Military Bases or “Gun-Free” Zones?

By | September 30, 2013 | 0 Comments


Most people think the peace sign is just that – a made-up sign denoting peace. Some even believe it represents an upside-down crucifix. But older people like me were Boy Scouts, or perhaps served in the Navy. We recall the semaphore code.
The inverted “y” represents “n,” while the vertical line represents “d.” The symbol originally stood for “nuclear disarmament.” I don’t doubt that those who now display the symbol sincerely intend it to represent peace. But I do doubt that disarmament is the way to achieve peace. On the contrary, disarmament is the way to achieve anarchy and the triumph of violent evildoers.
President Obama declared that he wants to reduce the number of nuclear weapons we possess, and that his ultimate aim is a nuclear-free world. There are serious problems here:
● The world was nuclear-free until 1945, when nuclear weapons were invented. History is filled with wars and massacres – especially the history of the 20th century. The notion that a nuclear-free world would be peaceful is preposterous. I use the term in its literal meaning: leading with one’s posterior. Similarly, the notion that a gun-free world would be nonviolent is equally preposterous. If you doubt this, watch the film “Braveheart.”
● If we reduce our nuclear arsenal below a certain level, our ability to respond to an attack will also be reduced – perhaps tempting potential aggressors to strike. Even more important, potential aggressors will be led to believe that our will to respond to an attack has also been reduced.
● If we reduce our nuclear arsenal, will other nations will also reduce theirs? Nonsense. Saddam Hussein hoped to build nuclear weapons, but the Israelis bombed his reactor in 1981. Saddam never gave up his nuclear ambitions. When we occupied Iraq in 2002, we found 550 metric tons of uranium ore, which we shipped to Canada for reprocessing. But did you see that on the 10 o’clock news?
North Korea built nuclear weapons despite international sanctions, and still refuses to get rid of them. Iran is proceeding with its nuclear program, also despite sanctions. These nations are building nukes while we maintain our arsenal. What makes us believe that they, or other nations, would be deterred if we reduce our arsenal?
What is true for nuclear weapons is equally true for lesser weapons. There are literally thousands of instances in which an armed citizen prevents a criminal attack, but they rarely appear in the liberal media. On the contrary, the much rarer cases of accidental shootings are reported prominently.
When liberals arrest a father for wounding a career criminal who is entering his small child’s bedroom in the middle of the night, they tell us much about themselves. They are excusing and protecting criminals − but criminalizing self-defense.
Such people may have gray hair and sit in legislatures, or on judges’ benches, or occupy professorial chairs, but intellectually and emotionally they are children. They believe that if they close their eyes, the boogey man can’t see them. They believe that if they pull the blanket over their heads, the monsters won’t attack them. They believe that if they don’t fight back, eventually the schoolyard bully will tire of them and go on to bully someone else − not a very humanitarian attitude.
If they truly believed that weapons make them less safe, they would post signs in front of their houses declaring, “There are no guns in this home.” But no one, not even the staunchest advocate of gun confiscation, ever posts such a sign. How revealing.
If even a minority of homeowners are armed, criminals are deterred from entering any homes while people are there. In America, only about 13% of burglaries are “hot” − that is, home invasions. But in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 59% of burglaries occur when people are at home. About 30% of victims of these “hot” burglaries are assaulted, or worse. Of course, if a burglary occurs when no one is home, no one is injured. This is not complex. Disarming homeowners endangers them.
I believe that the reason many liberals detest the idea of self-defense is their stubborn refusal to see the world as it is, but instead to act as though their childish fantasies were real. They never worked in an emergency room and saw the results of man’s inhumanity. They never took ROTC in high school or college. They never were instructed by a master sergeant with combat decorations. They never smelled the pleasant odor of gun oil. They never took responsibility for defense of their loved ones and themselves. They prefer the false safety of their illusions. They consider themselves civilized, but in fact they are merely infantilized.
Many liberals remain intellectual and emotional children, despite their receding hairlines and increasing waistlines. Advancing years detracted from their appearance, but added nothing to their wisdom. In their own minds, they remain helpless children. But real children depend on adults to protect them. Who will protect childish adults?
If these people detest guns, let them refrain from owning one − but not stop me from owning one. If they don’t approve of missile defenses, let them move to a nation that lacks them − but not stop me from protecting my loved ones and myself from apocalyptic, paranoid fanatics who are armed with missiles and nuclear weapons. Their right to hold infantile, unrealistic, pacifistic beliefs stops where my safety begins.
These people opposed arming pilots, even after 9/11. These people trust pilots, many of whom are reserve or retired Air Force officers, to fly airliners filled with passengers. They trust pilots to use complex electronic devices on which hundreds of lives depend. But they don’t trust pilots to handle guns, which are simple mechanical devices an 18-year-old can learn to handle safely.
In 2009, Army psychiatrist Major Malik Hasan shot up Fort Hood, killing 14. (Not 13; one was pregnant.) But he was shot and stopped by a female civilian police officer who was employed there. There weren’t enough military police to patrol the Army installation. And now, former sailor and current civilian contractor Aaron Alexis shot up the Washington Navy Yard, killing 12. He was shot and killed by civilian police who were called to the scene.
Fort Hood is the home of the 1st Cavalry Division, as well as other units including the 89th Military Police Brigade. It comprises about 65,000 soldiers and civilians. Yet they depended on civilian police to protect them from a single shooter.
One would have thought that a large Army post would have sufficient MPs and other armed soldiers not to have to depend on civilian police. One would be wrong.
The Washington Navy Yard is the oldest shore installation of the U.S. Navy. It houses the chief of Naval Operations, the Sea Systems Command, and other sensitive installations. Yet when Aaron Alexis entered with a shotgun and began shooting up the place, 9-1-1 was dialed.
Outside civilian police arrived, representing the Washington, D.C. Police, the U.S. Park Police, the U.S. Capitol Police, the FBI, the ATF, and perhaps others. Coordination between these agencies was difficult. Reportedly the Capitol Police SWAT Team was among the first to arrive, but it was ordered to stand down. Why? By whom?
One would have thought that a large Navy base, one housing the top admiral of the Navy as well as other sensitive installations, would have sufficient armed Marines and Navy Security to protect itself from a single shooter without dialing 9-1-1. Again, one would be wrong.
Making schools, universities, and movie theaters “gun-free” may be counter-productive and actually make them more vulnerable, but at least it sounds reasonable superficially. But making military bases “gun-free”? How far can political correctness go before we say enough? How many more service personnel have to die unnessarily?
Perhaps, if we had a president who had enough familiarity with the military not to twice mispronounce Navy corpsman as “corpse-man,” we might have a more effective defense posture. Perhaps, if we had a secretary of Defense who was able to express a coherent thought, we might have safer military installations. Perhaps, if we had an administration with a more realistic world view, we would have less political correctness, and more concern for the safety of our service personnel.
What image do you suppose we present to our friends and our enemies across the world, when we cannot even protect our own military bases in our own homeland? Instead, they have to call the police, as if a McDonald’s in Fargo were being robbed. I’ll give you a clue. It is not the image of strength, or even of competence. Toothless tigers don’t last long in a jungle, especially if they spend much of their time yawning in apathy rather than protecting their own cubs.

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.