The End of the Second Amendment for Our Troops
May 5, 2010
The following document looks legitimate to me. Of course, I would like to think it is a forgery. I would like to think that President Obama is not this unwise. But it looks real to me.
The Army is being told to outlaw all privately owned weapons on all bases. I do not mean just guns. I mean nunchucks. A folding knife with a blade over 3 inches must be surrendered.
Highlights of the proposed rule change. Note: strike-through lines are eliminations.
Please forward this to anyone you think is in a position to verify it.
It looks as though the Commander-in-Chief, or else someone making high-level decisions, does not trust the troops.
It looks as though this is an attempt to head off another Fort Hood-type massacre. I can think of no other reason for singling out members of the military as people not entitled to the right to keep and bear arms.
Do you want to stop massacres on military bases? Require that everyone on the base be armed at all times outside quarters. A maniac may get off two or three shots. Then he will be permanently beyond the court of military justice.
This is obvious to anyone who understands the meaning of self-defense.
Some military personnel do understand this and have apparently been exercising their second amendment rights. No more!
If these rules are really slight modifications of old rules, then things in the Army have not been in good shape for years.
We have seen this sort of thinking before. The Marines in Lebanon in 1983 were not allowed to carry loaded weapons. This even included the sentries. That led to the deaths of over 240 military personnel. Wikipedia describes the event.
The Marine sentries at the gate were operating under rules of engagement which made it very difficult to respond quickly to the truck. By the time the two sentries had locked, loaded, and shouldered their weapons, the truck was already inside the building's entry way.
Has the ability of troop commanders to enforce discipline really fallen this low? Did they recommend all this? That seems hard to believe. But someone in authority does not trust the ability of troop commanders to maintain discipline in the presence of armed troops.
If a base commander dares not allow military personnel to carry privately owned pistols on an American base, then it is time to replace that base commander. Someone in a field grade position whose personal authority has disintegrated to this extent should not be in command.
Let us hope that base commanders ignore these regs or openly decide not to enforce them.
It is not time to impound privately owned weapons.
Why should the military not be given full second amendment rights? What makes the second amendment off-limits?
Can you imagine going into battle under the command of senior officers who do not think you are reliable enough to carry a folding knife with a 3.2-inch blade?
Can you imagine trying to exercise authority over men who know this is the attitude of the general?
These rules are a slap in the collective faces of senior commanders. They call into question their ability to command. They call into question the reliability of the entire chain of command. How could they consent to this without a peep?
This does not lead me to conclude that things are in good shape inside the Army.