Words mean things

Posted on by

I think that’s a Rush Limbaugh quote, to give credit where I believe credit is due, but maybe he got it somewhere else.

The shipyard shooting was described on the news tonight as having taken place in a “heavily secured” area. Has the term “heavily secured” been redefined while I wasn’t looking, or is that a blatantly moronic description?

Yet another mass shooting in what amounts to a gun free zone, in a long line of mass shooting in gun free zones, but in this case it can be said that this was a “heavily secured gun free zone”. In other words, the shooting took place inside a real live, physical, three-dimensional contradiction in terms. Which of course is the problem.

Last time this happened I had military vets tell me that trusting kids on the military bases with guns is not practical, which is either coming from a mental position of pre-conditioned, certain defeat, or it means we don’t have a military, which is certain defeat. Sorry guys; that’s insane. You may believe it with every fiber of your militarily experienced being, but it’s insane.

One would think we should have learned this lesson, that military bases can and do come under attack, in, say, December of 1941, but then people do forget. Fort Hood on the other hand, was in the news just within the last few weeks due to the trial. Is anyone in the military feeling a clue coming on yet, or are we simply going to ramp up the stupid, as I predict?

If we had sanity in our military, every low level grunt, every secretary, every truck driver, etc., would be a rifleman first and a whatever else, a floor polisher or cook, second. Militaries are for killing people and breaking things, and so if you don’t have the ability to kill people and break things on short notice, on any base or any boring flower planting assignment in some peaceful corner of the world, you’re not military material. (By the way there are no peaceful corners of the world. There are only places wherein the violence is taking a break and readying itself for the next push)

Which, practically, means we need the CMP back in full force and effect, jr high and high school shooting teams should be reinstated, and of course the NRA needs to be doing more of what it was born to do. If our government and military are tying their own hands, we’ll have to do it on our own.

It is being reported that the DC metro police were called in……….to protect a military installation against a single attacker (or maybe two we don’t know for sure yet). A civilian force had to go in and help save a United States military installation from one or two dumbshits.

Let that sink in for bit. We’re now telegraphing to the world, AGAIN, that a single trained squad, or two, could likely dominate an entire base inside the U.S. Could it get any worse, Mr. commander in Chief? How f-ing lame is that, you generals?

And their response appears to be that we need more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, i.e. more of the kind of poison that made this latest act possible. They want restrictions on the provision in the constitution that was designed to foster the security of a free state.

You know the saying; once is happenstance, twice is coincidence… Well the Fort Hood shooting was enemy action or worse. This last one (maintaining the conditions that made the Fort Hood shooting possible) borders on treason, or it leaps over that border. Conspiracy theories abound in regard to the lack of preparedness in Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. This is at least as bad, considering that Ft Hood was in the lime light just this summer.

Share

45 thoughts on “Words mean things”

  1. One of the problems is that military commanders get in trouble for friendly fire incidents. They do not get in trouble for enemy action. The default then has become to remove weapons from the hands of troops unless needed for the immediate mission at hand.
    A second problem is that we as Americans assume that everything happens “over there” and that we are safe here in the States. That is one of the reasons why people totally freaked on 9/11.
    You are correct: A single platoon entering a US military base could rip the guts out of an entire Brigade. In fact, if I were a hostile nation looking to win a war with the US, I would send in a company of Special forces units to attack key US bases.
    Marcinko proved that this could be done in the 80’s, when he staged a kidnapping of the Commander, Naval Forces Atlantic as an exercise. He also successfully assaulted Air Force One. He wreaked havoc among the military’s supposedly secure facilities. His forces? Fourteen men.

    • “…remove weapons from the hands of troops unless needed for the immediate mission at hand.”

      Well you came up with the answer right there, didn’t you? The “immediate mission at hand” for any and all military personel is to be ready at a moment’s notice to kill people and break things in defense of liberty, therefore being armed at all times is a part of the immediate mission at hand. QED.

  2. From what I heard on the news today, that was not a gun-free zone. There were many people authorized to carry guns. I don’t remember who said that but it might have been at one of the press conferences. (That also might have added to the confusion over the number of gunmen.)

    Also, they had armed security. That was how the gunman got his handgun. He took it from someone he shot.

    • There is NO ONE authorized to carry guns there, EXCEPT the police and gate guards.

      Even the Marines stationed there are disarmed, unless they are activly standing post at one of the three gates.

      Once you’re through the gate, the next time you’ll encounter an armed person is when entering one of several very specific buildings, which have “access control” consisting on an armed guard by a metal detector.

      Don’t try and throw this bullshit in my face, Ubu — I know the Navy Yard, used to have an office there, still have a current WNY pass and base sticker (because I still work FOR the people in BLDG 197, just at a different base nearby), and regularly work with the people on the fourth floor (and a few other floors, but mostly the 4th floor) of BLDG 197, and have confirmed at least one of my colleagues is among the dead. (That’s not “colleague = someone who works for the same huge department”, but “a guy Iregularly brief, and was supposed to be briefing in a small meeting tomorrow”.)

      The Navy Yard (like ALL US military bases) are the very ESSENSE of “Gun Free Zone” — because Gun Free Zones don’t normally disarm COPS ON DUTY, do they? Hell, WNY doesn’t even have a huge SP or MP detatchment watching the flightlines, nuclear weapons storage, or manuever units stationed there, so you dont; even have large numbers of military personnel with UNLOADED guns.

      Note they had to call in DC Metro Police for backup.

      • Sorry for the typoes.

        I am PISSED at the propaganda lies the blood-graglers are thrwoing around about an incident I am VERY MUCH PERSONALLY INVOLVED WITH.

        • Sorry for the loss of your colleagues, and thanks for your input. Some honest, accurate info is appreciated.

      • What was the security like for Bldg 197? Was it one of the ones with the armed guards?

        I’m familiar with regular military bases because my father is a “double dipper.”

        • Bldg 197 has an armed officer checking IDs. Armed with a pistol.

          The front gates have armed guards checking IDs, basically one per lane. They have pistols (may have longarms in the guard shack).

          All of these guards have the authority to search anyone on base at anytime for any reason (or none at all) — although practicality limits how many the do search, with the ratio of physical searches being based on the FPCON (Force Protection Condition, i.e., Navyspeak for “threat level”).

          Most of the people working in BLDG 197 are DON civilians, with some military personnel also. The Washington Navy Yard has a variety of commands there, but NONE of them are combatant units — it’s basically a large gated office park for commands such as JAG and the Navy Band.

          The ONLY people armed on base are guards ACTUALLY ON DUTY. The guards are a mix of Navy SPs, Marine MPs, DON police, and contract security guards (who basically have to meet the same clearance requirements as the DON police).

          It is the EPITOME of a Gun Free Zone — the only people with guns AT ALL are government paid law enforcement personnel who are on duty at the moment. You cannot even have an unloaded private weapon locked in an TSA approved transit case.

          Then take into account it is physically located within Washington DC — as close to a Gun Free Zone as you are likely to get outside a prison. NO civilian carry of arms (loaded or otherwise), very few guns even inside private residences.

          • I would say the access control security is actually tighter than large parts of “regular” military bases that actually do stuff, but not as tight as say, NRL (Naval Research Labratories).

            As for Building 197, let me just say this — you cannot have a thumb drive, camera, cell phone, smart watch, MP3 player, tablet, computer, etc., inside the building unless the US government issued it to you AND NAVSEA security has approved it before hand. This includes items purchased by contractors with governmnet funds for government missions — it literally has to issued, or it is contraband.

            As in, you can be arrested, have the device confiscated on the spot, and never see the device again.

            But again, the only person around with a gun is the guard controlling building access — i.e., the first guy shot. (Remember, the shooter HAD access — he was a NMCI tech during a period where Building 197 was going through an NMCI tech refresh. Because on teh rolling refresh cycle, it’s NAVSEA’s turn.)

    • You know better than that, ubu. We can define a “gun free zone” very accurately as any place where people are disarmed except for those “people authorized to carry guns”. That’s the whole problem, see.

      And here you are desperately clinging to the “criminals will take your gun and use it against you meme.

      No, Little Grasshopper; designated armed guards are, essentially, wearing a flashing neon sign that says “SHOOT ME FIRST” and that is exactly what happened here. Once the bad guy takes out the miniscule number of guards, he has fish in a barrel. THAT’S a gun free zone. Fish in a barrel, and if it’s walled facility, those fish are truly in a barrel and can’t get out.

      Do NOT tell me you’re too dense to see that, because I know better.

      • “We can define a “gun free zone” very accurately as any place where people are disarmed except for those “people authorized to carry guns”.

        So, the NRA solution for elementary schools (an armed guard plus arming teachers) will still keep schools a “gun-free” zone because students won’t be armed, right? If I’m getting this wrong, please explain why.

        • Maybe, but probably not. I would change the definition to say “…except those whose job it is to carry guns”.

          Guards have a “shoot me” sign on their uniforms. Teachers don’t. Also, a school probably has one guard, but a whole lot of teachers. If teachers can carry (even if only a fraction of them do) then an attacker is faced with the potential of facing dozens of defenders. It has been very well established that even a small percentage risk of facing an armed defender will persuade attackers to avoid such targets — the history of “must issue” demonstrates this quite precisely.
          It would also be worth asking why students should be prevented from defending themselves. I’ll grant that many are not qualified (the same goes for nominal “adults”) but others are; a simpleminded cutoff based on age is not a good substitute.

          • That’s the key.

            A threat you can identify, particularly one that is fixed, is not much of a threat, as it can be accounted for by planning. The unspoken corollary to the eliminating gun-free zones is that the armed people will not necessarily be identified as such nor be predictable in location.

            Note that in the Navy Yard incident the killer targeted the -known- armed threat using the element of surprise and initiative. Once that known threat was eliminated he was assured that the “no guns” policy eliminated any other possible threats for him and indeed he knew that taking out the guard using surprise would actually give him more firepower.

            In Boston the bombers wanted guns and went to the one source they -knew- would have one, the uniformed police officer. They didn’t start randomly shooting citizens, as there was no way to know if one might have a gun to steal. Conversely, it being Boston they could be fairly certain they would face no threat from those civilians as they were disarmed by law.

            Note also that the desire to identify “authorized” carriers is so strong among those who are opposed to the idea of armed response even by “professionals” (whether philosophically or due to the danger to their bureaucratic careers) that they wanted air marshals, in the most secure “gun free zones” in the world, aircraft in flight, who only work as deterrents due to the uncertainty of whether one is on board, to effectively wear a uniform.

        • Yeesh…
          OK, technically then, when my kids were babies, my own house was a “gun free zone” because my babies couldn’t shoot. If that’s your argument, you win. You win, you win you win. Ten points for the winner. (once my kids were around 4, it was no longer gun free then)

          Oh boy, did you ever get me on that one. You’re so very clever, and yet you don’t see (actually you do but you won’t admit it, which is even worse)

          Listen, Honey; we’re talking about laws that infringe on a specific right, and about military policy. If someone wants to have their own private gun free zone in their own private school or business, that’s their business. I don’t have to go onto their private property.

          And yes indeed, my son participated in school shootings in high school. He was on the school trap shooting team. And no one ever shot another kid though there were meets with hundreds of kids in competition against one another, carrying guns freely, with thousand of rounds of 12 gauge ammunition and un-cased shotguns spread out helter skelter all over the facility. And this goes on for months every year in hundreds of schools already.

          In a sense the kids are treated with more respect than our military personel, because they really aren’t policed in the sense that there was a range officer poking his fingers into every gun after every round on the shooting line. The kids are taught safety, and then largely trusted to handle their own guns and police each other. The coaches and score keepers are watching, as are their parents, and it works well. When they’re done shooting, they take their guns home with them on their own terms– they aren’t surrendered to an armory or what have you.

          So go ahead, off in a corner someplace and wet your pants or something, while the adults here are having a serious conversation.

          You’ve already managed to waste too much of our time, which I’m sure is your only real point.

          • This post you wrote is titled “Words Mean Things.” You then wrote your definition of “gun-free zone.”

            And you think I’m being clever? 🙂

  3. The thing about a standing military, is that it quickly becomes a bureaucracy.

    I remember having a staff sergeant go through all my earthly possessions with a fine-toothed comb on several occasions. All because of things that had no relation to me or my unit. A marine in another unit committed suicide? Quick, go through everyone’s stuff to make sure someone doesn’t have a hidden bullet with which they could repeat the feat. A piece of ordinance goes missing? Everyone with any tenuous connection to the op gets lockdown and their crap tossed all over the room. Someone had psychoactive mushrooms while on liberty, in a country where that’s legal? BOHICA.

    Heck, while I was in, they were even trying to disarm the personnel who lived off base. After all, firearms are dangerous. Someone could get hurt if they’re allowed to have them without proper supervision.

  4. I remember having to spend a decade (76-86) standing Topside Sentry/Petty Officer and NWSG in the Navy with an EMPTY 1911A1 and two mags with 5 rounds each. With the Pistol in a Flap Holster.

    I thought after 9/11, we had gotten past that Horseshit.

    Or does the thought of having Armed Military Personnel <4 miles from the White House tend to make BHO wet his Diapers?

    • Les, it’s an eggshell defense system — cops (and military personnel) at the front gates with loaded sidearms (luckily, they get to use LE style holsters, not military style flap holsters), and NOTHING until you get to specifically secured areas — which will have a cop (or even a security guard) with a loaded sidearm.

      I’m not even certain there’s an on-site QRF of Marines — no nukes or airplanes at WNY, it’s basically a big, walled in, office park for the Navy in SE DC. I think it is technically considered an adjunct facility to Anacostia. . .

  5. “Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.” — Thomas Jefferson

    As I understand it, the current policy making military installations into disarmed-victim zones was installed by the previous socialist president (Clinton).

    It’s also worth remembering that this was a double “gun free” zone — a military installation (first one) inside DC (second one). All it did was promise to the attacker that he’d have an easy time — get past a few guards at the door and you’re home free, until the police finally gets there.

    Yes, the notion that a military base does not contain enough resources to cope with a single armed attacker is just utterly outrageous. In a civilized world, the bad guy would have lasted only seconds — just long enough for a half dozen armed bystanders to draw and take him out. In other words, the same way that it works in places that don’t disarm the victims (like that mall in Clackamas, or in this http://www.scottbieser.com/sept11.html ).

    • During my time in service, in the 60’s the only ones armed were the officer of the day and the nco duty officer of the day. This was usually the way it worked, so in a batalion of 4 companies plus a headquarters company,there were that many armed on our post.

      • I don’t know, Man. That just seems like the freakig twilight zone to me (or a death wish)

        I’m a nobody. I’ve never been in military service, but to me a “real” military has you getting dressed in the morning with your rifle, eating with your rifle, doing PT with your rifle, going to the toilet with your rifle, sleeping with your rifle, sweeping the floor with your rifle, peeling potatos or what have you with your rifle, playing pool in the pool hall with your rifle, and if you’re seen without your rifle, in proper functioning condition, you’re docked in some way.

        As I’m typing this I’m armed, and my gun has a round in the chamber, so I know it can be done. When I get up and put my pants on in the morning I’m armed, when I eat breakfast I’m armed, when I drive my kid to school I’m armed, when I go shopping I’m armed, when I’m in a movie theater I’m armed, when I’m out with my wife I’m armed, when I’m walking the dog I’m armed, and when I’m sitting on the toilet I’m armed….

        Don’t anyone f-ing tell me it can’t be done.

  6. Note that, even without the Clinton universal military gun ban EO in 1993, everyone would have been helpless — because without the Clinton “all bases are GFZs” declaration, it would have reverted to local law at best — which is DC.

    • Yes, unfortunately, except for Heller — and has that had any actual real world effect yet?

      • Yes and no. Due to the Heller ruling, DC is “allowing”* people to keep handguns in their homes, but it’ll take another SCOTUS ruling that the 2A applies to carrying outside the home for them to “allow” that.

        So, unless there are staff members LIVING on that facility with a line-of-sight to the shooter….

        *- I had to type that because it’s technically accurate, but it made me throw up in my mouth a little.

  7. Something to keep in mind for reference is that during W.W. II, family and friends would buy pistols and ammunition, pack them up and send them through the mail to virtually anywhere on the planet to their servicemen, and far from freaking out about it and wetting their pants, people generally considered it to be the right thing to do.

    It was an act of love, you see. You give someone a gun because you love them and you want them to survive in a dangerous world. American citizens also donated their personal firearms to the Britts to help them out.

    Conversely, what does that say about someone who wants to take guns away from people in a dangerous world? Hmm? I say they are traitors.

    • “American citizens also donated their personal firearms to the Britts to help them out.” This is something I read on the internet, so it’s probably true, maybe half true?

      The Brits kept those guns locked up and destroyed them after the war. At anytime in the future if the Brits come under threat of invasion again, they’ll just have to sh-t their own guns out of their asses. Mine will stay right here in the good old USA.

      • I’m calling BS on that true/half-true statement. My father was stationed in England in WWII and I just asked him. He said “I’ve never heard of it. Our government gave guns to the British during WWII under a program called… (he forgets — Lend/lease?)”

        • What makes you think a US serviceman stationed in England during the war would know anything about British domestic arms? The donated arms were intended for use of the population in case the Germans actually invaded. They would typically not have been used by the regular military due to not being an issue pattern type weapon.
          Very few were returned to the US. Most of those had some sort of visible owners ID that made it clear it was a loaned gun for the duration of hostilities.

        • The NRA magazine, American Rifleman, had an article about this in the last year or so. A Camp Perry champion, an Army officer, donated his ’03 to be sent to the UK as part of a donor program. He tagged his rifle with a metal badge telling its history and asking for it to be returned after the war. His was one of the few that were returned, the rest were destroyed.

        • Uh, Ubu — it was well documented in both the American and British press at the time, both the donations, AND the subsequent destructions. The British people were very publically thankful for the loan, and teh American people were quite open about the need — there were public drives to “replace the guns lost at Dunkirk!”

          Your father’s memories, about something that had ZERO impact on his life at the time (getting drunk, getting laid, trying to avoid getting stuck on shit details, and trying to avoid getting killed — that’s not a slam on your dad, that’s what a servicemean deployed overseas durig a war is focused on, primarily) are not reliable documentation.

          I’ve seen several of the weapons that were not destroyed, and have read several of the news articles from ORIGINAL copies, not reprints or online scans.

          As for people sending guns to loved ones overseas for their personal use, maybe your dad stationed in England didn’t run across it. (Hell, if he was an aviator, he would have been issued a handgun, so wouldn’t need one from home. If he was stationed in England throughout the whole war but wasn’t an aviator, he wouldn’t have needed a gun AT ALL.)

          But I do a lot of hanging around WWII ground combat vets, often times drinking while they tell stories. “My dad [or uncle, or grandfather, or cousin, etc., but usually older generation who were WWI vets] mailed me this pistol,” story are not uncommon. Maybe they are all liars. Considering one of them was wearing a Navy Cross lapel pin, I’d hesitate to call them such.

          • If all a Progressive change agent (freelance or otherwise) can manage to do is get us to waste our time refuting their silly assertions, or if they can manage simply to irritate someone, they have accomplished a significant part of their mission.

            If I’ve heard personal accounts of lend/lease activities, and of loved ones mailing guns overseas, having never even tried to find such information, then anyone who claims to give ashit (ubu) can find such information VERY easily.

            In other words, the truth is not interesting to such people except insofar as it needs to be modified or buried to fit an agenda. Michelle Obama said it openly; “We need to change our history”

  8. I work on a military base. Every entrance to our building has these little blue signs that say “Weapons Prohibited” by US Code such and such. I did wonder today how many of those signs the Navy yard shooter walked past as he was blasting people…

  9. The military base “GFZ” edicts are far older than the Klintoon administration.

    Carrying concealed or openly on military posts is forbidden except in performance of duty and in accordance with regulation, and has been for quite a long time. Yes, you’ll see troops carrying their service weapons from time to time, but they’ll have no ammo and will be either training, or on the way to a range for cyclic qualification.

    Military personnel who reside on post in ‘family housing’ (NOT singles, family) are permitted to possess firearms and ammunition in their residence, but must keep them separate, as in NOT LOADED and can only transport them, unloaded, going to or coming from hunting or target practice on, or off post.
    Personnel residing off post are under the same transportation restriction.

    Some posts have Gun-Clubs with access to a range where private weapons can be used…under very strict guidelines.

    All of this makes almost all military installations easy pickings for a person intent on mayhem.

    It probably will not change for the better in our lifetimes. One of my first drill sergeants told us a joke in the first week or so of OSUT . “What ‘s the difference between the Boy Scouts and Army Recon Scouts?”. After a chorus of ‘incorrect’ answers responded to by the sergeant with “Wrong Soldier! Push-Ups!”, he gave us the ‘correct’ answer: “The Boy Scouts have ADULT SUPERVISION!”.

    The attitude still exists. The commanders see too many juvenile personalities around for them to even consider allowing post wide carry.

    Now, I’m not saying SOME people don’t play by ‘Big Boy Rules’ and go right ahead and carry anyway, regs be damned, but it’s too bad that persons with a state CCW will probably never be allowed to legally carry on post.

    • “What ‘s the difference between the Boy Scouts and Army Recon Scouts?….The Boy Scouts have ADULT SUPERVISION!”.

      That’s a perfect illustration of the mental disease, the POISON that needs to be rooted out of our institutions. I see it in the public schools too, where teachers run down their students, making them feel like failures. It’s everywhere, it needs to be recognized for what it is, and ELIMINATED very quickly or it overruns a whole institution like a virulent infection..

      • Well, derogation may be an ‘institutional poison’ in the civilian world, but basic training still has two rules: 1 The DS is always correct. 2 When in doubt, refer to rule #1 as an institutional.
        From what I’ve personally seen, the ‘adult supervision’, at least at the company/troop level, in big army, is a pretty accurate current assessment of .mil.

        If you ever get a chance to go through the physical security and property accountability regs, you’ll figure out that these came about – not of out thin air – but because some ingenious soldier got tapped on the head by the good idea fairy and everyone else got to clean up the resultant mess and figure out how to eliminate a repeat performance.

        • “…because some ingenious soldier got tapped on the head by the good idea fairy and everyone else got to clean up the resultant mess and figure out how to eliminate a repeat performance.”

          So we end up with an OSHA compliant military? Again; it’s a contradiction in terms.

          We must stop thinking like this.

    • Prior to 1993, personal carry on Stateside base was up to the local commander.

      After 1993, it has been a blanket prohibition.

      • And every military installation I was ever on from the 80’s onward (and that’s has been quite a few) had the restrictions as policy.

  10. No way. The military is first and foremost a make-work jobs program celebrating diversity. Second it is a pension, welfare, and healthcare program. Winning wars isn’t even in the top 10 bullet points of the mission statement anymore.

    If you believe everyone in the military should be armed and dangerous, or they shouldn’t be there in the first place – the same thing could be said of all government workers. No one should be denied a government job at the DMV or IRS just because they are a bigoted genocial raging alcoholic. If the EPA and TSA couldn’t hire hysterical paranoid delusional bullies, they wouldn’t be able to hire at all. If every civil servant had to be trustworthy enough to carry a gun, the Border Control would only consist of people actually patrolling the border. That’s crazy.

    • That reads more like a feature rather than a bug– No more losers, deadbeats or enemies of liberty in our government institutions, or no one at all in cases like the TSA. I ask you; what could be better?

Comments are closed.