Offered for your consideration: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/22/navy-officer-murdered-marine-fired-back-at-chattanooga-gunman/ In the Chattanooga incident, it appears that two servicemen were armed and returned fire. They were armed in what appears to be a breach of regulations (details are slim). I do not advocate breaking laws or regs, and I'm confident that the mods will shut this down if the thread strays into such advocacy, so please do not go there. Things to consider: 1) Should the regulations be changed, to allow the military to be armed while on duty within the US? It might not have helped much here (though that's debatable), but it probably would have helped the Ft. Hood incident. Should we allow armed self defense for our on-duty soldiers? 2) If the military is allowed to be armed in the US, does this have posse comitatus implications, even if the personnel are not performing law enforcement functions and are only armed for defense of themselves? What limitation need to be in place? 3) In some states, the governors are ordering the NG troops to be armed in certain situations. How does this relate to 1 & 2 above? What are the practical and legal differences between arming NG versus regular troops? Should NG troops have a right to self defense that is denied to regular troops? 4) There are reports of concerned private citizens arming themselves and voluntarily guarding recruiting centers. Is current military policy inadvertently creating a dangerous situation, and in particular endangering private citizens? Is this carrying a "sheep dog" mentality too far? Please discuss.