Would Arming Soldiers After Chattanooga, Let The Terrorists Win?

Taken from The Federalist @ thefederalists.com

This post is referring to how America may be looked at by terrorists, if the recruiters, and other non-armed military were armed because of the Tennessee shootings.
I read a couple of responses yesterday about whether or not recruiters should be allowed to carry weapons. One of the responses sounds similar to this post. In fact, it agrees with the responders response.


http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/21/arming-soldiers-after-chattanooga-would-let-the-terrorists-win/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=0fe413ad56-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-0fe413ad56-83810921


JULY 21, 2015 By Philip Wegmann
Of the five soldiers murdered in the Tennessee Terror Attack, four were Marines, and as that branch’s doctrine declares, every one was “a rifleman.” Many demand to know why these members of the armed forces went unarmed. Each could answer with his Oath of Enlistment.

While in uniform, those soldiers at that civilian recruiting office went unarmed because they swore, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” To do otherwise would erode a safeguard as old as our republican government, transforming civilian offices into zones of military occupation. In short, if we arm soldiers off base, the terrorists win.