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.
Recruiter
Weapons
Terrorism
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
7
7
0
Extending to Soldiers the same rights to self-defense as every civilian has is NOT a degradation of the constitution or in any way "letting the forces of evil win."
(7)
(0)
5
5
0
5
5
0
I would rather have "thousands of little Alamos" than one more dead or injured brother or sister who is serving this nation be it as a recruiter or in any other capacity! I say allow them to carry or provide armed security for the recruiting stations/operating centers, etc.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
Arm them and give them a fighting chance. This is not going to be the last attack on American soil. I have said this before, we are at war. We can pretend that we are not, but we are. Many sheep are shocked and surprised and ask how this could happen in our country. Our enemy has told us for months that they were going to attack us. Why is most of the country in shock? Sometimes being wrong gets young men and women killed.
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Col Lyman Faith, We have both, along with many RP members, said the same thing. I posted an answer from an official report made today. From the way it sounds, they will not be armed.
(1)
(0)
Having read the article, there are some good points. Yet, we need to find a way to reach that balance of safety and not being a soft target. We need to find a way to be PROACTIVE instead of REACTIVE. The US has such a bad history of this. Because its such a good idea to lock the barn AFTER the horse has already been stolen.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
No, It would be letting our service men and women have a chance at "winning" ie. surviving.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
CPT Jack Durish
SGT (Join to see) - Is it necessary to explain? We've already had more than 30 service members murdered by terrorists (let's call them mini-holocausts inasmuch as they were no more able to defend themselves than were the Jews of Europe), and the carnage has only begun.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durishl Sir, if I ask for further explanation, it means I'm not getting the point to a statement. Thanks for your answer.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
It goes without saying, times are changing and the fight is coming home. One thing sticks in my head and can't be ignored. Arming our service members comes with its own issues like policy and scope. But anyone who thinks it wouldn't make a difference has to be crazy. If an armed attacker meets a group or individual also armed and trained to return fire the devastation of us service members would be much less. Mainly because they would not have the upper hand or free range.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
We absolutely must arm our troops at home. I think back to the days after 9-11. We shut down our base and put guard shacks at all the entrances, and our units were put on a gate guard rotation. We were in full battle-rattle, weapons and magazines...and no rounds. What were we to do if someone were intent on causing us harm? Get on the radio. That is it.
Same thing applies now. With multiple base shootings and service members being targeted, how are we not allowing our Joes to protect themselves?
Same thing applies now. With multiple base shootings and service members being targeted, how are we not allowing our Joes to protect themselves?
(2)
(0)
SCPO Larry Knight Sr.
SGT Mitch McKinley
I understand clearly your frustrations on that equation. I remember a certain LT trying to tell myself and other combatants during my first tour of duty in Vietnam, we were not to return fire unless he gave us the order. My reply was met with utterings of a courts martial, trust me we did not wait for an authorization when Charlie hit us with everything they could throw at us !
I understand clearly your frustrations on that equation. I remember a certain LT trying to tell myself and other combatants during my first tour of duty in Vietnam, we were not to return fire unless he gave us the order. My reply was met with utterings of a courts martial, trust me we did not wait for an authorization when Charlie hit us with everything they could throw at us !
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SGT (Join to see)
If I were to have my way, the only thing the terrorists would win would be a one-way ticket to "Paradise!"
If I were to have my way, the only thing the terrorists would win would be a one-way ticket to "Paradise!"
(2)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
SGT (Join to see)
Actually Paradise is in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan while Hell is in Michigan's Lower Peninsula! :>)
Yes there are cities in my home state of Michigan named both Paradise and Hell!
Actually Paradise is in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan while Hell is in Michigan's Lower Peninsula! :>)
Yes there are cities in my home state of Michigan named both Paradise and Hell!
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
TSgt David L.
PO1 John Miller quiet and effective at closer range. 1,000 dead prairie dogs can't be wrong!
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
PO1 John Miller, All we have in Texas is Paradise, Texas. It's a nice little farming town where everyone loves each other.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google