Thursday, April 3, 2014

Disarming soldiers on bases doesn't prevent shootings

We all listened for the latest breaking news as it unfolded yesterday afternoon at Fort Hood, followed by another meaningless response from Obama, as well as anti-gun reactions from his merry band of sycophants (i.e., Morgan and Bloomberg). Those clowns always seem to gloss over the fact that not only was it the assailant who was in the wrong, but that a 'Good Guy' with a gun was able to stop the bad one (namely in this case, a brave female MP).

But to the point, why are our soldiers, who we send around the world ARMED to fight against our enemies, not allowed to responsibly protect themselves on their own bases? If we're going to trust them overseas, it's high time we trust them here at home...
RedState: This sounds like the standard scenario: assailant goes to a firearms-restricted area with an unauthorized gun, shoots people until confronted by somebody who is also armed with a gun, and then the assailant shoots himself to avoid capture. The major differences this time are that the firearms-restricted area was Fort Hood (which had been hit by a thankfully-rare domestic jihadist five years ago), and that the man was a war veteran with untreated mental problems* stemming from his service. I’m not going to get into the politics of it.

I mean, I’d like to. I typed out the word “But” several times. I’m not simply because I know that the people who need to be convinced on this, won’t be; and, honestly? They don’t get to set policy anyway. Except for maybe the administration, who really need to get busy removing the existing rule that military personnel should default to being disarmed on base. Yes, I know that this rule was established by a Republican administration, but it’s a damned stupid rule that needs to be repealed. Because it’s not working.