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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

All of which is feasible for a recruiter to do, is the only point I'm making.

Checking a weapon in and out of a controlled location. Carrying it in a government vehicle to the office. Carrying it in a govvie back to check it back in for the day.

You're listing problems with the notion of arming recruiters, I'm simply listing counterpoints.

It's feasible to do it. It's not something that wouldn't require some thought to implement, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Sure I guess, but now explain why it would be necessary to do this. Like I said, if it weren't for this recent situation, if we were posting guards outside recruitment offices you'd be seeing threads left and right on ATS talking about how this is a preparation for martial law and how it is a violation of posse comitatus. But instead, we have this event and now those same people are screaming that we should be posting guards outside these buildings. Why? How often do recruitment offices get attacked by lone nuts and or terrorists? Once. Last I checked, a one off event doesn't a pattern make.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tell THAT to Chattanooga...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Question, how do you feel about the Patriot Act or TSA confiscating water at airports? After all those two things were instituted post 9/11 to prevent another 9/11 from happening. Do you think those policies are more tedious or actually protect anything? Now apply this thinking to wasting military resources posting a guard to every recruiting office in the nation.

Man, you are military. Can't you see how obnoxious this request is? It's basically demanding that we use hindsight to prevent a tragedy that has already occurred and has VERY low odds of ever happening again. It's literally the SAME crap we went through with the Patriot Act and all that other nonsense we went through after 9/11.

If the bozo in the OP wants to waste time standing outside of a recruitment office with a gun because he thinks he is doing something productive, let him. But by no means should anyone honestly be thinking that the military needs to change any policies as a result of what happened in Tennessee.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

TSA ,DHS and DEA are non functional organizations. If they allow this to go on regularly ..dailycaller.com...
Care to check your odds?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Krazysh0t

TSA ,DHS and DEA are non functional organizations. If they allow this to go on regularly ..dailycaller.com...
Care to check your odds?

SEVEN ATTACKS in seven years? OH NO!!!! In another 300 million years there will be enough terrorist attacks to cover every person in the country. I'd say that averaging one terrorist attack a year is a pretty DAMN good statistic myself, but hey if you want to spin it some other way, then knock yourself out.

Though it's interesting you brought that statistic up in response to what I was saying since I was asking you to question the presence of those organizations as a result of us overreacting to a travesty in the news. If you are trying to show that they are ineffectual, then you are proving my point that posting a guard outside of recruiting offices as a response to the incident in Tennessee is also a bad idea.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
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.

Nope pretty sure it's the white guy being lauded as a hero for acting like a psychopath instead of demonized for loitering around with a gun.

a reply to: Awolscout

How can YOU qualify such a statement?
Your SKIN not withstanding as it is essentially a NON issue?
Unless YOU are a bigot...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't think it's necessary to arm every single one, so I'm not going to explain why it is. I've never favored arming every last recruiter.

The argument that it would violate PC is tenuous at best. And also utterly circumvented by arming national guardsmen.

Anything is taken as martial law prep by many on ATS, so that's pretty moot in my opinion.

How often do they need to be attacked?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Why arm ANY of them? Do you expect more of the attacks in Tennessee to happen? Because I certainly don't.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you expect the first one?

a reply to: Shamrock6

So because ONE statistical outlier occurs, that means we should abandon our loose security measures and spend resources to guard buildings that don't need guarding?

Should we post guards at all churches too? I didn't expect Dylan Roof to walk into a church and start shooting people either.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Isn't this thread about a guy standing outside a military recruiting office? Why are you bringing an entirely separate event that is only similar because it involves the use of a firearm into the discussion?

Again, you're ascribing some idea to me that isn't one I've ever advanced so I'm not sure why you keep expecting me to defend them.

Or why you continually ignore my questions.

Why is it that we don't take these Islamic radicals at their word?

Remember last year when they said they had names, addresses, and family affiliations of military personnel and they were going to send out assassins targeting them? I wonder how many of these recruiters were on that list. How did this muslim idiot know who to shoot, where to go, etc. Was it random? I wonder.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Isn't this thread about a guy standing outside a military recruiting office? Why are you bringing an entirely separate event that is only similar because it involves the use of a firearm into the discussion?

Because they are similar events. This thread is talking about trying to post guards outside of recruiting offices because some idiot civilian decided to do it (even though if he attempted to stop anyone with his gun he'd likely be arrested too for acting in an unofficial capacity to do what he was doing). I was creating a parallel to that situation. I would have thought that was obvious.

Again, you're ascribing some idea to me that isn't one I've ever advanced so I'm not sure why you keep expecting me to defend them.

I'm just talking to people who respond to me in a way that suggests they disagree with my points. I haven't read through the whole thread because I don't have time to do so. If you are so concerned with missing your point, how about spelling it out for me?

Or why you continually ignore my questions.

Which questions have I ignored?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Yes I do understand the systems in place regarding military small arms control. I am also familiar with armory procedures in one branch of the military. I am also aware that I have carried weapons in the civilian community for my job. Your assumptions seem to be based upon your personal (self admittedly) limited experience. I will chalk your allusion the I am not familiar with things up to lack of complete knowledge of the situation.

The OP is not about this subject so I will not be replying to your comments regarding military weapons as I feel it is counter productive to the point of the OP.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've maintained the same response in every thread I've participated in on the subject of arming recruiters. I see no reason to arm every last person who is stateside, nor have ever I advanced that idea at any point. If you're responding to what I'm saying, then respond to what I'm actually saying instead of asking me to defend something I haven't said.

Pretty much all of them except why you felt compelled to talk about church shootings.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've maintained the same response in every thread I've participated in on the subject of arming recruiters.

Every thread? I've only seen the one...

I see no reason to arm every last person who is stateside, nor have ever I advanced that idea at any point. If you're responding to what I'm saying, then respond to what I'm actually saying instead of asking me to defend something I haven't said.

So does that mean you want to arm some of them then?

Pretty much all of them except why you felt compelled to talk about church shootings.

Run through them again for me.

a reply to: notmyrealname

So what do you want then?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can recall three. Whether you've seen them or not isn't really germane to whether my response has stayed the same.

Yep.

Nope.