Two were sworn to defend.

Yet again, American Soldiers were killed by a lunatic gunman. This time, two of them in an IHOP.  Sidearms and fixed bladed knives should be PART OF THE UNIFORM for ALL SERVICEMEN.
Yes, it would require more training.  So what?  Add it to Basic Training to come right after Basic Rifle Marksmanship.  Expand the Hand to Hand training as well.  Give them an extra 2 weeks training during Boot Camp for this.  But if you can’t trust them to be Armed and Responsible, then they should be in the Service to begin with.

Part of the Uniform.  Always on them.  Always.

29 thoughts on “Two were sworn to defend.”

  1. What extra training? How many states do not require any training to carry (open, at least)? If they were private citizens, they could carry in those states, with no training required. If they can safely carry in one place, with no training, then that doesn’t magically change because they visit a different place.

    I’m not saying extra training wouldn’t be a good idea. But realistically, none would actually be needed, so anything they were given would be a bonus.

    Here in NH, a pre-teen can walk down the street with a gun on his hip, as long as he has a parent’s permission. Granted, some of those who enter the military don’t come from places where guns are this much a part of the culture… but still, they’re 18 by then, or older, so they should be able to handle what pre-teens can handle, no matter where those pre-teens are from. Someone who cannot muster the responsibility necessary to carry a firearm by the time he’s old enough to vote, should not be in any government job (all the way down to dog catcher), let alone in the military.

    1. In the Army, we take time teaching rifle marksmanship.
      With handgun training, the same time and care needs to be given. Basic Training has ZERO handgun training and the hand to hand training is useless. I’d say give an extra two weeks for those. Maybe 4 days for pistols or so and the rest hand to hand and Blades.

      1. I’m not saying that training isn’t a good idea. I wouldn’t be an instructor if I didn’t think it was valuable.

        But it’s not necessary. If someone has the most basic levels of personal responsibility, handing him a firearm isn’t going to make him (and those around him) any worse off. And it might do a world of good.

        Sure, training would be even better, and even something as simple as NRA Basic Pistol would do a world of good, but it doesn’t make much sense that someone who could otherwise walk down any street in NH with a gun on his hip, suddenly loses that ability if he enlists.

        And yes, get them training. Just saying that they could implement it, immediately, without training, and it would be better than nothing…

        1. Flint. Training is necessary because they are servicemen and women. Civilians should not necessarily need training for constitutional reasons. But if you are going to give special dispensation for service members to carry weapons that are not given to the average citizen then the military has an obligation to train their people to be good stewards of that power.

    1. I don’t mean to offend, but this is a strongly held belief. The “Uniformed Services” have become a joke, they need to be the “Armed Forces” again.

      1. You know I’m being a smartass and mocking libs, right? I agree completely with you. There should be solemn ceremony at graduation where the pistol and knife are presented to the newly minted Marine, Sailor, Soldier, Airman and Coastie (? What are they called for real?). They should be considered out of uniform to be without their warbelt, PT included.

        1. The correct term is “Coast Guardsman”, which makes it obvious why “Coastie” is such a popular term.

  2. “It would require more training” My basic pistol class took exactly one day to complete. The Concealed Carry class took about 6 hours. Add a knife fighting class, you could achieve a basic level of proficiency with three extra days of training.

  3. Arming a bunch of dumb boots and letting them loose out in town would be a disaster. A lot of Marines (and I assume soldiers, sailors, and airmen as well) are stupid, irresponsible (and probably drunk) idiots who can’t be trusted with a push broom, let alone functional firearms without direct supervision. And yes, I’ve seen brooms get confiscated.

    1. I disagree with that statement, but certainly at the very least you would not have any objection to requiring that NCOs be armed when they are on duty/in uniform?

      1. “On duty” means different things. But if it’s required that all NCOs carry a sidearm while in uniform, then that means they’d have to check it out from the armory every time they changed into cammies. I was an NCO. Having to do that would’ve made me drink more. They do not and will not (and for good reason) trust junior enlisted to keep personal weapons in the barracks, or the barracks duties, for that matter. I’ll give you that, the barracks duties had no authority outside of a shiny belt and a logbook–Either an M9 for the DNCO or a key for a shotgun locker would be good.

        And if by “on duty” you mean “at work” then watch the suicide rate go up when the boot PFCs have to get up an hour before morning PT to go check out their pistol from the armory every damn day before facing fourteen some hours of shitty life.

        I’m curious, though, what part of my statement you disagree with? I don’t know about you, but I was an NCO in the Marine Corps (recently, at that), I lived in the barracks, I’ve seen too many people do too much dumb shit to think that “hey, let’s give these drunk idiots fucking PISTOLS because trying to jump off the third deck of the barracks just isn’t getting the job done” is a good idea.

        Most of these kids are nineteen, just got out of high school, have no experience with life, firearms, hardship, or booze, and when no one’s watching they WILL act out in some way–be it drinking, doing drugs, fighting, fucking, or killing themselves. Anybody who says that they should be armed at all times is denying reality.

        1. No military, just someone who managed to get through those years without any booze, drugs, fighting, or killing myself or anyone else. By “on duty” I mean anytime they are wearing the uniform, the sidearm is part of the uniform and they should be wearing it. No checking out of the weapon from the armory each day; it’s issued once and only comes back if it needs work or the NCO/officer musters out. Yes, that will take a change from the way things are currently done. That’s the point.

          1. Then the Armed Forces would be a hell of a lot smaller. There’s too many who can’t even handle the responsibility of owning a car.

        2. What the Ogre was getting at was that they would always have…no checking out from the arms room. They take it out on the town, take it home. No checking out nuth’n. You have a point about the level of discipline in the military and guess what, that can be fixed too.

    2. George is talking about a shift in the mentality of the Armed Forces. The training would address the issue of carrying a weapon everywhere you go. Certain irresponsible behavior would not be tolerated. He’s not talking about just giving irresponsible drunk kids guns, he is talking about changing basic training to make those kids into WARRIORS. It’s a shift in mindset.
      He’s fighting against the idea that soldiers, sworn to use violence and weapons to defend our country, can’t be trusted with weapons.

      1. Yeah, what he said. This modern day stress card BS mentality is destroying the military. We need to instill FEAR into the enemy again.

          1. It was an idea that started years ago that new recruits in basic training had little cards that they could show their instructors when they were “stressed,” allowing them to sit out of the training for awhile. They also don’t exist and the term is usually used either by NCOs wanting to prove their salt by talking crap about the current generation of boots or by civilians who don’t know what they’re talking about.

            That doesn’t change the fact that the military these days is rife with PC mentality, treat everyone equally, rainbows and unicorn farts naiveté that happens when you let politicians run things.

  4. People tend to behave more responsibly when there are consequences for behaving irresponsibly.

    Soldiers are not exempt from this basic rule, age notwithstanding.

    They’ll adapt to the “danger” of having everyone armed nearly all the time. They’re managing it RIGHT NOW in Iraq and Afghanistan, why not everywhere else?

    1. Damn right. We’ve got guys that are 18, 19 years old, flying around behind a machine gun with as much ammo as they could want, carrying a rifle or pistol around everyday with all the ammo they could want(don’t gimme the count the ammo every day bs, there’s always spare ammo somewhere), under the shittiest and most stressful conditions you could ask for, but somehow they’re not shooting each other over parking spots.

      I guess we fly through a magical wormhole that fucks all that up on the way back home.

      I’d rather not be issued a weapon, I’d prefer to just carry my own. Heaven forbid the Constitution apply on the other side of the gate.

  5. +1 Sgt Mac

    I think the idea of issuing sidearms in this manner is a good one in principle. IF the responsibility and accountability parts of it were actually implemented, then it’d be good. It’s not just issuing a weapon, it’s also making it clear that when you’re under arms (all the time in uniform, with this idea right?), you are on duty in the same sense perhaps that police are when armed and in uniform. It would require a change in the way things are done, sure.

    Simply issuing weapons to people without the “on duty” changes would indeed be a recipe for disaster, going by my experiences with junior enlisted (and green JOs too) back in the day.

    I think a good example of this working properly is how the Israeli Defense Forces do it. Their units do have a ceremony much like what has been suggested here, during which the weapon (a rifle, in their case) is issued and thereafter, the soldier is never separated from it. Somehow allowance is made for down-time (you have to be able to go out and drink, at least once in a while) but for the most part, during your active service you always have some sort of weapon with at all times.

  6. Just a thought, but wouldnt that come very close to violating the Posse Comitatus Act?

  7. “…but wouldnt that come very close to violating the Posse Comitatus Act?”

    Defense of self or other victims is not a violation of Posse. Deliberate enforcement of civilian laws by military members is.

    The mental shift being called for, read Starship Troopers.

  8. We live in times as dangerous if not more dangerous than any other- the mindset of all needs to be that we are a country at war, no only in the middle east but even in a spiritual sense, one news report I read concerning Ihop stated the shooter had (mental demons) average everyday people need not only be ready from a martial point of view but aware of that thIn veil that separates us from the battle that has not only temporal but eternal consequences.

  9. I wonder if the IHOP killer’s AK came from Fast & Furious. I bet there are some big shots at DOJ shitting some pretty big bricks waiting for the answer to that one.

Comments are closed.