Since John Kerry has been on a "tour of duty" pushing the administration's policy concerning Syria for almost two weeks now, do you suppose he's going to put in for another Purple Heart? Before you discard the idea out of hand, don’t forget, he verbally shot himself in the foot the other day. Then again, as I recall, the Purple Heart isn't supposed to be awarded for self inflicted wounds. Or for that matter fictional ones either. Not that either of those conditions would necessarily stop John Kerry from applying for a Purple Heart. Hey, maybe we can get John Kerry to ride a swift boat across the Eastern section of the Mediterranean to the shores of Syria where he can get out of the boat, stand at attention, salute, and say "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty".
Moving on to other things, unfortunately, we've had another mass shooting here in the United States. At the time of this writing, details are still sketchy, but reporting so far mentions a lone shooter armed with some combination of pistol, shotgun, and AR-15, or all three. I'm sure we'll get more details over the next few days, and I'm equally sure if there was an AR-15 involved that name will be mostly dropped in favor of the term "assault rifle". If he didn't use an AR-15, the press will fail to retract their original statements saying one was used. Depending on the type of shotgun used, if it was, that may become an "urban assault weapon".
While I don't know the motivation of the shooter, and since he was killed we may never really know, this attack has a lot of resemblance to what happened at Fort Hood nearly four years ago (at least, since this shooter was killed, we won't have to put up with years of foot dragging leading up to a ridiculous show trial). In both cases, an armed lunatic brought a weapon onto a military base and was able to shoot a lot of people before being brought down by the very few people who are allowed to have weapons on a military installation. Since the reason the different branches of the military exist is to kill people and break things through force of arms, I'm a little puzzled. Why can one person with a rifle, shotgun, or handgun basically run amuck on American military bases, shooting and killing at will, until a few scattered armed people can get together and put a stop to it? Granted, a lot of the focus of the U.S. Navy is centered around using long distance weapons and not personal fire arms. However, if we can trust naval personnel with five inch guns, missiles, torpedoes, armed fighter aircraft, and etc., surely they are trustworthy enough to be allowed to carry weapons on a military base.
Naturally, if you think about this enough, since the infantry is indeed trained to kill people with personal weapons, it makes even less sense that the soldiers at Fort Hood TX were unarmed and totally defenseless. We don't just allow, but command these people to carry and use rifles and handguns when they are deployed, yet we won't allow them the opportunity to protect themselves when they are going about their duties in the United States itself. Since it's twice been proven that the policies in place to keep deranged shooters from getting on base don't always work, that's a big, glaring, deficiency. Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on the people working perimeter security at these installations. I think if people are determined enough to smuggle weapons onto base, occasionally one is going to get through security no matter how well trained and dedicated the guards at the entry points might be.
My prediction in the aftermath of the latest horrific mass shooting is that the administration and the left are going to call for more gun control to curb "gun violence". Well, I'm sure interested in improving the safety of our soldiers on military bases, or for that matter all U.S. citizens throughout the country. The difference is that unlike the people on the left, I have picked up on the fact that mass shootings tend to take place in gun free zones, or barring that, places where the number of armed people is kept to a very select, minimal number. In fact, judging by the number of armed guards surrounding our government officials, it would seem that at least a few people in the higher echelons of government security have some grasp of the concept of real security. Too bad those people, whoever they are, don't seem to be in charge of seeing that military bases, or apparently for that matter elementary schools, are safe. I wonder what the head of the Secret Service would say if The Barack told her that all of the agents on his protective detail should disarm and the White House needed to be made into a gun free zone to make things safer. Don't laugh, it's already been turned into a common sense free zone, and for that matter, also a tourist free zone.
At the end of the day, I have to wonder why the very people we put in charge of our national security aren't allowed to look after their own, personal security when many of them have received intensive training in just that. Sadly, I'm pretty sure we are going to go through another round of the left trying to push through more gun control when what we really should be discussing is the inherent hazard posed by both gun free zones, and restricting the ability of qualified, competent, and law abiding people to defend themselves and others.
Finally, I would like to close with this: we should, and hopefully will, lend assistance and aid to the wounded, and the survivors of the fallen in this latest horrific attack. My thoughts and prayers are with them. Additionally, we owe it to those same people to deal with the conditions, as best we can, that led to such a large number of unnecessary deaths. Since I seriously doubt we are going to be able to legislate sanity, my suggestion is we allow people who are perfectly capable and willing to protect themselves, and just as importantly, others, to do so.
Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at BruceKreitler.com.