I think I mis interpreted your original. Sorry. So many of these atrocities, especially against our military, are glossed over and swept away under some form of religious excuse.

Don't be too quick to judge the effectiveness of his response. First, we don't know yet if the Cdr hit, wounded, or missed when he fired at the attacker. Second, we may never know. If the outcome is not politically favorable, it may very well be squashed. Third, when faced with return fire, the attack would necessarily be less effective and gave time for the CPD to respond. Otherwise, it could very well have been another Ft. Hood.

On State Guards, see
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...

I gathered what information I could. As it happens, it seems that Oregon's is now inactive while going through a major re-alignment.

Here is the site of the State Guard Association of the US.
http://www.sgaus.org

I've followed these state guards with some interest. Although we do not have one in PA.

Sorry, I don't understand your comment. While I know how the military works if they go by the book, in this case I inferred that they should use their discretion. To me he is a hero.

You are treating this as an isolated case and as if this was a nation of laws. I think that it's time to shed the naivety. This is a nation of Clintons, Fast and Furious and Obamacare. Laws are no longer relevant. And high profile cases in today's America are never isolated - Zimmerman and Mike Brown amply demonstrate that.

I don't see how the WWI story bears on this. I thought you were saying Officers need to have power over disobedient soldiers, and that is why the soldiers should be unarmed. Were the WWI soldiers unarmed in trench warfare? Or perhaps I misunderstood your reasoning.

if you are right then that seems a good start.

Yes. I am a petty officer third class in the Texas Maritime Regiment of the Texas State Guard. And, as I noted, the new guidelines arming the National guard, do not apply to us.

Just because some people get away with speeding does not give you a license to break the law. Regardless of anyone else's offenses in other matters, this case stands on its own merits. And, if you read the follow-ups I just posted (for instance "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." -- https://www.facebook.com/USNavy

Not at all. Think of World War I with officers commanding men to go "over the top" in trench warfare. Soldiers who refused were shot on the spot. Probably 100 or so in the course of the war. I agree with you on the fact of the dilemma and the irony.

Thanks.

the more I have thought about this situation the more that is revealed is that the government i.e. 0 administration does not want men who actually think for themselves and act accordingly. they want men who will tow the line regardless of the consequences. men who function as automatons. this fellow is being used to set an example, follow the rules no matter what or you will suffer the consequences, end of story.

That is not at all the case, Alan. You said, "… if he had chosen to follow the rule many more would have died." Lt. Cmdr. White's response was ineffective. He did not stop the shooter. The CPD did.

See also, the recent reports that the Navy has no plans to bring charges against Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White.
See the Navy's Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/USNavy and scroll down. ""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." From AL.com Alabama news site.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015...
Wall Street Journal July 30 "By ADAM ENTOUS
July 30, 2015 6:18 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the Pentagon could allow more military personnel to carry arms when stateside as part of an effort to bolster security at military sites following the recent shooting in Tennessee that killed five service members."

If you read the facts of the incident timeline (for instance, here: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/lo... you will see that while Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White's response was the correct one, it was ineffective. The shooter, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, was killed by a Chattanooga police officer responding to the scene. The shooter was shot while re-entering the building after he already killed the first victims. Again, Lt. Cmdr. White's response was correct. That is not the issue. I just point out that he is not being punished for killing the perpetrator. In fact, he is not being punished at all.

allen west was drummed out of the army for doing the same thing, so he knows first hand what this fellow is going through.
how about drumming 0 out of office. how about the congress of the united states standing up for this fellow. I reads that the army will be 12 or 14 percent below quota for the year with new recruits. maybe no young men will join if they understand what to expect if they do something equal. sickening is what this is.

Even allowing only officers to be armed would be an improvement (even though the Ft. Hood shooter was an officer, IIRC).

Yes....they aren't afraid to hurt the feelings of those poor, murderers. Defend your self or die!!

You weren't there and saw your buddies murdered. Get real. He would walk away under the current administration hatred of the military.. has happened...Remember Ft. Hood??

Mike Marotta Nice escape excuse for the "Community dis-organizer now occupying our White House. How do you justify the mass murder by an Army Major of unarmed soldiers at FT. Hood??? Workplace violence??? The perp is still alive!

It IS how this military works AND it is AMONG the reasons they are having so many suicides of combat veterans. I know a active duty combat soldier that had a urine sample failure that turned out to be a doctor failing to list a prescription. He went through hell clearing his record. Told me that period was more stressful than any of his remembered combat experiences and ADDED, "no wonder we have such a high suicide rate" Stupid is stupid and the command should recognize the stupidity of enforcing this situation and the failure to do that reflects the poor leadership decisions made by the Commander in Chief!

Thanks for posting this comment. I hadn't considered that the Officers need to have power over the soldiers. I would wager, though, that they don't just "shoot soldiers who disobey"; this is probably true only the sense of "disobey" that requires force to protect life. Like if a soldier starts attacking an Officer with lethal force. In such emergencies, of course we would prefer the Officer be armed and the soldier not. But in most cases of disobedience, the soldiers may be punished through ordinary military legal channels.

Good point, and interesting dilemma. Generally, I believe in allowing people arms to protect themselves. If soldiers using firearms against Officers is a serious problem, then I can understand the rule prohibiting this. Of course, I believe all "gun-free zones" ought to be required to provide adequate armed security to protect those unarmed, and those in charge assume liability for criminal attacks.

Though you have to admit the irony: kids are sent to risk their lives and are allowed guns to fight for our freedom, but are prohibited from defending themselves at home against citizen criminals. Instead, we find ordinary citizens arming themselves to stand guard where unarmed soldiers cannot defend themselves (and in some cases, these citizens are being told to stop doing this!).

I believe that had they not fired back, the terrorist would have completed the job he set out to do. So, under the circumstances of what actually happened, it is asinine to file anything against the unit commander. This was not a work place incident in which one person in an arguments threatened the other with a weapon. Asinine.

Not Guilty by treason of insanity. The insanity is the government. That stupid law would be like not allowing cops to carry when they are off duty. Of course the do-gooders always know what's best. The same kind sent me to Viet Nam in 1968 with just a 45 cal pistol from WWI for my defense. Fortunately I was able to buy an M16 when I got there.