Gun control proponents frequently use arbitrary figures to justify their immoral positions on self-defense. Several states prohibit the possession of “high-capacity” magazines, asserting that the state knows best how many rounds a person needs to defend himself or his family.
Some states prohibit scary-looking guns, again presuming to pretend that the government knows best how someone should equip himself for defense.
And, of course, the most-outrageous immoral reasoning comes from opponents of concealed carry. Those who assert that governments should be the deciders of if or when citizens should be gifted the opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment rights condemn innocents to slaughter.
Unbelievably, some of the strictest anti-carry rules can be seen on military bases- the very bases bustling with highly-trained weapons experts. As military installations become targets for terrorist endeavors, the Obama Administration’s Department of Defense still refuses to grant military personnel the ability to carry a weapon.
On Thursday, Gen. Mark Milley, the Army chief of staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and defended the policy. Milley claimed that allowing soldiers to carry weapons on base at Fort Hood would not have stopped the carnage.
His “logic” was lacking, to say the least…
Conservative Sen. Mike Lee questioned Milley on what the military was doing to keep soldiers safer in the wake of several high-profile attacks on military installations.
Milley spoke in the language of the standard bureaucrat, insisting that there would be too many regulations to overcome to allow soldiers to carry weapons.
“Such as recruiting stations, such as Chattanooga, the assessments are done by the local commanders … and make a determination whether it was appropriate or not appropriate to arm them. So he delegated the authority in the assessment to the commanders, which is appropriate. Commanders should make those decisions because one size won’t fit all,” Milley said.
“But some of the constraints on that: people have to be trained, it must be a government-owned weapon, can’t carry privately owned weapons, et cetera.”
“People have to be trained”? Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t every single member of the U.S. military trained to be able to safely handle a weapon? If someone in the military cannot be trusted to carry a weapon, he or she surely has no business in the military.
Further, if the obstacle is furnishing a government-owned weapon, I have to wonder: does the military not have sidearms? Have all the M9s just vanished from the armories?
Milley then laughably asserted, (emphasis added)
“In terms of carrying privately owned weapons on military bases, concealed, privately owned weapons, that is not authorized. That is a DOD policy. I do not recommend that it be changed. We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond,” Milley said.
“You take the Fort Hood incident number two, the one where I was the commander of Third Corps, those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead. So, that’s pretty quick and a lot of people died in the process of that, but that was a very fast, evolving event and I am not convinced, from what I know, that carrying privately owned weapons would’ve stopped that individual. I’ve been around guns all my life, I know how to use them, and arming our people on our military bases and allowing them to carry concealed, privately owned weapons, I do not recommend that as a course of action.”
“We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond”? That’s bold talk from someone who does not have to bear the consequences of manning an unarmed recruiting station or military installation. The response may have been “adequate” for busting-up a raucous party, but who the hell is General Milley to defend a policy that endangers the lives of others by insisting that relying on police intervention is “adequate” protection?
This is that immoral figuring mentioned previously. Milley’s comments came one day before two people were killed at Lackland Air Force base.
Perhaps Mr. Milley feels that an eight minute response time is good enough, but those who huddled in terror likely feel otherwise. Those who were killed waiting for the “adequate” police response would likely feel otherwise as well.
Police officers around the country do a fantastic job, but relying on them to be everywhere at once is an unrealistic solution. It is outrageously immoral to prohibit trained weapons experts from being armed and forcing them to simply rely upon prompt police intervention to take the place of self-defense preparedness.
Eight minutes is a great police response time, but eight minutes is an absolute eternity when under fire from a deranged gunman.
People die waiting for police to arrive and it is both arrogant and unconscionable for supposed leaders to lecture that waiting for police to arrive is a good enough solution.
Mr. Milley appears to fit right in with Obama’s modern military where promoting radical social experiments is infinitely more important than orchestrating effective military engagements or endowing our fighting men and women with the ability to protect themselves from extremists.