FARNAM ON FORT HOOD
Of yesterday's shooting victims, all were military, and none were armed and able to defend themselves, nor each other, from a gun-wielding, murdering lunatic who apparently didn't get the memo about the Base being a "Gun-Free Zone!"
As soon as the suspect was confronted by military police, he committed suicide, typical MO for active murderers.
The three-star present at the subsequent news conference made much of the fact that the suspect was "engaged" by military police, but we never get to know what theat means. Did MPs so much as fire a single shot at the suspect? The general wouldn't say.
He did say that there was "no indication of terrorism." Of course, they said that same thing about the first Ft Hood shooting in 2009! Immediate denials of terrorism are apparently mandatory. They say what they wish were true, not what is true, much like the main-stream media!
He continued that he "... didn't think soldiers should be allowed to carry concealed on-Base" Yet, he failed to indicate if that arbitrary proscription includes his own bodyguards! He went on to assure us all that police are there to provide "protection," however apparently not enough for the dead and wounded in this case, eh?
Since the first Ft Hood shooting, and subsequent shootings at the Naval Base, and others, nothing has been done. WJC's gun prohibition on military bases remains in place, and apparently will indefinitely, no matter how many innocent, defenseless soldiers are murdered!
Omar Bradley, Dwight D Eisenhower and George Patton, who led by example, carried sidearms routinely. Conversely, unarmed Obama-era generals choose to protect their asses and careers, not lives of troops, as we see.
I wish I didn't have to say it!
"One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude!"
John S. Farnam