One major problem is that Tulsi is major anti 2nd amendment.
Like all good Officers are.
The though of personal freedom scares the Military officer corps.
She’s the wrong choice.
I guess that made me a bad officer :-), but I do agree with your overall sentiment.
As a Military Police officer I held Provost Marshal and Provost Marshal Operations positions and had frequent occasion to brief higher commanders on installation and command law and order and security issues. I may have been young and naïve, but when the issue of private firearm ownership came up, I was shocked at how many senior officers were all for tight restrictions and controlled access to personally owned weapons...and I always thought it ironic because these very same senior officers were the ones who were 1. sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, and 2. supposed to be leading soldiers into battle with everything ranging from M9 pistols to M109 howitzers.
I distilled the following conclusions from these exchanges, and in doing so, I do realize I'm painting with a broad brush and there are certainly exceptions:
1. Typically, it takes an officer around 16 years to make Lieutenant Colonel. If they were commissioned through an academy, they have spent at least 20 years in a rigorously structured military environment. Even ROTC sourced officers will have spent their four years of undergraduate studies in a civilian institution where there were probably some restrictions on firearms possession/access. So for these individuals (generally speaking) their entire adult lives, including their formative college years were spent in environments where it was natural for there to be moderate to heavy controls on firearm possession - it's simply their comfort zone.
2. There is an element of elitism that is also sometimes seen in civilian law enforcement: "Only the police/military should have firearms."
3. Much of my time in the Army spanned the Clinton years. The military was shrinking as part of the post-Cold War, "peace dividend," and reduction in force (RIF) incentives made it pretty easy to end careers leading to a zero defect and micromanagement mentality. Officers invested in their careers weren't going to allow them to be cut short because of soldier misconduct on their watch, and they wanted to control every possible thing they could...including access to firearms.
4. Even back in the 90s there were some street gangs creeping into the military ostensibly for the purposes of receiving military training and gaining access to weapons and other controlled items. This was known, and while the warnings may have been somewhat exaggerated, no officer was going to find themselves in a positions where a missing spring or sear from an arms room found its way to the streets.
5. Many officers (rightfully) felt responsible for staying up on current events and in doing so (misguidedly) put their trust in the mainstream media, assuming it was objective. Hence, when it came to Ruby Ridge, Waco, OKC, Atlanta Olympic bombing, etc. the government/media party line was embraced and their perspectives skewed as intended.