The North Carolina National Guard approach. Would you rather have an MP instead of arming a recruiter as an option?

I think an MP at each location would be ideal. Recruiting centers should be treated as if they were a small military installation.

I don't understand how anyone can think the MP idea is a bad idea. Are the duties associated with such a tasking not in the realm or "lane" of an MP? I'm sick to death of soldiers being told "you can't do your job". Who do you think did the jobs contractors do before the Army had contractors? That's right soldiers and we need to get back to that.

What will happen like in Iraq is you will need to train other MOSs and units to become MPs to sustain that kind of mission. We had TC, FA, ADA, EN, IN, USMC and AF Security units under our command because all the MP units in the inventory had been deployed and re-deployed and their just weren't any more.

There would be Jurisdictional issues not to mention having to add additional personnel when they are trying to reduce forces. Have the recruiters complete a CCDW course and let them protect themselves.

Our recruiters should be able to work in a safe environment but at the same time potential recruits should be able to speak with a recruiter in a casual manner without the threat of injury.

I think that this is a good idea in theory but not realistic given funding authority and fiscal issues.
Recruiters should be able to protect themselves with some additional training from their command to avoid a repeat of the sailor incident.

LT, this is a nice "either or" discussion, but it parallels a contemporary fascination with dichotomies.
It's a resource drain to do this, and though you make a good point it is going to have to be funded. It is a wonderful idea, and perhaps should be done in the days surrounding military related holidays and patriotic memorial days. The recruiters should still be armed. We are a profession of arms, yet neutered in our own country. While there won't likely be a Red Dawn scenario going on, it is still a group of people that have been trained to handle weapons, and 99% of recruiters have been deployed meaning the ROE has been ingrained in them. ROE for law enforcement is far more relaxed than our military ROE.

I would allow all of us to carry arms unless psychologically seen as unfit. If that would have been the case at Fort Hood that (insert explicative) would have been mowed down within seconds. Being in the profession of arms and not being armed has left us as targets. I'll go with Marcus Lutrell and say that we are a force that shall not yield out of fear, we will not take off our uniforms, and we should be armed. There is no time in history that we have had a more professional volunteer fighting force. While some privates use this as a jobs service and others use it as money for school, the vast majority do it for the honor of serving and out of a deep seated belief that they are earning their citizenship rather than taking it for granted like civilians. The pseudo criminal "join the army or go to jail" is no longer an option. It is harder to get in than to go to college. We are ready for reform and all soldiers and marines, perhaps even airmen and squids should be allowed to carry at will. If you want to force everyone to take a protocol class in order to be certified to carry just take out one of the weekly EO or SHARP trainings and it doesn't cost the military anything more.

This only works for the National Guard in a SAD capacity. Active Duty and REserve MPs could not do this

There are plenty of reserve security forces, provide them additional active duty and extra drills. they are trained and willing to support / protect the rest of our forces.

Not speaking of where but there are another state also doing this!