Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Second Amendment Conundrum

It is ironic that American military bases can be considered effective "Gun Free Zones", based upon a Department of Army directive 190-14  in March, 1993.  

Progressive sources are quick to deny that this was an Executive Order by President Clinton.  Surely a Commander-in-Chief whose Presidency was partially premised on moderate gun control would have no sway over their troops./sarc

Delving deeper into the weeds, there is a Department of Defense Memo from February 1992 (during the President George H.W. Bush Administration)  on the issue.  And this general ban on sidearms for non security essential personnel has survived the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama Administrations. 

Unclassified Department of Defense Regulations do not incorporate legislative history to reveal the rationale for the rule.  But considering that the rule did not apply to personnel under combat or whom would be expected to have security duties, it does hint that extra arms were considered unnecessary.

While the motives for the Navy Yard killing of twelve innocent NAVSEA personnel is up in the air two days after the fact, there are other counterexamples to this DOD "Gun Free Zone" policy. 

Makeshift Ft. Hood massacre memorial, Nov. 2009

Even though the Obama Administration persisted in classifying the Fort Dix shooting in November, 2009 to be an instance of workplace violence, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows better.  When the former Army psychologist gunned down thirteen military members while shouting "Allahu Akbar", he is not just "going postal" but engaged in a jihad.  The euphemistically entitled "War on Terror" is an asymmetric example of warfare with non-state irregulars with a world-wide battlefield. 

Consider the Fort Dix Six in 2007 when radical jihadists wanted to kill as many soldiers as possible in New Jersey.   But their convictions were on conspiracy to commit murder, not terrorism.

Then there was attack on the Little Rock Arkansas military recruiter office in 2009 when Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (ne Carlos Leon Bledsoe) shot two privates killing one in his attempt to kill as many Army personnel as possible.  Oh, but he was convicted on state murder charges, not terrorism, so perhaps that doesn't count. 

The Obama Administration has been determined to deny the War on Terrorism.  Aside from the spurious classification of the Fort Hood massacre, they have bungled the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012, maintaining that it was prompted by a spontaneous protest over an obscure anti-Mohammad You-Tube video, instead of a coordinated attack on a US compound by an Al Qaeda affiliate.  Then consider former Department of Home Security Head Janet Napolitano's linguistic jihad against using the term "War on Terror" in 2009, when the government was cajoled to refer to terrorist acts as "Man Made Disasters".   

Since military personnel who are certified to carry firearms and are well trained, it would be worth reconsidering why the ban on general military personnel carrying weapons on American military bases continues.  There may be some good reasons which a civilian might not readily consider. But in the cases of the Navy Yard shooting, the Fort Hood shooting and the Little Rock shooting would likely have been mitigated by military members long before security forces quelled the shooter. 

Perhaps the military base "gun free zones" are part of a liberal understanding of the Second Amendment clause "a well regulated militia".

No comments:

Post a Comment