Armed Forces?

[45 LongColt]

The term "Armed Forces" was a joke until the Ten. shooting. Our forces should have been "armed" all along. Our country is beginning to look like we "all" should be armed. With the nuts shooting unarmed people in movie theaters, and schools, and churches. With African Americans rioting every time we turn around. Next we will have suicide bombings. All Americans need to protect ourselves and other Americans. It is a new world out there today, and we need to adjust our life styles. We cant just walk around with our heads in the clouds feeling like nothing can hurt us. anymore. Ok, rant is over. Thank you, and have a great day.

 

[SMiller]

Only you are responsible for your own safety. It is time everyone stepped up and realized bad stuff happens and no one is going to help you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The term "Armed Forces" was a joke until the Ten. shooting. Our forces should have been "armed" all along. Our country is beginning to look like we "all" should be armed. With the nuts shooting unarmed people in movie theaters, and schools, and churches. With African Americans rioting every time we turn around. Next we will have suicide bombings. All Americans need to protect ourselves and other Americans. It is a new world out there today, and we need to adjust our life styles. We cant just walk around with our heads in the clouds feeling like nothing can hurt us. anymore. Ok, rant is over. Thank you, and have a great day.

At least with the dog whistle one is trying to be discreet.

 

[Tester]

I've never understood why it's ok to let servicemen (and women) use the weapons we train them with to go elsewhere and shoot in our name, but they're too dangerous to have personal protection arms in our own streets.

 

[Tester]

Also, I'm glad Pence gave the ok for our guardsmen to be armed at facilities.

 

[Bennettjh]

I've never understood why it's ok to let servicemen (and women) use the weapons we train them with to go elsewhere and shoot in our name, but they're too dangerous to have personal protection arms in our own streets.

Also, I'm glad Pence gave the ok for our guardsmen to be armed at facilities.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Also, I'm glad Pence gave the ok for our guardsmen to be armed at facilities.

I honestly think Pence doesn't care. He's just trying to regain some local political capital.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I've never understood why it's ok to let servicemen (and women) use the weapons we train them with to go elsewhere and shoot in our name, but they're too dangerous to have personal protection arms in our own streets.

Which soldiers do you arm? The better alternative is to put in place restrictions on the wearing of the uniform off post. If they need to go off post, wear civvies, and pick up your edc (if you want have one) at the front gate.

 

[Tester]

I honestly think Pence doesn't care. He's just trying to regain some local political capital.

I don't care what his motive is, really.

 

[BugI02]

If the government is too cheap to provide enough arms, servicemembers should be allowed to carry their personal weapons. They are clearly symbolic targets now and as such should have the right to protect themselves.

 

[BugI02]

Which soldiers do you arm? The better alternative is to put in place restrictions on the wearing of the uniform off post. If they need to go off post, wear civvies, and pick up your edc (if you want have one) at the front gate.

I don't think this was an option at the recruiting center

 

[Tester]

Which soldiers do you arm?

Whichever ones choose to be armed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Whichever ones choose to be armed.

We're talking uniformed right?

 

[Tester]

We're talking uniformed right?

Explain to me why attire matters. When they swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" does that negate their own 2nd Amendment protection to their Right to bear their arms?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Explain to me why attire matters. When they swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" does that negate their own 2nd Amendment protection to their Right to bear their arms?

I'm speaking from the point of view that soldiers are targeted simply because of the uniform they wear. They Pentagon should probably crackdown on lax adherence to uniform policy.
As far as negating their rights, when they are in uniform and working in a military, yeah, a soldier's rights are pretty much negated at the discretion of their superiors. That's my opinion.

 

[Tester]

As far as negating their rights, when they are in uniform and working in a military, yeah, a soldier's rights are pretty much negated at the discretion of their superiors. That's my opinion.

Ok, we've now established your opinion. What now is the actual fact? Is there a restriction about being armed in dress uniform?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, we've now established your opinion. What now is the actual fact? Is there a restriction about being armed in dress uniform?

Idk, is there? If a soldier show up to drill with a garand strapped to his back, is someone going to have issue with it? And more importantly, do they have the authority (Constitution considered) to have that soldier remove said garand, and to punish him if he refuses to do so?

 

[Tester]

Why are you answering a question with a question?
You spoke as if you had knowledge or were an authority on dress vs BDU vs civvies when posting;

If they need to go off post, wear civvies, and pick up your edc (if you want have one) at the front gate.

After clarifying it was your opinion, when asked about regulations all you had to say was "I don't know" and let it go at that.
I now know exactly as much as I did before. But thanks for the internet distraction. I forgot that's how it worked.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why are you answering a question with a question?
You spoke as if you had knowledge or were an authority on dress vs BDU vs civvies when posting;


After clarifying it was your opinion, when asked about regulations all you had to say was "I don't know" and let it go at that.
I now know exactly as much as I did before. But thanks for the internet distraction. I forgot that's how it worked.

Whoa there bro. If you can't continue with the discussion and want to run off, do so. Don't fault me because I wanted you to expand on your Palin-esce response "whichever ones choose to be armed," and no I'm not going to ask you which magazines you read either, for fear of getting an equally broad response.
Fact of the matter, you simply don't understand the scope of the issue. Perhaps you should look into the various world-wide roles servicemen are placed, the rudimentary process of enlistment, and the culture of the military from a historical standpoint.... and then maybe consider why arming "whichever ones choose to be armed," isn't as easy a notion to pull off as you seem to believe it is.

 

[SMiller]

Idk, is there? If a soldier show up to drill with a garand strapped to his back, is someone going to have issue with it? And more importantly, do they have the authority (Constitution considered) to have that soldier remove said garand, and to punish him if he refuses to do so?

Railroading yet another thread huh?