I thought this was interesting. Not the response I would have expected from Marines. From Alan Korwins "Page Nine" newsletter. Ft. Hood Redux The lamestream media told you: Note: An unusually busy end-of-year for me delayed this item from release: A lone gunman under obvious psychological stress opened fire with semiautomatic assault weapons on a group of defenseless soldiers near a school graduation at Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 and wounding dozens of others, until he was shot and stopped by courageous first responders who arrived in only four minutes, or maybe ten minutes, and are being hailed as heroes. The motive for the attack is under investigation. The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that: The reporting on this was so typically atrocious it is nauseating. First the jihadi murderer (called 'a lone gunman' by the media) was dead, then he was not. He was an angry Muslim (but this was played down until it could no longer be played down). He was shot by a woman cop (which later turned out to be untrue, maybe). She was widely hailed as a hero (no, the media hailed her as a hero widely). Motive investigations are not needed for infidel-hating Muslims who carry soldier-of-allah cards and scream allah akbar as they follow their religion and kill infidels. And wrap my head in duct tape so it don't explode -- every station showed that damnable footage of space-ranger-lookalike SWAT people clumsily climbing out of a black panel van, geared up for nothing, arriving too late for anything -- except to have their pictures taken and replayed and replayed until you could puke. The media, with nothing to say, said nothing over and over. They should be ashamed. They're not. They're still showing those meaningless too-late-for-anything bogeymen in cute black assault outfits, but at least, unlike our military, they had guns. Tell me again, how long does it take them to suit up like that? John Farnam, one of the nation's leading firearms instructors http://www.defense-training.com said: Profession of Arms? Learned helplessness in the military. Had Wednesday's serial murders at Ft. Hood taken place just outside the Base in the City of Killeen, TX, the murder suspect would likely have been gunned-down immediately by several Texas CHL holders. Tragically, the murders took place in a "gun-free zone" (aka "criminal empowerment zone"), because in America, among those claiming to be active members of the "Profession of Arms," no one is armed! Any gun that is "perfectly safe" is "perfectly useless," and its owner is "perfectly helpless." Years ago, in all branches of the US Military, officers and staff NCOs were always armed with a pistol, on base, off base, in uniform, or not. Being ever "armed and ready" was considered a point of honor! To be unarmed was to be incapable of performing one's duty. Such a thing would be dishonorable... Under today's "enlightened" policy, even star-wearers are unarmed and helpless, foolishly relying upon some ill-defined "reactionary force" to protect them, a force that will predictably arrive long after the damage has been done. [Note: Marines reminded the Uninvited Ombudsman that under Clinton, as a force reduction, base gates are now staffed by civilian contractors, with half-empty magazines; in the Ft. Hood massacre, city police provided the protection, see my comments, next:] I spoke to the East Valley Marines last night, retirees still active. Quite an honor, on the birthday of the Corps... They were not in favor of arming soldiers on a military base. Now that was a shocker. At least it was to me. They're completely used to having arms controlled by the command structure. They see it as proper, no problem with that, didn't connect being disarmed with the murderous assault by the jihadi whose name, unlike in the "news" media, deserves no mention here. There's a security force at a base that is armed and they support that, but which like the police, I pointed out, are only minutes away when seconds matter. They felt if soldiers were armed there'd be trouble, because they get angry, and get drunk, and basically, they didn't trust themselves or the system to simply be armed as a routine matter. So how did they feel about civilians carrying firearms with the freedom everyone should have? Mixed bag. They certainly didn't connect the civilian Second Amendment model with being in the service. A friend said they are so dependent on the government for so long, they're not freedom-conscious like some of us out here are. They were not fully comfortable with the idea of Constitutional Carry. To say they were, as a lot, regimented, would be accurate. Wonderful guys, but they are cut from a common cloth, and that includes when you get back from the front lines and go to the rear, you turn over your weapons until you need them again. The unarmed victim zone of Ft. Hood, well, they didn't see it that way, focused much more intensely on why government didn't identify and remove the Muslim warrior who perpetrated the atrocity. I asked, do they think they're vulnerable to this in the future? That didn't move them any closer to the right to keep and bear arms, or the need to keep and bear arms, or anything related to having arms without the command structure saying OK. They stayed with finding these rascals and dealing with them in time... a good deal of anger over not dealing with this guy in time. So is another base vulnerable to this sort of assault? They didn't think so (but they didn't convince me very well, but what do I know). And you should have seen the animus when they started in about how under Clinton, with the downsizing, protection of the gates was farmed out under contract to private firms! Yes, that's right, not a big secret but not widely remembered (except by them) -- the front gates are staffed by civilians, not military personnel. They didn't sit well with that, and I'm being nice about it.