Letter to the Editor: Lift ban on weapons at military installations


Six years ago the Ft. Hood shooter  — an Army officer, psychiatrist and radicalized Muslim — enjoyed a free-for-all until the MPs could get there to wound and capture him.

Before Chattanooga last week, there had been 20 other attacks against our military in this country since 1994! As time progresses, the rate and brazenness of the attacks have only increased.

Dozens dead; dozens more wounded — almost all of the service members attacked were unarmed and defenseless.

In 1993, President Clinton imposed strict gun control upon military installations, limiting weapons carry to military police and scant few others who — as with civilian law enforcement officers — simply cannot be everywhere.

The draconian rule presupposes that our weapons-trained trained military can’t manage personal protection while on government property — but are nonetheless free to take advantage of local gun laws whenever off base. Base commanders have virtually no authority in making exceptions.

Consequently, an assailant is certain to receive return fire when attacking customers at a Wal-Mart — but has no such worries when attacking our soldiers as they perform their routine duties.

It is undeniable that the landscape of international terror has changed significantly since the ban was imposed.

Domestic attacks on service members and police officers are on the rise throughout the Western world. Unlike the police, our military members are disarmed.

Sleepers can be triggered to act in an instant via social media. Thus, obtaining sufficient warning of impending attacks is virtually impossible.

This is not an issue about workplace violence. To say so is to be fraudulent.

This is an issue about acknowledging and steeling against guerrilla warfare proclaimed specifically against our military — who are far-better suited to defend themselves if allowed the same rights as civilians have when simply going to the grocery store.

Lift the ban!

Dan Flathers, Toms Brook

Comment Policy

Print This Article

Letters to the Editor