JESS1344 508 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) GUYS, "I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries." WHAT A FUCKING PUSSY, IF PATTON WAS STILL AROUND, HE'D HAVE HIS BOOT BURIED IN THIS LIMP-DICK'S ASS SO FAR, THAT IT'D TAKE HALF THE TANKS IN HIS ARMORED DIVISION TO PULL HIM OUT!! GOD SAVE US FROM THESE POLITICALLY CORRECT PERFUMED PRINCES! JESS1344 Army chief urges caution amid calls to arm more US soldiers in wake of fatal shooting The Army's top officer said Friday they would review security at military recruiting and reserve centers in the aftermath of the deadly shooting in Tennessee, but urged caution amid growing calls to arm more soldiers to protect against these kinds of attacks. Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters that arming troops in those offices could cause more problems than it might solve. "I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries." Outside of military operations, Defense Department policy limits the carrying of firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement duties and "qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." The Pentagon released a statement Friday saying that Secretary Carter had approved "immedate steps" to enhance force protection, and had also asked for recommendations to ensure safety at military centers by the end of next week. A day after a gunman shot and killed four Marines and wounded three other people in Chattanooga, Odierno confirmed the recruiters were not armed. The shooting swiftly has renewed the debate in Washington, and on the presidential campaign trail, over whether the laws and policies should be updated to reflect current threats. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and his House counterpart, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, released a joint statement Friday saying they've been working since before the shooting to "clarify a post commander's authority to allow carrying of personal firearms" and will direct the Pentagon to change policies. "We can and must do more to protect our troops," they said. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a 2016 GOP White House candidate, told Fox News the policies that prohibit personnel from being armed at these centers are "outdated." "Containment was something that might have been good during the Cold War, but we're facing an enemy in radical Islamic terrorism that's willing to take the fight to us and we need to make sure that our men and women in uniform not only have the resources to protect us and keep our country safe, but they need to have the resources to keep themselves safe," he said. But Odierno said, right now, there are no plans to change the military's firearms policy and cited "legal issues" with arming soldiers off-base, including a 19th century law limiting the ability to arm Army soldiers off-base. "First off, we have to figure out what happened, and then we will have to decide will [arming more soldiers] make a difference," he said. But he added they would "conduct an assessment," and law enforcement would be brought in to review security at bases and recruiting stations nationwide. "We don't want to overreact, but we have to do more quickly," he said, while acknowledging they will always be "somewhat vulnerable to a 'lone wolf' or whatever you want to call it, a surprise shooter because we are out there with the population and that is where we have to be." Tucked in strip malls in small rural communities and in high-traffic city spots like New York's Times Square, military recruiting and reserve stations are designed to be open and welcoming to the public. The ban on troops inside carrying weapons is largely due to legal issues, such as laws that prohibit the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement, so troops don't routinely carry guns when they are not in combat or on military bases. According to authorities, Kuwait-born Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24, of Hixson, Tennessee, unleashed a barrage of fire at a recruiting center in Chattanooga, then drove several miles away to a Navy and Marine reserve center, where he shot and killed the Marines. He was shot to death by police. In the wake of previous shootings at military facilities, the services have reviewed and strengthened security precautions at the centers. But most of those involve safety precautions and the need to be aware and watchful of surroundings. Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson and The Associated Press contributed to this report. Edited July 18, 2015 by JESS1344 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) I guess he's totally unaware that certain special operations personnel are required to be armed 24/7, and ready to deploy, no matter where they are, even when off base in civilian clothes. What a tool. PSSSSST: Hey dimbulb: In case you haven't heard, the job of our military is to break things and KILL PEOPLE. Let 'em do their job. Edited July 18, 2015 by patriot 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Heartbreaker 1,085 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 "First off, we have to figure out what happened, and then we will have to decide will [arming more soldiers] make a difference," he said. According to authorities, Kuwait-born Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24, of Hixson, Tennessee, unleashed a barrage of fire at a recruiting center in Chattanooga, then drove several miles away to a Navy and Marine reserve center, where he shot and killed the Marines. He was shot to death by police. What a complete douchebagel. They already know what happened, but I guess they still have to figure out precisely how the guy did it and then they have to talk for a few months before making any decisions. Also, Armed Forces. The name should say it all. Who put him in that high ranking position. Wait, let me guess: Obummer. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ktcm7271 999 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 What does that show the rest of the world that our military personnel are being gunned down at home? Arm them and let the training do it's job. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
evlblkwpnz 3,418 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 How much more of these attacks have to happen before these morons realize the war front has come to America? +1 on the "Armed Forces" comment. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 It is time to declare that we will bomb 1,000 mosques for every American killed. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sim_Player 1,939 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) They aren't being used for law enforcement, just because they carry a firearm. It's just Liberal PC BS. God help us! Edited July 18, 2015 by Sim_Player Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 How did this august gentleman ever get promoted to general? HB 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NM0 586 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) What does that show the rest of the world that our military personnel are being gunned down at home? It shows that it is easier to kill unarmed soldiers at home than in combat. Edited July 18, 2015 by NM0 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ronin38 2,117 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Outside of military operations, Defense Department policy limits the carrying of firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement duties and "qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." Does this REMF read the fucking NEWS?! How many more examples does he need, just including the ones us civvies know about?? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Outside of military operations, Defense Department policy limits the carrying of firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement duties and "qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." "qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." I don't know about today, buy EVERY member of the United States Military is REQUIRED to QUALIFY with a firearm. In fact, badges are awarded with the service member's qualification level. ex: Marksman, Expert, etc. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 This is nothing new. Back in the 80s I walked my post guarding an armory on Camp Pendleton with a heavy zip tie through the mag well and ejection port of my M16. Somehow the men who are trusted with the most sophisticated weapon systems on earth are too stupid and careless to be allowed a rifle or pistol. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
horatio 515 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Just wondering if any congressman or senator was ever concerned his security detail was "over armed" if the good men and women who defend our politicians are so potentially inept with the firearms they are fully qualified to carry, than obviously they shouldn't have them on their persons when defending said politicians There is an obvious, much safer approach. Anytime a politician is around, just post "this is a gun free zone" stickers everywhere. I mean, hey, they say that's good enough to protect every child in America. It should be more than enough for a few politicians.... 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 This is nothing new. Back in the 80s I walked my post guarding an armory on Camp Pendleton with a heavy zip tie through the mag well and ejection port of my M16. Somehow the men who are trusted with the most sophisticated weapon systems on earth are too stupid and careless to be allowed a rifle or pistol. ...and I had to guard a building out in the middle of nowhere with an empty M16. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JESS1344 508 Posted July 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 How did this august gentleman ever get promoted to general? HB HB, THE DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO CAUSE A REGULATION GOLF BALL TO TRANSIT A SPECIFIED LENGTH OF 3/4"I.D. REINFORCED GARDEN HOSE, WITH MORE ALACRITY THAN HIS PEERS. JUS' SAYIN'............. JESS1344 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gaddis 1,689 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) This is nothing new. Back in the 80s I walked my post guarding an armory on Camp Pendleton with a heavy zip tie through the mag well and ejection port of my M16. Somehow the men who are trusted with the most sophisticated weapon systems on earth are too stupid and careless to be allowed a rifle or pistol. ...and I had to guard a building out in the middle of nowhere with an empty M16. In Ft. Benning they actually let us guard those acorn shaped weapons bunker thingies with a live 20 round magazine. Of course we had to account for every bullet issued though. Then hearing all those wild dogs running around in the pitch black plentiful woods that surrounded those bunkers. Edited July 18, 2015 by Gaddis 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 In '71 we went to a fueling pier in Italy. I was the watch, and had a 1911 and 2 magazines. While we were fueling an Italian ship about the size of a cutter came to fuel. First they sent a Zodiac with 2 machine gunners who set up at each end of the pier. Then the ship docked -with EVERY GUN MANNED! So one US Sailor with a 1911 is equal to 2 Italian machine gunners and one 3" gun and several 20MM Bofers mounts? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 Outside of military operations, Defense Department policy limits the carrying of firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement duties and "qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." "qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." I don't know about today, buy EVERY member of the United States Military is REQUIRED to QUALIFY with a firearm. In fact, badges are awarded with the service member's qualification level. ex: Marksman, Expert, etc. I agreed with the statement, but then something in the back of my brain popped and I started thinking of .mil people I know who are incompetent with firearms. They should be qualified, but in reality it is shameful how many military personnel are in name only. I don't care if you are army medical working at a stateside hospital, if you are a member of the armed services, you should be competent for basic soldiering. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 Does anybody here have any inside accurate information about this General? All I have done so far is pull down his bio from WIKI. Somebody went to a great deal of time and effort to present a very glossy "general" overview of his military career. Has this man ever been in heavy close personal action? Wounded in combat? I saw no Combat Infantry Badge. Has he ever killed our enemies close up? He seems to have been promoted very quickly in his early career. What is he like? Reason I am asking is I do not understand why our top Army General would even make such stupid statements. It was almost like he was just reading from some crazy script. Was he just following orders saying what he did? Wow. HB GunFun nailed it. We here on this excellent Saiga Forum probably have more trigger time and experience that most of the military. Having said that, my experience is not all that great. Why is it that our military people are not getting the basic military combat skills? Are they getting any at all? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JESS1344 508 Posted July 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 GUYS, I THINK ODIERNO'S DADDY HAD AN ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE............... JESS1344 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ronin38 2,117 Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Outside of military operations, Defense Department policy limits the carrying of firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement duties and "qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." "qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." I don't know about today, buy EVERY member of the United States Military is REQUIRED to QUALIFY with a firearm. In fact, badges are awarded with the service member's qualification level. ex: Marksman, Expert, etc. I agreed with the statement, but then something in the back of my brain popped and I started thinking of .mil people I know who are incompetent with firearms. They should be qualified, but in reality it is shameful how many military personnel are in name only. I don't care if you are army medical working at a stateside hospital, if you are a member of the armed services, you should be competent for basic soldiering. I've met quite a few people with current/previous military experience, including combat in the various sandboxes, who have never touched a handgun. The "rule" this General proposed included handguns ONLY. Also- gunman outside firing a rifle of any kind, military inside with 9mm handguns... LA Bank Robbery Shootout ring a bell, anyone? (Okay, kind of an extreme example.) Edited July 20, 2015 by Ronin38 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 That example has some merit. I wouldn't think it reasonable to require office personnel to carry a long arm at all times, but having some close to hand in all military facilities makes sense. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JESS1344 508 Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) GUYS, A COUPLE OF AK PISTOLS WITH FOLDING STOCKS AND AN AIMPOINT, PER STATION, WOULD MAKE A GOOD PDW BACKUP TO SIDEARMS. JUS' SAYIN'....... JESS1344 Edited July 20, 2015 by JESS1344 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Never bring your fists to a knife fight. Never bring a knife to a handgun fight. Never bring a handgun to a rifle fight. And so on. It seems to me that arming our military guys only with handguns is setting them up for failure? HB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Capt Nemo 882 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 This is nothing new. Back in the 80s I walked my post guarding an armory on Camp Pendleton with a heavy zip tie through the mag well and ejection port of my M16. Somehow the men who are trusted with the most sophisticated weapon systems on earth are too stupid and careless to be allowed a rifle or pistol. ...and I had to guard a building out in the middle of nowhere with an empty M16. I had to guard a lake surrounded by coyotes and freezing my ass off one night with an empty M16. Ah Ft. Lostinthe Woods memories. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Capt Nemo 882 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 You could always tell the hunters from the non-hunters/gun owners in my unit. The hunters always shot high "sharpshooter" or "expert", and the non-hunters rarely made it past "marksman" if they made it the first time at qualification. The only execption was one pilot that got shot down in Nam. He didn't own guns, but could outshoot everyone with those .38 revolvers! I always shot expert execpt in basic. Had a doublefeed that cost me expert on the pop-up's. Missed expert by one target after breaking my weapon open to clear. Even sadder, I just visited my old unit on qualification day. They had extra ammo so they let me shoot. I outshot everyone even though I've been gone for 20 years. That's damn scary! The noob's can't shoot for shit even after 2 deployments! As armorer, I considered it duty to shoot as a minimum expert on all weapons. That made qualification very stressful for me. The best thing that could happen would be for every soldier to get at least 200-500 rounds a year to shoot for fun. It would help marksmanship tremendously. Even a tax exemption for local purchase of 100 rounds a year would help, along with military pricing on AR-15's for soldiers. ($220 for M16 back in late 80's when civi AR's were $700-1000) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
storm6490 2,768 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Does anybody take brass serously? Fucking West Point pencil pushing fag. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sim_Player 1,939 Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) Concerning pistols and rifles, I heard good story from a Navy Vet about his buddy that got shot down in Nam. He swam to shore, dispatched an NVA with his pistol, retrieved his AK, and held out briefly until he was rescued. He said he came back without a scratch and was back in the air the same day! Edited July 21, 2015 by Sim_Player 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.