Gun Control: Another tragedy at Fort Hood is compounded by the absurdity of well-trained and disciplined soldiers told to "shelter in place" until the police arrive.
It is, however, a grim echo of its predecessor, which was an act of terrorism called "workplace violence." And to this day, the commander in chief calls Maj. Nidal Hasan's Nov. 5, 2009, rampage in which 13 were murdered and 32 wounded "workplace violence."
In that tragedy, Hasan, a self-proclaimed "Soldier of Allah," shouted "Allahu Akhbar" and opened fire on dozens of U.S. civilians and soldiers who were unarmed and unable to fire back. Then, as now and in the Sept. 16, 2013, mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, military personnel trained to defend themselves were unable to do so and had to wait until the police arrived.
Granted, a military base such as Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas, is not like a fort in the Old West. It's a place where soldiers trained for war prepare and those returning from war rest with their families and children. It's more like a small town than an armed camp.
But in small towns all across America, private citizens freely exercise their Second Amendment rights and are allowed to carry concealed weapons to defend themselves and their families. Why not U.S. soldiers?
How long must this "gun-free zone" policy that prohibits military personnel on bases from carrying firearms continue? Now it has cost more lives, as an enlisted man reportedly undergoing mental-health evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder opened fire Wednesday, killing three others and wounding 16, before turning his gun on himself.
Ironically, it was disclosed on Monday that the FBI and U.S. military were on the hunt for a Muslim Army recruit who was, according to an alert, plotting a "Fort Hood-inspired jihad against U.S. soldiers." The individual was identified as John Thomas Booker, 19, whose Facebook page purportedly revealed posts indicating his intention to "wage jihad" as Hasan did.
Because of the nonsensical policy, terrorists or the mentally unstable would face more return fire if they began shooting at a Texas Wal-Mart than they would face at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. During the second attack in five years at Fort Hood, soldiers were again forced to run from a violent and armed perpetrator.
"When our soldiers are unarmed, they will find themselves in a situation like yesterday and in 2009," Sgt. Howard Ray, a survivor of the 2009 mass shooting, told Fox News.
After the first Fort Hood shooting, legislation was introduced to end the policy, but it quickly died in the then-Democrat-controlled House.
The Obama administration is so obsessed with gun control, and so willfully blind to the threat of domestic jihad, that it calls terrorism "workplace violence" and has done little to prevent U.S. soldiers from being slaughtered in military gun-free zones where the life expectancy of a would-be predator ought to be zero.
Read more at Investor's Business Daily
1 comment:
That this wasn't fixed permanently years ago points to the culpability of only one man, the President of the United States. It represents a fatal flaw in leadership, a devastating condemnation of his micro-management, as well as an inability to problem solve.
The issue isn't guns, it isn't liberty, and it isn't post traumatic stress, this is about leadership.
Obama is a failed candidate, his flaw is his character, his weakness is his judgment, his decisions are corrupt and his proclivities ensnare him. He is a fool looking for an errand.
Post a Comment