I kinda see your point, Elbert but let me take a stab at this.
As a former ANG member you are correct about the Guard having a State mission. They also have a Federal mission and can be tasked by either. But, to the point, do you CC? Are you protective of your right to CC if you should choose to do so? Why should a properly trained and licensed serviceman concern you more than any random individual you might meet on the street? This world is becoming a scary place and I want the right to protect myself and my family. I don't think that's too much to ask.... even for a recruiter.
There is far more to this story than a person's right to protect themselves...as we all know who have served...you give up a lot while in uniform...a lot!... not equating that to the story but its part of it. Historically personal weapons are not permitted on post (have to be locked up) and not allowed to be on your person in uniform while stateside (as far as concealed carry or carry at all).
I do have a CC permit, but to be truthful I don't carry weapons around with me that often. The environment I live in is not hostile and I go directly to jail if I were to carry one (gun) on my person or in my car to work. I'm not concerned about the idea of a uniformed member having a weapon per se... I'm saying the reaction is not proportional to the root cause. I'm around people in uniform probably more than most except for anyone here who is active duty... I work on a military installation...at times I'm in quasi-in-charge of some military folks (officers with regard to their work product..)....I'm a former enlisted guy in Field Artillery....I've deployed ..etc (not about me) but I'm ok with guns as long as I understand the other guy knows what he is doing as well. Again I'm only pointing out the reaction to the event in question. We are not in a war zone here in the states. I'm aware of the different functions etc of the guard and they can function under federal control when "federalized"....title 10 vs title 32.
I've been to places while in uniform where guns are like toys ....everyone has one or can get one or worse. I support the rights of all us to be responsible and own the weapons of your choice
Not debating about the right to own weapons.... When one lunatic acts....we should not go overboard in the reaction. Unless something else comes to light...all I know is some single idiot acted on his on deranged motives....outside of that I don't see the response to be arm the "crew".
Is there some reason to believe that soldiers stateside are potential targets based on one idiots actions?...thats what I'm trying to paint a picture of. I just don't agree with the concept that recruiters or other uniformed members need weapons in their day to day functions off military installations within the US....
I lived with an M-16 and all the ammo I could lug around for 9 months way back in the early 90's...first gulf war, I've been to an through the line of death in Iraq...etc... that was a war zone....maybe if I lived in Chicago or somewhere I would see it differently. I have hearing loss from being exposed to so much fire from 8inch howitzers, 155 howitzers, MLRS, when the sounds wave pass through your body (concussion) just from the firing end ...not the receiving end. I'm no hero, but I've served and served in combat....I value the right to own weapons in our democratic society and I value the right for a person to be responsible and defend their person and family as appropriate. The questions of arming the recruiters does not equate with those ideals in my view.
I've served the country in war and peace while in uniform...and I've been to war... SO you could say I've fought for the right to own weapons and function as we do as Americans and all that goes with that.along with all the freedoms we value..nothing I'm saying has anything to do with gun control or concealed carry or the right to do so. reaction to the single event is not proportional or proper in my view ...to arm the recruiters... Just my view, I'm no hero or some former special ops guy... trying to covey that one chooses a proportional response to the action at hand.
The reality of allowing recruiters to be armed with a MIl issue pistol or permission to have a personal firearm opens up a pandora's box with regard to all kinds of issues. Don't think that every military member is fully trained with regard to use of weapons, when and where and essentially what a policeman would have in regard to use of deadly force... Not true by a long shot, don't think wearing the uniform equates to all things weapons and the good sense on when or where to use that weapon. Police officers have some involved training before they are given permission to be armed..... fighting wars and life and death on the battle field are far different than working downtown within the constraints of a civil society. I believe we have a police force and multiple federal / county law enforcement types... to use. When a single lunatic acts our response should be measured and relevant and proportional, if its a war-zone then all hands on deck and everyone needs to cover their own ass. I don't see the war zone just yet and I hope we don't ever see that here in the States...
http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...economy-puts-recruiting-effort-risk/31543507/
