Army calls for arming National Guard troops along Canadian, Mexican borders

Associated Press ^ | 3-26-02 | WILSON RING

[Oldeconomybuyer]

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) --

[max61]

It looks like we've achieved our goal of being a kinder, stupider nation.

Soldiers are for fighting wars, not policing the citizenry or guarding the borders.

---max

[Barnacle]

Soldiers are for fighting wars, not policing the citizenry or guarding the borders.

I said nothing about policing citizenry. However, guarding our nation's boarders is congruent with protecting our national security. And that's exactly what our military is for.

[IRtorqued]

you hit that nail on the head.

---

land mines; they work day or night, sun and rain and you only have to pay for them when they fire.

[Ciexyz]

A step in the right direction.

[Let's Roll]

"They blame some lawmakers in Washington who they say think M-16s and automatic pistols look mean."

WTF - I think weapons are supposed to "look mean" - duh. Lord, deliver us from these bureaucrats before it's too late.

[SkyPilot]

No armed soldiers are needed in California, Arizona and New Mexico. In Texas three ports of entry should have a total of six armed soldiers.

Is this a joke?

[Snow Bunny]

Bump

[prophetic]

and when you consider the recent news of the INS disarming their officers and de-milling their M-16 rifles so that it cannot fire automatic, just WHO is running the INS???

[SAMWolf]

Thanks for the ping. Bump

[Ajnin]

There is a lot about those situations that were not reported. First, the Agents in San Diego do not for whatever reason carry their assigned M-4s or shotguns out to the field. The carrying of M-4's is discouraged and is prohibited in built up areas. The beaurocrats managing San Diego Sector turn a blind eye constantly to Mexican aggression. Santa Teresa was the same way. The Mexicans were caught and the gutless little turd running the Border Patrol Sector let the Mexican military go south with all their gear. BORTAC is our national react team, which is tailor made for these situations. But I guess anything other than kidnapping little Cuban boys is a little out of their league.

Combat, conflict, aggression is fervantly discouraged in every conceivable manner. I have had two friends recieve commissioner awards because when faced with a deadly force situation they did not fire and kill the aggressor. Those that have shot people or fought with suspects and have saved their own lives or the lives of others have been investigated and ignored by INS management. Having the National Guard on the border is not going to change anything. Not as long as political correctness reigns supreme.

[Don Myers]

bttt

[Ajnin]

Who is running the INS? Liberal sacks of sh*t are running the INS. In order for an Agent in El Centro Sector to take an M-4, he has to fill out a report and then check it out. You can't use optics, laser sights or anything else that can be fitted to the weapon to make it easier to actually hit the target. And yes you are absolutely correct about the loss of full auto selection.

[Joined2Justify]

Sounds like a good step to me!

[elbucko]

A late post but contemporary to the subject.

The enlisted personel posted as security on the deck of the USS Cole in Aden, reportedly had M-16's but no ammunition. I think that this practice is dereliction of duty on part of the OD in charge; that is to "appear armed", but in fact be unarmed. The Captain of the Cole should have been court martialed.

This is the type of policy that lost Viet Nam. This is a mistrust of the troops in harms way that they might get trigger happy and ruin an officers career. There is no honor for a commander in a policy such as this. If a superior does not trust the soldier, put a supervising NCO or Duty Officer with the armed detail.

As a "Buck" Sgt. I told a captain that I would rather go to the stockade than mount guard with arms and no ammunition. I got the ammo and so did my squad.

I would like to see the UCMJ address this situation that to seem armed and not be armed, is unlawful.