Army To Recruiters: Treat Armed Citizens as Security Threat

Ok I realize that I may not be the right member to start this thread but when my Marines were unarmed and killed last week my nerves went haywire at the fragmented news that came out after that. Disturbing that Hollywood stars and silly/ stupid news overrides something this terrible, oh wait, it is the ole domestic terrorism verses proper anti American protocols these days.

I was up lifted when I caught a little bit about the recruiter offices being manned and protected by individuals willing to defend the unarmed Military personnel who are all highly trained marksmen but unable to carry on the job...

Then I read this on SQ's site today and I came here to see what ATS has to say, saw nothing on the board so here you go:

www.military.com...

Army To Recruiters: Treat Armed Citizens as Security Threat

Help me understand.

a reply to: antar

"I'm sure the citizens mean well, but we cannot assume this in every case and we do not want to advocate this behavior," according to the Army Command Operations

That good guy with the gun "protecting" people, might not really be a good guy.
How can they tell?

originally posted by: snowspirit


How can they tell?

thats easy

he has a gun

Most of the ones I've seen in news reports I would treat as a security liability before treating them as a threat.

The possibility is certainly there for one of these guys to be a wolf in sheep's clothing but frankly, I'd be more worried about one of these guys having a heart attack than anything else.

Good initiative, poor execution.

a reply to: antar

Just remember that Janet Napolitano said, veterans are the biggest threat to the country. The government is scared of its' people! We might do the honorable thing when they won't.

a reply to: snowspirit

Hi Snowspirit, thanks for the question. Others will undoubtedly have differing opinions, as for me I would rather have armed Citizens responsibly standing guard than simply trusting a locked glass door (what the new rules are for countrywide recruitment centers, lol) are.

These guys in any one area, town, region are pretty tight and not loose cannons as the %$#@*& would like to think.

If a lunatic of any race, creed or color came up to do harm, they would do their duty.

Contrary to oppositional beliefs, most gun carrying Patriots are highly trained and very much willing to protect and defend, not just start shooting for the sake of stupidity.

These guys have our backs, that speaks volumes and believe me there are far more than anyone can possibly imagine.

a reply to: antar

They're not trained like the military is in threat recounting, nor do they have the right to stop anyone. What they consider a threat may simply be someone walking in to talk to the recruiter, and they have extremely limited options besides pulling the trigger. They may not be loose cannons but that doesn't mean they're either the right or best solution.

This breaks my heart so deeply, my beloved and most admired and respected Brother passed recently, knowing him better than anyone I would say if he had any regrets it would be that he was unable to go out in a blaze of glory defending this beautiful country from the fascist regimes that seek to destroy our very way life and freedoms.

He was not ex but yes a Vet. He was the most Brave, honest, loyal patriotic man I have ever known.

He was a private member here, read only, and the most intelligent person I have ever met.

He walked his talk, was ready willing and able defend you and me at a moments notice 24/7/365

a reply to: snowspirit

How can they tell?

Most are veterans . Thats how they can tell.

a reply to: Gothmog

Not most, only some are. A bunch that I've seen interviewed were just concerned citizens that wanted to show support and help.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand what you say, and statistically speaking you are right. Yet I am fully behind the statement that they are making, even if the msm has blacked out the reasons and the truth behind what they represent, hell we have seen rebel rousing change the face of our country, these guys are not igniting and infighting, they are not stopping traffic or pulling people without guns out of their cars, they are not any of those things that have been allowed to happen in the past couple years. If I had the choice to send my child to a recruitment center manned by these patriots, or downtown during one of the recent riots or political rallies, I would chose the recruitment centers even if like in the riots there is a chance for provocateurs to be present and that is my truest concern for these guys defending the centers...

a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand what you say, and statistically speaking you are right. Yet I am fully behind the statement that they are making, even if the msm has blacked out the reasons and the truth behind what they represent, hell we have seen rebel rousing change the face of our country, these guys are not igniting and infighting, they are not stopping traffic or pulling people without guns out of their cars, they are not any of those things that have been allowed to happen in the past couple years. If I had the choice to send my child to a recruitment center manned by these patriots, or downtown during one of the recent riots or political rallies, I would chose the recruitment centers even if like in the riots there is a chance for provocateurs to be present and that is my truest concern for these guys defending the centers...

a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand what you say, and statistically speaking you are right. Yet I am fully behind the statement that they are making, even if the msm has blacked out the reasons and the truth behind what they represent, hell we have seen rebel rousing change the face of our country, these guys are not igniting and infighting, they are not stopping traffic or pulling people without guns out of their cars, they are not any of those things that have been allowed to happen in the past couple years. If I had the choice to send my child to a recruitment center manned by these patriots, or downtown during one of the recent riots or political rallies, I would chose the recruitment centers even if like in the riots there is a chance for provocateurs to be present and that is my truest concern for these guys defending the centers...

a reply to: antar

This subject was discussed earlier on ATS, but your position brings a new slant to the topic.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The responses to citizens taking recruiting office security upon themselves was met with derisive comments and questioning their motives. After watching interviews with these people, it seemed to me they felt it was necessary and a positive thing until protocols are changed to allow those manning recruiting posts the ability of self-defense.

People stepping up and doing what they perceive is "the right thing" with no expectations of reimbursement of any form is good in my book--an individual seeing a need or shortcoming, and volunteering. That's my .02.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Gothmog

Not most, only some are. A bunch that I've seen interviewed were just concerned citizens that wanted to show support and help.

That may be better.

What is worrisome to me is knowing that there are countless defenders out there ready to stand, but when just a small fraction stand, people start finding fault and fear that casualties can happen or that they can be bad guys in disguise...

If shtf, do we wait for the gov to protect and defend us? Or do we unite and stand together with the Military to defend them, us and yes even the gov if need be?

If shtf and the gov was in danger, their greatest hope for survival of themselves and their loved one WILL be these guys ready, willing and able, and they know it.

a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

Thank you, can only star your thoughts once.

a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

I have seen where on the internet armchair idiots wreck it for the true defenders, watchmen, warriors. This is different and like zap suggest cannot come without risk, but even police, and military at the highest levels have individuals who are coo coo.

Did you read where they are now talking about gunning for people on Social security as a high risk to be a gun owner? first the Veterans, and now the most responsible, the seniors.

Use a CPA, lose your gun rights?

The Times notes that the finances of roughly “4.2 million” Social Security beneficiaries are handled by someone else.

Yale Psychologist Dr. Marc Rosen has seen this same tact used on US veterans and warns that those applying it to guns under the presumption that needing help with financial management equates to violent tendencies are simply mistaken. Rosen said, “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe. They are very different determinations.”

www.breitbart.com...

Ok looks like this subject holds little interest on the forum for now, I will check back later for further discussion, please feel free to talk about this and keep the conversation alive.

It is ok to bring up points that others have not, to see things in a different way than me or other members, and to agree or disagree as to what this represents in today's world and for America. I for one never dreamed that these recruiting centers were unarmed and defenseless. I think I have even heard since that posts around the world typically have unarmed soldiers manning them. I mean even a little side arm at all times makes sense to me and could avoid many deaths that have happened by car bombers and such.

One Marines comments on the subject, which imho reflects that of millions of others in waiting:
www.stevequayle.com...