Governors Authorize National Guard to be Armed After Chattanooga Attack

Just saw this on a crawler on TV.

In the last 36 hours governors in as many as six states have authorized National Guard recruiters to be armed in their offices.

The state's are Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Florida and (sorry to anybody looking to tie it into Jade helm) Indiana.

Knee jerk reaction? Long overdue? Neither, but a good/bad idea anyway? Personally I like it. At a minimum it provides a sort of "guardian angel" for the offices and affords them at least some measure of protection.

www.nbcnews.com...

I see no problem as long as they aren't policing. Stick to your base or military office. Do not ride around thinking you are now the police or over others because you can now carry your firearms.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I think it's the right move.

a reply to: Shamrock6

i for one see a recruiters office as a installation / duty station, and as all installations / duty stations should have a guard on duty.
as far as each and every Marine, Sailor, Solider, Airmen being armed i don't think that is bad idea either.

I never understood why weapons weren't allowed on bases like that anyway... seems to be the exact opposite of what you'd expect/want.

a reply to: Shamrock6

but added that recruiters aren't armed because of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement. "We have to be careful about over-arming ourselves," Odierno said.

As long as this stays the way it is, I don't see a problem with it.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

In theory I don't either.

In practice, working in a warehouse is a pain in the ass with a weapon strapped on. Not to mention the logistics of providing sidearms for every last person in lieu of a rifle.

That's why I favor the idea of the guardian angel. Designated guards who are fully armed and are there to meet any threat that presents itself. Turn it into standing post, basically.

a reply to: Shamrock6

It took the tragic loss of lives to come to the only sane decision. They should have always had ability to defend while on the job representing their country. An unarmed military is a dead one.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Shamrock6

i for one see a recruiters office as a installation / duty station, and as all installations / duty stations should have a guard on duty.
as far as each and every Marine, Sailor, Solider, Airmen being armed i don't think that is bad idea either.

Like anywhere, you have to be seriously careful and proximity/threat aware, bases however generally have the added danger of stockpiles of ammunition. One solid round breaches that building and all hell can break lose. I was on many ammunition depots while overseas and the rule was no weapons, no lighters and no matches. I got away with carrying my guns and my cigarettes/lighter because of my clearances, but I had to remove clips, empty chambers and not go any further than 30 meters from the ops building if I didn't leave the restricted items in the ops building (unless I was on the actual base perimeters testing or commissioning the systems). It's a safety and asset protection measure.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

this was my last duty station. was a guard sad to see it gone. take the picture tour.

Yellow Water Special Weapons Storage Facility Magazine

safe to say 90% of the time on that base i had a weapon in my hand and on my side. i know all about the no lighters and no matches.

ETA: plus we had no electronics, which back then was just radio or boom boxes. cell phones weren't even thought about except for car phones.
funny we always use to joke about our radios, for calling in. couldn't bring a boom box to listen to that didn't broadcast, but we could use a radio to call in at check points/ times, and watch tv when we weren't on post.

Funny that for 216 years or so having weapons on military ground wasn't much of a problem - what changed other than political wind?

a reply to: Shamrock6

My conspiracy-theory mindset aside, I think this is a good thing to allow full-time national guard members to carry firearms for force protection of service-members and civilians and a great way to make sure the terrorists don't get back up as well, as in the military don't play around. Mess with one of ours or the American people and we will put you in the dirt, no court, no politically correct nonsense, but a resounding resolution, may any terrorist who wishes the American people to include civilians and service member who are American's and do uphold the constitution, may that terrorist be given a swift and absolute death by a patriot's hand.

I think this is well overdue, but better late then never. I also hope this makes a difference and can protect and save lives. Props to the governor's who put this together and brought this forward.

Even though the world is seemingly spiraling into slow chaos and it seems sometimes like we are all in a dirty, stinky, clogged-up toilet in this reality, at least a good story like this pops out here and there and I get happy a little because I' am reminded even though everything is so complicated, it can and will be overcome if we choose so, so remember even when SHTF at least in that dirty clogged up toilet, hope is a minty fresh sanitizing tablet in the toilet water , now that toilet is semi-clean and minty fresh so clean...Now we can rise to the next obstacle this is such as is life.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The state's are Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas,

Not to derail the thread, but I think you have identified the first eventual break away states.

On topic: I am fully supportive of our guardsmen being able to protect themselves. I see the state guard as being here to protect us, they should be able to protect themselves as well.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh great a bunch of over weight wannabe military police without any real training in firearms, I feel so much safer now.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh great a bunch of over weight wannabe military police without any real training in firearms, I feel so much safer now.

Nothing in what you have said has any basis in reality.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh great a bunch of over weight wannabe military police without any real training in firearms, I feel so much safer now.

Would you prefer they cower unarmed awaiting their turn to be executed? Way to denigrate serving members while making assumptions as to their training.

Long overdue and hope more states follow through with it. Some state universities have added campus carry. With no issues that some very worried about with the change, it's been a pretty positive outcome instead.

a reply to: Shamrock6

To tell someone they cannot be armed is more ridiculous.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh great a bunch of over weight wannabe military police without any real training in firearms, I feel so much safer now.

You feel less safe now?

Ok, so how would you choose to protect yourself?

Armed guards?

This is pretty dumb reaction to this event. EVEN IF they have been armed the style of attack could not have been prevented by them being armed.

A loaded weapon for miltiary persons that are not part of the military police is just a ton of extra headache when state side.