The shooting at Fort Stewart here in my home state of Georgia is just the latest incident where a maniac tried to rack up a massive death toll. He didn't get as far as he'd like, thankfully, but it raises a lot of eyebrows when something like this happens on a military base.
At some point, some twit decides to argue that this is proof gun control is needed. After all, this is an Army base where there are tons and tons of firearms.
What these twits don't get is that military bases are gun-free zones. Only certain personnel can be armed at any given time, and it's really just a small, select few, such as those on duty in sensitive locations or military law enforcement.
At 1819 News, though, something different happened. This incident is being used as a reason to take the gloves off our military men and women.
The world turned its attention recently to an active shooter in Manhattan. A depraved individual drove to the heart of New York City, walked calmly into a downtown high-rise, killed five people, and then took his own life. No one knows why a bad guy took up arms and committed heinous acts of terror.
Just days earlier we saw a heroic former Marine named Derrick Perry, who pulled his concealed carry firearm and saved innocent bystanders from a knife-wielding madman in Michigan who just stabbed multiple people at random. A good guy took up arms and stopped the heinous acts of terror.
It is not guns that are bad. It is bad people with guns that are bad.
Let’s remember that both New York and Michigan have stringent gun control laws. Gun control did not stop the loss of life in Manhattan. Gun control laws did not stop the violence in Michigan.
More recently, another episode of gun violence erupted at the U.S. Army’s Fort Stewart, Ga. Army Sergeant Quornelius Radford, using a personal weapon, opened fire on fellow soldiers, wounding five. He was stopped by other service members, who have since been decorated for their bravery. But none of the responding soldiers could be called “good guys with guns.” Why? Because the U.S. military has the most draconian gun control laws in the nation.
Let that sink in.
...Consider the disparity in treatment. Outside the gate civilians freely exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They do so with no prerequisite training or conditioning. There are no mandatory gun safety courses. There are no annual weapons qualification requirements for civilians.
But on an Army installation soldiers have all the above: basic training with firearms, advanced training, reflexive fire training, annual qualification, awards for marksmanship. And yet, the complete curtailing of their Second Amendment rights.
Not every soldier has that training, admittedly. There's some basic firearm training, of course, but not necessarily the advanced stuff. Not everyone needs it. The Army doesn't treat every soldier as a rifleman. That's a Marine thing.
But they do have some degree of training from the jump, more than many private citizens have, and those civilians are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights freely, as they should.
Why is it that our men and women in uniform are hamstrung while defending our rights? Sure, they can have a firearm in base housing, though they have to jump through hoops none of us would tolerate in order to do so.
People who put on the uniform make sacrifices for their country. As someone who did so myself, I can tell you that they don't regret those sacrifices. They do so freely, because this nation matters to them.
They also put their safety on the line. Military service is full of risk, depending on what job you're doing. There's no such thing as safety in the service, though. Sooner or later, you're likely to be in a situation that includes some degree of risk. Again, we all understood or understand that.
But why take on the risk of something like this?
Yes, the gunman at Fort Stewart was taken down by five brave souls, who have been recognized with pretty high-status medals for their heroic actions. I've heard rumors that there's already an effort underway to upgrade those Distiguished Service Medals, though I don't know if that's accurate or not. I hope it is.
Still, all five of them could have been killed for nothing.
One round between the eyes would have ended that threat a lot faster, and likely with less risk.
Why do we trust these men and women with millions of dollars' worth of equipment, or with weapons that can wipe out entire cities, but suddenly act like they're completely untrustworthy in their day-to-day lives?
They deserve better.
Editor's Note: Thanks to President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's leadership, the warrior ethos is coming back to America's military.
Will that ethos extend to letting those warriors defend themselves on base? Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership... and help us fight to strengthen our Second Amendment rights.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member