Posted on 07/18/2015 8:35:43 AM PDT by HomerBohn
Edited on 07/18/2015 11:09:22 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
... governed in part by century-old law, ...
A century ago the mohamedans were not rampant, as they are now, in our streets.
... arming troops in those facilities could cause more problems than it might solve.
Our military is a subset of our society. There would be no higher percentage of "problems" than there are within our society as a whole, and the men and women in these situations would at least have the chance to defend themselves.
My first statement bears repeating -- Odierno is a PC d!ck.
Remove guards from the capitol building and the pentagon, remove the Secret Service from the white house, and make them "gun-free zones," then watch how quickly attitudes change.
Disarm the protection detail protecting the Whitehouse then...they might accidentally shoot their weapons!
øbamite General.
Here’s more on Odierno. Evidently, he was also involved with Col. Allan West’s PC problem.
http://www.militarycorruption.com/LTCWest-1.htm
>> He is admitting that the Army does a shitty job of weapons training? <<
Clearly yes. And I think a lot of Marines would agree with him!
This ruling by the Pentagon’s top brass, has got Obama’s limp-wristed, weak-kneed, lily-livered rules of engagement fingerprints all over it. These men are highly trained to handle and shoot weapons. The rare accidental “injuries” would be far smaller than the chance these Islamic radical terrorists are going to be gunning for our military, especially at a soft target like a recruitment center in a strip mall.
Does Odierno really think that this terrorist would not have shot five Marines to death if they didn’t have their uniforms on at their desks? This jihadist sat in his car outside the recruitment office and shot it up at random, hoping to kill as many as possible, which he did. He didn’t care about them having uniforms on. And how successful is their recruiting going to be without their uniforms on? Their sharp uniforms are what make the soldier in the eyes of the civilian public.
This is the dumbest thing I have heard of from the military since they started allowing gays and trannies to serve in the force. Odierno must be hanging on for his retirement check, because in my opinion, from serving in the Air Force 40 years ago, the military would not allow their soldiers, recruiters or otherwise, to be placed in harm’s way without the weaponry to protect themselves from the enemy. Our problem now is, the enemy is in the White House and he has cleaned out the Pentagon of anybody with some huevos to do what is “right”, not what is poilitcally correct.
Another sad day for our military under this anti-American, anti-miliary regime.
I've been in favor of disarming all politicians and government employees, except the military and National Guard for years.
Odierno has screwed this up.
He should have hinted that they were going to start arming the recruiters.
You don’t have to tell the enemy exactly what you will and won’t do.
“Some if our facilities already have armed guards. We are looking at immediately having weapons in all of our facilities.”
“Every military facility should have armed soldiers present and ready to defend it.”
Ditto, P-Marlowe.
If I had to take the risk of being a identified target of ISIS lone wolves (military personnel)then I’d like the option to make a decision about the risk of being armed vs. unarmed.
I know where I’d come down.
Another Obama circus clown. Illegals gunning down women, Muslims gunning down unarmed Marines, pissed off blacks gunning down cops, and black Muslims beheading women. Seriously? This is America when are we the people going to demand a stop to these liberal policies, they are killing people for God’s sake?
he’s right, I rifle and a pistol with 1,000 rounds of ammo for each is not over armed
ping
Your picture didn’t come through however I’ve seen pictures of it. Scary looking.
Over arming ourselves? I agree entirely.
I don’t believe any soldier outside a combat zone should be carrying more than one firearm. Or, perhaps, a primary and a backup. More than that is simply uncalled for.
Re: “”I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves . . .”
Over-arming? When you have NO weapons whatsoever, how is that “over-arming”? How about the dangers of “under-arming”?
we are not asking for the military to fly air cap and have nukes on standby. Only asking that they have enough firepower to stop a few ragheads before they do shoot up an entire mall of civilians.
Patton is flipping in his grave
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.