Posted on Jul 21, 2015
"Man standing guard outside military recruiting office in Yukon"
75.3K
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)
3
3
0
Another reason to support arming the CONUS military. Allow Concealed carry within the state guidelines. Generate military guidelines that essentially mirror state guidelines. Make it optional for the troops....keep a roster if you must of those troops that have identified wanting to carry (not much different then the list of all firearms that are kept in base housing in the AF...not sure if other branches do it). Pretty sad when the military operating in a deployed location carries enough firepower to fight a war, then gets back home and has no option of self defense..... Cops are minutes away when seconds count.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
While I applaud the intentions of "Every Marine" I question is this really the right reaction or could these lead to something worse? Is there a "right reaction" to keep from what happened in Tennessee happening elsewhere in America? Sure, we can say arm the recruiters, let the military carry on and off duty but take a second and look inward, would you really want some service members walking around with a loaded weapon? Heck, there were a few we didn't want to give weapons to when we deployed let alone allowing them to walk around the mall or where ever with a weapon.
(3)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
Richard. You are correct there is NO easy answer but to address your one comment regarding the arming of people. Which city in America has the toughest gun laws yet has the highest murder rates? People that live in that city are "Soft Targets" because bad guys know hey arent armed to protect themselves as is schools and reserve centers. Im not saying the answer is to arm everyone...But I believe the answer is not telling the bad guys that no one is allowed to be armed. I see it like this. If you dont know who is or who isnt armed, the bad guys are less likely to see you as a soft taget.Another example of that is US Marshalls in airplanes. You dont always know there is one onboard but the chance there is one tends to reduce the nerve of bad people.
(1)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
Sgt Richard Buckner - So you instantly put those that aren't on this "arm every service member" bandwagon as a liberal? That is short sighted on your part. Throughout out the day, in all my comments in this and the numerous other threads concerning what we should do to better protect service members in the state, is repeat my question; what is truly a good solution? I'm not arguing the point that what happened in Tennessee wasn't a bad thing. It was a terrible thing, something that should not have happened. I'm not saying that we should allow criminals to run around all crazy while law abiding citizens are harassed and abused by these idiots. All I am asking is that you and the rest of the Veteran community stop for a second and take a look around and realize that some people may view some of the ideas thrown out as radical in their own rights. So while we want to label this crazy gunmen as "radical Muslims" we are answering radicalism with more radicalism. This isn't about political lines, red, blue, green, donkey, elephant, or tea, political parties do not matter; what matters, what truly matters at this critical junction we find ourselves in right now is that we do not make a decision to try and answer the threat these radicals give us by being radical in our own actions. A lot of the ideas being thrown around can be summed up like this:
You have a bug problem, so you place two spiders into your home; shortly the bugs are gone but you are over taken by spiders so you order spider eating mice. Great, your spiders are gone but not you have a bunch of mice running around so you get cats. that gets rid of the mice but now you are the crazy cat family.
As you see, you keep trying to up stage the last response yet the initial problem of being overwhelmed by something you don't want, regardless if its bugs, spiders, mice, cats, or terrorists; the solution in most cases is not easily found.
So go ahead and label me as you want, if that helps you sleep tonight that is fine. I'm just merely trying to share different ideas and thoughts that maybe should be looked into at this critical time. We are in a huge game of chess and your fingers are on one of your knights, do you move that piece without surveying the entire board or would you look around and try to decide if the move in your head is the best move and put you in the best position two, three or four moves down the road.
You have a bug problem, so you place two spiders into your home; shortly the bugs are gone but you are over taken by spiders so you order spider eating mice. Great, your spiders are gone but not you have a bunch of mice running around so you get cats. that gets rid of the mice but now you are the crazy cat family.
As you see, you keep trying to up stage the last response yet the initial problem of being overwhelmed by something you don't want, regardless if its bugs, spiders, mice, cats, or terrorists; the solution in most cases is not easily found.
So go ahead and label me as you want, if that helps you sleep tonight that is fine. I'm just merely trying to share different ideas and thoughts that maybe should be looked into at this critical time. We are in a huge game of chess and your fingers are on one of your knights, do you move that piece without surveying the entire board or would you look around and try to decide if the move in your head is the best move and put you in the best position two, three or four moves down the road.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Ben, with all your useless banter not once did you give a suggestion on how you think we should go about things, all you have done so far is tell people they were wrong and we should step back and figure out a new solution. Instead of being that guy how about you contribute to a solution instead of tell people they are wrong.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
It is a sorry situation when armed civilians must protect our unarmed soldiers. It is the wrong way around; the military is here to protect the civilians.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
PVT James Strait, somehow I am not very interested in fairness when fighting terrorists. The only time this would become a problem is if the government turned on the citizens like it did in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina.
Surely this president wouldn't do that, would he? Unless the citizens were on Social Security, that is.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/07/20/new-obama-gun-control-plan-taking-away-gun-rights-of-people-who-need-help-managing-social-security-n2027810
Surely this president wouldn't do that, would he? Unless the citizens were on Social Security, that is.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/07/20/new-obama-gun-control-plan-taking-away-gun-rights-of-people-who-need-help-managing-social-security-n2027810
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I am sure that the Oath keepers are just making a statement that we wont cower to terrorist threats or violence, 2nd it just goes to show you can take a man out of the Marines but you will never take the Marine out of the man, that's something non Marines will never understand.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I have mixed feelings about this. While I certainly appreciate the sentiment, how does it look that we have civilians protecting us? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is very interesting and I find I can't really disagree with it. They aren't pushing an agenda, they are there of their own volition, without proselytizing something. They are legitimately trying to help.
They have my respect in this regard.
They have my respect in this regard.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google