The Right To Self Defense

Marines killed in Tenn.

By now most of you know about the shooting in Chattanooga, Tenn., and the follow on information about the shooter. Apparently he was the “Typical Moderate muslim” (they all are, right?), and fortunately, he will never harm anyone, ever again. I’ve read a number of posts on social media and a number of blogs about how the Marines “Should have been able to be armed?”, “They protect us, but couldn’t protect themselves.” etc. and it caused me to consider why they weren’t, and should they be.

The question is somewhat easy to answer. “Should they have been armed?” The short answer is “No.”, at least not from an “On Duty” perspective. I find it interesting that some who have been crying to high Heaven about the “Jade Helm” exercise being a lead in to martial law, are some of the same ones saying the Marines should have been armed, and that we should arm all Service Members in CONUS. Those Marines were not acting in their combatant military capacity in those centers, they were there performing other duties. There was no reason for them to be armed anymore than the average citizen on the street, whom I might point out is just as much a soft target for terrorists, if not more so, from a “lack of training and awareness” standpoint. You want to arm the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen within the U.S., fine, but not before every citizen who is not legally restricted from firearms ownership, get’s to be similarly armed for self defense as well.

As to the above statement “They protect us, but couldn’t protect themselves.” Well, here’s the thing. Serving in the military carries with it a perception of being of the “Sheepdog” mindset, as it is and should be. Make no mistake about it though, the “Protection” being given by a service member while stateside (generally speaking) is their membership in the military helping plus up the nation’s overall force projection and defensive capability to other nations and/or threats, and unless you are in the National Guard, Constitutionally, the active military is not even supposed to be “operational” within the nation’s borders.

Being armed while on duty (especially visibly), unless you are operating in a Military Police, or base Security Forces specialty, is not something that should be, or technically can be authorized. Most don’t even realize that the majority of service members never even fire a handgun while in the service, let alone qualify with and carry one on a regular basis. That’s not even mentioning the logistics nightmare of having to train and qualify every Service Member, and then issue  them a handgun for self defense, which they would have to turn in at the end of the duty day (No, you can’t take it home), and only then (off duty) would they be able to carry a personally owned weapon.

What’s the answer? As I see it, the only (on duty) answer is allowing concealed carry of a personally owned firearm (wouldn’t want to mess with AR 670-1 (uniform regs), right?). I agree they should be able to protect themselves, but only if the average citizen is able to exercise the same right to carry, and in the same places. Service Members are not forced to enlist, they are volunteers. They have no special privilege to the right of self defense because of their service when compared to any legal law abiding citizen, and should not be made to think they do. We already have enough of the Us vs. Them mentality going on, don’t you think?

JCD

American by BIRTH, Infidel by CHOICE

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “The Right To Self Defense

  1. Pingback: MDT: The Right To Self-Defense | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  2. “I find it interesting that some who have been crying to high Heaven about the “Jade Helm” exercise being a lead in to martial law, are some of the same ones saying the Marines should have been armed, and that we should arm all Service Members in CONUS.”

    OUCH! Exposing a contradiction. Sleep in your body armor. 🙂

    S//

  3. Before they are servicemembers they are cifizens. EVERY citizen has the right to self-defense. The dead Marines chose not to defy what I consider unlawful orders. They paid for their obedience to “the officers appointed over me” with their lives.

    You’re in good company with Ray “Lapdog” Odierno.

    • Everything has the right to self defense.

      Every right can be waved through contract.

      They entered into contract, and waived their natural rights and personal sovereignty, in exchange for being a Marine (with all the rights, privileges, and obligations thereto).

      If they had held their right to self-defense as a higher priority that whatever motivated them to sign up, they would not have signed the contract.

      As they say, “You can’t have your cake, and eat it too.”

        • I personally would not enter into contract that required that I waive my right to self defense, and the practical implements of the same. I do not frequent establishments that insist that I do not carry, and I cross the street at Post Offices, and don’t cross the threshold of Federal Buildings. I choose not to provoke the beast.

          If the Marines wanted me, and I’m rather sure they don’t, we would have to renegotiate that part of the contract. For me, it’s one of those ‘deal breakers’.

          For those souls who have voluntarily signed contracts and sworn oaths that limit their Natural Rights, I imagine those Rights could be restored by the signing of a document. And that would be a reasonable choice for their–I can’t find a better word–‘owner’s’ to make.

          To refocus, my initial point was related to the characterization that Marines can be ordered not to be armed with defensive firearms can somehow be considered “unlawful”. It is not unlawful. They signed a contract that has certain obligations. They were either competent in the eyes of the law when they signed the contract, in which case it is binding; or, they were incompetent in the eyes of the law, at which case they cannot have status as sovereign (there is a prerequisite capacity to claim autonomy). So they either waived their Natural Rights, or never took possession of them.

          No writ, or statute, or command can take my Natural Right to Exist away from me. It is mine. I prove that by being here. I claim that Right with every breath.

          And as is true of all properly held possessions, I can dispose of it through contract.

          But you better have something sweet in exchange…

    • Yes, this supposed “contradiction” is nothing of the sort. Until Clinton, members of the military could be armed on base, and that has the same value as a citizen being armed anywhere–we are talking about small arms here. It has nothing to do with martial law….

      • Your info is incorrect. It wasn’t Clinton, it was GHW Bush’s admin that allowed it, and I was in the mil before that (implemented in March of ’93), and you could not just randomly be armed on most bases with a personal weapon. Personal weapons had to be kept in the base armory, unless you had a buddy with off post housing who would keep them for you.

      • Not true. I was busted by my Gunny in 1973 for having 2 Gerber Mk 2’s, a scuba knife, and a Filipino bolo in my wall locker at Camp Schwab, Okinawa. They were supposed to be registered with the PMO’s office and stored in the Co. armory, I broke the rules and he punished me privately. Had to run 10 miles with full VN ruck, then go register that shit with PMO. Same applied at Camp Lejeune the following 2.5 years.
        Same thing with firearms also, I kept mine off base.

        • Yup, I don’t know where these guys are getting this “They could carry weapons on base before Clinton” shit. I’ve never (and I joined in ’88) seen anyone allowed to carry a weapon on a base, unless they were in a duty position that warranted it, or were hunting in an area that allowed it. ALL personally owned firearms on base were in signed in to the armory, no exceptions. I guess these guys have watched one too many episodes of “The Unit” (not the porno 0321 LOL)

  4. Do you write Obama’s speeches for him? Military personnel were armed on base. When I went through basic Drill instructors were armed. Are you implying that the military aren’t qualified to carry arms? Now what does Jade Helm have to do with the rights of military personnel to own weapons on base and for select personnel to carry arms? Perhaps the fact that a military exercise does not usually involve the DEA, FBI and homeland security might concern people, ah no its the fact that the military is armed. Really? I suppose all military exercises involved weapons that went pew, pew, pew. I’ve seen dumbasses get wounded during live fire exercises, but hey, that’s soooo unusual. Special priviledge of being armed is such a good argument. Let us all remember that the USMC was never meant to be armed according to the author, and it is a special priviledge for them to be armed. We really pay them to be mimes.

    • “Military personnel were armed on base. When I went through basic Drill instructors were armed.” When was that, 1950?
      “Are you implying that the military aren’t qualified to carry arms?” 1) “Qualified”? No, most are not qualified to carry a handgun. Your reading comprehension is lacking apparently, because I already said that. 2) Do they have the “Ability”? Sure, they’re no different than any other citizen who has the ability to carry.
      ” Now what does Jade Helm have to do with the rights of military personnel to own weapons on base and for select personnel to carry arms?” We weren’t talking about Military Personnel’s right to own (and some base commanders severely restrict it, which is BS) We were talking about their right to carry on duty. People are up in arms over soldiers running around during an exercise with blanks in public, screaming the ridiculous notion that it’s a precursor to a martial law takeover, then some of the same people are saying “Arm them all!”. See the contradiction?
      “Special priviledge of being armed is such a good argument. Let us all remember that the USMC was never meant to be armed according to the author, and it is a special priviledge for them to be armed. We really pay them to be mimes.” Marines have no special privilege to self defense above what a citizen does. When stateside, we pay them to “Be ready”, and to train, not to perform a security function. What is your impression of what Marines are supposed to do while serving on a non combat post? Do they enforce the law? Are they performing a security function? Please tell us what their need for a “Duty” (as opposed to a personal, concealed, self defense weapon) weapon is (you know, the “weapon” you said they all had when you were in boot camp). Obviously, you are too emotional and without actual understanding of protocol and regulation to have an informed, intelligent conversation, but I decided to humor you anyway.

      • In 73, I enlisted in the Marines and except for training, we kept all weapons in the company armory. Including all personal weapons. IIRC they started disarming the stateside service men after WW!. TPTB thought it might be a good idea.

  5. U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said he’s not sure whether the no-gun policy at military installations should be lifted. He questioned whether the policy shift could “cause more problems than it solves.”

    This has to be one of the most ignorant statements ever issued by a military leader in time of war. Oh certainly it will cause some problems…The body count of wanna be Bin Laden’s will rise in the Homeland as armed soldiers are able to respond to the terrorist threats. And we all know that Obama has a love for all things Islam, so heaven forbid he has to explain to his Saudi masters that young Muslims are getting shot dead as they attack Homeland military facilities. Since Obama pulls the career puppet strings of the Officer Class, and since Odierno wants to make it to retirement, he remains obedient to his master, Obama.

    As for the stated legal issues that are the “reason” why stateside soldiers are disarmed while on duty, that can be easily solved “with a phone and a pen.” And not every one in uniform needs to be armed. But at minimum, members of the Armed Forces in uniform and working in public must be given a fighting chance. To willfully take away their right and ability for armed self defense, is unconscionable. Recruiting stations should carry a few long arms, and every one manning a recruiting center should carry a side arm open carry style.

    If the nations leadership continues to act as if the US homeland is still as peaceful as Mayberry, and Islamic terrorism is only in the minds of “Islamophobes” then its time to change the leadership, beginning with the incompetent traitor Barack Hussein Obama. The Army Chief of Staff needs to be replaced too, and while he may be a great warrior, his ignorance of the current threats stateside tells me he has outlived his usefulness.

    • You’re right, that is a statement based on the ignorance of the speaker. When I heard it was an attack on two recruiting stations, I knew who did it. It just makes sense for them to attack the “softest” unarmed military target available. I believe all military personnel should be allowed to carry concealed for self defense. There would be no need for them to be visibly armed, since concealed carry has proven that crime/attacks drop if bad guys don’t know who is and who isn’t armed. They’ll never do the long gun thing, simply because the security protocol for unattended weapons would prohibit it. The above stated point should not be allowed, unless law abiding citizens are given the same ability. They are in more danger than the military is, simply because troops are considered a “harder” target.

  6. Lots of things in the .mil aren’t what they ought to be, and security/CCW/duty sidearm is one of them.
    And, one thing that generally separates the .mil from other situations is the “you’ll do as you’re told” obedience bit. Being a soldier/sailor/airman/marine involves rogering up and accepting something that may be better for the whole than it is for you.

    My impressions come from being a Navy submarine JO about 20-25 years ago. A collateral duty of mine was security for the ship and the special stuff that might have been on board if the .gov would ever confirm or deny it. I also did a shore-duty tour at a land-based nuclear power facility where we trained operators for the fleet, and security was one of the responsibilities involved with standing CDO for the place after hours and on the weekends when the CO wasn’t generally present. Not that that makes me an expert on security, but it did give me experience and insight into the more senior .mil and .gov mind with respect to armed security and things like that.

    I’ve seen a lot of comments about the recruiters along the lines of “if we trust them to fight our wars for us, can’t we trust them to have a handgun to protect themselves”. The way the .mil looks at it, actually, no! Attacks like this one are very rare, extremely rare up to now. If allow everyone in recruiting or other non-frontline combat positions to be armed for force protections, you will have more NDs and various accidents including lost/stolen weapons. (See story yesterday about I think it was a Navy recruiter in Gainesville GA who had an ND into his leg, carrying concealed illegally likely in response to the Chattanooga attack)

    To the senior .mil mind, it’s better to keep everyone unarmed and dependent on the police, base police, base security/MPs/shore patrol etc since that way they won’t take heat for accidents. That’s infuriating but I think it’s the truth. You can be trusted with Trident missiles, torpedos, artillery, everything but not to carry a sidearm, per the .mil/.gov way of looking at it.
    That thinking is one of the reasons I didn’t stay for 20+ years, BS on that.

    The hell of it is, this senior .mil way of looking at things is sort of right. If you allow .mil people to carry, either open or concealed, you WILL have more gun accidents. It’s just reality, more occasions of gun handling/holstering/stowing the gun away each day means more chances for some kind of accident. If you’re responsible and follow the standard gun safety rules, you may have an accident but you’ll at least not have a tragedy. The senior leadership with it’s baloney “zero defects” viewpoint can’t accept this. Personally, I’m ok with that tradeoff. I find it unacceptable that service members are deliberately kept helpless in the face of enemy attacks like this because the remfs can’t bring themselves to allow their people to be responsible adults.

    • I’m just trying to give factual answers to those that don’t know any better. It’s not their fault that they don’t know, but this emotional crap people are putting out is the same type of mindset that got us “The Patriot Act”, and NYPD SWAT on the streets with M4’s and MP5’s. I don’t want visibly armed soldiers on the streets. If they carry concealed, fine, but I think visibly arming them does more damage to us, than it will to the “enemy”.

  7. This will end well:

    Who decides who and what is “radical?” Who decides who and what is “disloyal?”

    I bet the farm that it is neither you, nor me.

  8. Pingback: The Captain's Journal » Should The Marines In Chattanooga Have Been Armed?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s