Armed citizens guarding military recruitment centers.

Link to article: http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-shootings-armed-citizens-guard-recruiters-055810618.html

I think it's pretty noble and sends a message. Also, what they're doing isn't completely radical and crazy.

@sophia89: It's sad that the recruiters aren't allowed to arm themselves.

@petey_is_spidey: @sophia89: Actually, Texas is now arming all national guard members, including those at recruiting stations, as well as increasing the safety of these places. Some other southern states are following suit.

Well that's good to know. I hope that happens nationwide.

I hope so too, but the politics of other places are very different than Texas.

Agreed.

Their wasting their time waiting for an ISIS army that will never come.

@nishi99:id rather take precaution for an ISIS that never comes than see more brothers and sisters slaughtered because we pretend we aren't being targeted.

Fine by me.

It's a nice gesture and I'm with these folks but we need systemic change that is going to keep these men and women safe while doing their jobs. We can no longer afford for them to be soft targets for cowardly opportunistic scumbags looking to kill Americans.

@prospero_locke: That's understandable, but random crazys could pop up at anytime and anywhere to do a shooting.

So there's no police force in the area? or private security companies?

I know it was a tragedy, but throwing guns at everyone, everywhere isn't really much of an answer. What's to stop one of the next group of idiots blending in with the "concerned citizens" first, before he goes postal.

I'm ex-military and in my experience a lot of the people in recruiting may be "trained" in weapon use, but still be useless in combat. I definitely do not mean that as a sign of disrespect for the ones in this story, just that not all military personnel are combat specialists. Arming what are essentially office-workers may cause more harm than good. Then add completely untrained civilians out the front with weapons, just screams trouble waiting to me.

@cave_duck:

That was actually my thought. What is to stop a deranged individual from posing as a concerned citizen?

The military doesn't need guns in the United States because the military's job isn't to fight Americans. Thats why we have cops.

Huh?

That's a good point.

sure is a strong message being sent out

In theory, this is good, and I support anyone who chooses to take up arms to protect innocents.

In practice, this is hopefully good, but I hope we don't have any Bundy Ranch types in the mix who are lookin to start a fight.

As far as waiting for a police response, the average response time is in ten minutes. By that time, lots and lots of people are dead.

Regarding the idea that a terrorist might blend in with the guards, there is a possibility of that, but it's still better to have armed guards. Currently, someone can pull right in front of a recruiting station and begin firing without any fear of a quick retaliation. Standing with the guards only gets you a couple feet closer to your targets, and you have armed resistance to face. Having some resistance is better than no resistance.

Wait in america you recruiters can't have guns but civilians do. Well i guess it ain't as bad as round here were some of our soliders got beheaded outside there base.

For what reason ?

Wouldn't it be tied in with Posse Comitatas? (The not being able to deploy armed US soldiers on US soil act.)

Again, just being in the military doesn't necessarily mean you're in a role that requires a weapon all the time. Recruiters are just office workers.

LMFAO what a joke hahahahaha

@cave_duck:

I was wondering about Posse Comitatus as well. I know the President cannot order military action without the consent of the Governor, but I don't know that simply being armed would qualify.

(Researching)

It seems Posse Comitatus simply means the military cannot act as a state's police force without authorization from the Constitutuon or Congress. I thought there was an exception if the Governor gave permission for federal troops to take action, but I didn't see that exception in the text, so I guess I'm mistaken.

From my understanding, Posse Comitatus shouldn't affect whether military personnel can carry guns. There's no prohibition against federal troops carrying arms; they just can't act like police.

From what I can tell, there was an executive order passed during the H.W. Bush years which specified which military personnel could be armed, and unless they are in guard duty or there is some pressing threat, the soldiers are to be disarmed. This law was later codified by the Department of Defense under the Clinton administration, but it's not clear to me under what circumstances these regulations apply.

See that part makes perfect sense to me. I used to work in Armories, as part of my job I'd have to certify weapons training and the issue and return of weapons.

I could not imagine a more painful experience than having to constantly issue every single person in uniform a weapon and live rounds every single day outside of an operational area. Like I keep saying, just because you're in a uniform doesn't mean you're awesome with a rifle (or even that you like them- hard to believe but I've seen it.).

The only thing worse than that scenario for me would be being unarmed and seeing a group of armed people out in the parking lot every day who weren't accountable to anyone save their own consciences.

But to each their own...

What the hell is happening to the States? That's rhetorical, by the way. Sadly.

I notice some people saying "What's to stop some crazy person from pretending to be a concerned citizen"? The same thing stopping anyone crazy from shooting up people, the fear of others being armed and preventing it. The psychos and the criminals already have weapons, so the fact that more armed civilians that are at least on the surface, there to protect, is a very good thing in my opinion, as I stated earlier. Though I do believe states should follow the "Southern" example and arm all national guard members...

Pentagon urges people to stand down:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33662891

If they want the people to stand down, they should suggest the states arm the National Guard members at these stations. :/

The citizen's standing guard would still be answerable to the law, so it's not as if they have nothing keeping them in check.

It would be interesting to see a poll on what military men thought about this issue, but I suppose that would be against regs.

This is probably a stupid question, but why do you have to issue weapons and ammo every morning? Why can't people just have handguns with them on base just like an ordinary citizen with a concealed carry permit? Surely military training is more conducive to weapon effectiveness than a concealed carry course anyway.

@batwatch: The scenario I described would include returning the weapons daily because there's no reason for arming them 24 hours a day. Part of that would be maintaining constant weapon security- you can't just have someone stick their rifle under a pillow and sleep on it. You'd need a certified safe & alarm or someone awake with the weapons at all times.

If you needed to arm them 24 hours a day then the threat level would have to be extreme.

Obviously, I'm only speaking from my experiences- the US military may be totally different in that regard.

As for military training vs concealed carry- I can only guess as to differences as I've never done a concealed carry course. But military training is all about getting rounds on target and maintaining the weapon. Legalities of use, target selection, to a lesser degree even storage aren't part of that training. All that is bundled into the Laws of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement, and theatre/ mission specific training.

Keeping that in mind, its still ridiculously hard to keep people effective in use alone with one day per year training. There's a huge amount of 'Hollywood fiction' behind what people think is involved in military training, even in the military itself.

Last point- sure the concerned citizens out front would be accountable under law. But my point/ concern is- what training have they had? Do any of them know anything about combat accuracy or use of force? Hell, what condition or even type of weapons are they going to bring with them?My minds eye just has average joe standing around with a gun on his hip because he thinks he's doing the right thing. Police, security, military personnel all have to prove their ability before being armed.