Bases’ anti-self-defense policy
By STARS AND STRIPES Published: November 19, 2009
The tragic results of victim disarmament were made real with the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. If this were a moral and proper world, as soon as the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, drew his weapon, every person in the building would have had their sights leveled on him.
U.S. military installations’ immoral and unjust anti-self-defense policy disarmed only the victims of this crime. How many more events like this is it going to take before Defense Department officials realize that victim disarmament costs lives and Congress amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice to require all civilian and military personnel to be properly armed (meaning not simply carrying an unloaded weapon) while on U.S. military installations?
In many states, citizens choose to be responsible for protecting their own lives and property by arming themselves. It is the ultimate expression of patriotism and good citizenship.
Fort Hood is my home station. It sickens me that when my wife needs to go on post she, too, has to surrender her right to defend herself by going unarmed.
Stateside military installations have become the country’s largest gun-free zones (playgrounds for criminals). How many lives would have been saved on Sept. 11, 2001, if people weren’t stripped of their right to self-defense because they wanted to fly? How many lives would have been saved at Virginia Tech, Columbine and now Fort Hood?
Those who advocate policies that guarantee the criminal class has unfettered access to defenseless, potential victims need to change their tune.
Lawmakers and DOD need to ensure that those of us who took the oath to defend the Constitution have the means available to live up to that oath.
Modifying installation policies and the UCMJ to remove all restrictions on carrying firearms would be a small step in the right direction.
Sgt. Brian Singer
Camp Taji, Iraq