J. Neil Schulman
@ Agorist.com
Clinton-Bush Gun Control Enabled Fort Hood Massacre
Note: I became aware today that the Army has taken the PDF file of Army Regulation 190-14, dated 12 March 1993, off the web — or at least moved it to a location where a search of the new website can’t locate it. Therefore, I have uploaded my file copy of the document I originally downloaded from http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_14.pdf — referred to in my article below — and replaced the dead link in the text of the article with my new one so that it will continue to be available for reference.
–J. Neil Schulman, March 23, 2010
A Clinton Administration revision to Department of Defense Directive 5210.56 — Army Regulation 190-14, dated 12 March 1993 — permits the Secretary of the Army to authorize military personnel to carry firearms “on a case by case basis” for personal protection within the continental United States, but forbids military personnel to carry their own personal firearms and both requires “a credible and specific threat” before firearms be issued for military personnel to protect themselves. It further directs that firearms “not be issued indiscriminately for that purpose.”
Thus did President Bill Clinton — Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army — apply to American military personnel under his command the same anti-gun policies his administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress applied to American civilians in the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons ban of 1994.
This Clinton policy of restricting military personnel from routinely carrying arms for protection was left in effect for the eight years of the administration of President George W. Bush — even after the 9/11 terror attacks — and even though Republicans held both the White House and majority control of both houses of Congress from January 2003 to January 2007.
John McHugh became the 21st Secretary of the U.S. Army on September 21, 2009, seven weeks prior to U.S. Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s November 5, 2009 shooting spree that murdered 13 and wounded another 38. Secretary McHugh — not reported as having the psychic power of precognition — issued no authorization for Fort Hood military personnel to be issued arms for personal protection against the specific threat of attack by Major Hasan.
Veterans Day is this Wednesday. How many times will “thank you for your service” pass the lips of talk-radio gurus who since 9/11 have sported American flag lapel pins, play-listed War-on-Terror country music, and made the Wounded Warrior Project a centerpiece of their swaggering patriotism?
It all rings so hollow now when their punditry following the Fort Hood Massacre makes it clear the bastions of American conservatism hate Jihadis far more than they love G.I.’s.
If George Washington had learned that soldiers under his command had died from a turncoat attack within an American Fort — not because arms weren’t available for his men to defend themselves but because an American officer didn’t trust American soldiers to bear arms — I’m fairly certain that American officer would have been summarily executed by the same firing squad as the turncoat.
Yet radio talkers debate only whether the shooter was driven by ideology or madness, and have no anger — or even questions — about a sixteen-year-old Department of Defense policy that five days ago left both G.I.’s and civilians on an army base in Texas as defenseless as toddlers in a preschool.
Ideology colors emotional responses, and even long-term activists who have worked to advance the right of self-protection have lost their sight-picture in the fog of the War on Terror. The man I’ve often called my Yoda on gun-self-defense issues — Randall N. Herrst, JD, of the Center for the Study of Crime — wrote in a Sunday morning posting to the Individual Sovereignty/Libertarian Yahoo Group his security concerns with Hassan’s anti-Americanism not being acted upon by the Army, President Obama’s not using the term “war on terror,” left-wing media, and civilian police being used to protect a military base post-9/11, but this Lion of the Second Amendment wasn’t even aware of the Department of Defense policy which bans soldiers from routinely carrying arms for protection … much less express seething anger at American soldiers not being trusted to bear arms.
The lack of even a committed Second Amendment activist’s’ concern with the systematic disarmament of American soldiers on base — leaving them defenseless for murder by a single illegally-armed attacker with time to repeatedly reload — bewilders me. The explanation can have nothing to do with Posse Comitatus Act restrictions on the Army being deployed for civilian law enforcement when we’re considering individual soldiers defending their own lives from attack.
Contrast this with libertarian author Brad Linaweaver, who told me he considers American soldiers being armed for protection even more important than the arming of police.
Those directly affected by the vulnerability of American soldiers see the matter even more poignantly.
Brian Singer, an American soldier currently deployed to Iraq but whose home station is Fort Hood, commented on a previous article of mine about the massacre that “It’s not just the military affected by this heinous policy. Our spouses and children suffer under victim disarmament as well. Second, not only are civilian CCWs not recognized, military members are required to register their firearms as well. Can you believe this insanity?”
Chor Xiong, father of 23-year-old Fort Hood Massacre victim Kham Xiong, spoke of his son’s love of hunting, and told KSTP-TV, “The sad part is that he had been taught and been trained to protect and to fight. Yet it’s such a tragedy that he did not have the opportunity to protect himself and the base.”
Where is the shock and outrage for American conservatives to learn that even the Army is made toothless by politically-correct gun control?
Talk radio listeners as angry as I am about the lack of time their favorite talk hosts have spent on the victim disarmament of even American servicemen and women should use this Veterans Day as the opportunity to call in and express their feelings. Arming men and women who take seriously the idea of defending their country from bad guys can be nothing but a gift that keeps on giving.
- History of Military Gun Control | Snowflakes in Hell
- SayUncle » Fort Hood Shooting Stuff -The Blame Game
- BREAKING NEWS FROM FOX !! MASS Shooting at Ft.Hood in Killeen Texas !! – Page 64
- The City Of Killeen
- Clinton-Bush Gun Control Enabled Fort Hood Massacre « J. Neil Schulman | Telcomil Intl Products and Services
November 9, 2009 - 8:08 am
I must take exception to Neil’s representation of my position. I was not specifically aware of the exact Clinton directive, but I was the one that told Neil that it has been traditional for unit commanders to set policy on arms owned, issued, or used by soldiers, and that traditionally soldiers have not been allowed to carry on base. I told him that this administrative policy went back to at least WWII, and possibly back to the founding of the coutnry. I also told Neil about other instances of inappropiate disarmament of soldiers to promote “political correctness”, so it was not simply that I am ignorant or unconcerned. Note also that my posting to that discussion group was composed off-the-cuff and unresearched….and I will pit my knowledge of a wide range of topics against anyone. Nevertheless, I am not so naive as to think that I know everything or that the precise details within my recollected information is a match for a recent specific lookup.
Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that I am not opposed to the government policy of disarming soldiers. I have always held the consistent position that ALL Americans have a right to defend themselves in their homes, places of business, and even in public places. That includes soldiers. However, soldiers have agreed to a contract wherein they will comply with their commanders. If Neil or others wish to change that policy/tradition, it does not help to attack those who are on their side.
My other main comments that Neil mentions, have to do with my criticism of the military for not even fulfilling their absolute baseline duty to keep their base secure. My comments were made in the context of working within the existing rules, which should be a quick and simple thing to do, whereas changing the entire military culture and traditions would probably take years or decades…..and we don’t have that much time (it takes years or decades to change a weapons system or a tactical doctrine, so it is not wise to assume that other large changes can be agreed upon overnight). Changes should be made and those responsible for the errors at Ft. Hood should be fired for the specific failings that I noted. That is a correct analysis, independent of the issue of 2nd Amendment self-defense rights.
Would 2nd Amendment rights for soldiers be a good idea? Definitely, and the proper way to go about it is not outrage and insults against allies, but careful analysis to arrive at the best possible result. It should be of at least some concern to every interested party that the military might have unique requirements at some times and in some places for limiting the arming of soldiers, especially those who are off-duty in sensitive areas (i.e., WMD bunkers, Strategic radar and intel centers, Command and Control centers, etc.). In the less-sensitive areas, citizen armament should prevail.
Just for the record, I never brought up Posse Comitatus as an excuse for not allowing armed soldiers or their families, so I fail to see why that was dropped into a paragraph where I was being discussed.
The military is a peculiar instutition in a republic, because it may work best when it is not completely following the rules of society at large. We know how to make a military that is effective and there are sufficient people who are generally wiling to comply with some curtailment of their freedoms, so it is best not to make major changes until a better system is available and proven.
November 9, 2009 - 2:58 pm
Home The Corner All Blogs Tweet Tracker Hot Topics NRO Radio & TV Magazine Shop! Donate Media Kit Contact Search
NRO BLOG ROW | THE CORNER | ARCHIVES SEARCH E-MAIL PRINT RSS
Monday, November 09, 2009
Nuts [Mark Steyn]
For the purposes of argument, let’s accept the media’s insistence that Major Hasan is a lone crazy.
So who’s nuttier?
The guy who gives a lecture to other military doctors in which he says non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats?
Or the guys who say “Hey, let’s have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel?
Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity, even unto death?
Or the Secretary of Homeland Security who warns that the principal threat we face now is an outbreak of Islamophobia?
Or the president who says we cannot “fully know” why Major Hasan did what he did, so why trouble ourselves any further?
Or the columnist who, when a man hands out copies of the Koran before gunning down his victims while yelling “Allahu akbar,” says you’re racist if you bring up his religion?
Or his media colleagues who put Americans in the same position as East Germans twenty years ago of having to get hold of a foreign newspaper to find out what’s going on?
General Casey has a point: An army that lets you check either the “home team” or “enemy” box according to taste is certainly diverse. But the logic in the remarks of Secretary Napolitano and others is that the real problem is that most Americans are knuckledragging bigots just waiting to go bananas. As Melanie Phillips wrote in her book Londonistan:
Minority-rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a ‘victim’ group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the ‘oppressive’ majority.
To the injury of November 5, we add the insults of American officialdom and their poodle media. In a nutshell:
The real enemy — in the sense of the most important enemy — isn’t a bunch of flea-bitten jihadis sitting in a cave somewhere. It’s Western civilization’s craziness. We are setting our hair on fire and putting it out with a hammer.
11/09 10:13 AMShare
© National Review Online 2009. All Rights Reserved.
Home | Search | NR / Digital | Donate | Media Kit | Contact Us
November 9, 2009 - 4:05 pm
Thanks to Randy Herrst for clarification of his position.
I was apparently deceived that he is indeed concerned with the systematic disarmament of American soldiers by his not writing about it. I’m glad to have been able to get him on the record.
As to how long it takes to change military culture — that can happen in an instant, with a new order from the Commander in Chief, who is also President of the United States. That makes it a political problem and when even top Second Amendment activists lose sight of this priority no change can be expected.
Neil
November 10, 2009 - 2:14 am
Neil
If you couldn’t understand my context and why I was taking the tack that I did, you could have asked. I would have been happy to explain it. We need security improvements right now, not years later. Most of my suggestions were points that should already be in operation, because they are explicitly or implicitly part of the current responsibilities of base/unit commanders.
As for the charge that I have lost sight of “this priority”, I plead innocent, because history proves me right on numerous occasions, and I can find no countervailing examples. In theory, you may be correct, but in the real world, nothing ever moves a huge entity that quickly, much as we wish it were so.
Let us take the two best known examples of Presidential efforts to change military culture or foundational methods; the integration of the armed services and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The integration of the services started in July, 1948 and was completed in Sept. 1954. That is 6 years and 2 months. Not “instant” by any reasonable definition, and there is no way we can afford to wait that long to bring security up to some minimalist standard.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was initiated in 1993, and is not fully resolved as of today. So it has taken 16 years for a partial solution. Again, this is much closer to my analysis than to any “instant” change.
Keep in mind that both of those changes were promoted by leaders who actually wanted those changes to occur, whereas “general carry of handguns on military bases” would NOT be vigorously supported by this administration EVEN IF such an order were given.
Those 2 examples are just the most publicized directives/overall paradigm shifts. I won’t even start discussing the length of time it took for the military to change tactical doctrines many times over the centuries, or how long it sometimes takes to field a new weapons system and get some of the bugs out of it. so that it has a reasonable chance of working in the field.
My comments on the military are not made lightly or from a position of ignorance.
Just for the record, I will predict two things: 1. If we don’t rapidly improve security in the ways that I described, it is a certainty that more U.S. military bases will be hit; 2. There is no way that President Obama would ever allow or promote the general carrying of handguns on U.S. military bases, since he hates firearms and those who use firearms.
If anyone cares to place a $100 bet on either of those points, feel free to contact me. First come, first served.
November 10, 2009 - 4:02 am
Randy, if you recall I called you my Yoda in my original article, and if my memory isn’t mistaken you are well aware that Cato the Elder ended every speech — no matter the topic — with “Carthago delenda est!”
So it is, old friend, that you taught me I needed to remind every audience that “Gun control increases violent crime!”
I was doing the job as you taught it to me.
Write what you need to about securing American military bases by other means but never forget to make the point that armed citizens — whether enrolled in the military services or not — are the Palladium of our liberty.
Don’t you find it ironic that recent administrations love putting sidearms on every bureaucrat performing a function nowhere authorized by the Constitution, but they don’t trust the Army to be armed?
Neil
November 10, 2009 - 12:19 pm
I don’t believe there is a single installation that uses that regulation as the basis for limiting private firearms on post…..
AR 190–14 • 12 March 1993
Chapter 1
1–1. Purpose
This regulation prescribes policies and procedures for authorizing, carrying, and using firearms in connection with law enforcement
and security duties. It establishes uniform policy for the use of force by law enforcement and security personnel.
I believe 50 U.S.C. CHAPTER 23 SUBCHAPTER I § 797 is the authority that authorized the installation commander to determine security policies and makes it a federal crime to violate them. That law was pass well before Clinton or Bush took office.
November 10, 2009 - 7:37 pm
To Neil and Leo
Neil: I do use that GCVIC theme whenever I am debating or presenting crime issues, but the immediate topic at hand was warfare and national security, not crime. As a useful collateral effect, citizen carry on base would also assist in prevention and defeat of terrorist attacks, but would require some serious analysis to determine when, where, and under what conditions carry would be appropriate. That is a long term project, whereas our base security needs are immediate
, as I mentioned previously.
Leo: The statute you mention was enacted in 1950, but it was simply formalizing a practice that had been in use since at least WWII and had been commonly utilized for many years prior to that. The practice was probably in place at the Founding, though I can find no specific writings on this topic. Note also that the statute is only one of misdemeanor level, so it wasn’t exactly hard core.
November 10, 2009 - 9:15 pm
Randy,
Apparently there is substantive disagreement between us. Ford Hood is the size of a small city — approx 70,000 on base. Both military and civilian personnel plus civilians on and off all the time. No way can a few MP’s checking cars at the gate do enough searches to make the place any more “gun free” than anyplace else.
So “Gun Control Increases Violent Crime” is not a peripheral discussion for base security; it’s the main event.
Without victim disarmament at the point of attack Hasan’s attack could not have succeeded to the extent it did and might have been deterred if he knew he’d immediately be fired back at.
Military culture doesn’t change the basic security paradigm that the perimeter defense is doomed to fail.
You know this. You taught me this. Why isn’t GCIVC your main security theme any more?
Neil
November 11, 2009 - 12:09 am
Ft. Hood vs. downtown Tel Aviv
Israeli women soldiers at home on leave:
Never unarmed
Never dependent
Never unsafe
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/4094067711_0c30c7deb1_m.jpg
Not so in the US Army.
below — Israeli women soldiers waiting for the bus (at least 2 have loaded mags in their M-16s).
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2739/4094828194_8c6bf87618_m.jpg
The Israeli’s know HOW to deal with terrorism.
November 11, 2009 - 3:14 am
Neil, I don’t think it is appropriate for you to misrepresent what I have written or said. I have been in favor of arming residents of bases, and I also know why that isn’t going to happen immediately. I notice you couldn’t refute my points about the slowness of previous presidential directives to change military culture. I wish the practice of disarming soldiers on base could change on my whim, and I also understand history and the process by which change occurs. Hope is not a strategy. Analysis and planning usually works better.
I never wrote or said, and in fact have never even thought, that “a few MP’s checking cars at the gate do enough searches to make the place any more “gun free” than anyplace else.” You should know better than to claim I somehow believe that the concept of “gun free zones” is generally workable. Again, I will be more than happy to state my specific positions on any topic, so that you need not interpret or paraphrase. Straw-man arguments will not provide credibility to your position.
My idea of proper base security WITHIN EXISTING AND QUICKLY CORRECTED PRACTICES, which I stated in several online lists recently, was that a military base should have BOTH substantial numbers of MP’s on patrol (what does the presence of civilian LEO’s on a military base tell us?) AND regular armed patrols by substantial numbers of infantry soldiers armed with M-16s/M4s/M203s/M240s/M40s/M2 Browning HMGs (the infantry must have practice in patrol and quick-reaction tactics for their field work, so it makes sense to give them practice at home). This allows a two-level armed response anywhere in the base within a minute (and yes, an armed off-duty handgun carrier might be useful for that minute). MP’s for purely police-type enforcement, with instant backup by heavy-duty infantry for counter-terrorist action.
As much as I believe in GCIVC and the principle of self-defense, that does not make it the “main event”. The main event is proper base security in accord with the duties of the commander, including against heavily armed, multi-man terrorist teams, which would not be easily handled by the typical CCW licensee. Would civilian carry POSSIBLY be helpful for that? Yes, but it still isn’t the “main event”.
It gets back to what I stated earlier….civilian carry on base is nearly impossible to implement within the next 5 years, and we need a higher level of security LAST YEAR, not today! In fact, I will go farther and state that civilian carry on base has essentially NO CHANCE of enactment so long as someone like Obama is in the White House. However, it should be possible for the military to FORCE their base commanders to live up to their explicit and implicit responsibilities without being stymied or delayed by the White House.
You also misrepresent my approach when you write, “Military culture doesn’t change the basic security paradigm that the perimeter defense is doomed to fail.” At no point did I ever state that perimeter defense is my sine qua non, or even that I thought it was a modestly viable general tactic. I have seen, on some bases and would expect everywhere, robust internal security forces sufficient in size, ubiquity, and firepower to destroy any terrorist forces immediately.
There are two different types of security on a military base: personal and institutional. Both are desirable, but it does us no good to think that personal security is the “main event”. The Main Event is the prevention of unauthorized access, destruction, or theft of military weaponry which can be used to inflict massive damage on the base or elsewhere.
I have raised the issue of “where, when, and why” civilian carry could rationally be allowed on military bases, yet you have chosen to evade my point. If you are unwilling to analyze and answer that point, there is no chance whatsoever that you will be able to implement ANY form of civilian carry on bases, ever. You might as well try to analyze and develop a plan, because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
November 11, 2009 - 3:21 am
One point I forgot to mention:
If one expects civilians/off-duty soldiers to help defend against serious multi-man terrorist teams (a la Mumbai), it would make sense to provide specialized training in proper HANDGUN techniques for counter-terrorist operations. Even most regular Army infantrymen have no such training, because they train with their rifles or machineguns or heavy weapons.
November 11, 2009 - 6:20 am
Randy, the point you always emphasized to me is that the attacker is in control of the time and place of the attack — not the defender. Thus only the idea of ubiquitous individual arms can remove the advantage of the element of surprise.
In any armed attack there is always (1) an element of immediate surprise and confusion. Then there is (2) an understanding that an attack is taking place. Then there is (3) an attempt by the defenseless to evade being attacked. Then there is (4) an attempt to sound an alarm for help. Then there is (5) a lapse of time before the alarm reaches the armed responders. Then (6) the armed responders have to make a tactical assessment of who are the attackers and who are possible on-scene defenders and then position themselves. Only now — at step (7) — can the armed responders do anything … and in the meantime the attack has been going on unabated with as many casualties and taking of hostages as the attacker can muster.
Now I come back to you with the very lessons you taught me about how there is no substitute for having the potential victims be armed so they can respond at stage (1) to an attack that the time and place of which is unknown — and you criticize me for not being politically realistic because the current political climate is hostile to the reality I’ve just described.
The political climate was just as hostile to this reality when you started training me up in 1990. Only then you didn’t care what the odds were of winning — only of being on the right side and making the strongest case with the most effective arguments based on facts and logic.
Sorry if you made me in your image.
Neil
November 11, 2009 - 3:10 pm
Not to get in between you two, but let me add my recollection.
I spent 2 years of my life saluting in the late-60’s and I don’t remember *ANY* duty station I had that authorized POW for anyone under field grade officers. Perhaps without BIllC’s order, the “military culture” would have changed by now (with the volunteer force), but in those days they simply didn’t trust the largely draftee enlisted ranks with loaded weapons. And, as an aside, knowing some really room-temperature IQ soldiers, I can’t really blame them.
(POW – Personally Owned Weapon)
November 12, 2009 - 11:41 am
When I was on Camp Pendleton in the mid thru late 1980s POW had to be kept in your unit armory, though one could easily check them out during the day (though ammo was only available on the rifle range and other exercises).
The only people regularly armed were MPs at the gate and elsewhere, officers and SNCOs of the day for each battalion, and the guard platoon for each area (subsection of the base like San Mateo). These guards were at the armory and other places. The guard/reaction platoon was a line company platoon. They slept in the same barracks and were armed there and on their posts but couldn’t wander with their weapons. If something happened within our part of the camp though they could react quickly, certainly not as long as 10 minutes as at Ft. Hood.
In the parts of the base where the infantry was not stationed, such as near the hospitals, I don’t know if they had such platoons on standby. Possibly a reaction there would take longer.
November 12, 2009 - 6:49 pm
I invite a substantive, rather than theoretical, response to my posts.
To this point, no one who is criticizing me has been willing to address the single most important question: If the military is going to allow soldiers on base to be armed, the following parameters ABSOLUTLEY MUST be decided: Who, What Conditions, When, Where.
If you refuse to address that question, there is ZERO chance of ever implementing self-defense carry on miliatry bases. ZERO.
There is not the slightest possibility that the military will allow armed off-duty soldiers to enter WMD bunkers, base armories, ready-alert sites, or C3I facilities. There are a number of other places where armed on or off-duty soldiers will not be welcome. Work on that and there might be some hope.
As for my lauded techniques and GCIVC, note that my approach has always been fact based in order to expose the lies of the other side, so I am not guilty of abandoning my principles. I know enough about the military to know that the military is ultimately about maintaining the security of the country, and not primarily about self-defense for its soldiers. So if you want to ever achieve a wider range of rights for the soldiers, you must educate the military about the facts, and you must educate yourself about the military imperatives. The military is neither a democracy or a republic, but a duty-based organization wherein the soldiers voluntarily accept some restrictions on their rights for the length of their contract.
Insult me all you want; that will not change the facts in the real world. But when you insult me, at least try to use my actual words and principles rather than setting up malicious red herrings and straw men. I would appreciate it.
November 12, 2009 - 7:05 pm
Re: Neil’s post of 6:20 am
My previous discussions of self-defense principles with you were almost entirely in the context of civilian self-defense, so my analysis of reactions dealt with the way a lone civilian would be likely to confront criminals, not the way military units would face terrorists. There is a small amount of overlap, but the differences are much greater than the similarities.
I reiterate that every military unit should ALWAYS be in Condition Yellow, 24/7, and they can afford to do that because they always have lots of trained soldiers at their disposal….unlike the typical civilian or civilian police force. The problems are somewhat different, as are the solutions.
Ask any military unit in hostile territory, and they will tell you that they are ALWAYS ready for overwhelming immediate response if they are attacked, so there is never more than a few seconds of surprise in the enemy’s favor. My point regarding Ft. Hood was that they have a duty to be on a similar level of alert, even though they are on U.S. soil, becuase the enemy has been bringing the war to us since 1993.
So, no, it isn’t that you are using my principles to outdo me; rather that you are abandoning my procedures to insult me.
November 12, 2009 - 7:30 pm
It’s hard for me to even figure out how calling Randy Herrst my “Yoda” and a “Lion of the Second Amendment” can be regarded as insulting. But when a man whose expertise on Second Amendment issues I’ve relied on for close to two decades left it to me to uncover a Clinton-era Department of Defense policy, never reversed during the Bush administration, that removed policy development for base security from the individual services and base commanders and imposed civilian standards for gun-carrying on military personnel, I’ll admit to disappointment.
That Randy’s first published writings on the topic of unarmed American soldiers including combat veterans being slaughtered on their American homeland base by a single handgun-armed attacker and having to wait ten minutes for civilian police officers with no combat experience to save them did not show any anger at our troops being treated as if they were unworthy to defend themselves made me feel abandoned and angry.
If Randy Herrst wanted to argue the pressing need for a new security policy on military bases, why didn’t he even address the issue of the unarmed soldiers at the point of attack? If anything, the murder of disarmed American combat veterans on base should have angered Randy even more than it angered me.
But at least from what he published in the five days following the Fort Hood shootings before I wrote and published my column, Randy was silent on this issue. And that silence was unacceptable.
Randy challenges me, “If the military is going to allow soldiers on base to be armed, the following parameters ABSOLUTLEY MUST be decided: Who, What Conditions, When, Where. If you refuse to address that question, there is ZERO chance of ever implementing self-defense carry on miliatry bases. ZERO.”
No, sir. You’re the expert. You write it. If you have no other outlet I’ll publish it right here as a bylined Guest Column.
But if it does not start with principles you taught me that it is evil for dozens of unarmed American soldiers to have to wait to be rescued when they are under attack, then you bet your ass that I’ve taken what you taught me and outdone you.
June 17, 2011 - 11:44 am
My Uncle who served in the Pacific during WWII said it was routine to completely disarm the American soldiers except for MPs after an Island was taken from the Japanese, even when armed Japanese soldiers were hiding in the jungle, etc. killing American soldiers whenever possible!
June 17, 2011 - 11:47 am
By the way, I heard discussion of the unarmed state of the soldiers at Fort Hood a number of times on talk radio, but the issue never got traction because the filthy, stinking major media never mentioned it. Talk radio has broken the media monopoly to an extent, but the major media still succeeds in framing most issues even so. . . Freedom cannot begin to be restored until the major media outlets are WRENCHED from their current owners and the current talking heads fired!
June 17, 2011 - 5:10 pm
Policies regarding keeping soldiers, sailors, and Marines armed varied among base commanders in different theaters and different threat levels. What changed under Clinton was removing the authority from base commanders who were career military, and handing the authority over to the Secretary of the Army, a short-term political appointment.
July 8, 2012 - 7:10 pm
My uncle’s point was the base commanders DIDN’T care about the overall safety of the soldiers once his objective was acheived. He didn’t want the “bad press” that might result from a few drunken brawls involving shooting.
But, I agree, FORMALIZING this policy at the Presidential level is worse. Was Bush just lazy and uninformed or a zealous partisan of the policy? Probably not known. . .
July 8, 2012 - 7:12 pm
Oh, I forgot to mention that my uncle said a lot of the men managed to have “secret weapons” they kept hidden from the brass.