Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Chattanooga Shootings

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Chattanooga Shootings

Old 20th Jul 2015, 14:32
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
BOING:

But, as you know, the Reserve has a much tighter Fed connection than the Guard does. I'd imagine the responsibility for such decisions on the Guard level will rest with the Governors of those States.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 14:43
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
Yep, it was just a nit-picky thought that had never occurred to me before. For example, does a regular Major assigned to a Guard unit ultimately follow the orders of the Governor or of the Pentagon.
I'm sure they have it all worked out.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 14:49
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by John Hill View Post
Not when it comes to police killing people, as far as we are concerned one is too many.
No John Hill. Statistically, 1 in 1,000 is few. Regardless of the subject, you were wrong to claim that 1 in 1000 is anything but few.

As you seem to enjoy being nit picky, one person killed by Police is not one too many if it prevents an innocent death.

Its all about context.
Mr Chips is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 14:54
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
BOING:

It's a chain of command kinda thing! A Major, or any other officer for that matter, in the Guard is ultimately under command of the Governor of the State. (After the intermediate grades are traversed in the CoC) The Pentagon can REQUEST use of Guard troops (as evident in both Iraq and Afghanistan) but the Governor is under no legal bound to do so. Once Guard troops are placed at the Federal level, again after said request is granted, then those troops are considered Federalized and become willing pawns of the Pentagon.

(We former and active US Army troops always enjoy a good ribbing at the expense of our Guard brethren by referring to them as "weekend warriors.")
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 15:10
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,587
Yes, the one on the left in the pic is rather fetching. Just not sure which fella in blue your referring to, the one with a beard or the Caitlin Jenner of Islam on the right.

Can't help but notice, the shooter is wearing a nice ISIS jumpsuit shade of orange. I'm sure that's quite the rage of fashionista jihadis these days.
West Coast is online now  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 15:16
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
RG, never had anything to do with Reserve or Guard units myself.

So, if a recruiting office is shared by regular military and Guard recruiting (quite common), unless the regular military wants to make a fuss, the regular troops would be unarmed and the Guard troops could be armed. As a stop-gap that would work for me.

In the present case armed recruiters would have made no difference as all the shots came via carbine from outside. You do not want to turn a recruiting office into a block-house because it is not good for business but the offices should have an 18 inch high plate of AR500 discretely placed along the base of the windows so there is something to hide behind if you have to hit the dirt.

Actually I think the Governors of the 3 States involved just wanted to make a point to the Feds.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 15:27
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
BOING:

During my 10 year stint in Uncle Sugar's Army we had a few training cycles with several Guard units from various States. Never came across any Reserve units though.

The scenario you presented is accurate: if a Guard recruiting office shares space with a RA office (Regular Army) then, yes, the Guards could be armed whilst their Federal counterparts are not. Better than nothing though.

I applaud the actions of the 3 States' Governors for having the wherewithal in authorizing the recruiting Guard troops to be armed.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 17:51
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Will they arm those recruiting Guards if they are of Muslim origins?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 18:56
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,831
A Major, or any other officer for that matter, in the Guard is ultimately under command of the Governor of the State. (After the intermediate grades are traversed in the CoC) The Pentagon can REQUEST use of Guard troops (as evident in both Iraq and Afghanistan) but the Governor is under no legal bound to do so. Once Guard troops are placed at the Federal level, again after said request is granted, then those troops are considered Federalized and become willing pawns of the Pentagon.


I don't know if it's changed since then but I don't see any "request" in Section 1.


NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10, particularly sections 332, 333 and 334 thereof, and section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, It is hereby ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of Defense to order into the active military service of the United States as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Order, any or all of the units of the National Guard of the United States and of the Air National Guard of the United States within the State of Arkansas to serve in the active military service of the United States for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders.
SEC. 2. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps to enforce any orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas for the removal of obstruction of justice in the State of Arkansas with respect to matters relating to enrollment and attendance at public schools in the Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas. In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use the units, and members thereof, ordered into the active military service of the United States pursuant to Section 1 of this Order.
SEC. 3. In furtherance of the enforcement of the aforementioned orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use such of the armed forces of the United States as he may deem necessary.
SEC. 4. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, any of the authority conferred upon him by this Order.
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 24, 1957.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 18:56
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
SFP,
Since we know that Muslims killing other Muslims is forbidden in the Koran there would be no reason for them to be armed would there? Any Muslim attacking their office would just ensure that they do not get killed.

BOING is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 19:03
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Maybe it's time to re tweak the 2nd a bit and preclude anyone of Muslim faith from owning a gun. I seem to recall you had a Muslim military guy go 'harpic' with a gun on a base a couple of years back so if that's where the great danger lies it makes sense
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 19:13
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,568
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose View Post
Will they arm those recruiting Guards if they are of Muslim origins?
If they arm guards, they aren't going to worry about their professed religion. They are either arming the guards or they are not.

The more serious threat, however, remains unaddressed.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 20th Jul 2015 at 20:14.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 20:21
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
Mr Chips wrote
No John Hill. Statistically, 1 in 1,000 is few. Regardless of the subject, you were wrong to claim that 1 in 1000 is anything but few.
1 in 1,000 is far too many or not depending on the subject. For example, you would be pretty brassed off if the engine in your Ford Cortina misfired every 1 in a 1,000 revolutions.
John Hill is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 21:00
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,587
Sometimes analogies work, other times they don't. They work when at least somewhat like items or concerns are used. I'd be torqued off if my Ford whatever the hell a cortina is misfired once per million revelations given the number of rpm's it would see over the course of a long days drive.

When a human reaction is compared against a mechanical movement, the validity of the analogy is flawed as an accurate comparison.
West Coast is online now  
Old 20th Jul 2015, 21:01
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,568
Originally Posted by John Hill View Post
1 in 1,000 is far too many or not depending on the subject. For example, you would be pretty brassed off if the engine in your Ford Cortina misfired every 1 in a 1,000 revolutions.
I don't think that you will find a Ford Cortina in Chattanooga, which is my kind way of saying that we are drifting from the topic of this thread.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 00:20
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
Nonetheless the statement "Regardless of the subject, you were wrong to claim that 1 in 1000 is anything but few" is surely false.

BTW http://www.autotraderclassics.com/cl...tionId=2188371
John Hill is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 00:56
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,587
No thanks.

If I'm going to bust the budget it'll be on this:

Chevrolet Camaro RS SS | eBay
West Coast is online now  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 02:40
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
Dont forget to paint the flag on the roof!
John Hill is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 02:50
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,587
Different car but nice try. Besides, liberals have made it nearly illegal. Next thing you know it will be illegal to talk,about the US civil war, ala Germany.
West Coast is online now  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 03:20
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
I dont remember that war, was that the one you won?
John Hill is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.