It’s time to a) stop pretending that Islamists are not waging war on us and b) allow our unarmed forces to defend themselves. I know this will sound crazy to some, but no, you don’t give up your second-amendment right to self defense when you enlist.
[Update a few minutes later]
An open letter from a military wife:
These incidents, which resulted in the deaths of 35 innocent people and serious injuries to 51 others, might all have been minimized or even prevented by trained, armed military members.
Why is it that these men and women, who carry firearms on our behalf, whom we entrust with the security and well-being of our nation, aren’t allowed to bear arms on military bases in order to defend themselves and others?
Good question.
[Saturday-morning update]
The militia is re-forming. Not any too soon.
[Bumped]
I thought taking down the Confederate Flag would end all this. Now there is a shooter in Maine (known wolf sex offender). I’m also trying to figure out why the Confederate Flag and access to guns is causing so many shootings in France. I’m starting to think that Confederate Flag and Gun Control have nothing to do with these violent shootings.
A lone nutjob asshole goes into a church and murders 9 innocent people. The fact that he had a picture with a type of Confederate flag lead to a weeks-long media front calling for a near erasure of that flag from history, along with a lot of the people from that era.
Yesterday, we had yet another attack by a Muslim against innocent Americans and we’re cautioned that we must not jump to any conclusions. Sorry, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask for some consistency and honesty. But then, maybe that’s just my white privilege talking.
I highly recommend not using any higher brain functions. Then it all makes sense.
Why haven’t Democrats called for banning guns yet? They like it when our troops get shot at.
Why aren’t they going after the ideology that motivated the killer? It would alienate their base.
I thought they did call for banning guns.
Ya, they did after waiting longer than usual.
Do the officers and NCOs carry their sidearms?
Good heavens, no. We must keep pretending that armed forces AREN’T for breaking things and killing people.
This PC bs is prevalent in Australia too. Our forces people must travel in civvies, not uniforms and the Defence chief assures us we aren’t at war with Islam and our transport aircraft and ships are mainly for “humanitarian relief” work.
We also don’t have “attack” helicopters, we have “armed reconnaissance” helos. This is a source of amusement for my friends who fly them.
Actually, there is a difference between “attack” and “armed reconnaissance.”
Attack is where you know or at least have an idea of where the enemy is located and you want to apply force to destroy them or pursue them.
Armed reconnaissance is where you don’t quite know where they are hiding, but you venture forth to see where they are, with the expectation that when you find them, they may find you, and you have enough armament to defend yourself but maybe not enough to prevail against the enemy forces you discover. The armed reconnaissance force then defends itself and retreats, or it may defend itself and call for an attack element capable of prevailing against the enemy.
I don’t know what your friends find funny, but the American military doctrine I have outlined of small combat elements showing initiative,taking risks, and being able to rely on larger elements helping them out when needed goes all the way back to the French and Indian War.
This mode of fighting requires a great deal of initiative and resourcefulness and independent judgment of the armed reconnaissance units along with social cohesion and trust in the response of the supporting units, and not all cultures are capable of this.
The pilots think they fly “attack” helicopters. They’ll do armed reconnaissance too when tasked. Same helo, depends on the mission of the day. “Armed Reconnaissance” is thought to be less threatening than “Attack” by our politicians. I’m told one reason we bought the Euro Tiger is because it carries fewer Hellfires than an Apache and so is less likely to upset our neighbours to the north.
Personally, I want them to think we’re armed to the teeth and savage.
No. Per orders handed down by Bill Clinton in 1993, no one on a US military base is allowed to be armed, with the possible exceptions of gate guards and MPs.
This point came up briefly after the Fort Hood terrorist attack–I mean “workplace violence”–and was promptly dropped down the Memory Hole by the usual suspects.
I had heard that it was an order from GHW Bush.
Either way it’s a horrible order. Any soldier, sailor, airman or Marine ought to be able to pack when on duty if they want to.
The order should be rescinded immediately.
Actually, it happened in 1992, in the first Bush administration. What is important is not who started this idiocy, but how we (finally) end it.
I have a small quibble with who she addressed her letter to. While there may be a DoD policy against private carry on military bases that the President can affect, a Base Commander has sufficient authority and sworn responsibility to recognize, protect and support the right to carry on base, for anyone that lives, visits, or works on one… A letter to this President is worse than shouting in the wind, at least the wind can’t enjoy your cries.
After the ’09 Ft Hood massacre me and a co-conspirator who worked with me on Kirtland AFB in NM did some research and wrote the base commander. We had first asked questions of base security to explain why we couldn’t carry firearms on base, they said 18 USC 930. We asked him to allow concealed carry on base, and explained that the law doesn’t actually allow prohibiting firearm carry on base (read 18 USC 930).
What happened is our Directorate commander got a phonecall that night, who called our branch director, who came and gave us a personal verbal cease and desist if you want to keep your job/security clearance type of conversation the following morning (at least he was conciliatory and sympathetic, but it doesn’t change the passing of shit downhill). All very backchannel with no written communication to document it. A few days later we received a very brief email from the base commander’s office stating 18 USC 930 requires the prohibition of firearm carry on base.
Which is clearly false just by analogy: some bases allow firearm hunting on their property. A minute reading the law makes it pretty clear that it doesn’t prohibit it either (except in courtrooms, big surprise).
But the message I received was clear, and why you won’t see any non-martyr military/DoD civilian/contractor signing on or writing letters about this: you just might lose your current job, your security clearance, and any prospect of a new job in the future, not to mention all sorts of extralegal hell they can heap on you at their whim without recourse or recompense.
The problem is the cowardly oath-breaking base commanders who don’t stand up and support and allow carry on their bases, and send backchannel threats to those that point out their failings. They are actually in the position to affect base policy and its execution, they’re just too worried about their ladder climbing to the next rank and confirmations they’ll need to get to achieve it. You no longer make General if you rock the boat. There are no MacArthurs, Mitchells, LeMays and Pattons in the armed services anymore that will loudly stand on their convictions and still make rank. They leave or are forced out before they make 0-6.
There is one piece of good news in that open letter: apparently 9/11 truthers are lousy shots.
The door on the building he shot up had the red slashed circle on a pistol posted, otherwise known as a “Mass Shooter Safe Zone” sign. In the first article I read on this, the FBI was uncertain whether it was a gun-free zone. Really, Sherlock?
By the way, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the shooter, had been arrested in April on a DUI. If he’s a Muslim, it must be one of the “reformed” sects. Jus’ sayin’.
If he’s a Muslim, it must be one of the “reformed” sects. Jus’ sayin’.
Which is, again, why “Jihadist” is a better label.
I disagree. Jihad is one of the central tenets of Islam; exhortations to kill the infidel are scattered all over the Koran. Distinguishing active murderers from the less observant Muslims is playing into the hands of a murderous, perverted death cult founded by a paedophile bandit.
Incidentally, any and all of the prohibitions in Islam are flexible, if breaking them helps a Muslim to follow jihad. That’s in the Koran, too.
I do agree.
But job number one is arguing the bloody political class around to the position There is a problem.
By “just” holding up “Freedom of Religion”, they immediately shift to “There can not be a problem with Islam.”
But “Jihad” isn’t (formally) the name of the religion. Even if it’s just the one guy, we can make a lot of statements using the words all instead of more mealy-mouth words like some or appending adjectives. (I’m presuming the words ‘violent, militant, radical’ into my use of the word Jihadist, and I’m willing to fight the wordsmiths over that part.)
So:
All Jihadists are at war with us. Proof: Definition, QED.
If I say precisely the same thing about Islamists, militant Islamists, or -any- adjective-Islamists, the entire discussion goes off the rails at precisely that point.
Yes, some wordsmiths will argue “Well, there -is- such a thing as -peaceful- internal Jihad!” To which the only necessary response is “That’s fine, but I’m applying a new, strict definition to the English word and using it consistently. I don’t much care if Rommel’s driver is peaceful – he’s helping the war effort so long as he is mentally a Jihadist.”
The counter arguments I’ve heard are:
1) All of Islam is Jihadists, see the Koran. Minor quibble with the word “all”, there -are- non-observant everythings. But I’ll grant it’s a lot higher than 5% who are fully on board. Tom Kratman’s Caliphate is a pretty gut-wrenching view of how a small number of violent radicals can cow a much larger slice of the pie. So I somewhat -agree- with this point. But you can’t argue someone to this position.
2) Granting them the title “Jihadist” is like granting the title “Knight Templar”, it is a high accolade, just say no. I think this was pointed out -here-. And I see the point here as well. If the politicians were fully on board and prosecuting this in any way that made the slightest bit of sense, I could agree. But where we are, I’d be delighted to only create 100 new jihadists for every politician swayed to “Actively opposed to Jihadists”.
The use of a specifically tightly defined word allows a -very- short approach:
1) All jihadists are at war with us. Proof: Definition.
2) We are at war with all Jihadists.
If the politician can’t say line 2, then the entire discussion over how small, medium, or large a slice of Islam this might be is meaningless mouthflapping. A fair number of people -do- recognize it’s not just one lone nutter. The issue is pinning politicians down on that -two-line- point.
Does America today seem like the backstory for starship troopers?
It certainly would be a different place if military service was required to vote.
Certainly would be a different place if the only men allowed to vote were those who’d parade around in high heels just because an officer told them to…
Make registering for the Selective Service the key requirement.
I’ve made the observation myself that the regime is setting the ground for chaos demanding groups like organized veterans to step in and restore order.
A note about Starship Troopers, some forms of public service other than military would qualify for full citizenship. The common thread being a demonstration of taking responsibility.
Not the way I read it. I think that in that work, the taking of responsibility had to involve an element of risk – real risk to life and health. If such a qualification was introduced in the UK (saying that because I’m a Brit, and not thinking it will ever happen) I would support extending the qualification to first-responders of various sorts; after all, firefighters, police and even ambulance crew do get hurt or killed. Not often, perhaps, but the risk is part of the job.
As to whether all Muslims are at war with civilisation, I’ll quote the Koran:
Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalim
Seems pretty clear to me.