Posted on Jul 21, 2015
"Man standing guard outside military recruiting office in Yukon"
74.7K
43
26
14
14
0
From: OKC Fox
--
After last week's deadly shootings in Tennessee, a group is stepping up to protect our military.
The Oath Keepers kicked off "Operation Protect our Military" Monday in the metro and across the country. The Oath Keepers are a group of current and formerly serving military, police and first responders. The group's motto is "Not on our watch".
On Monday, many people driving by the Army/Navy Recruiting Office, 1217 Garth Brooks Blvd., in Yukon saw something different, a man standing guard.
The man told FOX 25 he wishes to be called "Every Marine". He served in the Marines and is a member of The Oath Keepers. Out of their own accord, The Oath Keepers have vowed to protect military recruiting offices all over the country.
"They do so much for us. They looked out for me whenever I was just a young Marine and it's time for me to pay it back," the man said.
The man says the attack in Tennessee made him angry and they had to do something.
"From what happened in Chattanooga for our military, our brothers and sisters, to not be armed and to not be able to protect themselves is foolish," the man said.
So "Every Marine" is standing guard, keeping an eye out. He says several people have brought him food and drinks.
"Basically had the wives of the servicemen here at this recruiting station come up and shake my hand, telling me how much they thank and appreciate me just being here," the man said.
He says The Oath Keepers will continue their mission until Congress issues a revision to the carry policy, so recruitment offices can protect themselves. But until then...
"We will stand in the gap. We will take the bullets for those men and women."
http://www.okcfox.com/story/29590727/man-standing-guard-outside-military-recruiting-office-in-Yukon
--
After last week's deadly shootings in Tennessee, a group is stepping up to protect our military.
The Oath Keepers kicked off "Operation Protect our Military" Monday in the metro and across the country. The Oath Keepers are a group of current and formerly serving military, police and first responders. The group's motto is "Not on our watch".
On Monday, many people driving by the Army/Navy Recruiting Office, 1217 Garth Brooks Blvd., in Yukon saw something different, a man standing guard.
The man told FOX 25 he wishes to be called "Every Marine". He served in the Marines and is a member of The Oath Keepers. Out of their own accord, The Oath Keepers have vowed to protect military recruiting offices all over the country.
"They do so much for us. They looked out for me whenever I was just a young Marine and it's time for me to pay it back," the man said.
The man says the attack in Tennessee made him angry and they had to do something.
"From what happened in Chattanooga for our military, our brothers and sisters, to not be armed and to not be able to protect themselves is foolish," the man said.
So "Every Marine" is standing guard, keeping an eye out. He says several people have brought him food and drinks.
"Basically had the wives of the servicemen here at this recruiting station come up and shake my hand, telling me how much they thank and appreciate me just being here," the man said.
He says The Oath Keepers will continue their mission until Congress issues a revision to the carry policy, so recruitment offices can protect themselves. But until then...
"We will stand in the gap. We will take the bullets for those men and women."
http://www.okcfox.com/story/29590727/man-standing-guard-outside-military-recruiting-office-in-Yukon
Posted in these groups: 
Recruiter
Recruiter
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
5
5
0
I'm not sure that I would be comfortable with just ANYONE standing guard outside of a recruiting station but if a Vet feels that he could be useful then I guess it's a good thing. Should there be a selection process though?
(5)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
Id say least in Missouri if you have completed the CCW course and background check, that would be a good place to start.Least we have had the training and screening.
(2)
(0)
TSgt David L.
Sgt Richard Buckner, it would seem so, but a Navy dude shot himself in the leg at his recruiting office yesterday. So maybe not everyone may be cut out for the job. That was my point. Of course I don't want anyone to senselessly be killed but accidently getting shot by the good guy would sure suck too.
(1)
(0)
TSgt David L.
Sgt Richard Buckner, I get the feeling that you "assume" I am not in favor of them being armed. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I mourn the death of your 4 brothers and a sailor. Nothing can bring them back. If they were armed they would have defended themselves. NO DOUBT...
You have to admit however, that not everyone is cut out to be astronauts. Not everyone is capable of becoming a Marine! For that matter not everyone should be allowed to breed. I say that not everyone is knowledgeable enough, or have the common sense to be armed and stand guard/or be an armed guard recruiter. I hope the rules change so they can be armed. SOON!
You have to admit however, that not everyone is cut out to be astronauts. Not everyone is capable of becoming a Marine! For that matter not everyone should be allowed to breed. I say that not everyone is knowledgeable enough, or have the common sense to be armed and stand guard/or be an armed guard recruiter. I hope the rules change so they can be armed. SOON!
(0)
(0)
TSgt David L.
I agree with that, but there is always one that ruins it for everyone else. Some AF folks only qual on weapons every 3 years. Then it is only on the M-4/M-16 or the M-9, but not both. The Q course is not rocket science, but sadly some barley make it. I can't speak for the other services but I've been on the firing line with some folks who could hit their target closer if they threw the firearm at it. Pretty sad, but many AF folks, officer and enlisted, have no business with anything besides a radio.
I think we both agree that all service members should be armed regardless of their station or duties. I just wish they where all capable.
I think we both agree that all service members should be armed regardless of their station or duties. I just wish they where all capable.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
"Target". That's what comes to my mind when I see the picture of someone standing outside of a recruiting station or any military installation. Would an individual with a gun be a deterrent to a terrorist? Or would it be more of a deterrent if the terrorist knew that if he/she fired upon the unit, there would be return fire? I support and respect the fact that our installations and recruiter sites should be protected & armed & be prepared to fire back if fired upon. I respect what the Oath Keepers are doing, but I hope they remain safe.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
As a CDR I have weapons and ammo in my arms rooms. Army Regulation 190–11 has provisions for armed guards. Current regulation governing weapons in federal facilities is aimed at personal weapons not issued weapons (M9, M4, M16A2 etc...) Current SOPs and unit polices can't take away from Army regulations, but we can add to and change our security postures when necessary. These Recruiting facilities do not have arms rooms and are located, typically, in commercial areas. Why not direct Reserve and Guard units to extend their reach and capabilities to help secure our Recruiting facilities? Stop taking or uniforms off and stand up to the threat.
(4)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
That's like pissing up a rope SGT Buckner! I know you and the rest of our Marines are standing tall and doing the right thing here?
(1)
(0)
CPO Rob Daniel
I like this out of the box thinking. That person would not need to stand as a sentry, but could perhaps do productive work, not become a recruiter, but perform some administrative task as well.
This would need to be someone with military police or physical security training who volunteers their two week annual training or even a 6-12 month activation.
My concern here remains the same as I mentioned in a similar thread.
Liability.
The Governor mentioned in this article along with a few others have issued Executive Orders that allow the arming of recruiters. The question of weapon qualifications leaps into my mind as a starting point. When was the last time recruiter-x held a firearm, much less fired one? Once armed there are other questions, such as:
Will recruiters be allowed to carry during their visits to H.S. campuses? If not will they also be issued gun Safes to store the weapon while they are gone? If no, will they be required to sign their weapon to the recruiter in charge in a custody log? Do they carry during off hours? Where do they draw the weapons from if there is no base near by? I can ask obvious questions and poke holes all day, but that is really not my intent.
I see people doing what they feel to be the right thing; however, I am concerned that not enough thought has been given to the logistics of making it work.
I pray we never see this tragedy again!
In the unfortunate circumstances that it should, the question of liability for accidental collateral casualties and even damage opens the government and possibly the recruiter who returned fire to financial responsibility.
On a final note, I absolutely agree we must protect our active service members as vigilantly as they protect us! I simply hope we can do so without knee jerk responses. A poor decision for the right reason is still a poor decision.
This would need to be someone with military police or physical security training who volunteers their two week annual training or even a 6-12 month activation.
My concern here remains the same as I mentioned in a similar thread.
Liability.
The Governor mentioned in this article along with a few others have issued Executive Orders that allow the arming of recruiters. The question of weapon qualifications leaps into my mind as a starting point. When was the last time recruiter-x held a firearm, much less fired one? Once armed there are other questions, such as:
Will recruiters be allowed to carry during their visits to H.S. campuses? If not will they also be issued gun Safes to store the weapon while they are gone? If no, will they be required to sign their weapon to the recruiter in charge in a custody log? Do they carry during off hours? Where do they draw the weapons from if there is no base near by? I can ask obvious questions and poke holes all day, but that is really not my intent.
I see people doing what they feel to be the right thing; however, I am concerned that not enough thought has been given to the logistics of making it work.
I pray we never see this tragedy again!
In the unfortunate circumstances that it should, the question of liability for accidental collateral casualties and even damage opens the government and possibly the recruiter who returned fire to financial responsibility.
On a final note, I absolutely agree we must protect our active service members as vigilantly as they protect us! I simply hope we can do so without knee jerk responses. A poor decision for the right reason is still a poor decision.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google