Posted on Jul 21, 2015
Would Arming Soldiers After Chattanooga, Let The Terrorists Win?
7.44K
83
44
5
5
0
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.
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.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
I dont think so. I think it would be a show of strength. It's like a chess game, but in real life. "You make the first move, and I'll wipe your ass with your face."
(2)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I'll admit, I had difficulty trying to explain it in simple terms. I guess the best way to explain my reasoning would be to say this: If you attack us, then we will be prepared to attack back. Arming the soldiers would be more of a way to show strength and (to an extent), discourage further actions. It would be effective, so long as the aforementioned soldiers were responsible and mature about it. Does that make more sense? I'm oly asking because I feel that every response required justification.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SPC (Join to see), When making a point to me, simple is better. Lol your theory sounds good, but we're not under martial law. We're not like those third world countries, with armed civilians and soldiers everywhere. I do wish we could exert our power, with more than words, but right now, the protection of you guys and the civilians is still up in the air as to how this can be accomplished. You like all those big bullshit words? That's the lip service you will hear from our representatives in government. Ours sucks right now, but it's still better than anyone else's.
(0)
(0)
Arming our soldiers stateside does not threaten the Constitutional separation of martial and civil power; it simply allows our soldiers to defend themselves in a war that has moved onto our shores - because we have not adequately dealt with it offshore.
Continuing to keep our soldiers defenseless at home is simply a continuation of this refusal to deal with the war that exists despite our wishes that it did not.
Wishing for peace has never won a war in the history of mankind, and it won’t this time either.
Continuing to keep our soldiers defenseless at home is simply a continuation of this refusal to deal with the war that exists despite our wishes that it did not.
Wishing for peace has never won a war in the history of mankind, and it won’t this time either.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Capt Seid Waddell, Exactly Sir. Wishing in one had and peeing in the other will only make your hand stink. Which, BTW, our rulers, er, umm, leaders, smell terribly when it comes to commen sense.
(2)
(0)
I wrote my reason for posting this is because a member replied yesterday almost the same content as this writer. In fact, I looked at the authors name to make sure it wasn't our guy. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's another factor to look at.
(2)
(0)
Good question. But do we just let our service members become sitting ducks? Or do we provide them the means to protect themselves?
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SCPO David Lockwood, Personally, I want them to be protected with whatever means possible that is. I've seen, bulletproof glass, have them wear body armor, have their offices set back away from the view of the street. I don't know a good answer. but, something needs to be done soon.
(2)
(0)
Hell No, and the day we allowed civilians to guard the gates at all military bases was when shit hit the fan. Like we are witnessing throughout this world now, WTF and do we just sit back and let the turds come across the borders without consequences ? We as the worlds largest super power are overrun from with in as a result of how this country is being run ?
We cant even support our law enforcement departments without the President getting involved and telling the communities the Departments have been racial profiling and don't trust them to perform their job. So now the citizens of this once great Nation are arming themselves and standing up to provide cover for us who used to do that job, and the government is looking at this as a form of aggressiveness ? I for one stand behind these young brave men and women that have the gumption to sift through the Bullshit and rhetoric that plaques this country, and with enough common sense not to be stupid enough to play into the hands of our political systems attempt/consider disarming its citizens in light of all the senseless shootings in the past few months etc;.
Get a grip folks
We cant even support our law enforcement departments without the President getting involved and telling the communities the Departments have been racial profiling and don't trust them to perform their job. So now the citizens of this once great Nation are arming themselves and standing up to provide cover for us who used to do that job, and the government is looking at this as a form of aggressiveness ? I for one stand behind these young brave men and women that have the gumption to sift through the Bullshit and rhetoric that plaques this country, and with enough common sense not to be stupid enough to play into the hands of our political systems attempt/consider disarming its citizens in light of all the senseless shootings in the past few months etc;.
Get a grip folks
(1)
(0)
If the decision was in fact made to have us carry weapons then so be it. I do not think that it would make a difference one way or the other. The last event that I am tracking, is two recruiters were walking along outside and were engaged.
This being said, here is what I see as letting people win. When we go into a situation where we are hiding inside our stations. Doors locked, blinds drawn, people not allowed to enter, we are told to drive to and from the station without our blouse on. Not acceptable.
I am a combat arms Soldier. I always believed that if a route was black, we found those that made it black and killed them and made the route Amber. Our job is inherently dangerous, it does not matter if we are in theater, on a post, or in a position where we are away from the flagpole. It is our job to deal with the fact that we are in a dangerous job. If people do not have the constitution for that, they need to be shown the way out. We are the protectors of America, we are the LAST people that should EVER be hidden away in the face of something like this. It shows that we are the Infidel Protectors of America that they say we are. I don't care, we are who we are, and we need to remain that no matter what. There was a shooting yesterday in a movie theater, does that mean that we are not going to movies anymore? I don't think so.
Finally, something to realize, this quack that did this WAS a lone gunman. PERIOD. Ok so he researched radical muslim stuff before he did this, he was trying to find a way to cleanse his sins before he did it. He had NOTHING to do with ISIS. This is not something that was like the Towers, Bin-Laden PLANNED that stuff, that was something that directed against US, the UNITED STATES. This was something that was as random as what's his face from FT Hood. You see these people are not worth us remembering their names, and we should not remember their names.
We need to suit up and move out, carry on mission. If they want to give people the chance to get out because they are scared, give them 30-60 days to get out because they are scared. Otherwise, we have to suit up, move out, carry on the mission and NOT BE SCARED OF PHANTOMS.... Just my thoughts on this.
This being said, here is what I see as letting people win. When we go into a situation where we are hiding inside our stations. Doors locked, blinds drawn, people not allowed to enter, we are told to drive to and from the station without our blouse on. Not acceptable.
I am a combat arms Soldier. I always believed that if a route was black, we found those that made it black and killed them and made the route Amber. Our job is inherently dangerous, it does not matter if we are in theater, on a post, or in a position where we are away from the flagpole. It is our job to deal with the fact that we are in a dangerous job. If people do not have the constitution for that, they need to be shown the way out. We are the protectors of America, we are the LAST people that should EVER be hidden away in the face of something like this. It shows that we are the Infidel Protectors of America that they say we are. I don't care, we are who we are, and we need to remain that no matter what. There was a shooting yesterday in a movie theater, does that mean that we are not going to movies anymore? I don't think so.
Finally, something to realize, this quack that did this WAS a lone gunman. PERIOD. Ok so he researched radical muslim stuff before he did this, he was trying to find a way to cleanse his sins before he did it. He had NOTHING to do with ISIS. This is not something that was like the Towers, Bin-Laden PLANNED that stuff, that was something that directed against US, the UNITED STATES. This was something that was as random as what's his face from FT Hood. You see these people are not worth us remembering their names, and we should not remember their names.
We need to suit up and move out, carry on mission. If they want to give people the chance to get out because they are scared, give them 30-60 days to get out because they are scared. Otherwise, we have to suit up, move out, carry on the mission and NOT BE SCARED OF PHANTOMS.... Just my thoughts on this.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see), Thank you for giving us that inspirational reply. You know, at first everybody gets confused, scared, mad, and want to prevent it from happening again. These ideas sound crazy, but they aren't. They're just ideas. Things will become complacent again, until the next massacre happens. The theater shooting was done by a drifter who didn't live in that town. I guess, one day he woke up and thought, I'm going to go to a movie theater and kill people. Maybe that's what the recruiter killer did. But, in his case, he did plan his out. But, thank you for the comments and sensible remarks. I think you are 100% correct.
(1)
(0)
Despite what the bumper stickers say, peace is not always the answer. Sometimes, diplomacy fails.
(1)
(0)
This is an interesting point of view on the whole thing. While I agree that we shouldn't be sitting ducks with our thumbs up our 4th point of contact, and as I stated in other threads, there is no clear cut answer to the craziness. There is no black and white, yes or no, go/no-go, 1 or 0 type of solution here. Lines are blurred, vision is hazed, visible targets are less than 10 feet away. As SPC Thomas Baldwin said, times are changing. The threat from enemies within our own lines is growing daily. Yet, we cannot come up with a solution that makes sense. Sure, the easy answer is to arm all the recruiters. They are trained to handle weapons after all. Give them a 9mm with 36 rounds of ammo and the proper paperwork for the state, county, and city in which they work. Problem solved right? Eh, not really. Okay, so lets send in the National Guard. Let's have MRAPs and LMTVs with weapon systems stationed all around the US, that will stop people from attacking us right? Umm, maybe. Okay, so lets make camps, call them something nice to mask what they truly are and round up anyone suspected of being an extremist, we promise, they will only be the worse of the worse. Problem solved right? Fine, lets deport anyone that came from or has ties to the Middle East regardless of any action they may or may not have done; after all this is American right, the land of the free, the place where we welcome your tired, your poor, your needed, unless you look like you might snap one day. Problem solved right?
As I stated earlier, there is no right answer in my eyes that has come to the surface yet. Some great intentions, yes, but solutions aren't as readily available.
As I stated earlier, there is no right answer in my eyes that has come to the surface yet. Some great intentions, yes, but solutions aren't as readily available.
(1)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
SGT (Join to see) - That is sort of what I'm pointing out. I really don't think there is a solution at this time. There are all these ideas flying around but none of them are what would be 100% fool proof but really, when was the last time any solution out of DC was 100% fool proof?
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT Ben Keen, I'm not sure about being fool proof, but I can say they are 100% fools without any solution.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I don't either, SGT Ben Keen. It's too new a situation to know how to to prepare for the next one. IMHO
(1)
(0)
Read This Next


Recruiter
Weapons
Terrorism
