yeah recruters they are your enemy, not the ones who will not allow you to protect yourself.
Yea right. They can try that within the right of way in front of any establishment. Most don’t know that their property does not extend to the curb, and also, they are only leasing that space.
And surrender to the enemy.
The new Army.
The thing that made it impossible to watch Batman, Sherlock Holms and Mrs. Marple was the idea that a government agency at any level would accept help from a civilian. (Other that a politically connected contractor.) Needing help from, or the appearance of needing help from a civilian does away with the need for, and the utility of, said agency. The agency head, who must fight for budget every year, is insulted by civilians helping. The implication is that the head of this agency is incompetent in the extreme. So, why do you even need that agency? Why not replace it with civilians? I assure you that members of the government see a civilian guarding the military as an indictment of failed gun policies and that can not be allowed. It matters not how many soldiers are killed.
“Oooh, is that a big, scary gun you’re carrying?”
Biggirl, thanks for posting this one!
Old sarge, 2nddivisionvet
Ping to article, especially posts #3 and #6.
Well since one of the guards in Ohio was careless enough to let he AR-15 discharge while he was showing it off to a bystander then maybe the recruiters would be safer handling their own security?
Gov’t trying to turn the military against regular citizens...
What’s to prevent people from posting signs saying simply “WE ARE ARMED” all over one’s store ... even if you’re not ?
The government hates competition.
Pathetic.
These are not the kind of military leaders who won WWII.
That’s the problem with having an evil communist thug acting in place of a real Commander-in-Chief. The Community-Organizer-in-Chief hates our armed forces and doesn’t mind seeing them die. I would never feel threatened by decent people exercising their Second Amendment rights, so I could ignore this harmful instruction, and I hope our military recruiters feel the same.
The only good point the letter makes is that it should not be automatically assumed that the armed individuals do not represent a threat.
It is possible jihadists could take advantage of the “citizen security” movement to insinuate themselves closer to a building for purposes of launching an attack.
The simplest thing to do would be to allow all military personnel to be armed while on duty. Of course, given what happened at Fort Hood, even that is not a perfect solution, but it is the BEST solution.
This is coming from the civilian army higher ups and the very top generals who are no more than political appointees/hacks.
Perhaps my reading of history is askew, but I thought the Continental Army relied upon the militia to fill the lines and provide support. Granted, the militia wasn’t the best trained or excessively courageous but Wahington still counted on them to be there when the chips were down.
How far we’ve come, in the wrong direction.
OK, Tex, let loose your cannon! :-)
Yeh you don’t need no steenking protection. :-)