Once again a multiple-shooting has shattered the lives of our heroes and their families at Ft. Hood, and once again, the shooter was one of their own. I join with thousands of people across the nation in sympathy for our soldiers and their families. Although I keep repeating to myself the question, how can this happen again?, the answer is the same as always: We are human, and humans are capable of both compassion and senseless violence. Beyond that, however, I have no answer. But I do have a question: Why, after the tragedy of the first shooting at Ft. Hood in 2009, then the most recent shootings at the naval base outside Washington D.C., are increased security measures NOT in place? President Obama assures us that "we will get to the bottom of this!" OK, but why did we not "get to the bottom of this" after the 2009 tragedy? Weren't you the Commander In Chief THEN, as well, Mr. Obama? Have you let five years elapse without "getting to the bottom" of the Ft. Hood shooting? Have none of your "czars" come up with any ideas? What about the top brass of the armed forces? Have they not gotten to the "bottom" of things, either, five years later?
I do not know everything, as I proven time and again, but I can spot an absurdity when I see one. It is positively absurd that no one at the largest armed forces facility in the world (save a handful of military police) are armed. Like I said, I do not know everything, but...I think I would have learned from the 2009 tragedy that more people on post (after all there are literally THOUSANDS of trained soldiers at Fort Hood) need to be armed. Yes I know there are military police, but like civilian police, they are not always at the right place when they are needed. Fort Hood is a facility that spreads out for hundreds of square miles in central Texas. The base consists of hundreds of buildings, physical plants, training fields, and other facilities. The military police cannot possibly watch the entire base all the time. I wonder why, in light of the 2009 tragedy, that Army leadership or the great Commander In Chief HIMSELF did not develop a plan to arm selected personnel at each separate facility or location? I know they have enough weapons there to accomplish this! Personnel are armed when they "pull" guard duty in hostile environments abroad; why not do the same thing at bases on American soil? After all, Major Nidal Hasan demonstrated in 2009 that Ft. Hood could be a hostile environment.
Ironically (or stupidly), the Army responded to the Hasan shooting by FURTHER RESTRICTING weapons on Fort Hood property. Government issued weapons are under lock and key, and soldiers are not permitted to have personal weapons on base or to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms while on base. As usual, this restriction assures that conscientious and law-abiding service men and women are unarmed at the time they most need their weapons: when confronted by nuts and terrorists, and the police are five minutes or more away! Again, how absurd, when they are sitting on the largest weapons cache in the United States! But we cannot trust soldiers to have guns other than in combat, you say? Well, we cannot sit back and watch while people bent on killing are able to come onto military bases bearing firearms while our trained soldiers are left defenseless. I say that we (our government and military leaders) DID force our soldiers into combat situations UNARMED, in both Fort Hood shootings and the Navy Yard shootings as well, by allowing only the police to have weapons.
So, in the wake of the latest military base multiple-shooting, I praise our heroes, both the dead and the survivors, and I join in the national wave of sympathy for their families and friends, and their colleagues. And I call on our leaders to arm some of the soldiers at each facility. I am not calling for ALL soldiers to be armed, but certainly a number could be armed on a day by day basis. When a soldier is serving as the armed guard, he should have no other duties, whether his regular duties or police-type duties; his or her sole function should be to guard the safety of the personnel as they are at work. I think this is a workable plan. Unfortunately I do not believe this will be the last shooting on a military base. Why not learn from this experience, finally, and let our soldiers protect themselves? Let's stop forcing them to go into combat unarmed.
I do not know everything, as I proven time and again, but I can spot an absurdity when I see one. It is positively absurd that no one at the largest armed forces facility in the world (save a handful of military police) are armed. Like I said, I do not know everything, but...I think I would have learned from the 2009 tragedy that more people on post (after all there are literally THOUSANDS of trained soldiers at Fort Hood) need to be armed. Yes I know there are military police, but like civilian police, they are not always at the right place when they are needed. Fort Hood is a facility that spreads out for hundreds of square miles in central Texas. The base consists of hundreds of buildings, physical plants, training fields, and other facilities. The military police cannot possibly watch the entire base all the time. I wonder why, in light of the 2009 tragedy, that Army leadership or the great Commander In Chief HIMSELF did not develop a plan to arm selected personnel at each separate facility or location? I know they have enough weapons there to accomplish this! Personnel are armed when they "pull" guard duty in hostile environments abroad; why not do the same thing at bases on American soil? After all, Major Nidal Hasan demonstrated in 2009 that Ft. Hood could be a hostile environment.
Ironically (or stupidly), the Army responded to the Hasan shooting by FURTHER RESTRICTING weapons on Fort Hood property. Government issued weapons are under lock and key, and soldiers are not permitted to have personal weapons on base or to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms while on base. As usual, this restriction assures that conscientious and law-abiding service men and women are unarmed at the time they most need their weapons: when confronted by nuts and terrorists, and the police are five minutes or more away! Again, how absurd, when they are sitting on the largest weapons cache in the United States! But we cannot trust soldiers to have guns other than in combat, you say? Well, we cannot sit back and watch while people bent on killing are able to come onto military bases bearing firearms while our trained soldiers are left defenseless. I say that we (our government and military leaders) DID force our soldiers into combat situations UNARMED, in both Fort Hood shootings and the Navy Yard shootings as well, by allowing only the police to have weapons.
So, in the wake of the latest military base multiple-shooting, I praise our heroes, both the dead and the survivors, and I join in the national wave of sympathy for their families and friends, and their colleagues. And I call on our leaders to arm some of the soldiers at each facility. I am not calling for ALL soldiers to be armed, but certainly a number could be armed on a day by day basis. When a soldier is serving as the armed guard, he should have no other duties, whether his regular duties or police-type duties; his or her sole function should be to guard the safety of the personnel as they are at work. I think this is a workable plan. Unfortunately I do not believe this will be the last shooting on a military base. Why not learn from this experience, finally, and let our soldiers protect themselves? Let's stop forcing them to go into combat unarmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment