Previous Post
Next Post


As we noted, the investigation into last week’s terrrorist attack on two Chattanooga military facilities seemed to indicate that, despite policy, at least one Marine was armed at the time. Now, according to a Navy Times report two servicemen with guns engaged the shooter. “A Navy officer and a Marine fired their sidearms hoping to kill or subdue the gunman who murdered five service members last week in Chattanooga, Tennessee, according to multiple military officials familiar with internal reporting on the tragedy.” Good to hear, right? Well . . .

That depends. It will take our friends in the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex about five femtoseconds to spout their narrative of choice: See! They were armed and it didn’t matter! Guns don’t solve anything!

Second Amendment supporters will have their own story: Thank God at least two of them were packing and returned fire! Think how much worse it would have been if they hadn’t!

Where do you come down?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The real sick thing is there are people who are happy this guy didn’t stop the threat and not just jihadis

    • One of the reports seemed to initially indicate that the marine may have wounded the gunman. The reports were all indicating he was killed by the police, so it will be interesting to see who’s gun fired the fatal shot. This definitely isn’t over, especially if the gunman was wounded or killed by one of the armed military personnel.

      I believe the armed marine was killed, but the reports are all so contradictory. What will be sad is if one or both are still alive and they are charged with carrying a firearm in a federally restricted zone. 🙁 In my book, they are heroes either way!

      • Oh, they’ll be punished. They can’t have members violating policy and get away with it, regardless the results.

        • I’ve no doubt that Dear Leader will recognize the Second Amendment as protecting the right of that Jihadi to carry weapons, and prosecute those policy violators on base…

        • Any chickenshit person bringing disciplinary action against these men should be requried to suck start an M1911A1.

        • Blue,
          I like that phrase. I’ll have to remember and use it:-)

          There are plenty of officers and senior enlisted that would push to bury these guys under Leavenworth. Most of the ones I met long ago like this didnt have combat experience and/or were REMF’s (rear echelon MF’s) and these weasels hide until the wars over and then they come back out of hiding and take over.

      • ” What will be sad is if one or both are still alive and they are charged with carrying a firearm in a federally restricted zone. 🙁 In my book, they are heroes either way!”

        When in inevitable Congressional hearings are eventually convened, the Marine Commandant or Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff should be asked under oath if the service members who were armed would have been court-martialed if they survived.

        But I’m not holding my breath.

      • Someone had posted that the Chatt police carry HK .45s, this should be easily distinguished from the more common and more likely 9mm of a serviceman. There should be local civilian observers overseeing the autopsy findings. It’s always bothered me that no local police officer was trotted forward as being the hero in Abdulazeez’s nebulous demise. His pristine ‘escape vehicle’ doesn’t help their case either. Nor do multiple eyewitnesses who kept referring to the culprit as a ‘white man’. Abdulazeez isn’t easily confused for caucasian.

        • If they were carrying sidearms, they would have been personal weapons, not issued weapons, which means no assumptions can be made to the caliber they used.

    • They haven’t released the autopsy report yet so haven’t disclosed who’s bullet stopped him.
      Even so, someone shooting back must have slowed him down at a minimum.
      Somehow, they aren’t reporting this over at MSNBC yet.

      • Outcome doesn’t matter. Maybe they stopped the threat and maybe they didn’t. Heck, maybe shooting back made it worse somehow. Doesn’t matter. People have the right to defend themselves. Succeeding in it isn’t part of that. Success isn’t a right, nor is it guaranteed. But having the chance or at least the choice is a natural human right. Fighting back and dying is better than being tied to a stake like a veal calf and dying. IMHO. But my opinion doesn’t matter either; it’s each individual’s choice to make. MDA can’t tell me I need to die defenseless and hopeless any more than I would suggest people take up arms if they don’t want to.

  2. And I hate to think that they’ll be somehow dishonored and slandered by the establishment even after they died defending their comrades because they dared to take their defense into their own hands and refused to lay down and die.

    And yes, I do believe the commanders and politicians like the thought of dead servicemen. Cause it gives them a twofold advantage of using the bloody shirt to push gun control and use the narrative of “sacrifice”. God I hate that friggin’ word.

    • The military leadership are risk adverse. They are more concerned with accidental discharge/negligent discharge than a terrorist attack. AD/ND ruins officers’ careers, terrorist attacks don’t. Yes, this may sound cynical, but as a retired senior NCO veteran, I promise you it’s true. Go see what General Odierno said if you don’t believe me, and he’s a combat veteran.

      • I believe the leadership is far more worried about suicides in on-base housing than NDs because they’re fucking up the post deployment treatment of their combat vets.

        • You’re allowed to store your firearms in on-base housing. You’re not allowed to have firearms in dormitories, or CCW on base anywhere.

    • I read a report (fox maybe?) that the sailor who was carrying was the CO of the base, so hopefully there won’t be any disgracing of these soldiers, since COs have the final say on carry right? Or have I missed something in all I’ve read?

      • I was right. Frontt page at Fox. The sailor was Lt. Commander White, commanding officer of the reserve center.

      • He has a chain of command above him. Absent immediate and substantial political pressure from Congress I’ll predict the Whitehouse and DOD/Navy are going to quietly pillory this officer. They will try to keep it hidden. Unlikely an O4 has enough time in service to be forced into an early retirement (the usual method).

        Watch this one play out.

        • He’ll be courts martialed for discharging his firearm without authorization and endangering people in the area.

        • Yup, he’s toast, even if he can request and get Captains Mast, it will be kiss of death on fitrep.
          Think of it, a warrior cashiered for defending his troops.

    • The unwritten rule in the Corps is…it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission. And if the rule was broken and lives were saved, they’ll go through the process and dismiss the charge.

  3. Seatbelts don’t always prevent injury or death. We should do away with them.
    Fire extinguishers don’t always put out fires. We should do away with them.
    Hospitals aren’t always effective at curing the ill. We should do away with them.

    You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” – Wayne Gretzky

    What kind of sick person would argue that all would-be victims should be disarmed and rendered completely defenseless, simply because firearms don’t ensure 100% effectiveness when used in self-defense?

  4. A Navy officer is not a GI (General Infantryman). Unfortunately though, the military takes a very dim view of those who don’t follow orders and his career is over. But, before anyone else spews it, better to judged by 12…

    • According to the sources I’ve seen, “GI” stands for Government Issue or General Issue. It used to be stamped on issued gear, leading the soldiers wearing that gear to become known as GI’s.

    • Actually, “GI” stands for “Gub’ment Issue”. Though I’ve never heard it referred to about anyone other than materiel and enlisted swine. 😉

      On that note, my favorite line from “China Beach”: “It’s not the best equipment money can buy, it’s equipment sold by the lowest bidder.”

      And what’s that I smell… A “Captain’s Mast” x2? CYA time, for sure.

      • “It’s not the best equipment money can buy, it’s equipment sold by the lowest bidder.”

        I have heard the grunts in ‘Nam discovered while cleaning their new M-16s the contractor that made the plastic stock was Mattel…

        • >> I have heard the grunts in ‘Nam discovered while cleaning their new M-16s the contractor that made the plastic stock was Mattel…

          The soldiers were ironically called them “Mattel toys” (and specifically use the line from the original Mattel ads, “You can tell it’s Mattel”) because compared to M14 that they were previously issued, it was light and had a lot of plastic parts. But they weren’t actually made by Mattel.

          Not that there was anything wrong with the plastic furniture of the gun, anyway. It was the govt skimping on things like chrome-plating (particularly the gas tube) and using a cheap but dirty powder that caused most of the early troubles with it.

        • “But they weren’t actually made by Mattel.”

          Thanks for the clarification…

          I oughtta know better, like an anti, believing what I’ve heard…


        • Yep. We called them Mattel Specials even tho Mattel didn’t make them. We also called them mouse guns, cause we figured that was what they were suitable to shoot. Later, I heard people calling them poodle shooters.

          I cannot recall a single person in my outfit that liked or trusted the m16. I,like many of my fellows, got a sidearm thru less than approved channels to back up the rifle.

          And yes, we actually did sing the Mickey Mouse Club theme song while strolling down country lanes.

    • I guess I stand corrected:

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      G.I.s from the 25th Infantry Division in the jungle of Vella Lavella during Operation Cartwheel (13 September 1943).
      G.I. is a noun used to describe the soldiers of the United States Army and airmen of the United States Army Air Forces — and occasionally for U.S. Marines and shorebound sailors — and also for general items of their equipment.[1]

      The term G.I. has been used for a long time as an initialism of “Government Issue” or “General Issue”, but it originally referred to “galvanized iron”, as used by the logistics services of the United States Armed Forces.[2]

      The letters “G.I.” were used to denote equipment made from galvanized iron, such as metal trash cans, in U.S. Army inventories and supply records.[2][3]

      During World War I, American soldiers sardonically referred to incoming German artillery shells as “G.I. cans”. Also during that war, “G.I.” started being interpreted as “Government Issue” or “General Issue” for the general items of equipment of soldiers and airmen — especially since back at that time, the air force was part of the Army in most countries, including the United States. The term “G.I.” came into widespread use in the United States beginning with the start of selective service (“the draft”) in the peacetime year of 1940 and extending into 1941, when the draft was much resented because the United States was at peace until the Attack on Pearl Harbor (7 December 1941). Next, the use of “G.I.” exploded during the war years of 1942 through 1945.

      “G.I.” was also used as an adjective for anything having to do with the Army or the Air Force.[2] During World War II, “G.I. Joe” became the general nickname for all American soldiers, no matter what branch of the Army or Army Air Forces they were in: infantry, artillery, armor, Rangers, paratroopers, logistics, combat support, or the other support wings of the Army or the Air Force. Thus, the interpretation of “General Infantry” is incorrect because a sizable portion of soldiers and airmen are not infantrymen.

      Soldiers and airmen sardonically referred to themselves as “G.I.” = “General Issue” items, all equally as disposable as helmets, boots, tents, canteens, rifles, jeeps, trucks, tanks, and combat aircraft. They viewed themselves as being “General Issue” items of “Uncle Sam” while they were in military service.

      The American Five-star General Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1945 that “the truly heroic figure of this war [is] G.I. Joe and his counterpart in the air, the navy, and the Merchant Marine of every one of the United Nations.”[4]

      “G.I.” has also been used as a verb in military circles, and it describes a deep-cleaning process of an area or item to achieve higher-than-normal standards. Armed Services trainees, for example, could be ordered to “G.I.” a garbage can to the point that anyone could safely eat from its surface.[

      • “Galvanized Iron Joe” sounds like a fine wrestling handle from the 30s.

        Especially when I remember Gramps saying he & his buddies would get “well-oiled” on cheap booze for the weekends.

        I hope he wasn’t stationed in ‘Frisco, then…

      • When a group of us were detailed to do some of that extra nice cleaning that the military loves so well, we called that a “G.I. Party.”

  5. I think it stupid to infringe on anyones rights to self defense. Doubly (if not more) stupid to infringe that right when its a service person, or any extension of any service branch. Too bad the service men didn’t have long guns. No question in my mind: returning fire, at minimum, made the offensive fire less effective.

  6. Let me put this together. Soldiers, Marines even, fired back. Unable to subdue the threat…the Disarmament Complex will allege what exactly?

    That guns don’t matter? Even soldiers can’t defend themselves? Because now…I’d say the rabbit hole has started to loop. If one man with a gun, any Joe Shmo, can kill any number of people “highly trained” with “little training” then…why can’t we Joe Shmos carry again? Or soldiers? Or any targeted class of people? Or people period?

    Cuz it sounds like they want to allege shooting a gun at people makes you invincible. So…can’t anyone shoot back and gain this same invincible nature? Or do “Bad guys” automatically win…for some reason unnamed?

    What am I missing in the “guns are bad” narrative that ties this together?

    • LC Judas,

      You are making my point for me: gun-grabbers say anything and everything without any regard to whether or not they contradict themselves. And why do they do that? It is their only play: strike a chord with the people in their audience to “win” the audience over to their side. In other words say something that moves the listener emotionally to your side.

      And since gun-grabbers are only aiming for an emotional connection, it is to their advantage to provide as many concepts as possible. It doesn’t matter how many times they “miss” — a gun-grabber only has to make a connection once to “succeed”.

      Of course all this means that gun-grabbers frequently contradict themselves and make no sense at all. No matter. They don’t have to make sense or be self-consistent. They only have to provide a message that validates the feelings of their audience.

      • What they’ll say is that the untrained assailant [at the current time he does not appear to be a jihadist, just another failure who wanted to become “famous” before he died in a suicide by cop] was able to kill so many because he was able to “spray bullets” from his “military style AK47 assault weapon” with “high capacity clips,” but that the Marines and sailors should not be allowed to carry side arms because they didn’t manage to shoot the gunman, but instead “sprayed” bullets from their “automatic pistols” that threatened harm to “innocent bystanders” and the responding police officers.

  7. If they were carrying against orders, they could be in for much trouble.

    But there is also in the military a common saying, better to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

    It will probably depend on their commanding officer, and how much outrage by the general public if they are severely reprimanded.

    • @thomasR: And politics, always politics. If the CO gets heat from above he will not be able to control what happens and his career could become one of the casualties of this incident.

    • The sad irony here is that this shooting has prompted several State governors to order, or consider ordering, the arming of Natl. Guard servicemembers on recruiting duty. But are these sailors/Marines who returned fire prior to such orders being issued, going to be covered by it?
      AFAIK, there’s no such thing as a grandfather-clause in military orders.

  8. I’m not saying this couldn’t have happened, however anyone who’s spent time in the military knows the Times papers are basically just tabloids

  9. Unfortunately, I would lay odds these two service members will be held accountable for their decision to disobey a lawful order…

    Before you start hurling spears, I am retired with 23 years of service and subjected myself to the inability to carry on base every day I went to work…

    • Oh I have no doubt. They’ll slander their records and do whatever they can to dishonor them and make sure their families don’t get their SGLI or even a proper military burial.

      All to prove a point.

    • The only action taken may simply be a less than glowing Fitness Report with an rating of Promotable vice Must or Early for the Naval Officer; something similar for the Marine on his regular performance report

      They won’t make their next rank, but I doubt they’ll go through any disciplinary process due to the negative publicity it would generate.

    • My recommendation: No loss of pay, no reduction in rank, 8 hours of extra duty (behind the firing line at the range), and a local letter of reprimand, written on toilet paper.

    • The Naval officer was the CO, and I am sure his fitrep will be F’ed with a phallic non-skid coated object and the Marine who fired back was killed, so his name will be slandered posthumously.

  10. “See! They were armed and it didn’t matter! Guns don’t solve anything!”
    Yet, as we know it now, he was killed by a cop WITH a gun. Which typifies the vast majority of these incidents. Either the perp is killed by “someone” with a gun, or kills themselves when threatened by “someone” with a gun. Yet, Wayne LaPierre gets vilified by pointing out the obvious.

    • ^ This. And from what I read, they still don’t know if the terrorist was killed by the local police, or one of the Service members. Either way, it took a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.

  11. Problem with these kinds of things is you never really know what affect Officer/Marine had and how things would have played out differently if they hadn’t been armed.

    Armed they had a chance to stop it or shorten it, or drive off the jihadi. Disarmed, they had no chance.

    • In any surreptitious attack the element of surprise will always enable the perpetrators to achieve initial success. We can never actually reduce casualties to zero, only hope. But what seems so blaringly obvious to anyone with a brain is that force must be met with overwhelming force. To wait for the cavalry to come over the hill will always enable more mayhem. Yet antis are so concerned about mythical NDs or good guys with guns turning into bad guys with guns. So we are left with the status quo. I watched the Westgate Mall videos, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, every one of those victims wished they had a gun as they were methodically slaughtered.

  12. Let me know when Barry Soetoro, Bloomberg, Shannon, Space Cadet, et al give up their security armed with pistols.

  13. I’m retired w/26yrs. Most as an AGR (Active Guard Reserve) Soldier. This was at a Reserve Center. I can say for a fact that at Guard and Reserve locations it is not uncommon to find personnel carrying POW’s (Personally Owned Weapons). I did most of the time. Why? Because when seconds count LEO’s are only minutes away. And there is far less oversight from command at Reserve Component locations, especially if there are no guards on site, which most don’t have, so many commands give tacit approval to carrying. Guards are almost exclusively only at State headquarters locations, such as Camp Murray in WA or Camp Williams in UT. There it’s more like an Active Component base.

  14. “See! They were armed and it didn’t matter! Guns don’t solve anything!”

    Yeah, that is unless one or both of the Marines who fired back scored hits, in which case it may have made the difference between 5 dead and 20 dead.

    • We’ll find out soon enough. Surely if these guys slowed the attack down and saved lives, that information will be omitted or might get a blurb in the last paragraph of any news piece. If the CO ended the threat, the story will disappear, much like the Garland Texas shootout in May.

  15. News report says the Feds are now looking at the POW use to see if they can find Friendly Fire casualties. The “illegal” guns made things WORSE narrative.

  16. Another thought: if two pistol shooters did in fact engage one rifle shooter, they may not have stopped him in the sense that their shots killed him, or even wounded him, but they may very well have stopped him in the sense that by being engaged, that forces him to change his actions. No longer able to move freely, he stops to engage the force being directed against him, which allows the LEO response to arrive with potentially more effective weapons, i.e., patrol carbines, to put a more permanent stop to events. I look forward to seeing how this turns out. Yes, I’m sure it’ll get spun in a variety of ways, but it would be nice to see a couple Navy/Marine Corps equivalents to the Soldier’s Medal being awarded rather than disciplinary action.

    • Derek,

      When a terrorist or spree killer attacks and one or more victims are armed and fight back, there are only two possible outcomes: either the attacker ignores the armed victims or the attacker engages the armed victims. If the attacker ignores the armed victims, they are clear to promptly put the attacker down and greatly reduce the casualty count. If the attacker engages the armed victims, the attacker is no longer executing victims efficiently and the reduction in casualties is a function of how long the armed victims keep the attacker engaged.

      Either way, armed victims reduce the casualty count of a terrorist or spree killer.

      I suppose I should mention that there actually is a third possible outcome: the terrorist or spree killer promptly surrenders or kills themselves upon recognizing that they are facing armed victims who are fighting back. This, too, reduces the casualty count of a terrorist or spree killer.

      As for gun-grabbers who shriek that armed victims will blast away indiscriminately and increase the casualty count, I cannot find a single instance of this ever happening anywhere in the world. Is something that has never happened anywhere, ever, really a risk?


    Now it’s being reported that some Marines saved a bunch of lives by diverting the attention of the shooter from a larger group of people. It doesn’t say whether they used firearms to divert his attention, but either way I hope they get proper credit for their actions.

  18. Any wise person understands the variables which increase exponentially in an ambush. Time, position, distance, all matters. The flip side argument is what, no ability to shoot back is a safer alternative? Okay, fine, start sending troops into war zones unarmed and see what happens. This is a no-brainer.

  19. As soon as the armed military members are identified,
    charges probably will be filed.
    I suspect they will need funds for legal representation and
    lots of public support.
    Keep us posted to links for legal defense funds.

  20. There’s no telling whether the press’ version of events is particularly accurate, but I gleaned the following sequence of events from articles at Fox News and the Navy Times:

    In the days leading up to the attack, Abdulazeez searched Islamic sites on the Internet for information about whether martyrdom would allow his sins to be forgiven. (This follows a common pattern with Muslim suicide-murderers, who are often very poor examples of the Islamic faith, but hope to seek redemption through mass homicide.)

    Abdulazeez initiated his attack from his vehicle, spraying fire into a Naval recruiting center located in a strip mall. Several dozen rounds struck the office area, but no personnel were killed. He then drove to the Navy Operational Support Center in Chattanooga while police were responding to the initial attack.

    When he reached the Operational Support Center, Abdulazeez burst through the site’s gate by hitting it with his vehicle. He was then taken under fire by a serviceman armed with a sidearm. Abdulazeez was armed with a semi-automatic pistol and a rifle.

    20 Marines and two Navy corpsmen were present in the building. The center’s personnel retreated as Abdulazeez entered. They warned personnel in other rooms, then returned to delay the pursuing terrorist as others moved clear. One serviceman was killed in the building. After leaving the building, Abdulazeez murdered two more Marines in a gated motor pool area.

    The murderer was again taken under fire after leaving the building, as service members provided covering fire while others attempted to escape over a fence.

  21. I think all the “armed forces” should go ON STRIKE until their right to keep and bear arms for their personal defense is recognized by all state and federal governments.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here