Gen. Blum: Not every guardsman on border 'will be armed'

[Trip20]

Do you understand the situation...

Yeah, I do. You and I will not disagree that the border is dangerous, that it needs to be secured, and that the governments inaction for far too long, is one cause of the problem.

What I don't agree with is people taking a comment by the General to it's absolute extreme taking his words and transforming them to mean we'll have hardly any arms on the border. Thats silly. The people who need to be armed, will be armed. The people who do not need to be armed, will not be armed.

Everyone is acting as if Guardsmen will be thrown into Mexico with no protection because the General stated not all of them would be armed.

Unless you have first hand knowledge of how Guardsmen are being put into danger - unarmed - then all you're doing is making assumptions so you can be angry about yet another thing you think the government is screwing up.

Chill out until you know the details. That's all I'm suggesting. Now, it's not as fun as screaming at the top of your keyboard about something you have little intimate knowledge of (i.e., exact operational information regarding Guardsmen duties)... but oh well.

 

[Destructo6]

I was right. They're nothing but window dressing so that our lame duck president can try to get his brother elected president.

Once again, they will probably augment the Border Patrol by doing those things that don't require the powers to arrest. IOW, running the cameras, so that agents don't have to be taken out of the field to do so.

 

[BryanP]

I notice no one seems to be reading this paragraph:

There will be a lot of jobs that we'll be performing that will not require people to carry sidearms. However, if they're in a mission profile where they could be subject to threat or injury, or their life is threatened, they will, in fact, carry weapons, just as they do in other missions around the world.

 

[Trip20]

BryanP -- How dare you. I guess all there is left to do in this thread is call Bush a few more names.

 

[HiWayMan]

QUOTE: "A radio operator in an office 100 miles from the border needs a weapon for what, exactly?"

Because he is serving in an arm of the United States of America's military. All servicemen should be armed at all times.

But, they are just "citizen soldiers", and the gov doesn't trust it's own citizens to bear arms at all times so I guess that was a fitting statement.

 

[ball3006]

So...........

the Guard has been on the border for the last 20 years fighting the war on drugs.....................great friggin' job they have been doing.......... chris3

 

[Matt King]

BLUM: In short, absolutely. Every soldier and airman always has the right of self-protection to preserve their life and to save the lives of others. But no, not every soldier and airman will be armed

Great call mr. president, this will really help.

How is the national guard supposed to defend our border's, if they're armed with nothing?

 

[AlaskaErik]

There will be a lot of jobs that we'll be performing that will not require people to carry sidearms. However, if they're in a mission profile where they could be subject to threat or injury, or their life is threatened, they will, in fact, carry weapons, just as they do in other missions around the world.

In Afghanistan, every single military member was required to be armed at all times, even behind the wire.

 

[John G]

I don't see a problem with unarmed soldiers, as long as the drug and people smugglers agree to not attack them.

 

[MarkDido]

The Marines and Sailors HAD personal weapons, but we were ordered to NOT have them LOADED when inside what were supposed to be secure areas. Marines were issues 30 round mags. Sailors usually only had 20 rounders for the M16 or M14s. The order was that a Magazine could not be inside the weapon (except for pistols) in certain areas.

I made several 6 month deployments to the Med in the 80's on various aircraft carriers. In port, the Ship's Self-Defense Forse (SSDF) carried weapons, unloaded, and we were not allowed to be seen by the locals (like being on the flight deck or the fantail). The brass didn't want to "offend" the host country. Like, driving a 90,000 ton warship into their harbor isn't threateniing, but me and my 12 gauge Ithica on the fantial is going to paralyze them with fear!

 

[Phetro]

A radio operator in an office 100 miles from the border needs a weapon for what, exactly?

For personal protection, and the protection of those around him. The same reason anyone anywhere "needs" a weapon.

Here's a thought for you though: need is not required for a thing to be present.

 

[Destructo6]

For personal protection, and the protection of those around him. The same reason anyone anywhere "needs" a weapon.

Does anyone bother to read previous posts or simply scan the title and type the first thing that pops into one's head?

When BP agents work the radios and/or cameras, they typically don't carry a weapon either. A weapon would be more a hindrance than help when your primary duty is to scan video monitors and type on keyboards. That's not to mention that they're in a secure compound with a dozen or more armed agents.

 

[garyk/nm]

What I especially like is the fact that the NG will be under the command of Governors. And since our illustrious Governor (feculent steaming pile) has already expressed his displeasure with this whole state of affairs, I guess the NG won't be doing much, if anything, in NM.
I will here omit any reference to hispanics getting in to positions of power and the havoc it can cause. Just so you know.