It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Man armed with AR-15 stands guard at Virginia military recruiting offices

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:06 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I think it would be, by those who aren't bigots. It goes to the whole "Muslims need to stand up to the radicalized ones." That would be standing up to them, in my mind.

That being said, I don't imagine the initial reaction would necessarily be favorable unless they contacted somebody beforehand to let them know what they (the Muslims) were doing.

Because Muslims.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:13 AM
Hey you guys like the slippery slope anecdotes right...

Well here is one...

There used to be lots of terror shootings in Ireland...

Then the military patrolled with guns...
Defended bases etc

Like you're advocating...

But it didn't stop attacks, it just stopped shootings...

Instead there was a massive uptick in car bombs and nail bombs and all the indiscriminate attacks you can put into an explosive device...

So, you know, be careful what you wish for...

Because if you start sitting armed at these places, soon you'll have no choice but to have military checkpoints in every corner...

Just sayin'...
Good day.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:15 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Probably but as to the trust issues its KIND of iffy having some of our '"allies" hitting us in Afghanistan.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:16 AM
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yes of course it would be much smarter to communicate the plan before hand...

I assume if a Muslim did what this gentleman did, very admirable btw...
It'd be a one way stop to the nearest interrogation centre.

I'd like to see it though, unity will always be preferable.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:19 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I think there's probably three Muslims in Winchester. Maybe four. They'd probably have to bring somebody in by car or bus and then everything just goes to hell.

I can see Fox now....

"Breaking - car load of Muslims standing around doing nothing outside Winchester recruiting center BUT THEY HAVE GUNS"

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:19 AM
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Yes it's like you usually say cav, how do you know who is who when they hide among the locals...

But I do find your friendly fire assertion ironic given the brand new thread on the front page.

But it is a risk if they go undercover among the Taliban.

Sad really.
edit on 20-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:21 AM
a reply to: Awolscout

Who's the bigot here?
AUTOMATICALLY a man who chooses to safeguard a recruiting center is a PSYCHOPATH?
Where did YOU get YOUR degree in mental health?
OBVIOUSLY you don't know squat about guns.
AND your mention of SKIN is a dead giveaway.
The issue here is stopping Islamic nuts and other NUTS from killing our unarmed military ,not your precious war on skin.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:23 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Not sad EVIL.
WE should NEVER have done this to each other at all ,ESPECIALLY in the dawn of the 21st century.
We are ALL being played on a monumental level,and no one knows how to break it.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:24 AM
a reply to: Shamrock6

lol the first thing that came to my mind was the old comedy sketch of clown cars...

I just imagined tonnes of Muslims pouring out armed to the teeth.

I think you have a point though, depending on whether its communicated beforehand, it would then have to be spun by the media to look like a bad thing...

Aptly, you chose the one media outlet I imagine would turn it into a shariah no go zone story.
edit on 20-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:27 AM
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Evil too...

But I was mainly talking about those who go undercover to fight the terrorists...

Not those who blend into an innocent crowd.

That's why I said it's sad.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:30 AM
Does anyone think if we let the Middle East sort out it's own problems then attacking US interests might not be of interest to the people there?

The US started it, continues it and many wonder why the conflict is coming here.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:40 AM

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh I see. It should be EXTRA illegal for a military member to do it. Gotcha.

Well it is that way right now. Should or should't isn't the issue, I don't make military doctrine, just explained it to a very small degree regards active duty soldiers and arms in public spaces.

The bar thing was a joke, Sir Lancelot.

Right to the name calling. Quaint.

I'm not a gotcha or a quaint.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 08:21 AM
a reply to: roadgravel


Everybody knows that things are automatically better with access to wifi, Levi's, and Starbucks.

That's why it keeps working so well for everybody we inflict it on.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 08:25 AM
So many people in this thread don't know how the military issues small arms to its soldiers... Plus has no one in this thread heard of Posse Comitatus?
edit on 20-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 08:30 AM
This is why recruiters are not armed Navy Recuiter shoots self in leg The fact is as deplorable as this act was it is an extremely rare event. Unfortunately accidental shootings or work place shootings are far more common.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 08:47 AM
a reply to: Awolscout

Im sure that the 2nd amendment totally had fully automated weapons in mind.

well actually it did. the 2nd combined with the militia act( which by the way was one of the first gun laws, and it required gun ownership) were intend for every citizen to be able to fight on a equal ground of a army. it wouldn't do much good to turn out with a squirrel gun when the enemy were toting .50 to .75 cal bore muskets.

there is a part in the militia act that states that gun manufacturers, make ..... well here are the words from the act in section I at the end of the paragraph.

and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
The Militia Act of 1792

there was one manufacturer that at least 25% of the muskets they made used surplus U.S. military barrels.

Fortunately, enough of the privately owned militia muskets have survived that we know a great deal about them.

The .62- to .70-caliber barrel can be either a surplus US military musket barrel or of new manufacture. The tapered round barrel is typically 40″ to 42″ long, of .69-caliber, with the lines similar to what became the M1816 military barrel and mounted with a small bayonet lug to secure an M1816-type socket bayonet. The musket sports a small, brass or steel (bayonet lug) front sight but typically no rear sight.

If the barrel was newly manufactured, states like Massachusetts required that all musket and pistol barrels made in the state, other than US Armory or contract barrels, be proofed. “Provers” were appointed at the county level by the state. Once a barrel was proofed, the prover stamped the breech with a “P” for proof, his initials and the year of the proof.

Approximately, 25 percent of the militia muskets examined are fitted with surplus American military musket barrels. The barrel used by Connecticut gunsmith, Buell, to build the New England militia musket pictured here is a surplus military barrel and so proofed and stamped with the “V/P eagle head” proof mark.
The Militia Act Of 1792

so the idea that the 2nd was just for hunting or sporting is a load of horsesh@@. and if big governement types hadn't been elected and continued to be from then on the laws would probably never changed. big government can't stand if enough people are armed equally and get pissed enough to put a stop or step in where it won't.
edit on 20-7-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 08:50 AM
a reply to: Shamrock6

inflicting the Shah on Iran and helping Saddam against Iran worked so well that now the US leaders want to destroy Iran because it's tired of our vision for them. US belief in forcing foreign countries to see it our way seems to back fire pretty much every time. But at least some US interest gets rich while it happens.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:29 AM

originally posted by: Awolscout

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Awolscout

You know the guy?

Do I need to? It's just another white guy that thinks the soldiers are above reproach and all "heroes" by default.

Anyone that just stands in the middle of a parking lot with an AR15 for no actual reason is a nutjob.

Hell you hear him he doesn't even think any attack or anything will happen, he then goes into how much everyones thanked him with tears in their eyes.

He's a narcissist that sees himself as a hero for standing around like a psycho. Kind of like what I would imagine half of ATS would do in the same situation.

Right, because you're the expert.

"White guy" ...I didn't know this was a race issue, huh.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:36 AM

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I do wonder if this would be appreciated if Muslims came forward to protect bases and recruitment centres.

I'd hope so, but I'm not that confident it would.

You might be surprised. It could go a long way towards relations, actions over words and all that.

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:51 AM

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: notmyrealname

If you mean defending against the terrs on a civil level, thats novice and all, but its like trying to defend against lightning. Even though theres a lot of lightning, its probably not going to hit you, ever.

We disagree on this point. Whether there is an attempt again on a military installation is irrelevant. The act of We The People start taking care of We The People in a responsible manner is the point of this evolution. It is an added bonus that there would be someone on duty ready to attempt to stop an attack. If our government does not have the resources/brains to allow our soldiers to defend themselves in the commission of their duties, We The People should.

The notion (from wherever) we can defend against lightning strikes is kind of silly, defending against terrorism this way is in fact dangerously like Marshall law. Putting guards with automatic rifles (God forbid, military soldiers) on every street corner is not the answer. But maybe that will make Fox feel safe?

The lighting strike parable is your fabrication and as such your defending something that you made up makes it doubly irrelevant; there is no lightning here to discuss. Also your Red Herring of putting troops on street corners is not the point of the OP nor my post so please try and keep your mini-rant of doom and gloom relevant. Lastly, if it makes the unarmed targets (soldiers) feel safe and the neighborhood safe, I do not care about what FOX news feels.

With firearms comes responsibility like you say, but not everyone is responsible. Especially 18 year old, combat trained, young men.

Your argument here is a weak attempt of a Logical Fallacy(False Dichotomy) argument. Not everyone is responsible so all 18 year old soldiers are irresponsible. If you must discuss things that are apparently not within your scope of understanding (i.e. Military matters, Personal responsibility, community activism) then please try to use less blatant attempts of deceptive argument and simply state that you do not agree.

This guys idea is kind of overreacting, the terrs aren't going to hit there while he's on "duty". They'll come back when he's gone.

You can have an opinion that he is overreacting and as I stated above we disagree on this point however one thing that you are inadvertently correct on is that no-one will be attacking out unarmed soldiers where this man has taken up duty; for this I applaud his actions.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in