↓ Archives ↓

Fort Hood – A “Gun Free” Zone, Round II

If you want to see how effective “Gun Free” zones are, look at Fort Hood, now the scene of yet another massacre.  This time, a deranged Soldier took advantage of disarmed military staff, and killed them in cold blood.  He also wounded many more, before killing himself.  All of his victims were disarmed, by Pentagon policy.  Seems that the US military expects its staff to bear arms abroad, and to go unarmed at home.  Why a serviceman cannot carry a sidearm on base is beyond my understanding.  It makes no sense, and leaves our personnel at risk.

Gun Free zones are wishful thinking.  Without the ability to stand and fight, everyone in a Gun Free zone is a sitting duck.  Whoever came up with this idea is a fool.


  • Apr 4th 201423:04
    by Jarhead Al

    Hummm, it seems that when it is your blog you can delete your own replies although it does make the thread flow a bit awkward.

    • Jul 8th 201413:07
      by Josh

      ?? Sorry, JarHead Al, I am not following you. I am not aware of deleting replies to your posts. I did not do that. Might be a format problem. Thanks for commenting.

  • Apr 4th 201417:04
    by Jarhead Al

    The phrase “the people” itself is collective. These were educated men who wrote these documents and they certainly knew what they approved in the final draft. They could have very easily said persons, individual, each…whatever. If you want to be specific the 2nd Amendment wasn’t interpreted for 100 years when SCOTUS, who are the only ones who can interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights, looked at U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1876. And if you look at US v. Miller of 1939 the court did give some credence to the militia point with “The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia.” So while my view is not the current or popular one there is some precedence for it.

    In any case, this is like your personal belief or non-belief of any particular religion. While somebody may not have the view you accept, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong in their views. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it like two rational people though.

  • Apr 4th 201416:04
    by Jarhead Al

    I didn’t know you wanted an argument which is a logical series of statements based on facts designed to convince somebody else of your position. I was just giving an opinion, the same as you.

    I know I am not the norm in that I place more emphasis on “A well regulated Militia” part than most. To me it means veterans and people in the National Guard et al as “the people” as a collective which is far different then saying the right of a “person” which is individual, to keep and bear Arms… Since militias are and were state organizations that would keep the power of the federal government at bay.

    I doubt we will come up with the solution today but it never hurts to be exposed to other opinions. Discussion is the path to understanding – I don’t know who said that or made it up but it sounds good. Keep up the good work.

    • Apr 4th 201416:04
      by Josh

      The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. The right of the people has been interpreted since our founding as individual rights, like free speech, worship, etc. Can you name any “collective” rights in the Bill of Rights?

  • Apr 4th 201411:04
    by Jarhead Al

    You’re welcome, it was my privilege to serve.

    I have to disagree, they do work in most places and there are places I, personally, wouldn’t want people carrying. Church, bars, schools, public parks just to name a few. While gun ownership is fine the fact is the majority of people who own a gun solely for protection can’t actually shoot very well. At least not as well as ex-service people or hunters in general. Somebody who thinks they know what they are doing is often more dangerous then the criminal they are trying to protect themselves from. Others may have different views.

    • Apr 4th 201413:04
      by Josh

      Al, the current overall discussion about gun policy is way too full of exactly this kind of thinking. What people are comfortable with, what they are not comfortable with— it is just plain subjective, with no coherence. Frankly, I don’t give a crap what people are “comfortable with,” because the US Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution explicitly say we have a right to bear arms. Just like we have a right to read books and magazines, and view movies, that other Americans “are not comfortable with.” Historically, a lot of people carried guns. Just because America has become sissified does not mean that our individual liberties go flying out the window. So, you are welcome to your point of view, I think it is poorly researched and poorly argued, but because it is America, you and I have the right to debate these issues. Due in great part to our awesome military, which keeps our enemies at bay (Thank You again for that, Al). Thanks for commenting!

  • Apr 4th 201407:04
    by Jarhead Al

    I did 28 years and if you don’t include actually going to a firing range I can count on one hand how often I was on base with a loaded sidearm. It isn’t foolish and if you were ever in you would know the reasoning behind it a lot better that looking at it from the outside.

    • Apr 4th 201409:04
      by Josh

      Thank you for your service to America, Al. My pacifist parents raised me to be a non-violent resistor, so I did not serve. I wish I had. As a citizen, I’d feel more comfortable if our military personnel had sidearms on base. Gun Free zones do not work anywhere.

  • Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.