How should we formally arm our troops?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:48:11 -0400

Something has to done and done soon. You can be assured the attack on the Marine and NAVY recruiters will happen again. I have no proof to back up my statement, but common sense should make you realize it will happen again. Our recruiters can't be left to be sitting ducks. They need to be armed. At least they have a chance at defending theirselves. Now for the story from American Thinker.

The terrorist organization known as ISIS has made it clear that a part of its jihadist war plan against America is carrying out so-called "lone wolf" attacks aimed primarily against members of our military and possibly their families. The attacks in Chattanooga by an apparent Islamic lone wolf are the latest result of that terror tactic. We can only guess as to what the future holds for American warriors and their families. We should not wait to find out.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/how_to_formally_arm_our_troops.html#ixzz3gIj9jTZo

Blog: How to formally arm our troops

The terrorist organization known as ISIShas made it clear that a part of its jihadist war plan against America is carrying out so-called "lone wolf" attacks aimed primarily against members of our military and possibly their families. The attacks in Chattanooga by an apparent Islamic lone wolf are the latest result of that terror tactic. We can only guess as to what the future holds for American warriors and their families. We should not wait...

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Jul 18 at 2015 10:57 PM

CPO Jon Campbell — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:57:04 -0400

I will not be easy, but it should be done.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 10:59 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:59:59 -0400

By providing extensive weapons training during recruiting school. For those already in the field utilize CATM at their assigned base to provide them with M9 training. Then AFRS should purchase concealment holsters and M9s to arm the force.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jul 18 at 2015 11:12 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:12:28 -0400

we can't arm recruiting stations, they're not "military" property, recruiters would be subject to local and state firm arms laws.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 18 at 2015 11:51 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:51:05 -0400

Yes.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 18 at 2015 11:52 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:52:26 -0400

If recruiters were to be armed it may have to be so in a non-threatening manner. Having a weapon visibly strapped to the leg, or an M4 slung on the back doesn't seem like a good idea for marketing purposes.....even if the military is about defending the country.

Requiring concealed carry might not seem like a bad idea though, I know some recruiters operate outside of uniform anyway.

Response by Cpl Tim Lang made Jul 19 at 2015 12:10 AM

Cpl Tim Lang — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:10:23 -0400

I think we start by arming all officers, staff NCOs, and CPOs.

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Jul 19 at 2015 12:58 AM

SMSgt Tony Barnes — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:58:15 -0400

I was a 1st Sgt for a recruiting squadron. I estimate more than half my recruiters were on anti-depressants such as Paxil. Are you sure you want them carrying heat?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 8:00 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 08:00:36 -0400

Integrate a Quarter deck at all Navy and Marine Recruiting Stations and stand watch the same way it's done on a ship...side arm and shotgun. I'm sure we can afford to add a few Sailors and Marines to stand this duty all around the US. Let's make it happen quickly. We should not feel threatened on our own soil!!

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jul 19 at 2015 9:40 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:40:29 -0400

See how upside down we have become? We are having to have a discussion (as a country) about arming the "armed" forces of the United States to protect themselves on U.S. soil. This is further evidence of how far we have drifted.
Recruiters are usually NCO's or Staff NCO's. They should be responsible enough to carry a side arm or I might question why, in a time of large draw downs, they are still in the armed forces. If we have NCO's/Staff NCO's that are not comfortable with firearms I would really question them being on the wall. I could see an exception for healthcare related positions where there might be a conflict perhaps a few others.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 9:53 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:53:47 -0400

If they receive proper training and carried concealed would be one way. Another way would also be to provide them with bullet proof vests, recruiting station windows/glass should be bullet proof, and have armed (open carry) security guard/officers.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 19 at 2015 10:07 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:07:47 -0400

A few of the veteran FB pages I'm in have been discussing this. A few have suggested (and a few have implemented) a group of legally armed veterans standing guard at recruiting stations, observing applicable state laws.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Jul 19 at 2015 10:09 AM

Maj Mike Sciales — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:09:33 -0400

I don't think arming everybody is the answer. We've got enough intra-service murders as it is. Weapons are restricted on Military bases for solid reasons. If we arm do we issue sidearms? Will killers then simply switch to rifles with scopes? Maybe bombs? In the 1970s domestic terrorists (Weather underground, SLA, Symbionese Liberation Army, George Jackson brigade and others) were wrecking havoc, blowing up recruiting booths, ROTC offices and the like. We didn't over react then like we are now. Our needs might be better served by identifying the source of the disaffection and working to treat it. This last killer's life was imploding. He'd lost his job, gotten a DUI arrest, was doing drugs. He was like Michael Douglas' character in "Falling down." It's tempting to over react, but that is only addressing "symptoms" and not the disease. Don't forget, a few weeks earlier in Tennessee a recruiter Guardsman got fired and he went psycho in the office. Didn't hear any call for arming recruiters then. We need to take a deep breathe and think hard.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jul 19 at 2015 10:18 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:18:19 -0400

As a retired senior LEO this is MO. There shouldn't be a blanket statement that says arm all officers and NCOs. Some of them scared the shit out me when they were handling their assigned M9. There needs to be a designated certifier on who can carry. Each base has one person that signs a concealed carry card (someone in the PMO). There needs to be an established qualification table for concealed carriers and designated scorers. If they do not put in control measures there is going to be people hooking up their buddies, so they can carry, who shouldn't be carrying. If they do not establish controls, people carrying that shouldn't be carrying, are going to hurt people that shouldn't be getting hurt.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jul 19 at 2015 11:09 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:09:55 -0400

This is how to Arm the Armed Forces:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Jul 19 at 2015 12:26 PM

Sgt Ken Prescott — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:26:32 -0400

Arming the recruiters is solving only part of the problem. It's a necessary step, but it's only one step.

Armed recruiters would not have made much of a difference at Chattanooga, because the shooter engaged from standoff range outside the recruiting office, and very few of the victims would've had the ability to engage effectively.

Another problem: there are a LOT of NCOs and officers whom I would not trust with small arms in a tactical situation, because they haven't learned the skills needed to survive said situation--or even the skills required to safely bear arms. Combat troops have this drilled into them--but combat arms personnel make up only about 10% of the Marines and Army, and far less of the Navy and Air Force.

This problem will kill any arm-the-troops initiative because no commander in his right mind is going to risk the consequences of a (likely to happen) negligent discharge.

So, what needs to be done?

I believe we need a force protection training program to equip non-combat-arms personnel with the skills needed to safely handle firearms on a routine basis, the tactical skill to respond to an attack, the ability to act as an instructor and leader in local force protection initiatives, and risk assessment and mitigation skills to aid the commander in establishing and maintaining force protection measures.

This program would be joint (as this is a joint problem, and many of the most vulnerable facilities are joint ones; also, I want one standard for critical things like interfacing with local law enforcement). To be eligible to apply for the program, one must be an NCO or warrant/ commissioned officer (Army SP4s and USAF SrAs need not apply; in the E-4 ranks, only Army hard-stripe Corporals and USAF SSGs are eligible unless those branches change their manpower policies), with at least four years' time in service.

The evaluation process begins with the chain of command; consideration for the assessment phase will only be given to those who have favorable endorsement from their chain of command to the O-6 CO/OIC level. COs and OICs are expected to interview the candidate and the candidate's immediate seniors in the chain of command prior to granting favorable endorsement to the application.

The candidate will then participate in the assessment phase. This will consist of a physical fitness test and relevant portions of the USMC Combat Fitness Test (notably, the buddy drag/carry and movement under fire sections). All of this will be given at the end of a full day's work--the enemy isn't going to attack you when you're fresh and ready to go, after all! The assessment phase concludes with an interview by the selection board; this will be aimed at assessing the candidate's maturity and ability to instruct and advise.

Successful candidates will then undergo an eight-week program focused on the following areas:

1. Threat analysis, with risk analysis and mitigation strategies for garrison and field conditions.
2. First aid under fire.
3. Law governing the use of force
4. Weapons maintenance & safety
5. Tactical training, focused on immediate action drills, shoot/no-shoot criteria, and coordinating with law enforcement or other first responders.
6. Techniques of military instruction (Train the Trainer)

Qualification isn't one-and-done; elements will require at least annual re-certification--and the training for same will need to be done mostly on the certificant's own time. However, an individual who maintains the qualifications should be viewed with favor for promotion, retention, and assignment preference, as these are useful skills for any branch of service.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 12:43 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:43:13 -0400

I've been through a few M9 refresher classes...I'm not sure I WANT every member of the military armed.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Jul 19 at 2015 12:50 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:50:33 -0400

HK MP5SDs so the noise doesn't disturb the shoppers.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jul 19 at 2015 1:03 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:03:20 -0400

I was just talking to my wife about this yesterday. imho, every active duty service member should be armed, with certain exceptions. Being armed in engineering spaces on Navy/CG ships, for instance would be an unfortunate encumbrance that inhibits duty performance. But every ground trooper, every airman, ever person on a shore installation, should be armed. Why do our troops have M5's or whatever the latest is, down range, but as soon as they get on the airplane - turn it in... Why aren't all officers and Senior Enlisted carrying loaded side arms?

The arguments of the past about people not knowing how to handle them, so there are accidents is bunk. Train like you fight!!! If our folks have to be armed with Mwhatevers and Sidearms down range, how can we justify them not being armed at home?

There are discussions in some states about concealed carry for some recruiters... Forget that. Concealed pistols just take time to get to and are not a visible deterrent. Fully strapped...

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Jul 19 at 2015 4:19 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:19:54 -0400

2 words - Posse Commitatus. 2 more words - HELL NO... Security checkpoints/guards yes

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Jul 19 at 2015 4:33 PM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:33:48 -0400

I have some experience with planning for these types of situations (active shooters). I know that there is NO end-all, do-all solution. However, we need to evaluate a few things:

1. Force Protection (where appropriate). I think there's a lot to be said about Force Protection. I know it's not a simple solution, nor will it work in every situation, but to dismiss it without evaluation is lunacy.
2. Arm Service Members. The idea that men and women with combat experience aren't allowed to carry a sidearm is ludicrous. Would it be logistically horrendous to develop / institute an "open carry" type certification for service members?
3. Harden military targets. I despise the idea of surrendering more liberty for (more?) security. However, I can tell you - from years of experience in the commercial nuclear industry - that the use of metal detectors AND chem-sniffers WILL stop nearly ALL contraband-intrusion events. Yes, I know that's not logistically possible, but is there something in between that can increase protection without such drastic measures?

And remember, THIS bottle's been uncorked. Designing a security system to look for a shoe bomber or an underwear bomber is stupid.

Lastly - get rid of the dumb-ass "No Beretta M-9 / 92FS" signs.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jul 19 at 2015 6:31 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 18:31:16 -0400

There should be military guards at all military installations. As was done, traditionally, Marines should guard Naval Bases, both USN and USMC. I would extend that to recruiting stations.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 7:12 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 19:12:35 -0400

To the teeth.

Response by MCPO Katrina Hutcherson made Jul 19 at 2015 8:12 PM

MCPO Katrina Hutcherson — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 20:12:20 -0400

I can't believe General Odierno sighted the Posse Comitatus Act as a reason for not allowing our military personnel to carry defensive weapons. The act prevents the military from enforcing domestic laws not defending themselves. I am in complete agreement with LCDR Rabbi Jaron Matlow and others who say you fight the way you train and if you can't qualify or be trusted with a weapon there is no place for you in the military with the exception of medical and religious personnel (if they choose to be excluded). If we were trained to defend ourselves in a domestic setting we would become proficient. If law enforcement personnel can, the military certainly can. The Coast Guard carries with a round in the chamber on Law enforcement patrols! I was in Kuwait guarding the port where 98% of supplies were pouring in and the Army Commander was so worried about accidental discharge that we were ordered to carry our M-16 without a magazine. Any idiot could take one look at us and see we were in no position to defend ourselves let alone the port!! When we came home from deployment I had several people leave the service and I couldn't blame them. Their reasoning was they signed up to defend their country but it was a disservice to their families if they couldn't even defend themselves. I could have one in the chamber INCONUS but was carrying an empty weapon in a high threat combat rear area...I still shake my head in disbelief!!! Accidental discharges be damned, I would rather die with my boots on than with a target on my back !

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 20 at 2015 7:43 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:43:07 -0400

Alright, if we're going to do this, let's look at it logically.

First and foremost, we need to provide training. Pistol qualification at the basic level would be a 2 week event which would have to be added to the Basic/Bootcamp level (or MCT/MOS/AIT, etc). That's the only way to ensure "everyone" is trained.

Second we need to provide Annual Refresher training, much like we do for Rifle Qualification.

Third, we need to provide State/Local Training, as every state is a little different, and the rules regarding such are different. This would likely be a 1-2 day class upon arrival to the base, and a annual/semi-annual refresher (tied in with Annual Pistol Qualification).

Fourth, there is the matter of Age restrictions. In order to purchase a handgun, you must be over the age of 21. I do not know what individual States have enacted for possession, but let's assume there will be some deconfliction which must take place.

Fifth is storage. How do we store these weapons, and ammo. In bootcamp, we had "armory racks" but no ammo. We could likely provide lockboxes in the barracks, and issue them as well to troops who live offbase, however there are cost issues which would have to be accounted for. Even at $50 each (SWAG $ figure) that adds up fast for 1M troops.

Policies regarding alcohol consumption. Can a weapon be stored in a vehicle? Can a weapon be handed off to a spouse? These are all things that need to be accounted for.

Response by PO3 Shayna Stevens made Jul 20 at 2015 11:05 AM

PO3 Shayna Stevens — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:05:44 -0400

My thoughts on this post:
Active Military and veterans should have the right to always carry. Cops can carry. Why can't we? Especially because of this situation.
Isis wanting to kill Americans or/and military members... is, I believe, because we won't get out of their countries. I mean, we're kind of a huge bully over there (we ARE trying to help those who need help, yes) but isn't that their problem? We can't save everyone. There are millions and billions of people in the world dying from this and that and we as Americans (not only military) are all over the world trying to help some cause. And I'm sure we're not the only country that cares.
I think if we care so much about our people, we need to leave their country alone. And if they don't leave us alone, and they are killing their people and our people, and their civilians hate being there, they are dumb for staying, and if they can't leave I'm sure they'd rather be dead than watch their families die and everyone around them tortured... so blow it up.
OF COURSE if you knew me personally, you'd know that I love everyone equally, I help my friends as much as I can, I'm very understanding and forgiving... but just like a counselor would say "you can't help someone who's not willing to change or better themselves" so we need to leave their country, and if they don't leave us alone they should be bombed.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jul 20 at 2015 12:17 PM

SFC Joseph Weber — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:17:24 -0400

With all e different type of people slaughtered in random shootings we would have to arm everybody. Having every person In Uniform walking around with guns would be a very bad idea in my view. Lot more people would die.

Response by MAJ Bill Maynard made Jul 20 at 2015 1:21 PM

MAJ Bill Maynard — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:21:16 -0400

We put weapons in the hands of anybody in any kind of uniform in foreign nations, but sadly can't arm our own brothers and sisters. Another example of political correctness killing our nation. Praying for the Marines' family and loved ones right now...

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Jul 20 at 2015 1:51 PM

MSG Floyd Williams — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:51:27 -0400

The current policy on banned firing arms at Recruiting Stations need to be revised, and if the revision takes place implement training classes like everything else that comes with change in the military.

Response by MSgt Mike Lucht made Jul 21 at 2015 7:28 AM

MSgt Mike Lucht — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:28:30 -0400

What would happen if one of the recruiters had his own personal firearm in his bag and was able to put the bad guy down before he killed him?

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 10:23 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:23:26 -0400

That's too easy, just look at what programs we have in place for another high-risk activity: motorcycles. Since the military will never sign off on just letting us carry, all we have to do is create a safety course. Once completed, give us a little laminated card that says we have completed the course and have been trained, and can carry our personal firearm on post. It's practically the same idea as what we do with motorcycles.

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Jul 21 at 2015 1:24 PM

MSgt J D McKee — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:24:09 -0400

You know, the US has a history of such stupidity, and not just on our own soil. Maybe someone who was there will refute this, really, I hope I saw it wrong and that was just for the landing, but I remember watching the Marines go ashore in 1983 Beirut, before the bombing which killed 241 US personnel, and noticing that NONE of their weapons had mags or assault packs on them, on the BBC news, anyway. By all means, let's don't offend anyone...someone please tell me, is it NORMAL for Marines to land on a hostile beach with unloaded weapons? Or were we depending on locals, who are all wonderful people and want us there?

If I were a recruiter, and wasn't armed before, I would be now and no one would see it. Worst case if one gets caught with an unauthorized weapon--bad for career. Worst case if one doesn't carry--death, dismemberment, dreck.

Response by Cpl Anthony Pearson made Jul 21 at 2015 2:52 PM

Cpl Anthony Pearson — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:52:29 -0400

Our military members should at the very least be allowed to own and carry a sidearm. It is ridiculous that American citizens can arm themselves, but our military personnel cannot.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 12:57 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:57:44 -0400

Allow conceal carry on base for those military members who are trained. Train recruiters as a part of the duty.

Response by SFC Rollie Hubbard made Jul 22 at 2015 12:58 AM

SFC Rollie Hubbard — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:58:48 -0400

Give them the weapons that they are used to. If the attackers have AK's give them M-4"

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Jul 22 at 2015 1:17 AM

1LT William Clardy — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 01:17:42 -0400

If we're going to be formal about it, I would suggest polished black leather holsters -- possibly mounted on a belt akin to what the General Officers used to have for their pistols. That would seem to go best with both the Service and Dress uniforms (as formalwear).

On the other hand, there is something to be said for using a modified saber belt, and there is the question of whether it would be proper to wear both saber and pistol simultaneously.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jul 22 at 2015 10:07 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:07:31 -0400

This was also on FB where a "vet" mentioned that "If the military cannot trust a Soldier with a weapon, that Soldier needs to be gone". That is arrogant and foolhardy. I see the issue with arming recruiters as a beginning to a larger problem, and it landing on a VERY slippery slope of 2nd amendment rights vs. Command risk assessment vs. common sense. While my heart truly goes out to the families that have to live with this for the rest of their lives and the loss of five troops that had a long life to live, let's not get into a knee jerk reaction that this is going to be a commonplace theme. The Army has had incidents with Soldiers and weapons going against other Soldiers (blue on blue Ft. Bragg PT formation anyone?) that predate what's currently happening and the storm has been weathered and we survived just fine.
Before we go about arming recruiters, what about others? Where do we stop this? Does the troop with PTSD/TBI have just as much right to defend himself as a four star combatant commander? What would be the guidelines in this being both when enroute to work or home are "soft targets"? What is going to be the determining factors to allow these troops to have weapons? Are they going to be military weapons or personal weapons? Either one places issues for the command and the troops alike. Not all recruiting stations are near a post or an armory, so where are the military weapons going to be stored? Before someone says in a safe, who's going to stay with them as a guard? Who's going to sign them in and out? Recruiters work some HARD hours to get recruits as it is. You have to display there are weapons there through a placard and that's enough for some potato to try and steal them knowing no one's there after hours. Allow them to bring personal weapons in? Ok do the risk assessment on that. If you place them in the desk, is that the right answer? If so what's the sense of having them there in the first place? What caliber is allowed vs. being ridiculous? Would a 9mm be ok and a Barrett .50 cal not? How about having a recruiter standing overwatch on the shop? Sounds good, but then he could be the difference between mission success that month or failure. And that even sounds good until he gets detailed out to help with recruits (this WILL happen).
A Commander has to weigh what is vs. what can be and the impact on his/her unit. Allowing weapons in the workplace I don't think is the clear answer, although someone with a weapon IS a viable idea (a professional security agency?). And how many of these recruiters are vets who have PTSD/TBI untreated? Now you have someone with a weapon that "could" have a flashback and we have a blue on blue or a recruiter on a possible recruit. That's not fair to either one. Who's qualified to shoot and who isn't? Are we going to use the standard qual requirements as a litmus test? In combat I don't think anyone cares you qual'd expert or marksman.
I disagree with lamestream media and the NRA's attacks on this making it seem that this is going to happen again. Where are the metrics to back this up? I would stress vigilance over complacency. Attention to detail with a focus on reading people. The branches could install bulletproof glass cheaper than anything going or move and consolidate the recruiting stations to allow for greater manpower and maybe the use of weapons and technology to assist them. This HAS to be thought out FULLY and not off some political agenda or another knee jerk reaction to another unfortunate event. I don't want a repeat of this, but proper planning is the way to go, and taking off the uniforms really didn't solve anything....THE BUILDINGS ARE MARKED folks!! And in case they don't know, you can spot a troop or a vet a mile away with the way they walk. Nine in the front, Six to the rear with a 30 in step. That equals a troop along with the haircut to me.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 12:42 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:42:15 -0400

We are already armed, now it's just a matter of how to carry, sidearms? M4s? Shotguns, less than lethal arms? Lots of questions. I'm all for having sidearms like the police.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 1:48 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:48:35 -0400

My suggestion would be to start with: ensuring they are up to date on their gun quals and allowing them to test using their private firearms. When in uniform; by issuing/controlling official sidearms like MPs. A member might be less "gun happy" if they have to account for the firing of that firearm through official means like law enforcement and MPs. When in civilian clothes on base; allow carrying of personal firearms (leaving the option to conceal or open carry up to the member).

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 3:26 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:26:13 -0400

Police officers are allowed and typically ordered to carry a weapon even while off duty, because they might come under attack by someone they have arrested. Why should it be any different for our troops. They should not need a CCP, they have to carry military ID with them any way. So a law should be passed allowing service members to carry a privately owned weapon or draw one if they want it. It is clear that our men and women in uniform are a target, they have been trained to use weapons, allow them to defend themselves just like police officers.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 12:41 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:41:04 -0400

Marine Corps won't spend money to arm us

Response by MSgt Dave Burke made Jul 28 at 2015 5:18 PM

MSgt Dave Burke — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:18:39 -0400

Most of the USAF is not made up of combat troops so maybe arming recruiters would not be that smart. Probably makes sense to have some of our great Security Police stationed at these recruiting centers. Or maybe just let the Marines guard them?

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Jul 31 at 2015 1:46 AM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 01:46:51 -0400

I work in countries where every officer and Sr. NCO is armed almost all the time. Maybe we should look at that practice. It works well for them.

Response by CW3 Eric W. S. made Aug 10 at 2015 1:41 PM

CW3 Eric W. S. — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:41:27 -0400

Permanently issued military firearms. You have one for the entire time you are in the military, you keep it for life, and you carry it EVERYWHERE! Anyone messes with America again, Game Over…