Published by the San Diego Rifle and Revolver Association
Contributor Commentaries
Disclosure Act: Who's the Real Enemy In This Fight?
Saturday, 19 June 2010 06:55 | Author: Ralph Weller |
We have been following the discourse on the Disclosure Act and NRA on this site with great interest. But, it seems the argument has moved from what the intent of the bill is, to bashing NRA because of the exemption granted to the organization by the bill’s sponsor.
Let’s understand who put this bill out in the first place. The author is Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland and co-sponsor of H.R. 1022, a bill that would reinstate the so-called assault weapon ban at the federal level. He is vehemently anti-gun. He’s no friend to gun owners.
On the U.S. Senate side, Senators Chuck Schumer, Russ Feingold and Patrick Leahy have started a campaign to push the Disclosure Act into law. They have set up a special website called “CosponsorDisclosureAct.com” to push the bill through the Senate, assuming it makes it out of the House.
The act requires donors to organizations who advertise for or against a specific candidate to be made public. Why is that? It’s not enough that the organizations running the ads are required to disclose who they are. But politicians want a list of donors to the organization? Again, it needs to be asked. Why?
Well my friends, it’s called political intimidation. If you are a person of means, an anti-gun advocate, a well-known blogger who supports Second Amendment rights, a senior executive of a corporation who believes in gun rights, a small advocacy group for gun rights that donates to the larger organization in support of the cause, Joe Blow from Sheboygan who runs a gas station or small store, basically anyone who donates now becomes fodder for a politician. Your name can be used locally or in national politics during a campaign to discredit you and your business by pointing out your affiliation with the NRA. Now, some people don’t have a problem with that. However, some may find their career in jeopardy, or their business damaged because they are located in a decidedly anti-gun community like San Francisco or Washington D.C. It’s called intimidation through legislation.
Some people could care less. But if you’re an employee of a company whose management is vehemently anti-gun, and they find you are donating to NRA, gosh, despite the questionable legality of their actions, they could make your life a living hell in an effort to drive you out of the organization. The bottom line is this: Organizations you and I donate to is our own personal business, not the business of politicians.
Oh look, you can’t disagree with some elements of the bill. Foreign companies advertising on behalf of a candidate is a bit much. That’s a legitimate area of concern. However, when American organizations whether the Sierra Club, AARP or NRA, are told they cannot exercise their free speech rights on behalf of their membership unless they disclose who donated to the organization, that’s just muzzling free speech, and nothing more.
That’s the essence of this bill. This is about politicians who don’t like criticism on how they vote, what they stand for and who they associate with. This is about running for office with the least amount of resistance as possible to their re-election campaign. This isn’t about keeping the voice of the ordinary American from being drowned out. Hell, we don’t have a voice now other than our vote, that’s why over 70 million Americans belong to advocacy groups, so we can be heard about the issues that matter to us. You and I as individuals can’t muster enough money to make our voice heard prior to an election, but an advocacy group can. And that’s what the politicians want to stamp out. This isn’t about NRA, the Sierra Club or the other organizations that earned the exemption. This is about stamping out free speech and retaining power. And it certainly shouldn’t surprise anyone that leading the pack to stifle free speech are lefties Schumer, Feingold and Leahy. And, the timing of this bill couldn’t be better. How convenient to implement this law leading up to the fall elections. The courts will spend two or three years trying to sort it out, but meanwhile the damage is done. Free speech will have been stifled.
The other contentious element of this debate is the NRA’s position, and no doubt other organizations exempted as well, who have dropped their opposition to the bill because of the exemption. And why wouldn’t they? Do you think as an NRA member you want your donations fighting a bill on behalf of anti-gun organizations so they can be exempted as well? Do you want your money helping anti-gun groups like Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center or the Southern Poverty Law Center? NRA can put its money into a lot of things, but if this bit of info is news to you, let’s be very clear, they are a one issue organization and they don’t hide that fact from anyone. NRA can easily get hooked into tangential issues that squander money away on nonsense that has virtually nothing to do with Second Amendment rights. I for one would not be keen on that silliness. They get involved in free speech issues like this one because without free speech, they are no longer an advocacy group on behalf of its members. Their job is to service their members, not members of other organizations. They, along with other groups, pressured members of congress by saying they would oppose the bill the whole way unless this bill was modified. So the Democrats modified it, the very same Democrats that now use their modification to vilify the NRA, and only the NRA, aided and abetted by the left-stream media in this country.
This bill is dirty politics and the left-stream media has stepped up to the plate to do the dirty work of politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike. What is so alarming is how some so-called Second Amendment advocates have criticized NRA, most notably pro-gun groups not exempted by the bill. They didn’t meet the criteria to be exempted. It isn’t right, but to use NRA as fodder to build membership in an alternative organization is hitting below the belt and doing nothing but weakening the pro-gun movement. The Democrats meanwhile sit back, pat themselves on their backs, and gleefully laugh at the whole escapade. If other pro-gun organizations and advocacy groups want to be excluded, then fight the fight with congress and in the courts. Politicians created this mess, not NRA. NRA did what it should have done, just as all the other organizations affected by the Disclosure Act did, by sending a letter to members of congress in opposition to the bill. But, don’t get fooled when the Democrats and media use NRA as their whipping boy because this is a well choreographed effort to discredit NRA, split the opposition and ultimately weaken the pro-gun community.
In a nutshell, politicians suck, they are not trustworthy and they will stab you and I in the back every opportunity that presents itself. They’ve done it again with the Disclosure Act and they will continue to do it running up to the elections this fall and then once again for Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012. Despite their best efforts, NRA has not turned un-American, and no, NRA doesn’t run congress. Scumbags run congress.
CA Voter Primaries Are Coming Up
Sunday, 23 May 2010 13:01 | Author: William M Lolli |
I love Gun Shows. To me they represent the free assembly of like-minded Constitutionalists. And since it is voting time here in San Diego the local candidates came out to "grip and grin" with 2nd Amendment loving voters and to convince them of their commitment to our civil rights.
But Buyer Beware -- There are many RINOs and Leftist-wolves in sheep's clothing. Last year Olga Diaz ran as a 'conservative' using Republican-like key-words in her campaign-- all the while being an ardent La Raza-agenda supporter-- and now she sits on the Escondido City Counsel. We cannot be fooled again by community-organized Libs and Leftists using conservative keywords to deceive the electorate.
So below are my research results and reflections on the current local crop of candidates:
CONSTITUTIONALIST JUDGES ON THE BALLOT
A splinter group of the Tea Party Movement has created a website called http://BetterCourtsNow.com which is in its infancy and is dedicated to the idea of informing the public about local and state-level Judicial nominees and candidates who hold true to Constitutional principles. Better Courts Now plans to go national-- and, buddy, we need a place to go to find out where true Constitutionalist Judges can be found!
As you expect, neither candidate will entertain "hypothetical" case questions, which is fair, just and expected-- however, they did discuss in detail their judicial philosophies; of which I will share two important aspects here, which I use to qualify a judge [like a litmus test] as to their adherence to Constitutional principles:
1. Both of these men support the notion of 2nd Amendment rights, and oppose the idea that a person does not an inalienable right to use a firearm for defense of self and others when life-threatening aggression is factually established. They also support Concealed and Open Carry Laws for citizens.
2. Most significantly, both of these judicial candidates support the notion of "Jury Nullification".
Jury Nullification is the practice recognizing the absolute authority a jury has as both a trier of law and of the facts.
Back before the Civil War, it was almost impossible to get a conviction of a "runaway slave" from the South in a Northern court, because although the slave had broken the law, no Northern Jury would convict based on Jury Nullification. The Northern jurists determined that the Southern laws were immoral, and although as "triers of fact" they had to find the defendant guilty of breaking the law, they found them not guilty, because the law itself was immoral.
Since the Civil War, Jury Nullification has been relegated to the "back seat" of American jurisprudence, mainly by judges that don't want the average citizen to have the power to overturn, or make ineffective, laws passed by the legislature.
But those days are over -- We need again the power of Jury Nullification returned to the People.
Here is why:
Say the CA State EPA brings you or your company up on criminal charges for too much CO2 pollution.
Or say that the CA law now demands all firearms and ammunition be registered or confiscated, unless you pay fees or fines; and you refuse to pay, and are thus prosecuted.
Or say you refuse to pay the new health insurance tax.
Or say you decide to pay your personal doctor in cash, and both you and your physician are charged with breaking the law.
Or say that you buy your eggs or milk directly from the farmer, thus breaking one of the new regulations/laws regarding the regulation of agricultural commerce the Administration is now considering.
Jury Nullification would prevent your going to jail.
The power of the jury is the last line of defense against an all powerful government, and that is why a trial by a jury of your peers is in the Constitution as one of your fundamental rights as an American.
CONSTITUTIONALIST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ON THE BALLOT
"I believe in the Second Amendment of our Constitution and agree with the US Supreme Court finding that it guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Having law abiding citizens being able to protect themselves from criminals is a good thing in my book. I want law abiding citizens to have the ability to protect themselves, as law enforcement cannot always be present to do that."
Jay LaSuer http://www.sheriffjay.org Question: Should Law Abiding Citizens Be Issued Concealed Carry Permits?
"Many elected officials seem to have forgotten that when they took their oath of office they swore to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. The last time I read the U.S. Constitution, it still contained the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment. "
Both Duffy and LaSuer will enforce immigration laws.
These are my opinion picks, where there is a choice between candidates:
US SENATE Chuck DeVore - solid conservative and Constitutionalist
SECRETARY OF STATE Orly Taitz - although a bit of a kook, she knows the definition of a Natural Born Citizen, and would seek to enforce eligibility standards on both voters and candidates.
[Do Not Vote for Damon Dunn. Dunn refuses to answer specific questions and does not commit to the CA or US Constitutional-integrity of the candidate-eligibility statutes. I telephone-interviewed Dunn's press secretary at length and no attempt has been made by him to answer my questions. Also Beware that this guy is the Republican Establishment's pick for the office. After 2 yrs trying to get answers from the Republican Establishment in San Diego, it is obvious they are in lock-step with the Libs and Democrats on this issue.]
GOV AND LT GOV As of today I have no opinion on Gov and Lt Gov.
Questions or Comments? Email Me:
William Lolli
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Can America Stand with No Standing?
Thursday, 25 March 2010 16:29 | Author: William M Lolli |
Immediately following the March 23, 2010, signing by president Obama of the Obamacare Healthcare package, three state Attorneys General filed suit and 13 other states are considering the same.
Their legal arguments against the Obamacare federal expansion and control of all American healthcare will consist of a Constitutional composite: Charges that Congress has far exceeded its limits of the Commerce Clause, that the federal government cannot compel and individual citizen to purchase a good or service from a public or private company, that Congress cannot force an unfunded mandate upon the states that will bankrupt them, that the law was passed in an unconstitutional manner.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been abused to the point of absurdity in the case of this Obamacare law. However, this is nothing new.
The Founding Fathers intended the Commerce Clause to “make regular” commerce between the states, thereby preventing any one state from maintaining a monopolistic control of a resource, service or good with which it could extort control over the other states. But for the last hundred years the Progressives in our courts have upheld that the Commerce Clause is to be interpreted as a broad license of power with which the federal government can control every aspect of interstate commerce, even to the point of absurdity.
Thusly, the federal government has been empowered at all levels with the, now widely held belief, that it can even regulate the faucets of your home, your toilets, your liquor, your cigarettes, your guns, your utilities, your phones, your food, the CO2 of which you breathe—and now your healthcare.
Added to this is the parallel interpretation of the courts regarding the requisites of an individual or group of citizens in exercising their Constitutional right of redressing a grievance of government, to require something known as “Standing”.
“Standing” as originally intended is a legal paradigm whereby non-legitimate plaintiffs that have not suffered any harm may not piggy-back onto a lawsuit in which they have no vested interest.
For example, if Fred did something to Joe, and Joe sued Fred, Sally cannot claim an injury because Sally has no standing in the case. Sally would have to prove that she suffered harm when Fred did something to Joe.
However, like the Commerce Clause, the Article 3 Standing requirement has been expanded to encompass almost ANY redress of grievance against government.
Anyone familiar with the 17 lawsuits that have alleged that putative president Barack Obama is not an Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 defined “Natural Born Citizen” is also aware that in every case, the lower federal courts have ruled that the plaintiffs had no “Standing”.
In the most recent Kerchner v Obama case, the government made the following argument:
In October 2009, the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ suit. App. 2. The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to press their claims, as they had not established an injury in fact that was sufficiently concrete and particularized to satisfy the requirements of Article III. App. 8. The court explained that “‘a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government--claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large--does not state an Article III case or controversy.’” App. 9 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992)).
I think the 13 state Attorneys General are all in for a very big surprise when they go to sue over Obamacare and find out that they “have no standing”.
Outrageous? Certainly. But you see, according to the definition of “standing”, Obamacare affects the public at large and the Attorneys General are going to have a dickens of a time proving any “concrete and particularized” harm.
Only Virginians have a chance of squeaking by the Standing Clause.
Governor McDonnell of Virginia had the intelligence to pass into law the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act which states that “no Virginian can be forced to buy health insurance or pay a penalty if they refuse insurance”. Because of this law, only Virginians have legal standing against the Federal Dictatorship.
The failure of these lawsuits to defend individual and state’s rights will kill the idea of the Tenth Amendment. Gone also are your civil rights, your 2nd Amendment gun rights, and more.
The pundits are right on this one: the Constitution has been shredded. And it may be very difficult to get her back.
In Defense of Gilbert Arenas? Sure, I'll defend him.
Friday, 08 January 2010 05:49 | Author: Ralph Weller |
"But, this is for certain, it's not the responsibility of professional athletes to try and clean up the proverbial pile of poop left behind by government. It's their job to make money by playing professional sports."
Washington Wizards basketball player Gilbert Arenas was suspended for having three firearms in his locker. His explanation was he wanted them out of the house. He is a father with young children. Buying a safe would probably have been a better idea. Let's face it, storing firearms in your locker at work is probably not the brightest move, but it's not the end of the world either. But, the story doesn't end there. This isn't about whether he was right or wrong for having guns in his locker. It's about equal application of the law.
A personal story can help position this commentary. Some years back while working in my office, I heard the screams of a woman. I walked out of my office, opened the door to the manufacturing floor and found a young male holding a woman by the neck against a wall with her feet dangling off the floor. It looked like something out of a movie scene. As I approached yelling something, he let go of the young lady. A manager attended to the woman. I immediately took him into my office and fired him on the spot and asked him to leave the premises. H.R. will be in touch with his final check, I said. I escorted him to the front door and as he walked away he turned to me and said, "I'm going to kill you mother f......r".
Only a couple of months earlier a former employee of a nearby company walked into a manufacturing plant and killed several employees. He was angry about being fired for cause. Combined with the fact that my former employee was reputed to have local gang ties within the city left me concerned to say the least.
I immediately contacted a security company for armed guard protection of the facility starting the following morning upon recommendation of law enforcement. (Yes, this was before terror threats became illegal.) No armed guards were available that quickly, but they would provide an unarmed guard for at least one day until one was available the following day. Nothing but an early warning signal, or fodder as I perceived it.
The next morning as I left home for work, still concerned about the events of the previous day, I loaded and packed my S&W revolver into my briefcase. Company rules be damned. California state laws regarding transportation of loaded firearms will have to go on hold for a day as well. Losing my job is one thing, losing my life is a whole other matter. I kept that briefcase close for the rest of day. No one knew, nor did I have any illusions about telling someone what I had done, including my boss, the company president. I didn't care that I had broke company rules or was committing at least a misdemeanor, possibly a felony by transporting a loaded firearm in a briefcase in my car. As far as I was concerned, protecting my life was frankly none of their business, nor did I require the approval of the company or the government. My life and personal safety transcended company policy as far as I was concerned. If that sounds arrogant, yes it was and I would do exactly the same thing again without reservation if circumstances dictated it.
Now, if something happened that day and I was in the position of having to shoot the former employee in order to defend my life or that of another employee, I can assure you being fired would have only been a minor annoyance compared to the satisfaction that evening in knowing I will continue to live.
So yes, I can sympathize with professional athletes wanting to protect themselves, even if they are violating local laws. After all, they travel from city to city moving from one locale to another. They are recognized by fans, and nuts alike. They carry money, because after all, they're rich. They, as any celebrity or politician are potential targets. Why shouldn't athletes be afforded the same self-protection rights as any other person? But, the problem is Washington D.C., where if you don't have a permit, you can't bring your gun into the city. Self-protection ends at the district city limit. Self-protection is a local matter, for local authorities to decide.
Tank Johnson, a former Chicago Bears player and Arizona resident was nailed for illegal firearms possession in Illinois a few years back. Johnson felt the need for self-protection in a state where no concealed-carry permit system exists. He was arrested and subsequently convicted of illegal possession of a handgun, which was found in his vehicle by police.
Johnson owned other firearms purchased legally prior to his move to Illinois, which eventually resulted in him being charged again after a police search of his home because two of the firearms were classified as illegal in Illinois.
Tank Johnson today plays for the Cincinnati Bengals, where maybe gun rights are a little less restrictive than Illinois. However, his past brushes with the law for mere ownership of firearms probably prevents him from owning firearms today. And we call ourselves a free people?
What struck a nerve in all of this between Arenas and Johnson was a comment by a Washington reporter suggesting that Gilbert Arenas should have enough sense to obey Washington DC gun laws. In essence, what is legal outside of D.C. is one thing, but within D.C. it is our duty as citizens to be cognizant of such things. The writer goes on to say in effect, we obey Washington D.C. traffic laws, why would we not obey their gun laws?
Don't you just love the way the media compares apples to oranges? Let's understand something. The car registered in Virginia, or any state for that matter, which we drive into D.C., remains legal. The license obtained in any state is valid for driving in D.C. You can't get arrested in D.C. because you drive a Ford or have a valid Florida drivers license. The only product in this country that is legal in one jurisdiction and illegal in another is a firearm. A handgun you own in Springfield, Illinois is illegal when you move to Chicago. The rifle you own in Phoenix, Arizona is illegal when you transfer to Los Angeles for a new job. Only firearms are subject to specific local laws, not only state-to-state, but from city-to-city within some states. What's even more bizarre is certain makes and models are legal in some locales and illegal in others.
People traveling through one state to another, moving to another city, whether for business or pleasure, should have the same fundamental rights. Our legal status with the law should not vary across city or state lines simply because of movement. We have built a nation of fiefdoms when it comes to Second Amendment rights. Either we have the right to own firearms unfettered by government interference and restrictions, or we don't. But traveling through this country should not subject people to becoming criminals simply because of property ownership. We aren't moving to or traveling through a foreign country. This kind of stupidity smacks of third world countries run by dictators who use laws as a matter of convenience to maintain power.
Tank Johnson and Gilbert Arenas are college educated grown men in their late twenties. They are not street thugs anymore than NRA board member and former pro basketball player Karl Malone. Neither Johnson or Gilbert have a history of gang affiliations or criminal backgrounds, other than the problems caused by owning firearms. Tank Johnson grew up in Arizona. Gilbert Arenas grew up in San Fernando in California and attended a communications/technology magnate high school.
These two men are not what the media is suggesting they are. They suggest that being African-American and owning guns is not a good role model for other African-American teens. After all, owning guns and being African-American spells trouble, does it not? If the media just can't come out and call themselves the racists that they are, then I will. The seediness of the comments are something to behold. Look at the Brady Campaign's statement:
"Too many cities with National Basketball Association franchises -- cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Orlando, Chicago and Washington D.C. - also have profound gun violence problems. In a city where children die in drive-by shootings, an NBA player who is reckless with firearms is far from a role model. America's athletic community can and should use its clout and prestige to push for desperately needed positive reforms to address our nation's horrific gun violence problem."
Why don't they just come out and say what they're trying to say? 'Look, you're black, you play in cities that have large black populations, and your job as a black athlete is to not own a gun, because after all, blacks own guns and kill each other in those cities. You need to set an example.'
What kind of racist nonsense is the Brady Campaign spewing forth? Gilbert Arenas and Tank Johnson have no obligation to fix the violence problems of any inner city. The problem of our inner cities was created by a bunch of knucklehead politicians pandering to the African-American community with never-ending handouts and a goal of keeping them suckling from the teat of government forever. It's called being permanently poor, dependent on government, and keeping them that way.
But, this is for certain, it's not the responsibility of professional athletes to try and clean up the proverbial pile of poop left behind by government. It's their job to make money by playing professional sports, providing entertainment to sports fans and just going about the art of living their lives. And if that means making sure they are protected from nut cases or criminals, they have that right. They have no obligation to anyone to be a defenseless victim of crime, clean up poverty, or solve world hunger. They play basketball. Get it?
The Second Amendment needs to be protected from the abuses by states and local government. We need uniformity across the country. We need the Supreme Court to incorporate the Second Amendment this year, and we need strict scrutiny, meaning it takes a damn good reason beyond political whimsy in a community to restrict Second Amendment rights. Maybe then people like Tank Johnson and Gilbert Arenas can go about living their lives without fearing laws that change based on what city you wake up in. No victim, no crime committed, just living their lives as free men. That's all we want in this country is freedom from laws that benefit no one except politicians and criminals.
And, just because you're black, you shouldn't have to listen to the nonsense of the press and anti-gun groups about the example you should be setting for other blacks in poor communities. How about being black, owning a gun and being a good citizen? Isn't that a good enough example?
Tank Johnson has a criminal record only because he owned guns and chose to carry a gun in his vehicle for protection. Gilbert Arenas may very well end up with a criminal record for owning guns as well. If that is their only crime, then there is something seriously wrong with how our country protects constitutional rights. Property ownership or self-defense are not crimes. It needs to be fixed and it needs to happen this year.
Ralph Weller has been a pro-gun activist studying Second Amendment rights for more years than he wishes to admit. He is active in the gun rights community in California, a member of the NRA, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and San Diego Rifle and Revolver Association.
Who To Blame For Disarming Our Soldiers?
Saturday, 14 November 2009 09:15 | Author: Ralph Weller |
Despite the media, it isn't Clinton. The U.S. Army disarmed their soldiers at least 25 years before Clinton. The blame falls on our military leadership and today's politicians who don't recognize we are at war.
In my recent article “Stop the Silliness: Arm Our Soldiers and Marines” I pointed out soldiers in the U.S. Army are essentially unarmed on U.S. military installations, including Fort Hood. The only armed military personnel are law enforcement agencies, most notably military police, and if present, federal law enforcement officers who augment military police agencies on base.
Within a couple days after my article, the Washington Times posted an editorial calling for an end to the Clinton military gun ban on U.S. military bases.
The Washington Times and those who promulgated the above statement are simply wrong. The Army disarmed its soldiers at least 25 years earlier.
I entered active duty in 1971. The only non-MP military personnel that carried loaded firearms were those assigned to guard duty of sensitive base facilities, such as a centralized weapons armory, or the unit paymaster administering cash payments on payday.
On payday an officer of the unit was designated as the paymaster. He would draw a loaded 1911 .45 caliber handgun from the unit armory. His next act would be to receive the cash from the post finance center. He carried the loaded firearm on a pistol belt at all times while administering the pay process.
That was about it for armed soldiers on Fort Hood other than military police. In 1971 it was already illegal for military personnel to carry or store a personal firearm in any place other than a unit armory. Military firearms were only issued specifically for the activities described above, training, or periodic weapons qualification. Soldiers were not allowed to keep a personal or military firearm in either barracks or family housing. That was the case when I entered the army in 1971 and it was the case when I exited 20 years later in 1991 before Clinton.
I can appreciate the desire to blame someone for disarming our soldiers, and Clinton is as good a target as anyone. I didn’t like him then and I don’t like him now, but the army had already disarmed their soldiers long before Clinton. Weapon-less soldiers on U.S. military installations is a matter of fact since Vietnam. It is historical fact that prior to the Vietnam War, military officers, NCOs and, in some cases, soldiers carried firearms as a matter of routine going back to the formation of this country.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Army has become a “kinder and gentler” army. After all, who needs a firearm for protection on a U.S. military facility?
To that point, Fort Hood’s commanding general, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone on November 5 said in response to a reporter’s question, “As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons — this is our home.”
If you didn’t hear General Cone’s response, he was not making a coy statement of disgust for not being allowed to arm his soldiers. His response was clearly a statement of disgust for someone even asking such a question and he placed emphasis on the words “… this is our home” to drive the point home that our soldiers should not be armed.
General Cone far exceeded the rank I achieved, but in my home at least I recognize that I have a duty to protect my family. My home is armed, politicians and political correctness be damned. The home of army soldiers and marines should be armed as well.
We are engaged in a war with an enemy that has infiltrated our country and by their own admission openly promote a ‘Jihad’ against our military. Military installations are primary targets. If they didn’t know before, now every Jihadist Muslim in this country knows how utterly vulnerable our military installations are. Disarming a primary target may be politically correct to appease the brass in Washington D.C. or politicians, but it foolishly makes targets of military personnel.
After September 11, 2001 our military should have been placed on maximum alert recognizing 9-11 as an act of war on our country. This should have been re-affirmed again after the arrest of the Muslim immigrants who plotted an attack on Fort Dix in recent years. Our military facilities and, most specifically, our military personnel are a prime target. Maintaining an anti-gun position of disarmament is nothing less than dereliction of an officer’s duty to protect the lives of their soldiers and incompetence on the part of our politicians.
Politicians and federal agencies are running for cover blaming each other while looking for the low-level scapegoats they can blame to protect political appointees, high level bureaucrats and politicians. The blame falls squarely on politicians and military leadership for allowing our military bases to be so vulnerable to attack. One person with a couple of handguns killed or wounded more people in one day on a U.S. military base than is generally seen in one day of combat in Iraq or Afghanistan combined. It’s easy to blame Hasan. After all he committed the terrorist act. But, don’t stop there. Start looking at the leadership of our military and those politicians who continue to support the notion that an unarmed soldier is a safer soldier.
What do you think? Take our GND Quick Poll that asks whether our soldiers should be armed on U.S. military bases.
Contributor Commentaries
Contributor's Commentaries