Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #23389
    GRA
    GRA
    Veteran
    member2

    I’m hearing disturbing rumors (for lack of a better term) that the National Guard recently sent to the border are not being allowed to wear/carry their issued weapons back to billets, etc., when they are off duty and some stories exist that says there have been attempts to prevent them from carrying concealed when off-duty and assigned to the border duty.

    I DO NOT know of this is 100% true or not, but I have this question … WHY is our military so damn controlling when it comes to troops and their weapons … ???

    It doesn’t seem to be that way when they are overseas in an “official” war zone. Can anyone on here answer this question? Thank You

    Many of them cried; "Me no Alamo - Me no Goliad" and for most of them these were the last words they spoke.

    #23393
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    Weapons get stolen, lost, misused.

    Every gun and round of ammo is inventoried, signed in and out, and .gov property.

    And of duty means something different here from Fallujah.
    There you are expected to defend yourself, here the rules and rules of engagement are different. We don’t actually want to hurt or stop anyone.

    Remember this a police action of sorts and technically the military should not be used. Unless we are considering this a foreign invasion in which case the regular army should be on pickets there.

    #23401
    GRA
    GRA
    Veteran
    member2

    I realize your point however there’s a LOT of dangerous stuff happening on the border these days; kidnappings, Mexican choppers flying in and shooting at BP Agents, vehicle pursuits, firefights, etc., which to me seems enough like a regular combat zone to warrant some sort of reasonable weapons policy. I’m sure a lot of things happen that have been kept from the public since 2008 and we know that Annointed One will never claim invasion and send the regular army there. Since the Governor sent troops there it seems to me the NG troops could at least be allowed some sort of self-defense. It would not be hard to believe hearing that one or more of them got killed or kidnapped from their hotel, etc., in one of the border towns.

    Many of them cried; "Me no Alamo - Me no Goliad" and for most of them these were the last words they spoke.

    #23409
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    I personally think that if they want the National Guard on the border then they are working like a BP and need there weapons. You go to any other country and there military carry there weapons. The only countries that do not are communist countries.

    #23451
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    Personally I’d like to see anyone working the border fully armed 24/7 however now we are beginning to see a standing army at that point.

    Let them carry personal weapons when off duty, and concealed when on duty. Alleviates some issues, they would have to qualify and identify the weapons, just for the sake of liability but why not.

    The border has always been hazardous, but it has grown worse over the years thanks to liberal policies.

    #23452
    Profile photo of matt76
    matt76
    Survivalist
    member8

    I don’t know why anyone would NOT carry down there, civilian or otherwise. I know I don’t go down there “alone”.

    #23455
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    If the NG is there to stop illegal entry into the US and are applying there efforts to closing the border they should have a full weapons load, armored vehicles and every other piece of equipment the US owns. The concept of us not having a standing army is completely ridiculous.

    #23477
    Profile photo of sledjockey
    sledjockey
    Bushcrafter
    member8

    Did many JTF’s while Active Duty with the BP. We had only one person with ammo in each team (unless we were where we weren’t supposed to be and were never there so I am not saying anything about that because we weren’t there). Also didn’t have live ammo on our deployment because the RoE did not allow for that.

    It all comes down to the monkeys in DC that make up the rules….. Any time you have a group of weapons, however, one person wlil have live ammo to protect the .gov property. That is about it most of the time, unless it is considered a combat zone.

    Maybe some of it has to do with Posse Comitatus? Not sure if our government really cares about stuff like that anymore.

    http://ageofdecadence.com

    #23479
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    According to the US Constitution:
    The Congress shall have Power To …raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years….
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

    They had just thrown off the shackles of a King that kept a standing army and in the peoples homes. The framers of the Constitution wanted nothing to do with a standing army.

    People are worried about the militarization of the Police, what if Congress decided to put a soldiers in every town, working under “Homeland inSecurity” in the national interest? What would the taxes on that look like?

    It’s a slippery slope we are looking at.

    #23480
    Profile photo of sledjockey
    sledjockey
    Bushcrafter
    member8

    <div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>Whirlibird wrote:</div>According to the US Constitution:<br>
    The Congress shall have Power To …raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years….<br>
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

    They had just thrown off the shackles of a King that kept a standing army and in the peoples homes. The framers of the Constitution wanted nothing to do with a standing army.

    People are worried about the militarization of the Police, what if Congress decided to put a soldiers in every town, working under “Homeland inSecurity” in the national interest? What would the taxes on that look like?

    It’s a slippery slope we are looking at.

    HA!!!! That old piece of parchment? No one cares about that anymore. Just look at how the Dems left the chamber when it was read in the House a couple years ago.

    I am just making light of the fact that this is a very slippery slope….. /sigh

    http://ageofdecadence.com

    #23484
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    We have had The United States Army since 1775, and they have bases in every state. Using them for protecting the border makes more sence than using the military to chase drugies.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.