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

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I do not think that Active Duty Military that are not deployed carrying a weapon warrants mention of Posse Comitatus. The military is not being deployed to the streets of the USA in this case nor was it the case when the military carried firearms during duty in the past while in the US.

Also wasn't the OP about a civilian volunteering his personal time to help protect these men? Since when has society become so brainwashed as to see community protecting itself as a problem?

If our government does not have the resources/brains to allow our soldiers to defend themselves in the commission of their duties,

Given the money spent on the military they do. It's just not part of the plan.

Without a little terror every now and then, how will the war on terror survive. People have bought in, hook, line and sinker.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Personally, I'd have no problem with soldiers who are living and working in the states exercising their 2nd.

Liberty at last, armed and heading for the nearest bar to blow off steam… and a few rounds.

Military service is often a fine line of enormous stress of duty balanced with the training to kill in combat. For veterans of combat this is even worse…potentially.

Now I said potentially.

Upper management isn't concerned about the majority, of course.

As near as I know, it's illegal to carry a weapon into establishments serving alcohol and/or to carry a weapon while consuming alcohol. There's already laws against that so why should anybody be worried about it? It's illegal, laws always work so I'm not sure why that's even a valid example.

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

Actually in a very real ensue it is "extra illegal"; the military are bound by two sets of laws and double jeopardy does not apply. First they are bound by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) which has very harsh policies on just about everything. Second the same laws as everyone else. As such a Military member that violates the law in the community first faces punishment by the community's Justice system and then faces punishment by the military after that.

a reply to: roadgravel

I believe you are absolutely correct however, did not want to speculate on what the government was (not) thinking.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Good point except you are talking about a civil war and deploying the Military to the streets. We are taking about the actions of a neighborhood community member protecting his community.

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Basically my theory is that if the army needs protection from guys who aren't in good enough shape to join the army, we've taken a strategic wrong turn.

a reply to: The Vagabond

If the Army NEEDED them then your statement would be correct however, that is not the case. The army did not ask of protection here. If the Military was able to defend themselves, this would not be an issue.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I see it as a symbolic message, that many would not agree with it, specially those that care less about Americas constitutional rights of guns.

But it is a messages regardless to all those terrorist out there that Americans that love their right to arms will not take terrorist acts with calm.

We are ready, armed and will defend our own..

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Personally, I'd have no problem with soldiers who are living and working in the states exercising their 2nd.

Liberty at last, armed and heading for the nearest bar to blow off steam… and a few rounds.

Military service is often a fine line of enormous stress of duty balanced with the training to kill in combat. For veterans of combat this is even worse…potentially.

Now I said potentially.

Upper management isn't concerned about the majority, of course.

As near as I know, it's illegal to carry a weapon into establishments serving alcohol and/or to carry a weapon while consuming alcohol. There's already laws against that so why should anybody be worried about it? It's illegal, laws always work so I'm not sure why that's even a valid example.

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

Actually in a very real ensue it is "extra illegal"; the military are bound by two sets of laws and double jeopardy does not apply. First they are bound by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) which has very harsh policies on just about everything. Second the same laws as everyone else. As such a Military member that violates the law in the community first faces punishment by the community's Justice system and then faces punishment by the military after that.

My seven years in the military gave me a rather close up view and familiarity with the UCMJ, thanks.

My point was that carrying a gun into a bar and consuming alcohol is already illegal, therefore the example I was responding to is pointless. Making things "extra" illegal serves no purpose, so to use the example of a service member going out for drinks while strapped and popping off some rounds is wildly hyperbolic.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I see it as a symbolic message, that many would not agree with it, specially those that care less about Americas constitutional rights of guns.

But it is a messages regardless to all those terrorist out there that Americans that love their right to arms will not take terrorist acts with calm.

We are ready, armed and will defend our own..

Well said. Some of our corrupt and easily bought politicians need to shut the hell up and pay attention once again to what The People are saying. No way will Americans stand around with their thumbs up their you-know-whats and let this happen again if they can help it.

Thank god there are still rational Americans left that can think for themselves without some PC politician getting in our way. As long as he is doing everything according to the law, I applaud him. It makes me feel a bit more optimistic about the American male.

When this president we have now flies the flag for Whitney Houston's death at half mast, but doesn't do the same for the five military men that died in Chattanooga, we aren't dealing with a commander-in-chief that is playing with a full American deck.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I do not think that Active Duty Military that are not deployed carrying a weapon warrants mention of Posse Comitatus. The military is not being deployed to the streets of the USA in this case nor was it the case when the military carried firearms during duty in the past while in the US.

You can't take a weapon issued to a soldier off base without being deployed.

Also wasn't the OP about a civilian volunteering his personal time to help protect these men? Since when has society become so brainwashed as to see community protecting itself as a problem?

I have no problems with a civilian wasting his time standing outside of a recruitment office with a gun, but there are very real reasons why the military doesn't guard these places itself.

a reply to: Shamrock6
I was not arguing with you I was simply adding to what you had already stated.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am familiar with the current policy and disagree with it. Also the fact that the Military is leasing/owns the recruiting station would technically make it part of - or - a base itself.

a reply to: notmyrealname

So they don't need it, just they can't do it themselves. So now the army is to gunfights as hippies are to earning money?

a reply to: notmyrealname

Why? Do you know how controlled weapons are in the military? They go through a tight control process to make sure no accidents happen, no one steals or sells their weapon away from the military, no one loses it, and other reasons. I used to work in my unit's armory shortly before I ETS'd. Weapon usage is VERY tightly regulated, and anyone arguing to change that is arguing from a civilian standpoint and really doesn't understand military culture.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Reservists take weapons off base all the time. Not all reserve training centers have ranges.

This country and it's rules and laws have become so convoluted that it's almost embarrassing.
It's REALLY sad when soldiers of these United States military who forswear an oath to defend the country against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, cannot even carry a weapon (even on military property) on the land they have obligation and responsibility to defend.

This SITTING DUCK zone foolishness needs to end. NOW!!!!! Thank you!

a reply to: Shamrock6

Well those weapons are still controlled through an armory and they still can only take them too and from the range they are headed to. Though I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to put those weapons into a civilian vehicle (or at least they shouldn't be allowed to do that).

originally posted by: Yule C Mann
This country and it's rules and laws have become so convoluted that it's almost embarrassing.
It's REALLY sad when soldiers of these United States military who forswear an oath to defend the country against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, cannot even carry a weapon (even on military property) on the land they have obligation and responsibility to defend.

This SITTING DUCK zone foolishness needs to end. NOW!!!!! Thank you!

Who told you this? Military personnel are allowed to carry weapons. They just can't carry their issued weapon where ever they want, but military are STILL 100% allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment right and buy their own guns.

The military has been like this for a LONG time, yet suddenly this is only an issue because of the recent event in the news... Any other day and you'd be seeing ATS members yelling about imminent martial law because a soldier was standing outside of a building guarding it with a gun.

a reply to: The Vagabond
The lack of ability is not physical lack of ability, it is a political hampering.