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.
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.