Should Military Be Armed?

So, gun advocates are eager to tell everyone that military recruiters need to be armed in light of the Chattanooga Shooting. However, I'm not so sure. Anytime you put on the military uniform, you are a going to be a target. So, how far do you go? Do you arm every servicemember everywhere they go?

In the military, there are enough problems with maintaining accountability of weapons and ammunition and avoiding accidental discharges when servicemembers are actively using the weapons for training purposes. I would hate to even consider how these would multiply if we decide to start handing out weapons to everyone.

Moreover, the mission of recruiters is to interact and engage with members of the public. Carrying around a weapon everywhere they go is just going to get in the way of that. It'll be another piece of equipment that they have to lug around and keep track of -- albeit a dangerous one than detracts from their primary focus.

Finally, one of the most interesting arguments I've seen is the "Posse Comitatus" dimension. The military is not armed in domestic environments because it is a deliberate, conscious safeguard of our Constitutional form of government -- one of the many checks that have always been in place to ensure that this country never has a military coup. Do we really want to change that?

I see a lot of political figures who are eager to put more guns out there as the "solve everything" answer to any tragedy. But, I wonder if military leaders shouldn't be the ones to make that decision. There are a lot of issues involved with something like that -- many of which may not justify the move. And, I think those of us who choose to put on the uniform just learn to accept certain risks -- feeling sometimes that, at least, we are a more legitimate target than some civilian population center.

http://news.yahoo.com/chattanooga-shooting-military-recruiters-armed-162900676.html