Skip to comments.Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre
Posted on 11/24/2009 3:18:24 PM PST by all the best
By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.
Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt, these are among America's bravest and best.
So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.
Question 2: If the federal government--including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws--could not protect US soldiers...
(Excerpt) Read more at campaignforliberty.com ...
I'll leave it to those with military experience to explain why things are done this way. However, my understanding is this is not a recent policy, that disarming of military personnel on base with exception of MPs and personnel actually engaged in training goes back many decades.
America is living in a very dangerous time. Now Obama and Hillary Clinton are looking for a treaty that bans all guns.
“I’ll leave it to those with military experience to explain why things are done this way.”
Good man! Trust your government and do not ask questions.
Not many decades... just to that scumbag X42... the one with the stained blue dress that did not ask or tell...
A better question, given the times and the political impossibility of barring Moslems from bases is why are not all large groups of soldiers who are gathered for some sort of official or required function not guarded by armed Security Police? As with CCW in among civilians, this type of killer would be deterred by the probability that he would only be able to shoot one or two people before he attained glorious martyrdom. Then, of course one has to be worried about bomb vests.
If this wuss had first hand knowledge about the military,
he would know that the thousands of military don’t walk around base with loaded weapons.
There is reason to question what happened but Baldwin blew it with his first comments.
This loon is anti war to start with.
Baldwin is a supporter of the 9/11 Truth Movement and has suggested reopening the investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks, given the possibility of U.S. government involvement in the attacks. (Baldwin does the enemy’s work)
he claims that the 9/11 attacks were a punishment from God.
Actually, I was referring to freepers with military experience. I believe a freeper who spent 20 years in the army or Marines knows more about the rationale for a particular policy than I do.
With no military experience it would be presumptuous of me to declaim on something I know nothing about.
This is not a problem for you, apparently.
See post #6.
No problem at all.
The writer of this article seems to be a little bit of an idiot.