Posted on 11/10/2009 11:51:56 AM PST by nckerr
Click on the photos...This is craziness. The political correctness of the military. The Army and Marines are more trained with weapons and safety than the police. Why would they embarrass our Soldiers by making them pull guard with empty weapons...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.search.yahoo.com ...
The leadership may well fear that with Zero coming, some patriotic and suicidal guard might see a target of opportunity...
First of all, I never said that ALL should be disarmed.
Second, being required to carry a long gun around to your dental appointment and to classes and to the bathroom is a major PITA.
Third. All soldiers are not combat soldiers. Soldiers on the battlefield are far different from REMF (rear echelon m-fers) soldiers or even combat soldiers in training. Have you ever been on base on the Friday after payday? I have. Even good soldiers get drunk and do stupid things and bad soldiers do even more stupid things.
Fourth, there are probably jihadists in all the branches of military. Most sailors and airmen receive only the most basic training on firearms, certainly not enough to be a skilled armed guard.
All I am saying is to train enough people so that there are always a few who have CONCEALED firearms immediately available.
Why on earth, as an army and marine mom, would you wish that your sons’ lives were at stake because the Pentagon refused to issue them ammo?
That makes absolutley no sense to me! If they are on guard duty, they should be armed with real guns and real bullets.
And I never said ALL should be required to be armed.
And I never said all should be trained enough to be skilled armed guards.
That said, they’re soldiers. They should at least be _minimally_ armed, as opposed to completely disarmed (maybe not all always, but should be the norm for most). The notion that one could be a career soldier and virtually (or actually) never be armed is preposterous. Sure, carrying longguns about is a PITA, but that’s what sidearms are for: have SOMETHING available ALWAYS.
This idea that REMFs are somehow immune to enemy attack was just proven absurd in Ft. Hood. Really, in TEXAS of all places!
All I am saying is that soldiers are trained and, allowed to carry, there would always be a few (at minimum) who have firearms immediately available.
I’m not sure what your paranoia about open carry is. The notion that “the jihadist will know who to hit first” is silly as he’d at best get in only about one hit.
Why on Earth would you think I agreed with the idea? I just didn't want it broadcasted to on Free Republic for anyone to read. Where in my statement did I say I agreed with this? Holy cow! You owe me an apology.
The “paranoia” about open carry is that if only SOME are allowed to carry openly, then EVERYONE will know who they are. Terrorists can then make plans to take them out first. But I stand my ground. Having ALL personnel carry openly ALL the time is a bad idea from the standpoint of proper training, logistics, and maintenance.
No, I don’t owe you an apology. YOU owe an apology to my marine grandson who served in Iraq and my army grandson who is currently in Afghanistan.
Why would you NOT want the lack of ammo to be known? Are you ashamed that your kids are serving? Had it been me, I would have called all the local newpapers, the TV and radio stations, and would have posted the emasculation on FR.
Shame on you.
Some of us believe it’s better NOT to broadcast our flaws and weaknesses to potential enemies.
What purpose do you think it serves to tell the world that the ‘armed guards’ aren’t really armed?
Seems like that could go unannounced, and resolved quietly.
If it’s not made known, it can’t be changed.
Think about it.
If your son were in a security job, and told to shoot anyone who crossed the line, but not given ammo, what would you do? How would you feel? Especially if he were killed in the line of duty?
Why be quiet about the security of this country? If terrorists know we are ARMED they will be less likely to shoot us. If you have a better idea, I suggest you research Ronald Reagan’s stance on Peace. And Socialism.
In the meantime, you’d better pray that Obama doesn’t go belly up when Push comes to Shove.
I didn’t say you owed ME. I said you owed my grandsons. Is Ft. Hood a wimpy post, that will cave to whoever has a vendetta?
You make me sick. I’m a military wife, mother, widow and grandmom and I cannot ACCEPT that you would allow your sons to fall victim to terrorists.
As I said: Shame on you.
Typo on my part. Sorry. not of jumping to conclusions but for jumping to conclusions. Monkey face you have make a jack donkey of yourself. You make yourself sick.
I’m not jumping to conclusions. I know the military, I know the government, and since you don’t know ME you have no right to assume that I owe apologies.
As I said: It is my grandsons that you need to apoligize to. They are fighting for your right to act the fool. When you have been intimately involved with the military and the defence of this country for the last 36 years, look me up and try your arguments.
Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself and allow the military to do its job. Had the service members been allowed to carry live ammo, you can bet there would have been less damage.
Again: Shame on you.
I don't know you either and we should have got along just fine. No you jumped the conclusion that I agreed that magazines should be empty. Go back read what you said. You lost your temper and made a glaring fool of yourself. You brought your grandson in the fray for no reason what so ever unless it was for your bad temper and lack of thought.
I consider that as a personal attack. Again, shame on you.
It wasn’t a personal attack just a gentle observation.
Not gentle at all.
You attacked first. Go back and read.
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.