4 Marines Killed in Tennessee Today Were Unarmed

[Vern Humphrey]

I believe at a minimum all Combat Arms NCO's and up who wish to go armed should be allowed to.

All officers and NCOs/POs should be armed at all times. Since we don't have enough side arms to issue to them, they should be encouraged to buy their own -- and deduct the cost from their income tax.

They should be issued enough ammo to practice regularly.

 

[stonecutter2]

does anyone think what he said was sincere ?

i think his "deepest condolences" were for that muslime terrorist and his family.

...... ........ >>>>--------> O'Hussein !! i am very at him.

I do believe he was sincere. For whatever it's worth.

 

[X-Rap]

It's a dirty little mess our leaders have gotten us into with allowing tens of thousands of potential enemy combatants into our country free to roam around and do as they please.
This could have been forgiven in more peaceful times I suppose but given the state of war we've been at for over a decade and probably traceable back decades before, it is inexcusable.
We will soon see our Military personnel and their families specifically targeted IMO. If you wear a uniform every day or in the past have had articles about your service in the press I would prepare yourself and your family, it will take a while for your gov. to figure it out so your probably going to have to sort it out on your own.

 

[MagnunJoe]

ISIS declared war on the U.S. Armed forces anywhere in the world. ISIS will try this again and soon. Even IF guns were illegal, ISIS would make sure their "agents" had a nice AR/AK to kill Mariners. They would gladly trade 4 or 5 Mariners for one terrorist all day long.

 

[ilbob]

All officers and NCOs/POs should be armed at all times. Since we don't have enough side arms to issue to them, they should be encouraged to buy their own -- and deduct the cost from their income tax.

They should be issued enough ammo to practice regularly.

I seem to recall that at one time commissioned officers were generally permitted to go about armed. I don't know when that changed.

I doubt you are going to see any policy change from this kind of thing. The military has never been big on arming the average sailor, soldier, or marine except when they are on guard duty or in the trenches, and even then it is often under fairly strict control.

 

[Bullseye]

In a week or a month something else will probably happen and this will be old news. Nothing will be done to change the direction our enemy is moving in. The focus will be on the newest attack and the previous are forgotten by most.
I have to take off my sunglasses and ball cap if I go into certain places so a camera can identify me, but some woman ( assuming it is a woman ) can go any place dressed like a sheet covered goblin on Halloween and it is acceptable because of some religious excuse.
I am glad I have lived in the time I have, I feel sorry for the kids these days and those to come in this country and world as well. I am grateful for the men and women who serve and served this country and protected the land that I love. I think this garden needs a good weeding out.

My daughter is a recruiter for the past few years now with a dozen or more years serving this country and plans to stay in as long as she can. She is also a fantastic mother of 5 beautiful grandchildren of mine. Her man is a weapons instructor for the same length of service. They cannot defend themselves with a sidearm, nor the good American people around them?
When I was in the service these atrocities were undreamed of. We were on safe soil here at home. Things have changed and changed for good. Shame on the sheep for letting these things go on.

 

[taliv]

What are the consequences of having people shooting out into a public space through windows? What are the Constitutional implications of having armed military personnel on U.S. soil? What costs and logistical consequences? What are the consequences of "suspending" the freedoms we're supposed to have in this country? An attack like this has the greater goal of changing our way of life through our fearful reaction.

consequences are the same as a private ccw returning fire in any public place. we've always said you own the bullets, but when someone is shooting at you, it's worth the risk. the police, particularly in NY and LA, are famous for firing 48 rounds at a suspect and getting one hit in the leg. the gov hasn't historically been overly concerned about where the other 47 rounds landed

as i'm sure you know, there is a world of difference in individual members of the military responding for their personal safety, and the military conducting actual operations. (e.g. in walmarts in texas) I do not consider having some military personnel armed with defensive pistols a constitutional crisis. we're not talking about tanks here

 

[X-Rap]

Just as we are forced to change the way we view marriage, gender, flags, cake baking and Heaven forbid OC in Texas, so shall there be a paradigm shift in how this country deals with its security and who comes and goes. If not we are doomed.

 

[herrwalther]

Issuing duty firearms (M9 et all) to military personnel is completely unfeasible at our current inventory levels. I have been in units with hundreds of soldiers with only 2 or 3 pistols in the armory. A far more likely option is to allow private firearms. Most people in the military own private firearms, so it would be easy logistics wise.

I do not agree with arming every soldier/sailor/marine etc with a firearm. Or even an NCO/officer based on rank structure. The military is a sample of society. There are those who are very comfortable and effective with firearms and those who are not. I would not feel safe with a low level private whose military job is water purification specialist (yes real job) being a guard at a recruiting center, just because he bought a 1911 with his base pay. The ideal situation (since I don't think policy is going to change, no matter how many personnel are gunned down) would be to test anyone who wants to carry on post. The military does qualification tests for every firearm and weapon we use. Want to carry a private firearm on post? Do the M9 qualification course. Pass and you carry. Fail try again next time. Anyone who has taken the M9 course knows how easy it is but it would reduce the liability for the military in civil matters.

I worked in a recruiting office. There were 2 doors, front and back. And both had the no gun signs. I still carried. My logical thought was I would rather get an Article 15 and be alive instead of dead. And I know others who did the same. Since I don't think the policy will ever change, military personnel will either continue to voluntarily be at risk or disregard the order. The more instances like Chatanooga and Ft Hood, the more military that will be armed despite the orders.

 

[MagnunJoe]

X-RAP, POST #33, I agree with you, but it won't happen. As You pointed out, ALL the "new" things we have to live with are "progressive" liberal things. There are NO "conservative" attitudes that most Americans want to live or put up with.

 

[TomJ]

This pretty much sums it up

 

[X-Rap]

X-RAP, POST #33, I agree with you, but it won't happen. As You pointed out, ALL the "new" things we have to live with are "progressive" liberal things. There are NO "conservative" attitudes that most Americans want to live or put up with.

We'll adapt or perish, some may think that is an extreme claim but I truly believe we are but one election away from extinction as a country. we have pretty much lost relevance over the last decade and the parasites of the world are feeding on what little we have left.
Nearly 100 million of us not working, probably 20 million here illegally, totally governed by political correctness all the way through the highest court in the land, as states we look ok for the most part but that's due to the constant transfusions of federal cash.
If there is not a reversal to the current swing soon I fear the damage will be irreversible.
Right now even I feel optimistic about gun rights but when you see how quickly any unfavorable group can be demonized by the media we as gun owners are front and center.

 

[wingman]

The death of these 4 marines is due in part to political correctness, super poor immigration policies and the fear of profiling, at the very least let them be armed, if a soldier can't trusted with a weapon then certainly he should not be in uniform.

 

[SSN Vet]

Wearing a side arm in the Recruiting Office wouldn't have been of any benefit in that case.

Yes.... but if he had decided to enter the building and go room to room it certainly could have been a very great benefit.

CBS ran a "New Faces of Terror" Photo album, with shots of all the latest "Americans" who are known to have "signed up" with the Jihadis. A remarkable constancy to be seen if you scroll all 24 images.

So much for our "diversity" making us strong.

 

[cheygriz]

Drail,

It wasn't Cheney.

It was George H.W.Bush that signed the executive order to allow only Military Police to be armed in the CONUS.

Any future president could rescind that order with the stroke of a pen. If some general didn't like it, he could choose to obey it anyway, or retire.

 

[Drail]

The original order was D.O.D. Directive 5210.56 , signed by Donald J Atwood - Deputy Director D.O.D. under authority of Sec Def. Dick Cheney and President George Bush Sr. but it only applied to the U.S. Army. Bill Clinton signed a document that made it apply to all four branches of the military. Authority for this Directive is under the Sec. Def. The current Sec. Def. could stop this policy without approval from the Pres.

 

[leadcounsel]

I am a Veteran and I am very angry and very disgusted with our leaders.

Thank you, and all fellow vets. I am also a vet and very angry over this.

While I agree that military folks should be armed, let's get part of this story straight. The shooting did NOT occur in a gun-free zone. The shooter fired from inside his vehicle in a parking lot where people are most definitely allowed to carry guns, where local CHL'ers certainly could have tried to intervene had they been armed and willing.

Even if the military had been armed, it is unlikely that given the speed, surprise, and violence of action of the event that the poor Marines would have been able to respond.

Wearing a side arm in the Recruiting Office wouldn't have been of any benefit in that case.

Shockingly, this is not accurate and misses the deterrent effect. The shooter may have been deterred if he knew that he would receive immediate return fire versus a soft target.

The second attack was after he busted through a fence and onto a military installation/controlled area. All 4 Marines were killed INSIDE the controlled military installation footprint, inside the chain link fence.

Using THIS specific fact pattern to argue that the could not defend themselves so let's ignore it is a mistake.

We frequently see dynamic attacks on and off installations where armed Soldiers could mount an effective deterrent or counter-offensive.

As it stands now, the policy for an active shooter is for trained combat veterans to hide under desks.

a military reservation and should have had armed MP guards.

Having served on active duty for nearly a decade, and having driving onto a dozen installations, I can tell you that this is security theater.

Those guards weapons are likely unloaded, and they may not even have live ammo on their person. They are generally contracted security and effectively just useless.

This reminds me of the 300 Marines killed in Lebanon in the 1980s. A truck busted through the gate while Marines with their ineffective firepower floundered to stop it. That truck detonated and brought down the Marine barracks. Nothing has changed.

As a prosecutor in the Army, I had a case where a criminal leading MPs on a high speed chase and he raced OUT the gate past these same gate guards who did nothing. A person racing in would receive probably zero effective fire or prevention.

This guy in a Ford car was undeterred and busted through the fence with no problem.

 

[Iggy]

At a certain Air Force base today, they are allowing tourist in the front gate to see displays and demonstrations on Air Force day in conjunction with a famous rodeo. These people are allowed onto the base with no inspections or restrictions.

Meanwhile on the other side of the base, there is increased security due to the attack in TN. All military and civilian vehicles are being searched before being allowed to enter the base.

According to military regs, the security police have to ask for permission to search your vehicle, or if you refuse, allow you to make a U-turn and leave the area.

Where does this insanity end?

 

[leadcounsel]

What are the Constitutional implications of having armed military personnel on U.S. soil?

Funny, I recall countless times when I was Armed on a military installation with US Government issued weapons. At the range, ruck marching, live fire exercises....

I'd propose some changes to consider.

1. Immediately allow any E7 or 03 who is not flagged or otherwise untrustworthy and above to carry a privately owned weapon OWB.

2. Allow same to carry a duty issued weapon on post OWB.

3. As part of duty, post dual CQ guards with loaded M4s at various installation entries - various Headquarters and other key locations.

 

[Baron_Null]

What are the consequences of "suspending" the freedoms we're supposed to have in this country? An attack like this has the greater goal of changing our way of life through our fearful reaction.

Please, read this, and read this again. I can say with certainty that at this point I'm far more afraid of the people here who seem to wholeheartedly support restrictions on civil rights than I am of ISIL/ISIS. We as Americans stand to lose a lot from this attack, and blinidng yourself to the importance of civil liberties because you're afraid will only serve to exasebate the problem.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Shockingly, this is not accurate and misses the deterrent effect. The shooter may have been deterred if he knew that he would receive immediate return fire versus a soft target.

Nope, the concept here of being deterred is a straw argument. Being armed doesn't seem to stop the cops from being attacked. Being armed doesn't stop fundamentalists from attacking military bases. Being armed doesn't stop people who are willing to die for the cause. At best, if the claim of deterrence worked, then the attacker would have simply found another way. It isn't like deterrence means the crime wasn't going to happen.

 

[MagnunJoe]

Will be interesting to find out what type of weapons were used by this Islamic thug and how he got them. I hope that it wasn't a legal LGS purchase or a gun show buy.

 

[OilyPablo]

Two long guns and hand gun I have conflicting stories on acquisition. Shotgun and AK are being tossed around.

 

[Mousegun]

Another interesting note - Obama will not allow Officers to wear ceremonial swords or have a functional weapon in his presence.

I can certainly understand why that is. He knows how most military people feel about his leadership. He is covering his tail on that issue.

 

[Jim Watson]

Having served on active duty for nearly a decade, and having driving onto a dozen installations, I can tell you that this is security theater.

Those guards weapons are likely unloaded, and they may not even have live ammo on their person. They are generally contracted security and effectively just useless.

It doesn't have to be that way. It shouldn't be that way.