CAll TO ACTION

[Jim Beaux]

We have to step up & help Lt. Cmdr. White. His actions are inspiring.

Here’s what needs to happen. Flood the phone of SecNav Ray Mabus and SecDef Carter and ask them whose side they’re. Demand the charges being brought against Lt.Cmdr White be immediately dropped. If those charges are not dropped, I will personally lead the charge to have Carter and Mabus removed from their positions.

Allen West

“A Navy officer and Marine reportedly returned fire at the shooter who killed five service members in Chattanooga, Tenn., even though current policy does not permit military members to carry firearms on facilities such as those where the attack occurred.

The cold-blooded assault killed four Marines and one active-duty Navy reservist. The center’s commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, used his personal firearm to engage the shooter during the attack, according to sources quoted in the Navy Times. A report from The Washington Post said that one of the Marines killed in the shooting might have been carrying a 9 mm Glock and possibly returned fire on the shooter.

At the time, Western Journalism wrote, Lt. Cmdr. White could face disciplinary action for violating policy about possessing a weapon on the facility that was supposedly a gun-free zone.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/08/whats-hap ... lood-boil/

[Taypo]

Much as I love Col. West, he may want to quit grandstanding and wait to see if charges are actually brought before he stirs the pot any further. If someone in the food chain is dumb enough to file, then I'll be right there with the crowd trying to melt phone lines.

[oohrah]

I say Hooray to LCdr White for knowingly violating the rules to provide for his own self protection and those of others. But, he made a conscious decision to violate the rules, and he knew the penalties. If the allegations are true, he should be punished for violation of regulations, recognizing that his CO will have a lot of leeway on how to go.

[jmra]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

[ELB]

I don't know that this (Lt Cmdr being charged) is true, but I am greatly saddened and angered that I even have to consider it might be true, know the current state of our government and military "leadership".

[Taypo]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

[Jim Beaux]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

[baldeagle]

The Navy just issued a non-denial denial

"Stories of Navy personnel being charged with an offense are not true. There is still a long way to go in reviewing the facts of this tragic incident, but at this time we can confirm no service member has been charged with an offense," the Navy said in a statement posted to social media.

IOW, we haven't done anything - yet. But that doesn't mean he won't be charged in the future - although now that we're having to go public, we're having second thoughts......

[treadlightly]

I have an answer to this - if a citizen turns a blind eye to the law and ends up being a benefit to society, society should turn a blind eye to that one infraction. Society gets to choose with the benefit of hindsight. Let the rules slip one time since lives were saved, or enforce the rules to no particular purpose other than to say the good samaritan should have been denied the chance to be of service. Seems clear.

As for situational ethics, maybe that should always play a part. I don't want the merits of any case against me judged with respect to demographics or statistics. I want the merits of my particular case evaluated.

But I do understand the concern. Laws should apply equally and at all times.

[Taypo]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

#1: How many serving members of the military have ANY pistol exposure? Now, take your answer and subtract the MP's, the officers, the MI guys and the SF guys. I'll gladly stand behind putting armed guards on entrances of any federal/state/military installation, but allowing the rank and file to carry concealed is asking for trouble. In this instance, its an officer we're discussing so he, at minimum, had M9 exposure.

#2. Your comparison to a teacher not talking is also moot - that's part of the job description, or mission. A recruiter doesn't need a weapon to fulfill the mission.

We're rapidly approaching the point where we need to follow the Israeli model of troops behind armed all the time, but until that changes the law is what it is.

[Jumping Frog]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

Well I have thought about "situational ethics".

I consider forcing an ordinary citizen who is not otherwise disqualified to be unable to defend themselves an immoral and improper law anyway. Self defense is a God-given right and last I checked he outranks Austin. So any teacher caught carrying while otherwise not doing anything illegal would get a pass from me if I was on a jury. Jury nullification is also a time-honored principle in which ordinary citizens can rule the legislature overstepped its bounds.

And if you want top continue down that road, you could include carrying in bars and other forbidden places.

That said, I am also a practical man who has weighed the trade-off between complying with certain laws I do not agree with and avoiding the risk of having adverse legal consequences. Generally, I will comply.

[Jim Beaux]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

#1: How many serving members of the military have ANY pistol exposure? Now, take your answer and subtract the MP's, the officers, the MI guys and the SF guys. I'll gladly stand behind putting armed guards on entrances of any federal/state/military installation, but allowing the rank and file to carry concealed is asking for trouble. In this instance, its an officer we're discussing so he, at minimum, had M9 exposure.

#2. Your comparison to a teacher not talking is also moot - that's part of the job description, or mission. A recruiter doesn't need a weapon to fulfill the mission.

We're rapidly approaching the point where we need to follow the Israeli model of troops behind armed all the time, but until that changes the law is what it is.

You havent provided anything but baseless rhetoric. There is no sense in engaging you. Have a good day.

[Taypo]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

#1: How many serving members of the military have ANY pistol exposure? Now, take your answer and subtract the MP's, the officers, the MI guys and the SF guys. I'll gladly stand behind putting armed guards on entrances of any federal/state/military installation, but allowing the rank and file to carry concealed is asking for trouble. In this instance, its an officer we're discussing so he, at minimum, had M9 exposure.

#2. Your comparison to a teacher not talking is also moot - that's part of the job description, or mission. A recruiter doesn't need a weapon to fulfill the mission.

We're rapidly approaching the point where we need to follow the Israeli model of troops behind armed all the time, but until that changes the law is what it is.

You havent provided anything but baseless rhetoric. There is no sense in engaging you. Have a good day.

Baseless rhetoric? You called out someone else's comparison with one of your own, but when yours doesn't pass the smell test you take your ball and go home?

[jmra]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

Like the recruiter who recently shot himself in the leg while illegally carrying? We aren't talking SEAL Team 6 here.

[jmra]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

Well I have thought about "situational ethics".

I consider forcing an ordinary citizen who is not otherwise disqualified to be unable to defend themselves an immoral and improper law anyway. Self defense is a God-given right and last I checked he outranks Austin. So any teacher caught carrying while otherwise not doing anything illegal would get a pass from me if I was on a jury. Jury nullification is also a time-honored principle in which ordinary citizens can rule the legislature overstepped its bounds.

And if you want top continue down that road, you could include carrying in bars and other forbidden places.

That said, I am also a practical man who has weighed the trade-off between complying with certain laws I do not agree with and avoiding the risk of having adverse legal consequences. Generally, I will comply.

I think it is important to note though that we all know the rules and the laws going in. I knew I couldn't carry at work before I took the job. I could have taken a job where I could have carried but I didn't. So when I make the choice to work in an environment that bans carry and I agree to the set of rules and laws that accompany that decision and then decide not to abide by them, am I not the one being immoral and improper?