Fort Hood shooting 2014 (courtesy nbcnews.com)

Americans are laboring under the false impression spree killings are committed by lone, drug-addled psychopaths who kill themselves the moment they face armed opposition. The most recent Fort Hood shooting fits “safely” into the latter category. Spec. Ivan Lopez was alone. He was mentally ill. He “only” killed three people. Police responded quickly enough (unless you happen to be one of the 19 people shot). So there’s nothing to see here folks, save the usual missed opportunities to forestall the firearms frenzy and individual tales of tragedy and heroism. Oh sure . . .

There have been plenty of calls to eliminate the Bush/Clinton law that transformed military bases into “gun-free zones.” Calls to roll back gun-free zones in general. But Spec. Lopez’s shooting spree is too familiar, too “small.” It doesn’t have enough “juice” to trigger any significant change in America’s self-defense strategy against terrorists or psychopaths, either on-base or off.

That’s an enormous mistake that will cost hundreds of lives. Let’s talk about terrorism . . .

9/11 was an outlier. Most terrorist attacks aren’t as involved or inventive (for lack of a better term) as Osama Bin Laden’s airliner-based plot. While the public mind is understandably fascinated by the possibility of another complicated and devastating attack, we need only look outside our territorial borders to see that the reality is more prosaic – and even more deadly. Specifically, Afghanistan.

Back in 2012, huffingtonpost.com reported that IEDs (improvised explosive devices or bombs) “killed more than 600 American troops since 2001 and wounded roughly 7,000. They will continue to be a major threat in Afghanistan ‘because they are cheap, readily available, largely off-the-shelf, easy to construct, lethal and accurate,’ Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Barbero told a congressional panel in September.

“Despite a strenuous and costly U.S. effort, the Taliban managed last year [2011] to deploy 16,000 IEDs, the main killer of Americans, and are on track to exceed that record this year.” So why not here, on American soil? Lots of reasons, from the efforts of our anti-terrorist agencies to the vigilance of our citizens to pure, dumb luck. The main thing to keep in mind: it’s only a matter of time before terrorists launch another strike in the American “homeland.”

I repeat: expecting these future terrorist attacks to be Hassan-like “lone wolf” assaults involving firearms alone, or huge catastrophes like 9/11, is unrealistic. Chances are innocent Americans will face a carefully planned, “low tech,” multi-pronged atrocity launched by a group of terrorists.

Consider the four-day bombing and shooting attack in Mumbai in 2008 and last year’s Kenya mall assault. These horrific incidents were hardly “lone gunman” affairs. And those are only the headliners. There are so many terrorist incidents per year – many of which involved multiple attackers, all of which involve planning and coordination – wikipedia.org breaks them up into bi-yearly section (e.g., January – June and July – September).

Spree killers are less common but more apparent. At least in the U.S. But again, it’s a mistake to put these monsters in a box labeled “lone wolf.” Lest we forget, two teenagers committed the atrocities at Columbine High School. Their plan involved multiple bombs: one designed to distract local firefighters and two propane bombs that would have killed hundreds of students in the school cafeteria, had the IEDs  functioned properly.

Which brings me to The Mother of All Warnings for Americans: the Belsan School Massacre. It’s the best (i.e. worst) example of a recent coordinated terrorist attack on a soft target that recent history provides. During three days of terror, several dozen Chechen terrorists, many carrying explosives, took 1,100 people hostage, including 777 children. At the end, over 380 people had been slaughtered, including 186 children.

Last week’s Fort Hood shooting pales in comparison. But it highlights – again, still – the unconscionable weakness of our security against terrorists and spree killers. Spec. Lopez roamed Fort Hood – an army base – unopposed for 10 to 15 minutes. If Lopez had anything remotely resembling a plan of attack he would have killed dozens of soldiers. If he’d been part of a larger conspiracy, hundreds or even thousands of soldiers could have died. For nothing.

Yes, there is that. It’s perfectly clear that armed soldiers can withstand (i.e. counter and eliminate) both spree killers and terrorists. At the Battle of Camp Bastion, 19 Taliban infiltrated one of the largest air bases in Afghanistan. [Click here to read GQ’s account of the fighting.] Brave Marines inside the base repelled the attack  – despite the fact that many of them were non-combat troops and the terrorists were dressed as American soldiers.

Yes there is that.

Earlier this week, retired Army General Jack Keane told Fox News that soldiers shouldn’t be armed on base because first responders wouldn’t be able to separate the good guys from the bad guys during an attack. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Battle of Bastion would know General Keane is wrong. As a soldier assured me in an email to TTAG HQ, “I have no doubt that if we are allowed to be armed on base, we are capable of executing the same defensive capacity in the homeland, without inflicting massive friendly fire casualties.”

Is this true off-base as well? Of course it is. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the person or persons killing innocent people need to die, and die quickly. Nor is much cognitive power required to understand that a firearm is the best way to accomplish that task. Conclusion? The more armed Americans on-scene when terrorists or spree killers attack, the greater the chances of limiting the loss of life – whether the attack involves one killer or several, bombs or guns, or airplanes.

Will America be ready to defend the homeland during the next lethal terrorist or spree killer attack? In places where citizens exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, yes, they’re ready as much as they can be. In places where gun rights go to die – schools, hospitals, airplanes, military bases, etc. – no. Anything we can do to restore, defend and extend our gun rights is a step towards a society safer from these killers.

Guns everywhere? Absolutely.  

Recommended For You

69 Responses to Fort Hood Was A Warning of [Much Worse] Things to Come

  1. I don’t think the ,military leadership or their political controllers will ever budge on arming troops in garrison. The only ones who could are: The president (No chance) or his lackeys, The Sec of Defense and the Sec of the Army.
    It is a mistake to think even 4 star generals have that authority. That would need a change in military policy. Generals can recommend, but Obama fired all those who might do it.

    • First off, Mr. Farago, you’ve done a wonderful job with so many articles, but you really need to get up to speed with 9/11. The group “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”, along with a good handful of solid independent documentaries have clearly pointed out that 9/11 was not orchestrated by bin Laden. He was like some guy who was ready to move out of town and said, “Yeah, go ahead and use my name if you want, no biggee” and then he passed away soon after from Marfan’s Syndrome.

      Since then, both Bush the Idiot and the current Narcissistic in Chief have both attempted to gain media mileage from OBL’s convenient political resurrection.

      The longer we keep avoiding the truth, the further the globalists will be able to implement their plan to eviscerate the Constitution and property rights. And look where we are now. We are stuck in the toilet with the water having been turned off.

        • Go ahead then, try and hang us…

          I’d like to see you try.

          I guess criminal negligence and incompetence is perfectly okay with you

      • @BR549 — Not only have those architects and “documentaries” not been able to prove a damn thing, but the vast majority of them aren’t even qualified in the particular areas of interest in regards to the collapse of the Twin Towers — which, by the way, was not anything even remotely akin to any kind of “controlled demolition”. Hell, it wasn’t “controlled” anything.

        And it was in fact OBL that orchestrated it, unless you actually have some real and verifiable information to prove otherwise (which you quite clearly don’t and never will because it doesn’t exist). And no, he didn’t die of Marfan’s Syndrome, either, nor has there ever been any medical evidence whatsoever to suggest it.

        Do I believe the “official” story? Not out-right on its face, no, and especially not the NIST report.

        But a bunch of clearly falsifiable, unscientific, unsubstantiated, and wholly indefensible theories aren’t exactly going to be my go-to, either.

        You are stuck with your brain turned off, dude.

        • There is PLENTY of evidence that Osama did indeed die of complications of Marfan’s. He was visited shortly before 911 by a CIA agent at a hospital in Dubai.

          Osama was a creation of the CIA, considered a valuable “asset” from the days of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. There are pictures, available online, of Osama and Zbigniew Brzezinski. And that is a fact, along with strong evidence he was dead of Marfans before the end of 2001.

          Think about the ridiculous official story that he was in a CAVE in Afghanistan, with no electricity, receiving kidney dialysis. Official story. I mean LIE. The story is absurd on its face.

      • What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      • 9/11 was a case of severe criminal incompetence and negligence. Nobody went to prison for it and should have.

        I suppose its just “easier” to accept that a handful of terrorist outsmarted the entire security and intelligence apparatus of the western hemisphere to conduct one of the most infamous crimes in history.

        • You must be schizophrenic, because that statement is chock full of internal contradictions.

  2. As a non-military person, the first time I heard that military people weren’t allowed to have firearms on base, I think my jaw dropped.

    It seemed so illogical (and still is) that the very people who defend the nation.. can’t carry a freaking gun with them on the military base. To me this is a cornerstone of the military – personal defense (if not the very basis of the fighting forces themselves).

    I think its also symptomatic of the military moving towards an intelligence-based, administrative machine in which very few of the forces are trained in actual combat. That a different tangent though, for a different day.

    • I was also stunned and surprised. It seems ridiculous. I am curious as to how far back this policy goes.

      The current version of DoD Directive 5210.56 was issued on April 1, 2011. However, this replaced a directive of the same number that was issued on February 25, 1992. The version from 1992 replaced a directive of the same number from May 10, 1969.

      A related directive, DoD Directive 5012.66, was apparently implemented in 1986 but was canceled by the updated directive 5210.56 in 1992.

      FWIW, I haven’t been able to find online (with brief searching) either the May 10, 1969 version of DoD Directive 5210.56, or DoD Directive 5210.66 that was issued on March 17, 1986. I am curious if the 1969 directive and 1986 directives replaced older directives that covered the same issues.

      • John Lott was on the Mark Levin Show talking about this, and he said that during his research, the start of this policy went back to the George H.W. Bush administration. He didn’t specify if this was a directive from the president himself or not, but Lott said that part of the reason was that officials wanted military work environments to feel “professional”, like a business. They felt that anyone with a firearm went against that environment. Dunno the amount of truth about it, but all I can say is the sheer idiocy of “no personal firearms on base”. Ironically, on Fort Bragg there is (was?) a club firing range open to the public. Fort Bragg’s policy was the same as any other base (no POF) but in order to take it to the range on base, you can take it but you had to store it with ammo separately, and you had to go directly to and from the range with no stops. I also recall going through Fort Meade one time on my way to another base. I had to stay for one night on the base, and so I called up the Provost Marshall about whether or not I had to register my personal handgun since I had no other place to put it. He pretty much told me as long as it was only for one night, kept ammo separate and kept the handgun in a lockbox of some sort, they can ignore the fact I brought in on base. So from my experience there are always exceptions to the policy, but always with strings attached.

      • Thank you. Can we please stop referring to it as “the Clinton law” or even “the Bush/Clinton law” — it isn’t legislation, and it wasn’t put in place by Clinton. Slick Willy signed plenty of laws and executive orders to restrict gun sale, possession, and importation, but a base carry ban wasn’t one of them.
        If the operators of this site find evidence to the contrary, please let us know. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton.html

        • As someone on the right I don’t give a crap who started/implemented/waved a wand/wished/demanded the practice of no personal weapons. If it makes the Left happy I’m all for an Evil Bush Stupidity Repeal Act of 2014 to allow personal weapons again if that is what it takes for the idiot Left to agree to the measure.

          However, I’m pretty darn sure we won’t see a change as long as Jughead is sitting in the big chair.

    • Patrick, Andrew- you are not alone- many “civilians” with no experience in the military forget that the military follows the chain of command, that leads to civilian control in the Commander-in-Chief. And you want it that way, as it is written in the Constitution, to prevent the kinds of coups and takeovers and domination of politics the Founder’s were familiar with from their own history (France under Napoleon, for example).

      Having worked closely with flag officers (Generals, Admirals) I can tell you you dont get to that position in America’s professional forces, if you are an idiot. And yes, politics are involved- not right-left, but the simple kind of knowing whats going on, and how to work within that framework, to get the mission done.

      So if you want to change policy on base, as to self-defense, the simplest best way is make it happen, as a citizen is to DIRECTLY talk to your Elected Representatives, and give money to the groups of people who feel the same way, or better yet, give some of your time finding and educating other voters, and help them to do the same, and most important- TO VOTE!

      Its slow, messy, and as Churchill once said “democracy is the worst form of government known to mankind…until you compare it to the rest”.

      “soapbox OFF”

    • It’s not just being able to carry on base. It’s also about having guns in general. To bring a weapon onto the base you have to:

      – Notify the gate gaurds when you drive through the gate (which may/maynot spark a vehicle search)

      – AND the weapon has to be locked and inaccessible by the driver in the driver seat.

      – The ammo must be locked separately from the gun with feeding devices and also out of reach.

      These rules prevent military members from easily transitioning to CCW’ing off base when their shift is over or before their shifts on the way to work.

      Note to criminals: Commuting military members may have guns in their cars that you can easily take without fear of being shot.

    • Great post. What you should garner from this:

      A. The military doesn’t give two sh*ts about American fighting men. They’re viewed as an expendable resource. Any trooper at the VA hospital will confirm this for you.

      B. The military’s view of the future of combat warfare concerns robot soldiers. This is literal, not metaphorical. Their plans include a totally robotic fighting force, with robots that will fight strictly under their instruction sets. They will kill without compunction or conscience. Human soldiers will be phased out gradually and totally. This is DARPA’s game plan.

      Do you agree that this must be stopped, at all cost?

  3. Look to see what tactics have been used in other parts of the world with other terrorist groups.
    Car bombs, killing of soft targets (off duty Police and Government officials). Infrastructure. Financial targets.
    Closing down the Financial markets of London or New York does more damage than taking out a few replaceable assets.
    Money needs to be spent in intelligence, not more guards on building.

    • Michael,

      I do not know about anyone who is advocating spending money for armed guards at soft targets. Most if not all of us who comment on this site are advocating for the state and federal governments to stop criminalizing the good people of the U.S.A. who want to be armed to defend themselves and others at public locations and soft targets.

      We the People always have been and always will be the true “first responders”. All we need is for government to get out of the way so We the People can take care of business if a spree killer or terrorists attack. And that doesn’t cost any tax money.

      • They will NOT “get out of the way”. They will resist this with naked force at every turn.

        If we really want to survive, they must be gotten rid of, at all cost.

  4. I think you forgot about the Boston Bombing. I see that as a type of IED and that type of event is probably more likely.

    As far as Lone Wolf type of attacks from mentally ill persons, they are not common but they will continue to happen. We have two problems. We do not know how to tell which people will be trigger by some event that makes them rage against everyone. Not everyone with a mental illness nor the need for the drugs that treats certain symptoms are at risk as spree killers, however, as a society via the media has hyper stigmatized these conditions such that people who could be easily treated may not seek treatment — which could lead to mass shooting incident. Instead, politicians and people being as they are, will probably throw a blanket over the whole lot and call it a day because finding real solutions takes time, money and patience — and that last bit — patience has gone away between 24/7 news feeds and social media everything demands and instant up to the minute solution even when none exists or is possible.

    Some of these problem have been given to much emphasis because in a hyper connect world with real-time news it seems like bad things happen all the time. The problem may not be as bad as it is perceived.

    On the issue of guns — we have smoke detectors/smoke alarms, defibulator hanging on the wall, amber alerts, 911 — but even with all that — we cannot yet seem to have a society that can accept that we need an arm self response to when bad things happen.

    Part of this is because the USA due to geography and power has been for the most part isolated from things like the Israeli people deal with daily — under the constant threat of attack. Although, it would seem like people in the inner urban areas with high crime rates would think that this would be necessary, however they have been trained to stay inside, lock your doors and call the police — the thought of self preservation seems to have left their souls.

    I am not sure what event will eventually allow to understand that government cannot protect them and they are their own first responders. The medias propaganda and 24/7 BS is a powerful siren song that gives government an illusion of their ability to protect people.

    It is going to take a very painful event to make people finally turn on their views.

  5. Nothing would please a bunch of America haters more than to to inflict 15 minutes of catastrophe on an American military base inside America, proving how weak we are. In a conflict there is always the possibility of friendly fire. If the possibility of friendly fire stopped people from going into battle, we’d never do it.

    • Shooting a good guy is a danger, but I think it’s way overstated. Joe Zamudio, hopped up on adrenaline and running to the Tucson shooting scene, had the presence of mind to notice the Glock’s slide locked back, and didn’t even draw. The media wanted to play him up as a menace who “almost shot the wrong guy,” but the fact is he didn’t. I suspect (hope) we all would be as astute.

    • Good point dwb. It is called the “fog of war”.

      What people fail to grasp is that there are always casualties in war. It is impossible to eliminate casualties. All we can do is minimize casualties. As harsh as it sounds, 4 dead people — including one bystander who died from “friendly fire” — is much better outcome than 16 dead and 25 wounded people.

    • Who are the “America haters” and enemies of freedom? Our own government, and no one else.

      Who “hates our freedoms” more than our own government and their toadies?

  6. I worry we will see an event like the Call of Duty MW2 Mission “Remember, no Russian” in my lifetime.

  7. Just imagine what it would be like if someone held up a mall in the US like they did in Kenya.

    It could easily happen, and it could be done with a decent amount of people with sharp sticks, much less firearms.

    Scary stuff.

    • Absolutely. I responded below about the same time you were.

      More armed citizens = better on scene response AND more deterrence.

    • I couldn’t agree more. Just this morning, in a different forum, a member was stating their reluctance to carry all the time, everywhere. The guy stated that he only felt the need to carry when he was headed to some place ‘sketchy,’ or somewhat dangerous…so why in the name of all that is Holy are you going to that location!?! That is the kind of thinking that puts you in a horrible situation with no chance of defending yourself. It’s idiotic, and I simply don’t understand how anybody with a valid permit takes that position.

      None of us know when, where, or how we may come under attack. None of us know if we ever will come under attack. That is why you ALWAYS carry. Murders and assaults are not isolated to ‘the hood.’ It’s a fallacy that many of our brethren should come to realize.

      • “It’s a fallacy that many of our brethren should come to realize.”

        +1000.

        Sadly, there are a number of such fallacies that permeate popular thinking.

      • Correct. Sadly, its the nicest, least ‘sketchy’ places that are the ideal targets- and I apologize for stating the obvious to some, and to those who are responsible for protecting those places, and wish people wouldnt talk about it- and fear some loose screw will get an idea-

        but the fact is, there will always be loose screws- Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, the schizo kook who shot up the Kelly Elementary school in Carlsbad, who was stopped by a couple of workers who charged him while he was reloading- (what was not well covered was a neighbor who grabbed his gun and had hopped the fence and was right behind them…) and saved who knows how many kids and playground adult monitors, in the few minutes before the cops got there- and very GOOD cops in that town, btw, with main office just a couple miles away…

        The point being- you simply cant protect against the loose screws, by taking guns away from the law abiding, as the loose screws, and worse- common criminals, and worse- organized terrorists DONT OBEY THE LAW.

        Unfortunately, this point is lost upon the sheep, who fear the sheepdogs, and until the wolf is there, wont listen and learn. History repeats, and new generations of sheep have to learn the hard way, it seems.

        In the meantime, all you can do is be prepared to protect your own. And by that, for anyone listening in, I mean, by the rules, individually, with lawful gun ownership and carry. And until those rules are changed, by working to inform, educate, and vote out the rule makers who dont agree. Thats how it works, until TSHTF, and if and when it does, and I pray to god it doesn’t and thank all the unsung heroes in national security and LEOs who tirelessly work to prevent that,

        then the ONLY thing we citizens can do, while working to inform others and educate our law-makers, is be individually prepared to defend ones own, and thats plenty to do, to do it well. So thanks TTAG for helping with that. Its all good.

    • No, it doesn’t. Soldiers on bases are intended to fear the same things we fear. The object is a fearful populace that will depend upon the police to save them.

      How sick is that?

  8. The possibility exists also that these spree killings and ‘lone wolf’ attacks are studied by the terrorists as much as they are studied by the rest of us.

    They are measuring response times, police tactics, odds of armed citizen response, policy changes, etc.

    Are the attacks themselves orchestrated? Maybe that’s tin foil hat area. But no mistake, our nation’s enemies are very likely collecting and processing the data made available to them by ‘lone, independent actors.’

    This further enhances the “more armed citizens the better” battle cry. If the terrorists see every day citizens fighting back, minimizing the “terror” they can cause, perhaps the less likely they will try stuff.

    We will never know what waves off some attacks….some that were not uncovered or investigated. The fog of war works both ways. The more armed response our citizenry can muster, the more likely the bad guys back off unawares.

    • Don’t give them too much credit. The terrorists we face are all too often inept and downright bungling. It would be amusing if not for their persistence eventually creating casualties.

      They may not be “studying” per se, but enough of these incidents caused by ridiculous policies that create a lack of public safety (ie: gun free zones, more scrutiny on political opposition groups than actual threats, etc.) the more likely it will eventually penetrate their consciousness that America has plenty of soft targets.

      A Mumbai or Kenyan style spree is only a matter of time. Many people predicted a major terrorist attack like what happened on 9/11. Not with airliners specifically but something major that likely could have been prevented if we had been paying attention. We learned all the wrong lessons. Now, again, people familiar with terrorists see the pattern but those who make policy are still responding to the tactics that are now a decade old.

      While we harass US Citizens with ridiculous TSA policies the next attack will not be from the air.

      • “The terrorists we face are all too often inept and downright bungling.”

        Read the Art of War. Number 35: Do NOT underestimate your enemy.

        They may not “study” it in the sense we often think of that term. But “notice” what they need to notice to be effective most certainly.

        • Inept of course not to be confused with non-threatening. I used to work with the criminal element in a civilian capacity. Up close and personal with law enforcement. You do not have to be smart to be a thug and no thug I ever met personally was intelligent though many thought they were.

          They are still dangerous, I just don’t think they study us or are near as smart as some people make them out to be. However, like I said, how many times do we have to demonstrate how exposed we are before they take advantage.

          9/11 was a clear exploitation of America’s belief that terrorists would negotiate. Now that people know they might actually die if terrorists take over a plane you won’t be able to bring a bazooka onboard without people fighting back.

          How long before they take advantage of our security theater, which extends far beyond our airports? I can’t help but wonder if the Boston bombing wasn’t just a warm up act. 2 guys with a pressure cooker and a handgun shut down a major American city. What happens when a major attack comes? What if they hit more than one city simultaneously? The body count may not compare to 9/11 but the panic that will ensue will make previous attacks look like a bad picnic.

  9. Many Americans still think we run around with machineguns all day long on military bases and don’t understand we were disarmed long ago.If I could carry a weapon on base I would, but I would rather carry one of my personal weapons than the beat to hell, shot out, rattle trap M9s we would have to carry.

  10. According the the gun control groups, it is much too easy to obtain “assault” weapons in the U.S. because the background checks are lacking, some states don’t have enough laws, whatever garbage excuse they want to give. We also have too much freedom, according to some of the proponents of more governmental surveillance and control. So why have we not seen another major terrorist attack on our country, like the mall and school attacks mentioned? Nothing is stopping people from meeting together, thanks to the First Amendment, and not much is stopping them from arming themselves thanks to the Second Amendment.

    Why have we not seen a massive attack here on our own soil? I think partly it’s because the terrorists drastically underestimated our response when they hijacked those planes. A country like Kenya is not going to deliver the same type of military response to the other side of the world like the U.S. will do, has done and is doing. Of course we are constantly talking about the terror threat, and many Americans live in constant fear of a terror attack, and the thing is that FEAR alone is the goal of terrorism.

    That is the other reason I believe we haven’t seen a large attack since 2001, because the terrorists have succeeded in part. We have reduced freedoms and increased governmental oversight, and Americans have to be extra careful in many parts of the world compared to the past. We are constantly talking in the media and in our personal lives about an inevitable attack. We are already living in a heightened state of fear and as a superpower we are quickly losing more and more influence throughout the world every day.

    I do think we need to be cognizant of the fact that a new attack is possible and likely, but I also think we need to understand that we are suffering from the terror of past attacks. That same terror is what is driving the gun control efforts thanks to the sensationalized attacks by people like the Fort Hood shooters. However, if the threat of an external terror attack is what we need to use in order to protect the rights we have been guaranteed by our Constitution since the day it was ratified, then I guess we must continue to suffer in terror.

  11. Good article, but I take issue to one thing. In the 8th paragraph when you mention the havoc wreaked by the Columbine shooters, you say that their bombs would have killed hundreds of children. Not children, teenagers and young adults. I’m sure it was just an honest mistake, but that’s one of the antis favorite tricks for convincing people that owning guns is dangerous, misrepresenting the accidental shooting statistic by referring to anyone who is not legally an adult as a “child”. While technically true, it’s still extremely misleading.

  12. Read Tom Clancy’s “Teeth of the Tiger” and see how a coordinated terrorist plot to attack soft targets seems like childsplay for a dedicated terrorist organization to carry out, and see how much damage it can do to Americans’ sense of security.

  13. I am conflicted on arming soldiers.

    On one hand I am firmly in the natural, god given, right to bear arms camp.

    On the other I was a junior enlisted infantryman in the Army at the age of 18 back in 2001. Let me just say lower enlisted soldiers are not exactly responsible decision makers. You stick and M4 in to a PFC’s hands in the field or in combat and he is a highly trained killing machine ready to serve his country. You do the same thing in garrison and he is most likely drunk and not interested in the responsibility.

    I DO THINK that soldiers shouldn’t be disarmed, in the sense of not being allowed to carry on bases. I really don’t think that they should be issued arms in garrison though. For most soldiers, especially those in combat arms, deployments and training take up a lot of time and are stress inducing. Garrison is a place for those soldiers to decompress and more often then not act a bit crazy to get some of the worked up stress out.

    I think most anyone who has served and lived on base in barracks can share crazy stories of their time there where adding firearms into the mix may have had bad side effects, so I understand commanders desire to remove that element from barracks life. I do think the way it is enforced is completely stupid. But the way the military does a lot of things is stupid.

    Ultimately I fall on the side of removing the gun free zone on military bases for those who want to carry (which would have to be concealed or you would other wise be out of uniform while on duty). But I fall short of those saying we should arm, as in actually hand out firearms, to all soldiers on base.

    • Even if we don’t want to have a bunch of 18 year olds running around with M4’s, there is no reason why NCO’s and Officers cannot carry a sidearm at all times and anyone with a CCW at Ft. Hood should have been able to carry according to Texas law.

      The total disarmament though is inexcusable.

    • I hear this argument alot, but i always retort, who’s at fault? Why isn’t leadership making sure the junior soldiers are proficient and responsible for their arms? It’s a failure of leadership. And you don’t have to be the smartest person to be responsible, you can be a dumb mother and still maintain your weapon responsibily. In contrast, I have seen “smart” people forget their weapon in a porta-john. If a soldier is incapable of maintaining their weapon, then train, train, train. If they are truly a danger to others, that make exceptions for them. But if you can’t trust a servicemembers with weapons in the Military, why are they in the military? At the VERY least have NCOs, Officers and staff duty armed.

    • Adam,

      I think the answer is exceedingly simple. First, we should NOT mandate that all military personnel are armed. Rather, we should mandate that anyone who wants to be armed can be armed. And we mandate appropriate discipline (both cultural mindset and enforcement of best practices) of anyone who wishes to be armed.

      It really is that simple. Anyone who wants to be armed can be, they are responsible for their behavior and actions, and We the People hold each other accountable for responsible behavior. Why does this escape so many people?

    • Having followed the last couple of big fires out west, in curiousity about how to access information online- and how grass-roots organizations using new technology supersede top-down government efforts, I came across some interesting speculation about that, in the 2008 fires.

      Don’t know the current state of thinking, but it would be part of an effective multi-pronged strategy to overwhelm public services, creating a state of chaos that in itself, serves the ends, of any assymetric warfare strategy used by state-supported terrorists who are either themselves the initiators, or the proxies of states that oppose the US.

      Frankly, it disgusts me that this current administration runs war-games and FEMA scenarios that depend upon foolish descriptions of home-grown miltia of the right-wing sort, you know- disaffected vets, bitter clingers, and so on- when the obvious threat is REAL, and outside our borders, from nation-states and cultures that harbor diametrically opposed notions of human rights and freedoms, and demonstrate those in action against their neighbors, and own citizens. This is not some conspiracy theory- just read the newspapers and connect the dots.

  14. “Gun Free Zones” are a killers wet dream. Highest victim zones anywhere. Liberals want more gun free zones thus they want a higher body count and more killing. Bama is moving forward to disarm our military to the time before WWII. He is trying to solve the spree killer in gun free zone issue by disarming everyone outside the gun free zones as well. Commie is as commie does.

  15. Yes it could have been a LOT worse. So glad my son is no longer active military. Cannon fodder indeed.

  16. The “Terrorists” aren’t going to attack as long as they’ve got Ayatollah Obama doing their field work for them. They’re sitting over their in their caves and Yurts, watching their satellite TVs, seeing Obama destroy America from within a thousand times better than any “terrorist” could dream of, laughing their asses off.

  17. Would be willing to bet that Lopez was forced to take anti-malaria drugs on his deployment. Mefloquine (Larium) is screwing up the brains of a lot of soldiers and more shootings like this are likely on military bases.

  18. Unfortunately, I agree with Robert on this article.

    Not to get all tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory, but we only have to look at the open-source info out there, and connect the dots. Increasing connections between Islamofascist and the left in South America, including at the State level- ie gun, drug, money laundering via Venezuela, Cuba, and in Mexico, and coming across the southern border into the US is just one part of it, and a Beslan scenario, or Kenya mall are the kinds of events that scares the crap out of the professional law enforcement types, according to one trainer of those trainers who spoke about it, in re: Beslan- Col Dave Grossman, US Army, professor of History at West Point, and now doing seminars around the country, promoting his books, including lessons from the battlefield, “Bullet Proof Mind”.

    Organized criminals- ie Narco’s and state supported terrorists have the same needs and distribution channels.

    Assymentric warfare is about taking advantage of the size difference, to use their size and slowness against the foe, and terror is the most effective, in the short-term against a less resolute opponent. We can see the lack of resolution in the current administration, that posed Iraq as a failed war, and promoted Afghanistan, which was already “won” as the new war, to show Obama’s hawkish creds to get elected, and the abandonment of that effort, including all the people in Afghanistan who will suffer- primarily women, who will be back to being stoned, genitally mutilated, and forced out of schools- by the Talib, as they were before. War on Women, indeed…. but I digress, only because you WONT read that in the StateRunMedia.

    We are in the Long War, against the fascism of Islam, which is not a religion, but a death cult that is based upon domination that has nothing but rage to offer, until people wake up. That state run fascism shares the same ends and means as progressive fascism, by the way, and the same belief in the “ends justify the means” by the elites.

    What to do- Education and information is the antidote, as sunlight is to darkness. And that includes telling the truth about the culture war between the prog-tards and the rest of us.
    2A rights are like the canary in the coal mine because its the first sign that something bad is in the air.

    Sorry to be so blunt, thats just how it is. This War on Islamofascism” is really about human freedom, and as history has proven, the left has no morals, no lack of funds, and no shortage of innocent and ignorant people to co-opt. Therefore, this war will take generations, and make “The Cold War” look laughable in retrospect.

  19. RF, the issue you raise is important and can be the important argument for gun rights.
    Will we have to have, two or three non-psycho attacks (terrorist) for politicians to realize that “gun circle slash” will not deter a religious fanatic. The laws that have generated the weapon restrictions and GFZ’s were created due mostly to the mentally ill shoot-ups.
    I would hate for a politically/religiously motivated massacre by multiple individuals to actually happen to be the only thing that will make them change their mind that a vigilant and armed populace is the solution to both types of mass shooting.
    Thus it may be in our strategy to emphasize gun rights as means of national defense.

    They still have the approach ,Gun criminals are Americans and gun victims are Americans so let’s get rid of guns. Us against us.
    Although on a day to day basis, we are probably more concerned individually, with personal security from criminals, than terrorist, it makes no difference upon which threat we arm, train and prepare ourselves.

    Personal defense arguments seems to be invalidated by politicians because they have this idea that allowing Americans to arm themselves, is the same as arming criminals as well, thus disarming all is, well, disarming ALL. Of course we know that it only disarms the non-criminal. The issue gets muddled when it is us against us.

    A Nairobi type Mall type attack within the U.S. would be from “Outsiders”. To raise gun rights issues as a matter of national defense may get more political “gription*”. If given a choice, Soccer, Mall Moms just may demand action when they realize that a terrorist attack changes things to US against THEM and maybe it is better that “US” are prepared and armed.

    *Gription
    A word invented by my then 4 year old son, when after getting a new pair of tennis, describing his ability to make quick turns, starts and stops because they had good “gription”.

  20. Based on the two Ft. Hood mass shootings and the DC navy yard shooting, it seems obvious that a Mumbai-style attack on a US base is possible (maybe likely) and that it might kill hundreds of defenseless soldiers or sailors. It would also be a crushing blow to military morale.

    The enemy isn’t stupid. They can see and they can read. They understand that our own military “leaders” view the troops as mere cannon fodder and will do nothing to protect them or allow them to protect themselves.

    Military bases are becoming softer targets than grade schools or marathons. Expect them to get shot up.

  21. And during the 20 years I put in the Army, I could have sworn all along there were no personal firearms allowed on post unless they were stored in the Arms Room or one lived in on-post quarters. Soldiers living in the barracks have NEVER been able to possess/keep personally owned firearms. In 92, at Ft. Bragg, I had to have the Post Provost Marshall’s office sign off on my request to purchase a firearm to keep in my purchased house off post in N.C.

  22. Terrorists control through fear, so while it’s nessascary to be aware of threats remember to not live your life in fear. I know guys who carry who are constantly afraid, and it affects thier quality of life.

    There’s a lot of good discussion going on here, but allowing NCOs and Officers to carry sidearms isn’t particularly practice, as there are not enough M9s to go around, so they’d have to be personally owned guns. Also, there aren’t many if any 1911s in armories as basically no line unit issues it. I also see no issue with having junior enlisted members carrying personally owned firearms, maybe there could be a special CC permit for active military, but with the same requirments as anybody else? Obviously this would be if bases were no longer gun free zones.

  23. “Americans are laboring under the false impression that the next terrorist attack will be another cataclysmic, 9/11-style assault.”

    If you don’t think this “attack” is coming, you’re fooling yourself, Robert. It will be a nuclear attack on a major city. Like Chicago. Or Denver.

    Or maybe it will be a “dirty bomb” attack. Or maybe it will be on a smaller city, such as Charleston. And it will be blamed on “right wingers”. Or gun owners.

    How convenient.

  24. I think that we need to have “shall issue” carry permits to members of the armed forces that will allow them to carry on base (any base) without the permission of the base commander, and either concealed or otherwise.

    The requirements could be very strict – clean record, good hygiene, proper haircut, works and plays well with others – but there would be lots of qualified applicants.

    Of course, the REMF’s would game the system, to place black marks on the record of anybody who they disliked, just to prevent them from carrying, but they wouldn’t get everybody, and the remnant would be enough to handle most shooters.

    If I were president, I would at least permit, and possibly require, that all officers and non-coms have a weapon either on their person, or in their reach, or at least under their control; locked in the closet or desk.

  25. Ummm…allowing personal weapons on base is very different from allowing the open or concealed carry of a handgun by active military personnel who are on or off duty. Doing so would require a change in rules where responsibility is limited to the person carrying the weapon. The current rules hold the officer in charge responsible for misdeeds of subordinates, as I understand it.

    • “Permission required.” This is slavery, and that’s the long and short of it. How can we support a government that requires permission to exercise one’s rights?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *