Military Have Right to Self-Defense, Even at Fort Hood

Yesterday’s killings of unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood remind us of how much mental illness has infiltrated the public square.  I’m not talking about the shooter, but about the political mindset that afflicts average, comfort-seeking Americans who think that deranged killers will abide by “no gun” policies.  Rather, such killers are attracted to gun-free zones.

      Of all people in society, soldiers are perhaps the most conscientious about using firearms responsibly.   Safety is based upon education and practice–both of which are exemplary in the US Army’s Basic and Advanced Infantry Training (as I know by experience).  Not to trust them with concealed carry seems unconscionable.  Even the lowliest animals (and most plants) have been equipped with a means of self-defense.

      Questions need to be asked.  It’s not enough to redouble anti-gun sentiments or simply complain about being “heartbroken.”  Do the brass at military bases fear a mutiny by weapons-carrying troops?  Must soldiers go outside the base for concealed-carry in order to find greater protection for themselves and others?  Will the anti-gun sentiment eventually extend to military overseas?

     We can imagine politician-led commanders abroad disarming troops “to show everyone that the Americans are peace-loving and mean no harm.”   Even soldiers on leave in Saigon went to the local stores to buy revolvers for self-defense in a city with an undercurrent of lawlessness and wartime desperation.

     Meanwhile, the mental health industry will profit from strident calls to fund more PTSD programs.  And an army of underemployed lawyers will benefit from dragging out the due process appeals of convicted shooters like previous Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan.