing a uniform, in todays world, is like wearing a target. Being unarmed invites an attack like we saw this week.
On base, I believe that, if all troops are not armed, there should be armed security at all locations where troops gather like, mess halls, and commissaries. Why do we have civilian cops on military bases? Makes no sense.
My thoughts are incomplete on this, and subject to change. but that's my initial impression.
But the enemy we face preys on the defenseless and I don't want to sacrifice one life for the sake of appearances.
That being said, I believe military personnel in uniform should be armed when outside the confines of a military facility, recruiters in particular. Unfortunately, wearing a uniform, in todays world, is like wearing a target. Being unarmed invites an attack like we saw this week.
On base, I believe that, if all troops are not armed, there should be armed security at all locations where troops gather like, mess halls, and commissaries. Why do we have civilian cops on military bases? Makes no sense.
My thoughts are incomplete on this, and subject to change. but that's my initial impression.
Governors order National Guardsmen to be armed
ALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Governors in several states ordered National Guardsmen to be armed in the wake of an attack on two military facilities in Tennessee, and Florida Gov. Rick Scott went a step further Saturday by immediately relocated recruiters to armories.
In an executive order, the Republican governor said he wants Guard recruiters to move from six storefront locations into armories until state officials can evaluate and make security improvements, including possibly installing bullet-proof glass or enhanced surveillance equipment.
Scott ordered the Guardsmen to be armed, as did governors in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...orders-guard-recruiters-work-armory/30343993/
ALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Governors in several states ordered National Guardsmen to be armed in the wake of an attack on two military facilities in Tennessee, and Florida Gov. Rick Scott went a step further Saturday by immediately relocated recruiters to armories.
In an executive order, the Republican governor said he wants Guard recruiters to move from six storefront locations into armories until state officials can evaluate and make security improvements, including possibly installing bullet-proof glass or enhanced surveillance equipment.
Scott ordered the Guardsmen to be armed, as did governors in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...orders-guard-recruiters-work-armory/30343993/
Some guardsmen are trained to deal with civilians--riots and anarchy. Many guardsmen would be dangerous with live rounds in a populated area. Remember: Kent State. Innocent folk may be in harm's way.
There are also lot of rules of engagement to deal with. Strip malls are hard to secure.
Use police stations as recruiting offices. Could also use their firing ranges for firearm training.
Towns do not do well when everyone is packing a six-shooter.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
There are also lot of rules of engagement to deal with. Strip malls are hard to secure.
Use police stations as recruiting offices. Could also use their firing ranges for firearm training.
Towns do not do well when everyone is packing a six-shooter.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
While at Ft. Ord, late 60s, I pulled guard duty several times, and always had a walkie, a loaded pistol with two clips, plus a standard M-1 with three clips. I felt quite safe, don't know about anyone else, but I had enough rounds to hold off a few guys until the MPs got there to back me up.
There is no reason for a recruiter not carrying a weapon, even unto school grounds. I used to present educational programs with our Community Resource Officer from the local PD, and he was packing. So packing heat should not be a major problem for this, or ant other Administration, to figure out. The uniform, at this time and place, it like a red and white circle target painted on, over and around our military, so I say arm them. Don't make them sitting ducks for lone wolf terrorists. After all, at the end of their day, they have families to go home to.