Governors Authorize National Guard to be Armed After Chattanooga Attack

Just a little over a month ago there was an ISIS inspired plot against my base. They nabbed the guy ahead of time.

In my area if you want to kill US soldiers all you have to do is hang out just about anywhere in the surrounding communities. On weekends and off duty hours I do not go on post because I am carrying a firearm on me. Despite the fact that there is now a heightened security status on my base and there is 24 hour armed guards at all ECPs, it is not impossible to get on base undetected and cause real damage.

If I'm not at work, I carry. Otherwise I don't go on post at all.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Wannabe military police? You realize that most members of the military don't like MPs, much less want to be one....?

Saw this article this morning:

ky3.com...

Missouri state legislators are asking their governor to follow suit and arm full time National Guard at all Guard installations and facilities.

a reply to: Shamrock6
All of these are pro carry states. Most employees can carry.
The only thing stopping them from going armed, are employer rules of conduct. Or location rules. Such as a government office if you are employed by the state.

originally posted by: Pyle
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.

It should not be a problem, at least from physical position. The national guard is under state control, if that changes or the police come under federal control then that is a major problem. The only problems in any event concerning control are procedural and political. Arm as many as possible, make sure ammunition storage is well protected and if some asshat starts trying to kill service personnel or anyone else, off them on the spot. Better to have one dead idiot than one or more dead responsible people.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Pyle
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.

no one said prevention, it is response. if the people at the first location had been armed and fired back. chances are 50 /50 if not higher that the attack at the second location wouldn't have happened.

nothing short of knowing in advance could have stopped this style of attack, at least if someone is armed and returns fire it could lessened the death toll.

a reply to: rockintitz

What I would prefer is people not have to kill each other period.

a reply to: quercusrex

It was sarcasm wrapped in a smidgeon of truth. Get real, you think arming a national guard is safe? It does not matter who has the guns, safety is an illusion and this whole fiasco with guns proves it.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

If wishes were horses....

That would be great, but when the reality is something else entirely it becomes silly to not take measures to deal with reality because one hopes it'll change.

Most troops over seas are not armed.Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq didnt all carry weapons. Hell when I worked in Kyrgyzstan the only permanent party people with weapons "other then pocket knives" were Security Forces and we worked on a public airport surrounded by locals with weapons. All the ground pounders that came through had weapons but no ammo and no easy way to get ammo.

See what I am getting at? DOD wants to avoid at all costs everyone carrying weapons when they dont need it. Ammo counts and weapons are all tracked. If we arm recruiters where are they going to store the weapons when off duty? A good amount of them are no where near a armory. I can tell you this the DoD does not like weapons floating around.

Finally what kind of message does it send when we have to arm recruiters in our own country?

Georgia not ordering them tot. Gov. Nathan Deal stands pat on arming National Guard after Tennessee shootings They already can, it seems.

Deal spokesman Brian Robinson said the governor made the decision after consulting with Georgia National Guard leader Joe Jarrard. He said the two concluded that no policy change was needed “because current state law allows members of the Guard to arm themselves if they choose to.”

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

I apologize for not recognizing the sarcasm. But, I question your idea of the whole gun fiasco. Self reliance was the backbone of those who truly founded this country. As they walked through the Appalachians they had muskets firmly in hand. Their progeny have continued to identify and build this land. To think that we receive the gift our forefathers left for us without having a ready finger on the trigger and a steady eye to aim is childish and asinine. Blow your rainbow colored smoke up somebody else's ass.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So the answer is to just put guns in everyones hands and let the dead fall where they may. Awesome solution.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Shamrock6

So the answer is to just put guns in everyones hands and let the dead fall where they may. Awesome solution.

No, the answer is to say "If you shoot at me, I WILL shoot back"

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

I don't see anywhere in my post where I advocated murder.

Only defense of oneself. I don't see anything wrong with being on even footing with someone who wants to kill me or you.

When the first NG desk jockey empties his magazine into his ex-girlfriend and the guy she is now going out with, while on duty and with a government supplied weapon are we all just going to say " Thank God he could defend himself against terrorists!"?

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Lol what a wildly hyperbolic response.

Quercusrex answered it appropriately I think. The answer is definitely NOT "hey you can shoot us up and we'll just take it."

@ Montana - no. We ex military will probably all say "what a s-bag and terrific job screwing over everyone else because you're such an s-bag." Civilians will wring their hands and scream about it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

It's a very good idea.

Military overseas are much more on guard, and wary. Here in the states, not as much outside of major bases. This is long overdue...the oceans aren't moats anymore.

a reply to: Montana

Why would we?

It'll be murder.

a reply to: Montana

I've heard this before when the castle law went into effect in Florida, and oklahoma...

Oh no blood in the streets think of the children...

This is not your grandfathers national Guard... Many guardsmen have as many deployments as many active duty.

Which means they are pretty well trained... Oh an all the manning cuts the last few years many active duty that got a pink slip joined the reserve and guard.