Posted on Jul 21, 2015
Would Arming Soldiers After Chattanooga, Let The Terrorists Win?
6.92K
83
44
5
5
0
Taken from The Federalist @ thefederalists.com
This post is referring to how America may be looked at by terrorists, if the recruiters, and other non-armed military were armed because of the Tennessee shootings.
I read a couple of responses yesterday about whether or not recruiters should be allowed to carry weapons. One of the responses sounds similar to this post. In fact, it agrees with the responders response.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/21/arming-soldiers-after-chattanooga-would-let-the-terrorists-win/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=0fe413ad56-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-0fe413ad56-83810921
JULY 21, 2015 By Philip Wegmann
Of the five soldiers murdered in the Tennessee Terror Attack, four were Marines, and as that branch’s doctrine declares, every one was “a rifleman.” Many demand to know why these members of the armed forces went unarmed. Each could answer with his Oath of Enlistment.
While in uniform, those soldiers at that civilian recruiting office went unarmed because they swore, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” To do otherwise would erode a safeguard as old as our republican government, transforming civilian offices into zones of military occupation. In short, if we arm soldiers off base, the terrorists win.
This post is referring to how America may be looked at by terrorists, if the recruiters, and other non-armed military were armed because of the Tennessee shootings.
I read a couple of responses yesterday about whether or not recruiters should be allowed to carry weapons. One of the responses sounds similar to this post. In fact, it agrees with the responders response.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/21/arming-soldiers-after-chattanooga-would-let-the-terrorists-win/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=0fe413ad56-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-0fe413ad56-83810921
JULY 21, 2015 By Philip Wegmann
Of the five soldiers murdered in the Tennessee Terror Attack, four were Marines, and as that branch’s doctrine declares, every one was “a rifleman.” Many demand to know why these members of the armed forces went unarmed. Each could answer with his Oath of Enlistment.
While in uniform, those soldiers at that civilian recruiting office went unarmed because they swore, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” To do otherwise would erode a safeguard as old as our republican government, transforming civilian offices into zones of military occupation. In short, if we arm soldiers off base, the terrorists win.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
Extending to Soldiers the same rights to self-defense as every civilian has is NOT a degradation of the constitution or in any way "letting the forces of evil win."
(7)
(0)
I would rather have "thousands of little Alamos" than one more dead or injured brother or sister who is serving this nation be it as a recruiter or in any other capacity! I say allow them to carry or provide armed security for the recruiting stations/operating centers, etc.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next