A couple of days ago it was reported that the FBI was on the lookout for a man who planned to carry out a Fort Hood style attack. Today an attack was carried out at Ft. Hood and so far 4 people soldiers have lost there lives and 14 more are injured. For the record as of right now it appears that the two things have nothing to do with one another. This is a terrible tragedy one that should not be exploited for political gain. I only have one question, why weren't those soldiers carrying their weapons?
It seems to me that if any one should be allowed to carry a weapon it would be a soldier. Our soldiers are trained to handle firearms and have shown bravery and honor on the battlefields in Iraq, and Afghanistan. When you combine that with the fact they were expecting an attack of this sort it just seems logical that there should have been an order given to have all soldiers armed on base. Of course it shouldn't take an order it should just be the norm.
If those soldiers were armed the shooter never would've been allowed to take even one shot. We wouldn't even be calling him the shooter we would be calling him the idiot who tried to attack a military base full of armed soldiers. Actually we probably wouldn't be calling him anything at all, because if they were armed it would've probably prevented the attack from ever happening. Will someone please explain to me how we let our military bases become gun free zones.
A lot of people will take this opportunity to take shots at President Obama. While I disagree with almost everything he does the rules barring soldiers from carrying on base far outlive his presidency. That decision was made by former President Bill Clinton. According to an article posted on the Washington Times on November 11, 2009. The article went on the say "Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood." This article called for the ban to be lifted after the first Ft. Hood attack.
Wait a second Clinton, Obama didn't we have a President in between there? Yes the truth is a small part of the blame for the first attack could be laid at President George W. Bush's feet. He had eight years to lift the ban and failed to do so. I'm honestly surprised that wasn't one of the first things he did. Maybe the issue was just never bought up to him? However why you can lay a piece of the blame there for the first attack once there was an attack lifting the ban would just be common sense right? I guess not.
For reasons staggering the imagination President Obama did not lift the ban in the wake of the second attack. Why? What possible explanation could there be? Honestly the only one I can think of is the President thought if he just increased security that it would prevent crazies from getting onto bases or maybe the President has a irrational fear of guns.
Well Mr. President I have news for you, you can't stop crazy. No matter how much security is provided there is no guarantee that someone won't slip through the cracks, and while a gun was used to commit the act they could've also stopped it cold. Attacks like the two on Ft. Hood are almost impossible to prevent because they come from people that are believed to be allies. Maybe they were an ally at one point then they changed due to something they saw, or heard. In any event it is time to stop the madness. The only way to protect our soldiers is to allow them to protect themselves. Mr. President lift this ridiculous ban so we never have to read headlines like today's again.
A college graduate with a BA in History and a minor in politics from Coastal Carolina University. Has a student at Coastal Carolina I Chaired the College Republicans for two years. I volunteered for Mike Huckabee's Presidential campaign in 2008.
I worked as an intern for the South Carolina Republican Party in 2009.