Six US States Moving To Arm National Guard Offices

[jdnotbyrider]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/at-least-six-us-states-move-to-arm-national-guard-offices/ar-AAdcPsh#image=AAdbrGa|1

The governors of Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Indiana on Saturday ordered National Guard members at offices and other facilities to be armed in the wake of attacks that left five servicemen dead in Tennessee.

"It is painful enough when we lose members of our armed forces when they are sent in harm's way, but it is unfathomable that they should be vulnerable for attack in our own communities," Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin said in a statement.

Governors Rick Scott of Florida, Greg Abbott of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Mike Pence of Indiana issued similar orders for National Guard members after four U.S. Marines and a Navy petty officer were shot and killed on Thursday in Chattanooga, Tennessee. One site where the shootings occurred was a recruiting office in a strip mall.

All six of the governors are Republican.

In Florida, Scott ordered six storefront Florida National Guard recruiting centers to be moved to the nearest Guard armory buildings.

The governor said Guard members who do not carry weapons should get them and obtain expedited concealed weapon permits, if necessary.

In his executive order, Scott said bulletproof glass and better video surveillance equipment are among steps that should be considered to make recruiting offices safer.

Pence ordered the arming of military personnel at all Indiana National Guard facilities and recruiting storefronts, and Oklahoma Governor Fallin's office said her executive order also included military recruiting offices.

Military personnel in uniform would not usually have authorization to carry a personal weapon while working in recruiting offices, the Pentagon said on Friday.

"It has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil," Abbott said in a news release.

"Arming the National Guard at these bases will not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base," he added. (Reporting by Kevin Murphy in Kansas City and Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles; Editing by Alan Crosby and Jonathan Oatis)

[meltoine]

I said this on MF yesterday and I'll repeat it here. It makes me so angry that these assholes are using the deaths of five servicemembers to advance their crazy agenda. They're as bad as the WBC that plans to picket the funerals. It's disgusting.

[NewOrleans]

Jul 18, 2015 22:05:44 GMT -5 meltoine said:

I said this on MF yesterday and I'll repeat it here. It makes me so angry that these assholes are using the deaths of five servicemembers to advance their crazy agenda. They're as bad as the WBC that plans to picket the funerals. It's disgusting.

What crazy agenda is advanced through posting guards?

[meltoine]

Jul 18, 2015 22:08:35 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jul 18, 2015 22:05:44 GMT -5 meltoine said:

I said this on MF yesterday and I'll repeat it here. It makes me so angry that these assholes are using the deaths of five servicemembers to advance their crazy agenda. They're as bad as the WBC that plans to picket the funerals. It's disgusting.

What crazy agenda is advanced through posting guards?

They're not talking about posting guards. They're talking about having the servicemembers carry weapons during regular duty when they never have before. It's more open carry bullshit. 

ETA: I said in the MF thread that I can see the attraction to having a gun stored in off-base recruiting offices and having all the recruiters who work in the office qualified on it. But to require servicemembers to carry on bases that are already secure? What possible purpose could that serve? 

[pamela]

I don't think you can consider member of a military carrying weapons advancing an open-carry agenda. I don't understand why they aren't. Not everyone, but some.

[meltoine]

Jul 18, 2015 22:18:33 GMT -5 pamela said:

I don't think you can consider member of a military carrying weapons advancing an open-carry agenda. I don't understand why they aren't. Not everyone, but some.

Because bases are already secured with guards at the gate who have guns. There is no need for individuals to have guns on base because no one has guns on base. The only thing that could possibly come from it is accidental shootings and more suicides. Since no one is allowed guns on base there is no one to "protect" from. 

As as for the off-base recruiting offices, sure have a gun locked up there for protection against similar attacks. No reason each person needs to have one and carry it around all day inside and outside the office. 

ETA: And let's also note that no actual servicemembers or military leadership have asked for this. It's all politicians banging this drum. 

[meltoine]

Jul 18, 2015 22:34:51 GMT -5 nursecramer said:

Jul 18, 2015 22:26:32 GMT -5 meltoine said:

Because bases are already secured with guards at the gate who have guns. There is no need for individuals to have guns on base because no one has guns on base. The only thing that could possibly come from it is accidental shootings and more suicides. Since no one is allowed guns on base there is no one to "protect" from. 

As as for the off-base recruiting offices, sure have a gun locked up there for protection against similar attacks. No reason each person needs to have one and carry it around all day inside and outside the office. 

ETA: And let's also note that no actual servicemembers or military leadership have asked for this. It's all politicians banging this drum. 

my BIL has complained for years about not being able to carry on base. And from his friends' comments on fb, he is not in the minority.

I don't understand the purpose. Who are they protecting themselves from when no one has guns? Not to mention the crime rate on base is basically zero. 

I mean, if I'm missing something I'm happy to be set straight. But MH has been in for 11 years and we've been together 8 and married almost 6, and this is a complaint neither of us has ever heard. 

[pamela]

Jul 18, 2015 22:34:51 GMT -5 nursecramer said:

Jul 18, 2015 22:26:32 GMT -5 meltoine said:

Because bases are already secured with guards at the gate who have guns. There is no need for individuals to have guns on base because no one has guns on base. The only thing that could possibly come from it is accidental shootings and more suicides. Since no one is allowed guns on base there is no one to "protect" from. 

As as for the off-base recruiting offices, sure have a gun locked up there for protection against similar attacks. No reason each person needs to have one and carry it around all day inside and outside the office. 

ETA: And let's also note that no actual servicemembers or military leadership have asked for this. It's all politicians banging this drum. 

my BIL has complained for years about not being able to carry on base. And from his friends' comments on fb, he is not in the minority.

Ditto. Defiantly can't say "no" here.

[ttt]

Jul 18, 2015 22:34:51 GMT -5 nursecramer said:

Jul 18, 2015 22:26:32 GMT -5 meltoine said:

Because bases are already secured with guards at the gate who have guns. There is no need for individuals to have guns on base because no one has guns on base. The only thing that could possibly come from it is accidental shootings and more suicides. Since no one is allowed guns on base there is no one to "protect" from. 

As as for the off-base recruiting offices, sure have a gun locked up there for protection against similar attacks. No reason each person needs to have one and carry it around all day inside and outside the office. 

ETA: And let's also note that no actual servicemembers or military leadership have asked for this. It's all politicians banging this drum. 

my BIL has complained for years about not being able to carry on base. And from his friends' comments on fb, he is not in the minority.

Why does he want to carry on base? What is the purpose of that?

[ESF]

Jul 18, 2015 21:54:33 GMT -5 jdnotbyrider said:

Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Indiana



"

Your move, Arizona.

[sushi]

The crime rate on base is definitely not zero. Depending on where you are, it may be more dangerous than the local community.

That said, we're talking about petty crime or domestic violence. The only time I've heard of a shooting on base it was a man threatening his girlfriend. That's not something I feel the need to arm against.

It is definitely notable that the military leadership didn't ask for this. It's also notable which governors are behind it.

[jln]

Jul 19, 2015 9:11:24 GMT -5 sushi said:

The crime rate on base is definitely not zero. Depending on where you are, it may be more dangerous than the local community.

That said, we're talking about petty crime or domestic violence. The only time I've heard of a shooting on base it was a man threatening his girlfriend. That's not something I feel the need to arm against.

It is definitely notable that the military leadership didn't ask for this. It's also notable which governors are behind it.

Exactly.  The ones in the pocket of the NRA who will use any excuse to get guns in the hands of more people. 

[josieposy]

The only service members I know who advocate for open carry on base are the ones that advocate for it across the board anywhere and everywhere.

[foundmylazybum]

It seems like a much more secure move to take the recruiting centers to posts and armorys. The carrying seems like an unnecessary next step.

[sushi]

Jul 19, 2015 15:01:45 GMT -5 josieposy said:

The only service members I know who advocate for open carry on base are the ones that advocate for it across the board anywhere and everywhere.

yep. Including clinics and universities.

[cattledogkisses]

I don't necessarily think that arming everyone is the answer here, but the article isn't talking about allowing people to carry on post, so the discussion about that is irrelevant to the actual topic. It sounds like this is being applied specifically to military facilities that are not on post, and don't have the security that a base does.

I do think that it feels like an agenda is being pushed, and I'm angry that the deaths of these Marines are being politicized in that way.

[teflepi]

Jul 19, 2015 9:03:48 GMT -5 ttt said:

Jul 18, 2015 22:34:51 GMT -5 nursecramer said:

my BIL has complained for years about not being able to carry on base. And from his friends' comments on fb, he is not in the minority.

Why does he want to carry on base? What is the purpose of that?

I am thinking the Navy Yard incident?  I don't know.   The only people who can carry are MP, I think, and I know places like NSA have them all over the place.  

[onthemove]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/17/army-chief-urges-caution-on-calls-to-arm-more-us-soldiers-in-wake-fatal/

Even the top Army brass is warning against it....

[meltoine]

Jul 18, 2015 21:54:33 GMT -5 jdnotbyrider said:

From the article:

Pence ordered the arming of military personnel at all Indiana National Guard facilities and recruiting storefronts, and Oklahoma Governor Fallin's office said her executive order also included military recruiting offices.

"Arming the National Guard at these bases will not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base," he added. (Reporting by Kevin Murphy in Kansas City and Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles; Editing by Alan Crosby and Jonathan Oatis)

cattledogkisses

Arming people on base is exactly what they're talking about. 

[cattledogkisses]

Never mind