Representative McCaul: "They Defend Us Overseas, Yet They're Defenseless At Bases"

by JASmius

It is a curious juxtaposition, isn't it?:

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul believes the ban on carrying weapons on military bases should be lifted to help prevent further attacks like last week's at Fort Hood, Texas, but retired Admiral Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, does not agree.

Let's put their base arguments side by side and see which one makes more sense.  Also, bear in mind that while Admiral Mullen was appointed JCS chairman by President Bush, he was retained in that capacity by Red Barry, indicating ideological "flexibility," and a compatibility with the Dark Side.

First, Chairman McCaul:

During appearances on "Fox News Sunday" and CBS' "Face the Nation," McCaul, R-TX10, that last week's shootings, in which Specialist Ivan Lopez opened fire and killed four people, including himself, call for a "reanalysis of protection policies."

"I think we need to talk to the commanders whether it would make sense for some of our senior leadership officers opportunity to carry weapons for protection," he said on "Face the Nation."

"Ideally what you want to have are more military police officers but in the current budget climate it's not as realistic. So a force multiplier of officers and enlisted men we can trust, the senior leadership to have them carry. Because, it only takes a few minutes to ruin and kill a large number of soldiers. Anytime we see soldier on soldier it's one of the most tragic things we can see. And if we had senior leadership armed maybe they could have stopped it before it got worse."

Seems logical and reasonable.  It's both common sense and established fact that "active shooters" gravitate to "soft" targets, and nothing is "softer" than a "gun-free zone".  The reason is elementarily simple: Since nobody in a "gun-free zone" is armed, an active shooter knows nobody will shoot back at him.  Whereas in a "concealed & carrying zone," some or all of the people there may be equipped and trained to defend themselves, making the prospects a lot dicier for the Ivan Lopez's of the world.

This, of course, used to be the case until twenty years ago, when Bill Clinton, in one of his first actions as Commander-in-Chief, ordered that all military bases be - drumroll, please - "gun-free zones".  The wonder is that there haven't been more shooting sprees like the ones at Fort Hood, Naval Station Norfolk, the Washington Naval Yard, and elsewhere.  But the trend is definitely rising.

And now, Admiral Mullen:

But military officials, including Mullen, disagree with McCaul's opinion, pointed out Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who said he would support lifting the ban if military officials agreed.

“If the military reassess and says that’s the right strategy, then I’m going to support it,” he said. “For those of us in Congress [to] say, here’s what they should do, I worry whether it would be political rather than about safety and security."

Mullen, appearing on "Meet the Press" said that allowing soldiers to carry weapon on base will not solve the increase in attacks.

"I’m not one — as someone who has been on many, many bases and posts — that would argue for arming anybody who is on base," said Mullen. "I think that actually invites much more difficult challenges."

He said that he is sure the Fort Hood incident will cause Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to review procedures needed to protect people on bases, but "I'd be much more in the camp of fixing it that way and focusing on the individuals rather than routinely allowing arms on any military base in the country."

But Mullen does not think incidents such as the Fort Hood shootings are just a military problem, but also are a threat on the national level

"Now that more people are coming home, I think we’re going to see an increased number of challenges associated with that, and we all need to wrap our arms around the force to help them deal with that," Mullen said. “[But] I don’t think this is just a military problem, it’s a national problem. We’re short mental health professionals in the military, just as we are across the country."

You can see why Admiral Mullen was a "good fit" in the Obama Regime, cantcha?

Here his error is in addressing the lifting of the on-base gun ban and the shortage of mental health professionals in the military as an either/or proposition.  Yes, the "more people coming home" adjustment issues, PTSD, etc. are matters that need to be dealt with, and that's fine.  But in the mean time there are armed nutcases, both uniformed and civilian, that keep finding their way onto military bases and turning them into combat areas.  Sure, let's "wrap our arms around the force," but let's also make sure "we're" armed just in case someone or ones in the force are cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, or are, as in the case of "Major" Hasan, not really "part of the force".

Advantage: Chairman McCaul.

I think this graphic sums it up.