The unbelievable reasons why the Pentagon wants soldiers disarmed on bases
Last year, radical Muslim Nidal Hasan murdered 13 unarmed American soldiers and wounded 30 others.
Thank you, George H.W. Bush!
Yesterday, radical Muslim Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez murdered four unarmed American soldiers.
Thank you, George H.W. Bush!
Yes, it former President Bush whom we must thank for this, for it was he who put into place a regulation stating that American soldiers off the frontlines, for the most part, must be unarmed. (Clinton perpetuated it, but Bush started it.) That makes them sitting ducks for a single radical Muslim with a gun, who can casually go and shoot one soldier at a time, knowing they can't fire back.
It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush. The controversial directive states that “it is DoD Policy” to “limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel.”
The blood of the dead soldiers is on his hands. I'm sure that as he lies in the hospital with a broken neck bone, he's not giving it a second thought.
But what is not widely known are the reasons why Bush signed this order. A Pentagon spokesman stated that the Pentagon is against U.S. troops being armed on base:
... the Pentagon opposed the move for various reasons. “The first of which is safety,”
This is so upside-down. The soldiers are safer if they are carrying guns. They are less safe if they are all disarmed, because they can be massacred by a radical Muslim.
Another reason is really the prohibitive cost of the training, the qualification requirements, recertification.
What? Aren't soldiers, by definition, already trained to use firearms? This is the worst kind of sophistry!
“The final one is local requirements and other policy requirements, for example the Lautenberg requirement,” he said, referring to a 1996 amendment by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) that prohibits those convicted of misdemeanor crimes from carrying a weapon.
This is ignorance of the worst kind. Federal bases and federal employees are not subject to "local requirements." It's called federalism. Look it up!
As for the Lautenberg Amendment, does that mean soldiers convicted of misdemeanors can't carry weapons in times of war? Then what are they in the military for? Either they are trusted, in which case they should be able to carry all the time, or they aren't, in which case they shouldn't be in the military.
“So there are a lot of barriers to this idea, and the Department's position – and we've spelled this out before – is that we do not support it.”
Warren also said that “patting-down” the almost 100,000 people entering and exiting Fort Hood and other major military installations would be unrealistic, although he said no Pentagon study has been conducted on how much time and money that would require.
So soldiers are disarmed, but there is no barrier to stop mass murders from bringing in weapons.
In any event, pat-downs aren't the solutions. Guns in the hands of our soldiers are. The Pentagon seems to be saying they can be trusted only to carry weapons on the front lines. This shows an astonishing mistrust of our armed forces. This self-hating philosophy has led to the death of many of our fine fighting men.
I would say that Obama's poisoning of the leadership of our military is solely responsible for this, but this has been going on for some time, under Clinton and George W. Bush as well, who seemed to have no problem with it. Will no one except Donald Trump speak out against this insanity?
This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.