“To think the people who are supposed to protect and serve us are unable to protect and serve… protect themselves. So if us, the citizens, who carry permits, are able to help protect them that’s, that’s what we’re gonna be able to do.” – Crystal Tewellow (above center) in Hiram residents hold watch at recruitment center [at myfoxdc.com]
Home Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: Someone Has To Do It Edition
Absurdity ad absurdum.
You are quite wrong. What we are seeing is armed private citizens—People Of The Gun—who seized the moment and made it theirs. The open carry symbolism is perfect.
If that’s the way they’re standing guard then they’re three easy targets.
Except there’s literally no evidence — empirical or otherwise — whatsoever that open carry makes one a target.
I think the point he was making was that the recruitment center, and by extension, its occupants/visitors, are the targets, for whatever reasons people might attack such a place, and that just standing out in the open with no concealment or cover renders them easy targets. Nobody in this thread is arguing that open carrying in and of itself prompts someone to attack.
It’s absurd that they have to take up arms for the military because the latter has been made a soft target.
the ruester / Tell that too the four Marines and Sailor that were killed.
The state isnt going to like it if common folk stand in the way of potential useful tragedies.
It’s a win/win for the state if terrorists continue to harm agents of the state with impunity.
It’s a total loss for the state if non-state agents interrupt terrorists actions.
Do we think we can shame Congress into passing a law requiring commanders to order X% of their servicemen to be armed?
Citizens standing guard over “armed” services recruitment centers might help. One governor (apparently) has ordered her Guardsmen armed. This combination might work.
If the Red State governors would arm their Guardsmen and Blue-State citizens would guard recruitment centers then Congress would have some explaining to do. If Guardsmen don’t shoot each other like the President’s jihadis that that will disprove the meme. If citizens are guarding recruiters it will be a constant public reminder of the absurdity of the DoD’s policy.
We need to push for Congress to act under Article 1 Sec 8 to “make Rules . . . for the land and navel forces” to require base commanders to arm AT LEAST X% (say start at 10% and in a couple years raise it to 50%) of their servicemen. This approach will stifle two huge problems with “MAY Carry”.
First, the Democrats will argue that there must be a few soldiers on every base with a screw loose. If ALLOWED to carry at their discretion these few would shoot up the base. Only by erecting GFZ signs can these few be controlled. (Same lie as for other GFZs.)
We counter this by saying that each base commander MUST ORDER at least X% of his soldiers. The base commander and junior officers choose those to be ordered to be armed just as they do when choosing those who will be armed as MPs. If the officer corps can’t find X% of soldiers on their bases who THEY can trust to bear arms then something is really wrong with our recruitment and screening. The officer corps will remain free to screen-out those few screwballs they don’t trust.
Second, the President and officer corps do NOT WANT to arm their servicemen. They harbor the same elitist mentality as the Statists. Under MAY carry the officers will – with a wink and a nod – communicate to servicemen that carrying on base is a career ender. No one will voluntarily carry unless he really loves KP duty.
We counter this by Congressional Rule compelling officers to arm at least X% of their servicemen. Under such a rule, a base commander who failed to ORDER at least X% to be armed would get court marshaled. He is not so committed to keeping his servicemen vulnerable that he wants to give up stars.
Military life is different from civilian life. Soldiers do what they do because they are ORDERED to do so. Maintenance of military discipline is incompatible with soldiers doing what they WANT to do. So, we have to work within this marshal system if we expect to achieve the desired goal without being frustrated by the President and his chain of command.
Your assesment of officer mentality in regards to soldiers owning/carrying firearms while in garrison (while on duty or otherwise) is very accurate. They have, by-&-large, been thoroughly indoctrinated by the colleges with anti-gun propaganda.
The amount of shit I had to deal with just to get permission from company & battalion COs just to keep a rifle in my post housing (far beyond Army regs)….. well, I heard on one occasion, “I don’t care what the regs and the Provost Marshal says, there is absolutely no way I’m allowing junior enlisted or NCOs in my unit to keep POFs on post!” It took over a year, an IG investigation, and one very irate CSM, to finally override that particular O-3’s personal hatred of guns.
The huge effort that has been put into quashing domestic violence (and thereby avoiding losing troops to Lautenberg), has also given them extra incentive to keep guns out of the hands of the enlisted ranks.
But as you say; by ordering officers to arm a certain % of enlisted troops, it allows them to cover their asses and negates their inbred stance against arming soldiers in garrison (or while on-duty elsewhere).
There’s a very good reason why Sergeant-at-Arms is/was a real thing, and never a Lieutenant/Captain/Major-at-Arms.
I generally feel the same way as you guys, but some of us officers actually want our troops to have the freedom to bear arms on base. We swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, and it makes me sick how few of us take that seriously when it comes to the 2A.
The sentiments that you have expressed are COMPATIBLE with my at-least-X% proposal. You and like-minded officers will always be free to ORDER servicemen under your command who VOLUNTEER to bear arms.
In fact, isn’t that the way difficult tasks are assigned? Doesn’t the field officer say: ‘OK, boys, we have to take-out that machine gun nest. Do I have any volunteers? Yes, you – you – you are hereby ORDERED to take-out that machine gun nest.’
Under at-least-X% if some screw-ball volunteers his superior officer can tell him simply that he is NOT ordered to bear arms. I doubt that the first time this happens it will be the first occasion in the armed services that a volunteer was disappointed that his eagerness to participate was rejected.
Sure, we could make officers order a certain percentage of our troops to carry arms, but that doesn’t get at the real issue here. Ordering people to arm up means that the government provides the weapons, which means that the weapons are checked in and out from the armory every day, which means that even those troops ordered to arm up are still stripped of their right to bear arms before and after duty (on the way to and from the armory)…not to mention all the other military members who still aren’t allowed to efficiently protect themselves and those around them.
Yes, difficult/dangerous tasks are assigned (and many times joined by an officer worth his salt), but the right to bear arms is completely different. Your proposed solution reinforces the idea that only the “chosen few” get to bear arms, and then only when on official duty. We already have that: military police. This would be the same as saying that only chaplains and At-Least-X% of military members can exercise their religion freely. Or only public affairs personnel and At-Least-X% of military members can exercise their freedom of speech. No, the only action from Congress that would actually improve 2A rights in the military is to “allow” all people on base to bear arms. I know you think this is a non-starter (and you’re probably right), but your At-Least-X% idea won’t do anything for the 2A rights of military members.
Thank you for your kind response.
I must bow to your expertise as to military order It would seem to me that a commanding officer could order a serviceman to be armed 24 hours per day every day while he is in the service. If I’m on the right track here then X% could be required to be armed 24 hours per day or X% could be armed in 8 or 16 hour shifts.
Suppose you are stationed on a hill-top in Afghanistan. Arn’t you checked-out with your M-16 for weeks at a time? Don’t you sleep with your M-16 on the front-lines? Why couldn’t you sleep with a 1911 under your pillow? (I prefer carrying in Condition 2 so I would recommend an under-pillow 1911 in Condition 2 as well.)
It seems to be that the value of X can be ratcheted up over time. To suddenly arm-up 50% of enlisted men might be a little too much for the officer corps to digest. I can imagine the generals clutching their pearls. However, to arm-up 10% in the first year; 20% in the 2’nd year and then 50% in the third year wouldn’t be too aggressive. Then, take it from there. A revision to the law could require the military to arm-up 60%, then 70% then 80% and 90%. By the time X reaches 90 the battle is really won.
Once the battle is won then Congress could change the law to allow all servicemen to arm themselves at discretion while commanders would still be required to ORDER at least X% to be armed. The idea of at least X% prevents the officer corp (or President) to frustrate the plan of “MAY-carry” by expressing displeasure at any enlisted man who dares to carry at his own discretion.
We would all love the perfect even when it is the enemy of the good. What advantage do you see by having Congress adopt a Rule for the military that servicemen may arm themselves at their own discretion where the officer corp will be at liberty to express displeasure at any serviceman who dares to exercise this discretion?
What advantage do you see in arguing against the Democrats’ claim that there must be at least one screw-ball in every company. We don’t want HIM to arm himself at his personal discretion baring his officers from their power to disarm him. Mind you, I don’t buy such an argument. Any screw-ball who brandishes his gun or shoots a fellow soldier will soon be corrected by his comrades if not his officer. This argument is poorly founded. Still, we should anticipate that the Democrats will raise it and the RINOs will go along.
Why should we give the Democrats and RINOs a great rationale for refusing to vote for a bill arming our servicemen? Are we so dedicated to the perfect solution that we can’t accept a solution that should overcome objections?
MarkPA, a hilltop in AFGN is not a street in Mayberry (though it might be compared unfavorably with some streets in Chicago, LA, NYC, etc.). My point is that you don’t want stateside soldiers armed all the time under orders of their commanders. That means they’d be armed when off base as well, but still under the military chain of command. What message does that send to the populace of a community, and at what point does the original intent of self-defense morph into one of law enforcement or even martial law? Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.
Actually, it wouldn’t bother me to see a man in a military uniform walk down the street carrying a handgun or rifle openly. In fact, when I travel by train in or out of NYC I see National Guardsmen patrolling the train stations carrying carbines and handguns. Doesn’t bother me one whit.
I’m fully well aware of the fact that under Posse Comitatus military men have NO authority over me in normal circumstances. The general public wouldn’t understand it; however, this can be explained to them. After observing military men bearing arms and not stopping people speeding or spitting on the sidewalk the general public would understand Posse Comitatus as well.
Civilians can be made to understand that they must respond respectfully to Officer Friendly while at the same time treating anyone else – whether in civilian cloths or military uniform – exactly the same: civilly but not deferentially.
When EVERYONE is able to carry guns then EVERYONE is on an equal plane under the law: The top of the command stack is we the People; below us, our local police; below them, the military. We are all armed. We all owe a militia duty to defend ourselves and society. We hire the police and enlist the military who are EMPOWERED by we the People to carry-out a professional service in our defense. That is the design of our system.
As long as the military never acts to assert authority over civilians (without authority from the Governor) we will all get along just fine with military men under military discipline carrying arms openly in public.
This is not to exclude the idea that some military may carry concealed as well; an alternative which might better conform to your taste in the matter.
You would be reversing the stack in many states if soldiers and police are required to be armed. Those states do not guarantee the average citizens right to be armed while in public or when on a government facility. Guarantee the citizen’s right first (that’s all of us), but do not force soldiers to be armed on or off base unless performing official duties that require them to bear military arms. Posse comitatus is very misunderstood. It came about as a result of reconstruction when the southern states were for years under a form of martial law. As amended, it does NOT apply to the Navy or Marine Corps. It only applies to the Army, the Air Force, the National Guard when under federal control. The Act does not prevent military involvement in civil disturbances if ordered by the president to intervene. In theory, the authority to enforce laws was limited by subsequent amendments, but the military continues to provide all manner of support to other federal, state, and local agencies, despite these probable prohibitions. In 1997, Marines providing border drug security killed an 18 year old American shepherd boy, claiming self defense. I was on deployment in Texas with the Marines as a CENTCOM liaison about this time, and engaged in some debates with several senior NCOs about the legality and wisdom of using Marines in a drug or border role. Always faithful, the defended the actions of their comrades, but a Texas Ranger investigation indicated the Marines had tampered with the evidence and not given a completely accurate report of what transpired. The family subsequently was awarded $1.9 million dollars for wrongful death, but no Marine was ever charged for a crime. And perhaps that is just as well, for it was more of a leadership failure due to applying a combat solution to a law enforcement problem. And that is just one of the dangers our society would face if militarily armed and controlled personnel routinely walked our streets.
Thank you for your informative reply.
“You would be reversing the stack in many states if soldiers and police are required to be armed. Those states do not guarantee the average citizens right to be armed while in public or when on a government facility. Guarantee the citizen’s right first (that’s all of us), but do not force soldiers to be armed on or off base unless performing official duties that require them to bear military arms. ”
Hmmmmm, that’s interesting. Hadn’t thought about these States: NYC; NJ; DC; MD; CA; HI.
Now, I’d be fine if servicemen in these states were under orders to be armed while on base (State laws don’t count) but have to check-in their arms (or put them in private lockers) before leaving the base out of respect for State laws.
But your response suggests another possibility: What if these servicemen could carry their guns outside the base in places where civilians are prohibited! What a concept! Why, that would fly in the face of the entire system of sovereignty invested in we the People and employees of the government as our loyal servants. I think I like it!
People in these jurisdictions would have to get used to the fact that a serviceman off-his-base is more-or-less like a civilian going about his personal business buying gas and groceries. And, yet, he is a target for any wannabe-jihadist. Why yes; he should be armed because he is a target. And so are his wife and kids.
So why not me too?
I’m sure I do NOT understand Posse Comitatus as well as I wished I would. Yes, I very well understand that the military can exercise force over civilians only under special circumstances and under specific authorization.
Now, I have milled about in public places in the presence of military personnel waring some sort of uniform. I have yet to see any military person attempt to assert authority over me or any other civilian. Apparently, these guys are pretty well behaved. Even in the train stations where National Guardsmen are patrolling with carbines and pistols I have never seen them assert authority over any civilian. If a train passenger dared to spit on the floor I’d expect them to do absolutely nothing. Only if gunfire broke out would I expect them to return fire and try to direct traffic.
As long as the military is not in civilian space on some mission I wouldn’t expect any trouble.
Moreover, I don’t see the distinction between an armed service person going about his personal affairs either with or without a gun.
I would expect that any Marine or infantryman would make short work of nearly any civilian he intended to assert authority over. He wouldn’t need a gun or a knife or a blunt object. His physical condition and combat training would be sufficient to subdue nearly any civilian. Observe, this just DOESN”T happen notwithstanding that it could. Would the disposition of our servicemen change if they carried blunt objects? Knives? Guns? I really don’t think so.
I carry a gun in my pocket in PA. Is my disposition vis a vis military personnel altered by the fact that I am carrying? Not in the least. My disposition doesn’t change no matter who is around me.
What might account for this lack of influence by guns, sharp or blunt objects, or physical strength? We are – in the main – a highly civilized and peaceful society. Probably more so with servicemen than their civilian counterparts. I’m just not afraid of men in uniform carrying guns. Not our police; not our military; not police or military I see in other countries (Mexico excepted).
I do accept the reservations you express about military performing policing duties. We should only call upon the military in really exceptional circumstances. And then, we should have ordinary police handle as much of the front-line action of herding the civilian population as possible. The military should be held in reserve to jump-in only after the SHTF and the police are overwhelmed.
In the train stations everything will be fine as long as the Guardsmen do NOTHING until gunfire breaks out. That’s what I’ve seen them do; NOTHING.
I disagree with you wholeheartedly with regards to the mentality of Officers. I am an active duty officer with 15 years of service, and among those I work with we are for the most part solidly pro-gun. I’ve only met a few in my time who are of the “Gunz are baaaaaad” philosophy. I would love to have what we call “trusted agents” in other exercises to be in a position to conceal carry on base. Hell, I would sign up as one. I know at least a dozen people who I would trust with a firearm on my ship.
So before you go ahead and say “Officers are indoctrinated”, you may want to check who it is you’re talking about. I for one will give my life for the Republic, and the Constitution that guides it, if necessary.
Thank you, Mike. I’m right there with you. Except I work with several officers who drink the anti-2A kool-aid.
During my 8 years of service I had only met a single officer who was pro-gun; he was the one who suggested that I contact the IG, and he was an older guy who had begun life as an enlisted man.
Maybe things are different in your corner of the Army, or I was simply unlucky enough to be stuck with a sucession of anti’s who happened to be wearing bars. But I am hardly alone in the bad experience, as I have met quite a few others who’ve had similar.
I sincerely hope that since you are still in, you can help turn things around and spread that kind of positive mentality around…. especially to the butterbars and freshly minted captains.
Anaxis, my experience more closely mirrors Mikes, and I spent 30 years in uniform working with all branches, mostly in joint assignments. I’m sorry your experience was so bad, but I don’t believe it is reflective of our military as a whole. Armed force personnel are a cross-section of society, albeit a more disciplined and conservative lot as a whole. Within their numbers one will find the full spectrum of beliefs, but I do think the vast majority are pro-gun to a greater extend than they are anti-gun. That leaves a wide area open for debate. Anyone dealing predominantly with junior enlisted personnel, or even junior officers must realize the emotional maturity of these troops is below that of the mid-level and senior NCOs and officer. That reflects the populace as a whole, and should not be construed as a condemnation or insult. It simply is a fact of life. The young tend to think they are bulletproof, while experience makes the survivors wiser teachers and counselors. Perhaps that is why the young do most of the close combat.
I think we are prone to underestimate our young people (I no less than any others.)
I got my first gun at 13 and I ALWAYS used it UN-supervised. I never shot something I shouldn’t have shot. The traditional militia age in the US is 16. If we armed such young people a couple hundred years ago why are we so sure that we can’t safely arm them today?
Young people when given a big responsibility will rise to the occasion; usually. Certainly not always. We license 16 and 17 year-old kids to drive. When I was young (in Minnesota) farm kids as young as 15 were licensed to drive cars and trucks. Why do we tolerate 16-year-olds driving cars but don’t trust 18 year-olds to carry harms – especially after basic training?
Granted, kids in cars have a lot of accidents. Still, we tolerate these accidents and we continue our practice of licensing 16 and 17 year-olds. Why should guns be any different? Do we some how imagine that some 18-year-old is going to start shooting his comrades knowing full well that he is surrounded by armed 18 year olds equally trained to arms who will defend themselves and others?
Under Federal law we allow 18 year olds to buy long-guns from FFLs and 21 year-olds to buy handguns from FFLs. Do we have any problem with 18 and 21-year olds buying guns from FFLs and then shooting the streets up?
These same testosterone-charged young men have also gotten through the rigors of basic training and while on-base are surrounded by NCOs and junior officers. I have a really hard time believing that there is any danger whatsoever from any one of them that wouldn’t be successfully resolved by the reaction of others.
Our real exposure for the forthcoming century is from jihadis who infiltrate our bases – either by enlisting or slipping onto the bases – and then attempt to mass-murder our servicemen. Or, servicemen going to and from base from off-base housing are apt to be attacked. If we make their bases GFZ then we bar them from bearing arms while commuting. Why take this chance? What is the rationale?
Granted, the 2’nd Ft. Hood shooter was a non-Muslem who had a screw-loose. Did the GFZ prevent him from carrying concealed against DoD policy? How many other service members was he able to kill because no one in his immediate area was armed?
Until we discover the alchemy of ridding the world of guns (a proposition which NONE of us believes) we are NOT going to stop shooting incidents – whether on or off-base – where a couple of people get killed. What we CAN do is see to it that the number of victims is minimized.
We know the solution in civilian life. Why is it so hard for some of us to believe that this same solution wouldn’t work in military life?
Thank you for your kind remarks.
I take it that you agree with the political tactics I’ve described.
I.e., that RINOs won’t be able to hide behind Democrats claiming that young brash irresponsible enlisted men can’t be trusted because there will be at least 1 screw-ball on each base. My at-least-X% guarantees that the base commander can chose NOT to ORDER that screw-ball(s) to carry. Issue is dismissed.
Also, neither the President nor the chain-of-command could undermine at-least-X% by expressing displeasure to servicemen they have ORDERED to carry.
Do you agree that this at-least-X% approach is CLEARLY the way to go? Or, hopefully, can you suggest a still BETTER idea?
(I very much fear that “allowing” servicemen to carry at their individual discretion is DESIGNED to FAIL by Congressmen who want to pander to their PotG constituents but do NOT actually want change.)
While I appreciate what they are doing, I wish they would have found a different spokesperson.
Your utopia has no perfect spokesman. Just country people with guns. Willing to use them. The Government is not willing to use arms to protect.
Heck, I’ve seen worse spokespeople. Ms. Tewellow is doing fine. And the fact that she’s female destroys a stereotype too.
Closing the barn door after the horse bolted . . . AKA “taking a page from the TSA handbook”.
All I see is three attention-seeker morons that make EVERY gun owner look like a “vigilante in the making”
Do you have any ideas for a better solution? What do you believe will draw attention to the problem or turn public opinion toward more freedom for self defense? -citizens and soldiers
1 That barn still has plenty of horses left inside
2 Sometimes a grand gesture is just what is needed. As I recall the first colonialists to stand against the British got their butt handed to them. But the symbolism ignited a significant portion of the populace to take up arms. And they had no photos. Maybe the right image of the citizenry guarding our troops will shame our lawmakers into action,
3. You sound like one of those who believe if we just don’t upset anyone they will not infringe to badly on our rights. Don’t want to upset Shannon or Bloomie at all costs
That may be a bit harsh Doofus, though it does contain an uncomfortable amont of truth. I guess you take the bad with the good, but the radical-muslim type threat is minimal. The jihadies sure haven’t done enough to scare me lately. More people are killed by cows.
“All I see is three attention-seeker morons that make EVERY gun owner look like a “vigilante in the making””
Says someone who self-identifies as ‘Doofus’.
I see three citizens likely angered by military policy to disarm recruitment centers and having the intestinal fortitude to actually do something about it.
I hope the idea gets legs. Shaming the military to do the obvious may be the only way to get it done.
I strongly disagree. I could see your point if these were 3 poorly dressed 20-somethings brandishing long-guns. But such is not at all the case. These are middle-aged to senior-citizen types with holstered handguns. They are obviously making a political statement. Americans have a LOT of tolerance for people doing something out-of-the-ordinary to make a political statement. OC of guns pushes the limit of such tolerance but it does NOT EXCEED that limit.
So long as it is LEGAL – and I presume in this jurisdiction OC IS legal – then responsible looking ordinary Americans will be tolerated by fair-minded fellow citizens.
We also don’t know much about the context here. It probably wasn’t NYC. Perhaps it was a city of 10,000 to 50,000 where these folks are well known in this neighborhood. They might be known to be fine upstanding citizens. Also makes a big difference.
If this photo was taken during normal business hours then the 20 somethings would be at work or school, for the most part.
It’s us older men and women that have leisure time during the business day, I’m semi retired, that would be available for a volunteer gaurd tour like this.
This whole tragedy exposes one of the gun controllers hollow argument on who should have gun. They always say only police and military on duty should have guns because they have the super special Hogwarts like training. Here we have military, on the job, on duty, but we can’t arm them now. Even though they’re targets of ISIS and other liberal fringe groups that wish harm upon our military members.
So which is it Shannon? Ladd? Lord Farquaad? Is the on duty recruiter’s training not enough? Or is it another agenda all together and you “training” schpeel is just empty tripe to civilian disarmament.
The unorganized militia in action? It cannot be sustained this way. A better approach is one that is coordinated and sustainable. For example, if the sheriff wishes to form a posse or auxiliary to watch over likely terrorist targets, that is fine. But the violent hand, having struck, now moves on to other targets of opportunity. What will it be?
Demanding soldiers be armed all the time is a very bad idea. We do not live in a police state – yet. Allowing solders to be armed off post is already legal, provided they follow state and local laws like the rest of us. Some simple provision for allowing them and civilians to take their personal arms on and off post should be enacted. Providing for security at any government location is a government responsibility. A failure of security that results in serious injury or death of personnel should result in the firing of those in authority who failed to provide it. In the Air Force an avoidable aircraft loss can lead to every leader up the chain being fired, so why not here? Making people responsible tends to have a salutatory effect. Striking back hard at those who sponsor terrorism is important, but under the current regime that is highly unlikely to occur, so prophylactic methods are tried instead. As with any prophylactic, they are not 100% foolproof, and the enemy only need prevail occasionally; while we must prevail all the time. Until our national attitude and leadership change, we will be fighting a defensive battle, and constantly giving ground. This is not a recipe for victory.
The simple answer is for citizens, who chose to do so, to be armed and to use arms in lawful self defense.
The alternative is listen to government tell us to be observant and call 911. Discribed what you see and wait.
God Bless our men and women serving in our armed forces. I do firmly believe that in todays world with so many possible terrorist threats and acts occurring we have to give serious thought to the idea of arming those serving to protect us. We are leaving them as sitting targets, have we not already learned from what has happened at Ft. Hood, the two attacks at the Naval Yards, as well as this latest incident in Chattanooga?
As often happens, it seems like this is quickly degenerating into another pissing match.
I am a retired police officer and I am also a retired senior Army NCO. For what it is worth, it is my personal belief that every American who joins the US military should be issued both a rifle and a pistol during basic training and it should be theirs forever………………
By that I mean, that their honorable service and sworn Oath to defend support and uphold the Constitution should mean that the weapons are theirs from a grateful nation forever to include training ammo and free maintenance and upgrades forever.
How’s that for hardcore?
But I also believe in the strictest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to everyone. Everyone should be armed or not and the only deciding factor should be their own conscious in making an informed decision.
I also believe that we, all of us, gun lovers and gun haters alike, are in a war on two levels. The first is the obvious declared war that President Sparklefarts is ignoring and that is the war with Muslim extremism. Members of that religion have stated emphatically that they intend to exterminate us.Their numbers, already substantial, are growing and there are possibly thousands of their supporters already living here.
The other is the spike in violence as a result of gang warfare. It is not “gun violence” as the media and liberals like to claim, it is gang violence. Gangs all over the country are at war with each other and are busy killing or attempting to kill their opposition and any innocent who happens to get in their way.
Sparklefarts ignores the huge problem of jihad and the media falsely identifies criminal enterprise as being the result of the easy availability of anyone to own a gun.
It seems like there is a contest between the media and Sparklefarts as to who can bury their head further under the sand.
Every since Sig introduced the P938, I have happily carried one everyday becauseIi am armed all the time. But now, I find that more often then not, I am carrying a full sized pistol with high cap magazines and quite often, I have a long gun in my Jeep.
Stopped arguing about what someone is doing and accept the fact that there is a major problem ongoing and it’s not what the motivation that is driving these folks to show up for a couple of days in front of a recruiting station.
The real problem is that there is actually a need for something to be done and as usual, the federal government is not the answer.
My advice to everyone? Arm up, bad times may be coming. And while going about your business, take a good long look at your local recruiting station and make sure our folks are all right.
“It is not “gun violence” as the media and liberals like to claim, it is gang violence. Gangs all over the country are at war with each other and are busy killing or attempting to kill their opposition and any innocent who happens to get in their way.”
That is something that needs to be repeated, loudly and frequently.
Address the gang issue and ‘gun violence’ drops 50 percent.
“Bud – 2016” 🙂
I’m glad to see regular country people using righteous weaponry to protect military personnel. Perhaps it will shame the government into changing it’s no guns policy.
It reminds me of the Christian Oath Keepers deployment to Ferguson Missouri. They stood guard protecting the property of black people, and others as well. The left wing and the right wing hate the Christian Oath Keepers.
That is what the second amendment was for. It is not for clay target shooting. It is not for 3 gun competition. The second amendment is not a hobby.
When the government refuses to protect the citizenry from organized violence, like when the terrorist KKK was hanging people from a tree limb or burning people at the stake, that is when the second amendment is used.
Like when the Deacons for Defense and Justice shot people including dirty police officers. Or when the father of Condoleezza Rice stood guard along with other black father’s armed with long gun military surplus weapons, protecting their homes and families from vandals and drive by shooters.
At times like this I will see who is a second amendment hobbyist. And who is a defender of freedom.
The last time a marine recruiting station was attacked was in Berkeley California. Windows were broken and blood or red paint thrown onto the building. Hundreds of people attacked the recruiting station. It would have been nice if a group of patriotic homosexuals had stood guard with open carry guns. Back then it could have been done. But homosexuals have other things on their minds.
If you think this is a slam against homosexuals you are correct. The San Francisco Bay area is their responsibility. San Francisco is a disarmed city. The pink pistols had a two person (two men and their children) open carry protest in Richmond California, I think that was the location, it was not supported by the greater community. It lead homosexual law makers to extend the waiting period to get a firearm in California.
I should add it was a racially integrated couple. Perhaps this was too much for the white men who have homosexual sex with eachother.
Perhaps it will shame the government into changing it’s no guns policy.
The government has no shame.
Every gun owner can’t project a Mr. or Ms. Perfect Gun Owner image, especially to the media. And we need to get over that.
I would gladly stand armed duty in front of a recruiting station. Or a public school. No cost to the state.
But i live in the state of CA. Frustrating as hell.
LOL @ guarding the government’s attack dogs and doing it for free.
Once a dog, always a dog. 🙂
Once a troll, always a troll.
So, a “well regulated Militia” doing, well, well regulated Militia things. Huh.(*)
Here’s the thing. The Militia is the citizens. The standing army are our agents, some of the time. It’s our job to keep order on our own behalf, which task sometimes we delegate to peace officers, and military.
In immediate policy, I think it’s kind of a no-brainer to allow trained riflemen who have sworn to protect us against all enemies to be armed when they are in shopping malls here, especially when those malls aren’t as safe as one might like.
As a kicker, you know, maybe it is our job – the citizens, meaning the militia – to provide security for military folks when they are inside the border.
(*) I’m referring to the meaning of this at the time it was written: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“Well regulated” at the time meaning skilled, competent and behaving lawfully. It decidedly does not mean the modern interpretation of “as an arm of ‘regulators’ in the administrative state.” And “militia” was understood to be the people, acting on their own behalf.
For once I am going to use and agree with a quote from the left, “If it saves one life”. Honestly I think every gun owning civilian should back this movement to show support for our military and send a message to ISIS that while our leader wishes for us to be eager targets, we, the American people will not stand for it.
“To think the people who are supposed to protect and serve us are unable to protect and serve”
This dumb woman forgot the object of “protect and serve”. It’s not the people of this nation, or even themselves. It’s the politicians in Washington DC. Getting shot up by some crazy guy actually serves the politicians, because it provides public support for some future war (TBD).
They did their job perfectly, they died for politicians.
My home town.