When President Clinton took office, he outlawed US soldiers from carrying sidearms in military facilities. Since then, Bush Jr. continued this ban and so has Obama. Taking advantage of this, more than one terrorist has openly attacked military personnel at various bases and other ‘no guns’ facilities, killing a number of soldiers in massacres. Like letting aliens pour into this country (as is happening all over Europe, too!) legally and illegally, then telling us we must go to war with billions of people to stop ‘terrorism’, the door hangs off the hinges in our country letting in these terrorists and then telling us the FBI and CIA has to spy on American citizens because of all these foreign terrorists attacking us. This insanity continues under both GOP and DNC rule.
I want gun control in our cities due to black males hating black lives and running wild shooting at each other with terrible frequency. But disarming our soldiers is crazy, crazy. So why did Bush Jr. and the GOP Congress accept the Clinton ruling about guns held by soldiers? It is obvious to me that the Republicans feared insurrection from within the military and so, went along with this scheme. From 2013: White House petition asks for military permission to carry concealed firearms on government installations which had zero effect.
According to a Washington Times editorial written days after the Nov. 5, 2009 attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, one of Clinton’s “first acts upon taking office… was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.”
Clinton’s actions birthed Army regulations “forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.”…“Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood.”
Breitbart is very partisan and loved the Bushes. So he didn’t ask the obvious question: why did Bush Jr. continue this? This Is Why Most Military Personnel Aren’t Armed on Military Bases — and It’s Not Clinton’s Fault because it was this document: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf
This policy change was proposed while Bush was still President, this was an election year and is February. Due to the huge number of terrorist attacks on disarmed military especially the Fort Hood attack, soldiers have been petitioning for this directive to be retracted with zero effect. From 2014: Soldiers want OK to carry concealed weapons on base | Army Times | armytimes.com
“It’s the only place that a licensed soldier can’t carry,” said Staff Sgt. Jacob Wiley, who’s assigned to the 708th Contingency Contracting Team at Fort Campbell, Ky. “When you’re deployed,you have your weapon issued to you, and it’s mandatory that you carry it. Then you come back home and you come onto post, and … the only people who are going to have weapons are military police … and those who don’t care about the law.”…
After the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Wiley said he and his fellow soldiers had to sit through ineffective active-shooter training.
“It’s ridiculous. All they do is put a Band-Aid on it, check the block,” he said. “The briefing told us to shut the door, turn off the light and hide behind the desk. And do what? Pray that someone with a gun comes to save me?”…
Eric Chambers, a former Army medic and sergeant, agreed.
“At the very least, allow senior enlisted and company officers to carry handguns,” he said. “This way almost every area and soldier will have protection nearby. If we cannot trust our senior NCOs and officers to protect our troops, then who can we trust?”
The agenda right now is split: the US wants fewer guns while it wants more security. The right wing wants more arms, the left wants even cops disarmed. I, personally, am armed not only with guns but swords and other devices. I live where it takes the sheriff an hour to reach me and I lived like that in Arizona in the past, too. But when I was in NYC, I was all for disarming the thugs! Big time. The new Mayor disagreed and now thug gun shooting incidents are rapidly climbing again.
I never understood the need to disarm our soldiers. My father during WWII carried and used a concealed sidearm more than once. We had a gun collection in Tucson which I used more than once. But in NYC I did a number of citizen’s arrests using no guns. I didn’t want guns there, in a crowded city filled with who knows what. I had a friend go to prison when he got overexcited when a robber attacked his neighbor and shot the robber in the back. Guns can be used wrongly but disarming our troops so they can be massacred is just totally deranged.
If we can’t trust our troops we should disband them and end the Pentagon as a failure. But then, I remember the Vietnam War. Troops angry about that war DID shoot their officers and this was called ‘fragging’. And I suspect the Pentagon tough guys who probably were desk jockeys during the Vietnam War (like many of our ‘leaders’ this last 50 years including actor Ronnie Reagan!) were worried about this and wanted to prevent soldiers from showing ire towards them and their policies. So they were disarmed.
While the CIA and Pentagon sends weapons to Sunni radical organizations to overthrow Saddam, Syria, Libya, etc. arming the terrorists is old hat. Also, I note the news that this latest terrorist is from Kuwait is being pretty much hidden or not mentioned as important. Just like the 9/11 attackers and where they came from was not examined very much, either. Also note the lack of Iranian terrorists attacking Americans.
209 Greenhollow Rd
Petersburgh, NY 12138
Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’
Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.