28
28
0
Something has to done and done soon. You can be assured the attack on the Marine and NAVY recruiters will happen again. I have no proof to back up my statement, but common sense should make you realize it will happen again. Our recruiters can't be left to be sitting ducks. They need to be armed. At least they have a chance at defending theirselves. Now for the story from American Thinker.
The terrorist organization known as ISIS has made it clear that a part of its jihadist war plan against America is carrying out so-called "lone wolf" attacks aimed primarily against members of our military and possibly their families. The attacks in Chattanooga by an apparent Islamic lone wolf are the latest result of that terror tactic. We can only guess as to what the future holds for American warriors and their families. We should not wait to find out.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/how_to_formally_arm_our_troops.html#ixzz3gIj9jTZo
The terrorist organization known as ISIS has made it clear that a part of its jihadist war plan against America is carrying out so-called "lone wolf" attacks aimed primarily against members of our military and possibly their families. The attacks in Chattanooga by an apparent Islamic lone wolf are the latest result of that terror tactic. We can only guess as to what the future holds for American warriors and their families. We should not wait to find out.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/how_to_formally_arm_our_troops.html#ixzz3gIj9jTZo
Security
Terrorism
Self Defense
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 43
Suspended Profile
I was just talking to my wife about this yesterday. imho, every active duty service member should be armed, with certain exceptions. Being armed in engineering spaces on Navy/CG ships, for instance would be an unfortunate encumbrance that inhibits duty performance. But every ground trooper, every airman, ever person on a shore installation, should be armed. Why do our troops have M5's or whatever the latest is, down range, but as soon as they get on the airplane - turn it in... Why aren't all officers and Senior Enlisted carrying loaded side arms?
The arguments of the past about people not knowing how to handle them, so there are accidents is bunk. Train like you fight!!! If our folks have to be armed with Mwhatevers and Sidearms down range, how can we justify them not being armed at home?
There are discussions in some states about concealed carry for some recruiters... Forget that. Concealed pistols just take time to get to and are not a visible deterrent. Fully strapped...
The arguments of the past about people not knowing how to handle them, so there are accidents is bunk. Train like you fight!!! If our folks have to be armed with Mwhatevers and Sidearms down range, how can we justify them not being armed at home?
There are discussions in some states about concealed carry for some recruiters... Forget that. Concealed pistols just take time to get to and are not a visible deterrent. Fully strapped...
8
7
1
I was a 1st Sgt for a recruiting squadron. I estimate more than half my recruiters were on anti-depressants such as Paxil. Are you sure you want them carrying heat?
(8)
(1)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
Barnes, Medications like Paxil are prescribed to normalize people. The same with chronic pain patients receiving pain killers on a normal schedule. None are getting high because not enough is prescribed. States have not seen fit to refuse permits to prescribed analgesic recipients. Most are still working and running their businesses. And they're not junkies either.
(0)
(0)
SMSgt Tony Barnes
Cuminale Mental health providers wish your first statement was true. The fact of hte matter is that the 'norm' they get to with the meds...is usually a new norm they are willing to acccept. For some the meds barely help.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
we can't arm recruiting stations, they're not "military" property, recruiters would be subject to local and state firm arms laws.
(7)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
LCpl Mark Lefler, from a purely legal perspective, military regulations, as a lawful extension of Congressional authority to regulate the Army and Navy, trump local laws and are not limited in jurisdiction to any particular type of property.
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
1LT William Clardy - have to see if that would apply to recruiting centers which are in private buildings in the USA and not on gov property, em posse laws might matter.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
LCpl Mark Lefler, I would bet dimes to donuts that the courts would consider all recruiting centers to be within federal jurisdiction, especially on the subject of who is authorized to can carry weapons there.
For example, 18 U.S. Code §930, which is the general ban on possessing deadly weaponry in a federal facility, has this (surprisingly sensible) definition:
(g)(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
For example, 18 U.S. Code §930, which is the general ban on possessing deadly weaponry in a federal facility, has this (surprisingly sensible) definition:
(g)(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
I like the Marine saying, "Every Marine a rifleman". I don't care if you are a cook or an IT worker, you are primarily a military member and leadership is at fault if you think you're just a tradesmen.