Posted on 04/04/2014 7:02:08 AM PDT by rightwingerpatriot
In the wake of another shooting rampage in a gun-free zone, it is high time that actual measures be put into place to protect innocent lives. Ivan Lopez targeted those unable to defend themselves as Fort Hood suffered another horrendous attack four years after the terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan killed fourteen people. The death toll was less this time, three dead and sixteen injured, but the fact remains that our military personnel were unable to defend themselves from a rampaging gunman. The spree only ended, as it normally does, when confronted by someone else with a gun, whereupon the coward took his own life. I know that many people are surprised that our military are forced to be unarmed within the confines of their bases, but that's been the case for over twenty years. In the wake of this second shooting, it's time to arm our troops.
It's a weird belief system that our soldiers can be fully armed while deployed, but once they return to an American base, they're essentially neutered as if they can't be trusted to carry weapons. This gives rise to the paradox that a military installation is incredibly vulnerable to attack as only MPs are normally armed. This goes with the fact that every mass shooting in the last few decades have taken place where the victims were unarmed and not able to fight back. Gun-free zones are essentially life-free zones once these cowardly predators arrive on the scene. These miserable bastards are on some sort of twisted power trip where they desire to feel like king of the world as they cut down innocent people, whether they're children, movie-goers, or any other unarmed citizens. However, once they're confronted by someone who is armed, they end the rampage by turning their gun on themselves.
In any attack scenario, every second can mean the difference between life or death. Waiting ten to fifteen minutes for the police to show up can mean that your obituary could be in tomorrow's paper. That's why rank and file police have strongly advised people to be armed to protect themselves. The old adage of, "I rather have a gun and not need it rather than not having a gun and needing it" is very true.
All the gibberish spouted by anti-gun zealots cannot hide the truth that being armed is the best means of protection. As gun ownership increases, along with concealed carry permits, violent crime drops. The most dangerous places in the country are where liberal policies dictate that the citizens are unable to protect themselves. I always laugh when I hear that if we armed our soldiers on bases, then you'll have more outbreaks of violence. The utter fallacy of that argument is shown when you look at police stations. Every police station in the country is filled with men and women carrying guns. When was the last time you heard of a gunman venturing into the local police station and going on a killing spree? The answer is that you don't because it doesn't happen. These cowards know that by doing such an attack, they'll be shot and killed almost instantly.
As terrorists seek to inflict as much damage as they can on soft targets, we have to realize that our military bases have become such due to our soldiers being disarmed. This began under George H.W. Bush and was extensively carried out by Bill Clinton. It's time to reverse that policy and once again to arm the troops so they can protect themselves. Just last week before the Fort Hood shooting, an alert was issued by the FBI looking for a convert to Islam who was entering the military and had posted radical thoughts of Facebook about the glory of going on jihad. Our troops are always in harm's way and we should give them the opportunity to protect themselves.
He makes some good points..thought you'd find it interesting..
My favorite comment was from Poppy (?) on CNN: “Our troops need more protection.” She was refering to more police/MPs.
Terrible idea.
1. You cannot stop random acts of violence. Ever.
2. When they happen, you don’t want a bunch of bureaucrats who happen to work on a military base trying to resolve the situation. You want them to take cover and let professional LEOs do so.
Random acts of violence are an unavoidable consequence of a free society.
There is a fundamental and explicit right to bear arms.
There is an imaginary "right to privacy" that "emanates" from the "penumbra" of the Constitution, according to the Warren Court.
There should be a way to check on whether the person buying a weapon is a nutbag or not. With current technology, that should be a 10 second process.
“Apparently the only government department without a military force at its disposal is the military.” —Mark Stein
Arm the troops? You mean — give them guns?!?
Don’t go gettin’ all crazy just because it’s Friday! /sarc
Peters is sounding more and more like an MSM outlet. Assault rifle? I never in my 27+ years of military service heard any sergeant say “Get your assault rifles men”
Is he back in the movies where Arnold S or Chuck Norris fires on fully auto with a 20 round mag killing everyone?
I prefer the Heathcock method, one shot, one kill.
I read those comments.
My take-away is that since so many soldiers are PTSD, certifiably muts, and one negative thought away from shooting up the base anyway....
Yeah. Better to keep the bases gun free.
| Make your points on the merits...
........I saw both Peters and Hunts interviews from beginning to end. I was very surprised to hear them say what they said.
Maybe the solution is to cut it down the middle and allow more senior officers and non coms that pass some sort of psyche evaluation and go through some fairly rigorous training designed around the use of weapons on stateside bases rather than foreign battlefields. To be certain, those differences, particularly in the legal realm, are substantial.
Ironically though, my suggestion would not have helped re the Hidal mass murder. Hell, he was an Officer, and senior and a trained M.D. Psychologist himself.
Nevertheless, I do believe a lot of lives could be saved by increasing the number of responsible and armed people on these bases.
The stupidity of their statements is summed up here:
The soldiers… are not policemen. They are not trained to control a violent situation and de-escalate it.
They are trained to control a violent situation and end it.
All of the other comments these two make are fitting for the anti-gun cranks they are.
1. If our soldiers carry their loaded weapons at all times, that assassin yesterday wouldn’t have had a .45 caliber handgun, he would have had a loaded assault rifle.
Hard to hide an M4 - unlikely this would be the weapon of choice of these killers, else they'd be using them already ( anyone remember Connecticut?)
2. Soldiers wouldn’t want that. It would be an enormous hassle. Most soldiers aren’t steely-eyed killers. Most are clerks, intelligence analysts, truck drivers, mechanics. They’ve got real work to do and, you know? Carrying a loaded weapon around all the time is a burden. How would we like it if people carried assault weapons… in our workplace?
No one said make it mandatory for everyone to be armed - rather those who are qualified and competent should be allowed to be armed
3. Do we really want a soldier to have a loaded M16 on his shoulder if he’s having a marital spat? How about a suicidal soldier or one with suicidal thoughts or tendencies? Should he have a loaded weapon?
One of the worst professions for marriages is that of the police. Do we have policemen and women going postal in their station houses? No - I didn't think so.
And fourth, not least, when you have an incident like this, …you want trained responders who know what they’re doing. You don’t want every finance clerk on Fort Hood firing his M16 on rock and roll in every direction.
And these are military men? They trained their troops to behave in this way?
No - these is anti-gun hysteria on parade. The fact that these men served doesn't change that. Their comments are childish and more like something we'd be likely to hear from M.A.G.
“, you don’t want a bunch of bureaucrats who happen to work on a military base trying to resolve the situation. You want them to take cover and let professional LEOs do so.”
That was the most insulting and stupid comment I’ve read in a long time. It is the most liberal statement and what liberals use to justify banning guns. It claims Americans are too stupid to defend themselves and cops should only be allowed to have weapons.
What is that “bureaucrat” supposed to do, just sit that and be shot? Moron.
You should read: Dial 911 and Die.
There’s always going to be some a-hole out there claiming that all of our troops are incompetent amoral nut jobs. You shouldn’t be so eager to believe it.
Random acts of violence are an unavoidable consequence of a free society.
I dunno but thousands of Israeli men and women in the Israel Defense Forces walk around their bases and their cities armed and several clips at hand, just in case. Israel is a free society and a Democracy so why can they do it with ease while we seem to have trouble getting anywhere near that kind of conduct? Anybody?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.