Fort Hood attack: My son, our soldiers, are defenseless, sitting ducks

Fox News ^ | April 3, 2014 | John Lott

[richardb72]

The Obama administration hasn’t learned anything from the massacres at Fort Hood in 2009 or the Washington Navy Yard last year.

For all my research on how to stop or prevent mass public shootings and all the victims at these attacks that I have talked to over the years, the attack this week at Fort Hood was different.

My son Ryan, who is stationed at Fort Hood and recently back from a tour in Afghanistan, was just two blocks from the attack and could hear the shots.

However, as was true in the 2009 attack at Fort Hood by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, soldiers, like my son, are banned from having weapons on base unless they have “a credible and specific threat against [military] personnel [exists] in that region.”

Yes, there are military police and they guard the entrances, but, like police generally, they can’t be everywhere all the time.

Thus during the Navy Yard or Fort Hood shootings, the unarmed JAG officers, marines, and soldiers could do nothing but cower as the shooter fired round after round. . . .

[castlebrew]

When it’s the second one at the same installation - Yes, the blood is indeed on the pin-prick-in-chief’s hands.

Failure to repair.

[Yorlik803]

I kind of understand not arming all Soldiers, Kind of anyways. But why aren’t NCOs and Officers armed?

[freeangel]

“The Obama administration hasn’t learned anything from the massacres at Fort Hood in 2009 or the Washington Navy Yard last year. “

Obama learned plenty. He’s decided that the more servicepeople he can put at risk for being murdered, the better. He probably gave out candies at his fundraisers.

[pierrem15]

The only people most of the US government are interested in disarming are Americans.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

[OneWingedShark]

However, as was true in the 2009 attack at Fort Hood by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, soldiers, like my son, are banned from having weapons on base unless they have “a credible and specific threat against [military] personnel [exists] in that region.”

One thing that I never get a straight answer on is the following question:
If (1) Army and Navy bases are federal property, and (2) the Constitution is binding on the federal government, and (3) the Second Amendment, as ratified, reads as A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. which (4) makes any order or law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms illegitimate, then (5) by what authority do the commanders [or congress] have to prohibit the soldiers (and sailors) for keeping and bearing arms?

They always, always squirm at that.

[OneWingedShark]

Folks, acts of war aren’t always considerately declared by our foes.

This is true — in fact, it is highly unlikely that the Congress will come out and declare the general population their foes -- though I hear that the Trading With the Enemy Act [1933, IIRC] effectively does so.