Military man schools woman who says rape can be prevented by teaching men not to rape

I posted here about a Zerlina Maxwell, a Democrat strategist who told Sean Hannity that weapons don’t prevent rape, words prevent rape.  According to her, the best way to prevent rape is to teach men not to do so.  Arming women is unnecessary.  Their power rests in the word “No.”

America’s Sargeant Major saw the same video.  Normally, he wouldn’t comment on this type of thing, because concealed carry is a hot topic issue in many states now.  Being assiduously apolitical, the Sargeant Major leaves such topics alone.

What changed his mind about writing a post taking on Maxwell’s argument is that she wrapped it up by saying ““If firearms were the answer, then the military would be the safest place for women and it’s not.”  This is a purely factual statement and, moreover, one about the military, a subject well within the Sargeant Major’s purview.

The Sargeant Major’s marvelous post explaining to Maxwell how the military actually operates — when it comes to controlling the guns in its midst and when it comes to teaching troops to avoid dangerous or illegal activity — is here.  Read it.  You’ll like it.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Texan99

    “How can Maxwell and those like her believe American women can defend their country yet not themselves?”

  • Jose

    Texan 99,
    That is exactly what I was wondering.  I wish someone would ask her.

  • Freddie Sykes

    Zerlina Maxwell demonstrates the progressive attitude that crime would disappear if we could just pass the properly worded laws. Why else would Piers Morgan keep asking guess how we can prevent mass murders when the answer is there is no way to do so.

    And with respect to the military, I thought that the Fort Hood “workplace violence” / terrorist attack showed that those in the military when not in a combat zone spend most of their days unarmed. We need 2nd Amendment right for our soldiers.

  • Larry Sheldon

    If military people were armed all the time, the moslem nut case would would have been dead before the first person fell.

  • Mike Devx

    It has, in fact, always seemed odd to me that our soldiers are not allowed to carry handguns while on base, whether that base be here on US soil or abroad.  Handguns in holsters or conceal-carry.  And stronger armament than handguns.
    Any *logical* argument as to why THEY should be prohibited from responsibly doing that, would seem to apply to American citizens anywhere within our country as well.  The argument that the military is a command and control structure, or does not apply to the citizenry, are situational arguments, not logical.  I’m looking for the *reason* why it makes sense to prohibit soldiers from being armed.

  • Oldflyer

    Mike D.  To turn your question around, what purpose would be served by your proposal?
    I once served as Senior Member of a General Court Martial involving a murder trial.  One Marine shot his room mate for chewing him out about not keeping his gear squared away as a big inspection approached.  The Perp was on guard duty at a secure site and had been issued a side arm.  When he was called back to the room to pick up his gear, he shot the room mate.
    What is the lesson?  I don’t know.  Military folks on base live in very tight quarters, and there is natural friction.  Other than that, I can’t really respond to your question.
    I know that many Marines have privately owned handguns.  I don’t believe that they are allowed to keep them on base.

  • Mike Devx

    Thanks for the response, OldFlyer!
    My question isn’t a proposal; I am honestly just wondering.  I was challenged on this point by a liberal friend and I do not have a logical answer.
    Your example – a roommate shoots and kills his roommate over keeping a properly neat room – would seem to apply to civilians as well.  Guns are dangerous in the hands of the rare idiot, therefore we must ban guns for the entire population in question.  If that suffices as a logical argument for soldiers, why would it not suffice for the American citizen?
    If anyone should know how to properly handle a firearm, it would be the American soldier, I think.  If they are not to be trusted, why should the average American citizen be trusted?
    My “argumentative questions” here are tongue in cheek, of course.  I will be allowing *no one* to take my own guns away from me, no matter what laws they pass.  It may be that there *is* no logical answer for why soldiers on base aren’t to be trusted with guns, and are to be forcibly disarmed.  The military is as far from a democracy or republic as you can get; it’s the kind of top-down dictatorial Command And Control structure that Obama could only dream of.  It may be, therefore, that the only reason the Pentagon disarms its soldiers on base, stripping them of their guns, is because THEY CAN.

  • Larry Sheldon

    I’m going to use the posting by Mike Devx as source for my  little rant here, but I do not mean a personal attack, but rather an attack on the faulty thinking presented (sourced by a third party unnamed, I think).
    For openers, there is no connection between being well trained in the use of something and the possible misuse of that thing.  To base any subsequent argument on a belief that there IS a connection is to prove yourself to be a fool.
    Race car drivers can be said to be well trained in the use of a race care, but there seems scarcely a week goes by (I’ll confess that I no longer follow any of the racing genres anymore, so there may be a factual or perception error) …scarcely a week goes by with out at least an accusation that one driver used his car to “take out” somebody that annoyed him.
    We should ban race cars.
    In this day and age in the USA, what with Driver’s Training and Driver education, expensive licensing with its accompanying testing and evaluation, and all of that, it can be argued that all drivers are well trained (or that we are victims to a huge money grabbing scam), be I can not drive the short distance to the Chiropractor without seeing several examples of driving that by the Grace of God and some heads-up driving by others should have injured or killed somebody.
    We should ban bicycles, motorcycles, cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, delivery trucks, semi-trucks and trailers.  And electric wheelchairs.
    The level of training is open to debate, but the parties involved will not admit to there being a training problem.  Every few minutes, it seems, somewhere in the county a person is deliberately injured (even unto hospitalization or death) by a friend, mate, spouse, father mother, son, daughter, and so on. We should ban relationships between any human and any other human.
    I could go on, but before long what I write will begin to be silly. But the pattern is clear and defensible: Training in the proper use of something does indeed have nothing to do with the decision to misuse that thing.
    I didn’t cover it, but it is an easy assignment to demonstrate that the potential for misuse is a function of its availability AND the degree to which a potential misuser has developed self control, responsibility, respect for the object of potential attack, morality, and appreciation for the consequences of their actions. The Volstead Experiment (and a ton of other examples) prove that banning something, at most, makes the thing more attractive to misusers (and worst, to people that would not know of the thing’s existence, perhaps). The Fort Hood massacre did not happen because a trained soldier had access to weapons*, it happened because a nut case had weapons and used them.  (We might do well to look at banning people with avowed interest contrary to ours, but I’ll no go there at this time.)
    *I don’t know, and I’m too lazy to look into it just now, but I wonder, idly, if the Fort Hood killer used military issue weapons, if his MOS (or whatever it is called nowadays) included weapons training, and if he had a legal right to be in possession of the weapons at the time.
    As I typed that last graf above my mind wandered back to a time many many years ago when I was a young enlisted man in the Navy (who never had any weapons training on anything with a bore smaller than 3″**) one of the things I got to do from time to time was stand fire guard watches, which involved walking a route around the ship at night checking magazines (where ammunition is stored) and berthing spaces, checking to insure that what was supposed to be locked was locked and that there were no indications of fire anywhere.  Each tour of duty involved going to the armory and drawing a weapon–(a “45 Automatic”***. and a belt and holster with spare, loaded magazines (I think–memory is faded).  At the time, I thought the weapon part was insane–we were at sea, all of the people aboard were friends (fsvo “friends), and the idea of firing a weapon inside a steel vessel seemed suicidal to me.  Still does–except for the “friends” part.
    **Maybe we had 40mm mounts too–I can’t picture them in my minds eye–there was some mention of them in fire control schools.  Some might say Wait!–you went to boot camp…..!!  That is true.  We czrried plugged ’03 Springfields (I think they were–the plugged part is certain****).  We were supposed to spend a day firing Garand M1s (which along with BAR’s, water-cooled machine guns–size not longer remembered, and .22 target rifles I had some training in at high school), but we had earned an award for good scores and had a day at the picnic grounds instead.
    ***I believe that weapon was identical in form and function to a plain-jane 1911 semiautomatic pistol today.

  • Jose

    An important part of the military is that everyone is part of the chain of command (and responsibility). Add in many young men chafing against a regimented lifestyle, and the elevated stress that the military routinely and intentionally induces. There is also a zero fault mentality and an investigation into every violent incident that MUST include a recommendation to prevent repeat occurrences. At some level, public relations will also be become a factor.

    When the young marine shot his roommate, they was an extensive investigation. The shooter’s supervisor was questioned closely as to whether the young man had a history of questionable behavior, and what had been done about it. If symptoms had been ignored, the supervisor is going to get in serious trouble.

    This would have extended several levels up the ranks, and questions would have been asked whether people at each level noticed any warning signs, took any action, whether they knew the appropriate action to take, whether the population in general was trained to recognize and deal with all of these issues.

    If a pattern of undesirable/untrained/neglegent behavior becomes visible it will impact the careers of all leadership in a unit or installation.

    Lets say that another young troop is shot in similar circumstances a month later, and suddenly the installation commander is under the microscope from his superiors. When the General’s next star is threatened, things start happening.

    So, like our esteemed legislators, the General takes the easy way out. He initiates a blanket prohibition on privately owned firearms on the installation.

  • Ymarsakar

    Too many evil ideas floating around. They’re very annoying and I’d rather stick to the true strength, rather than cater to weakness.
    “I’m looking for the *reason* why it makes sense to prohibit soldiers from being armed.”
    Neither evil nor incompetence has to make sense, merely because their reasons don’t make sense to anyone else opposed to them.
    Normally an organization that suffers casualties learns from it, the lessons of war. When the people at the top make it so that they are safer by making those at the bottom less safe, there’s a problem. And that problem has nothing to do with reasons. Finding reasons for prohibiting soldiers from being armed won’t change things. Finding reasons for not prohibiting soldiers from being armed won’t change things either. Only power changes things. They that do not have the power, merely have to suck it up and do or die. If the top echelon military flag officers and generals say that the lives of American soldiers deserve to be sacrificed for diversity, then that is that. That is the reality, unchangeable by anything as weak as a “vote”. If Obama says this group of people must be destroyed economically and politically, that is the way it will be, irregardless of anybody’s “vote”.
    These things are policy, long before 2001 ever came on the scene, merely because power has been exercised, and truth created. People have been doing things like that for awhile and getting away for it. Which brings us back to the original topic. Why is it that tyranny and evil exists?
    Tyranny and evil exists because the workers at the bottom have no power. Thus cannot enforce their “truth” on reality. When the leaders have power, they can say die, and the people will die. When the leaders have all the power, they can tell the people to kill that demon guy over there, and the people will go kill that demon guy over there. When one guy gets pissed off and uses a weapon against another, it’s because he knows he has more power over that other guy by fact of his weapon. If everyone had equal power, tyranny and evil wouldn’t really work.
    If gun guy A and defenseless guy B ever fought, A would win most of the time and B would lose. Yet people, of a certain kind, say that one should take power from defenseless guy B so that he is always less powerful than A, or B, or Leader Z, or Sub Leader Y, or Fuhrer K. This is another way of pooling power in the hands of a few. Which doesn’t happen to be anybody called defenseless guy B. All gun guy A has to do to not be defenseless guy B is to kiss up to the powerful leaders and become a henchmen or thug, or merely just break the rules and go to Canada as a deserter.
    In my world, A and B both have equal power to kill each other, irregardless of who has a gun or not. Thus it’s not so much of a slaughter and more of a gamble. That’s because the people I know didn’t strip the power from the victims and give it to a select few. In order to harden defenses against insurgent or unexpected attacks, one had to empower, level up, and create deadly warriors, whether they were naked or armed to the teeth. It didn’t really matter, since the definition of insurgent criminals and terrorists is to hit soft targets. Stripping power from B to give to A and Z, doesn’t defend B at all. It makes B into more of a target. So in point of fact, instead of confiscating power from the hands of the many to give unto the hands of the few, thereby allowing insurgents to target weaklings and slaughter them, instead people in my world merely leveled up the soft targets until they became hard targets to kill. And what made them hard targets to kill was merely the fact that they could attack back. They had sufficient power in their hands to make a strike, and in great numbers, that tends to retard the conquest power of the select few. Using defense in depth and sacrificing bodies and territory for defensive power, one can halt any assault in its tracks, given time and blood. Even against the greatest warriors and armies in existence.
    Soldiers do not exist to live good lives. They get benefits and food and training, and in return, their bodies are for the State to use as the State believes good.
    The fact that people are voting themselves as a slave caste into the bargain, may or may not make sense to a reasonable person. But whether it makes sense or not doesn’t impact whether it is true or not.
    The more external one’s power, the more easily others can take it away from us. So long as the power does not exist internally, people can use external force to take it away. Abstract things like freedom, is harder to suppress, for it takes ideas to kill ideas. When humans live in this Golden Age of ours, their materialistic living conditions makes it relatively easy for a totalitarian tyranny to dominate the many with the power of the few.  A state like North Korea can only torture, kill, and starve you. That’s about their entire repertoire. They don’t have a lot of idea weapons to kill people’s ideas, other then to kill them physically. Thus they as a state are weak, because they cannot acquire the loyalty of the many and use most of their power to keep the power of the many under control. Another state could easily conquer them or destroy them outright.
    If the power of the people rested in needing guns to protect themselves via lethal force, the game would already be over. Take away the guns and it’s over. If the Constitution stops that, then destroy the Constitution first, which they are doing. Fortunately, one has never needed guns to utilize lethal force. And through distributing power through a million pools of it, it becomes impossible to confiscate all of that power at once.
    Every time someone uses violence to do evil and uses power to consolidate things for a select few, the many must train ever more diligently to harness their internal powers. To do that which their tools can, but without the tools. People can physically disarm you of firearms and knives, but they will find it harder to take off your arm. That escalates things into a more even level.
    If people want to defeat evil and not merely negotiate with evil, one must take back the power from the top and use it. Escalate the issue, do not merely settle for de-escalation of the issue when they tell you to give up your power so that the leaders can “defend people from themselves”.

  • Larry Sheldon

    For Jose (9):  If the “blanket prohibition on privately owned firearms on the installation” had been in effect before the incident, how many fewer weapons would have been in the room?  Assuming that the bad guy obeyed other orders (don’t shoot you roommate, don’t bring a private weapon on base), how many?

    Also, do Marines still have those big-ass swords?  Where are they kept?  How about the ugly knives they used to stick on the end of an M1?  Where are they kept?

  • Ymarsakar

    The leaders couldn’t defend the children from Clinton’s goon squads. The leaders couldn’t defend the civilians at Ruby Ridge. The leaders couldn’t defend Sarah Palin against the Leftist assassination team. The leaders couldn’t even defend American soldiers from enemy IEDs. They didn’t do anything for Ft. Hood. They didn’t do anything to prevent Columbine or Virginia Tech. They couldn’t stop American soldiers from rolling grenades into the command officer tents.
    The role of a leader isn’t to do the job of the workers, the warriors, or the healers. The job of a leader is to harness the power of the many, for a single purpose, whether that purpose is Good or Evil.
    Everyone can pour as much power as they want into the police, the military, the generals, and the dumb arse politicians, but you ain’t going to be defended worth a damn. When Hell Comes to Earth, they will save their friends, their family, and their pets, and you will merely Burn. That is all that will happen. Leaders have no power by themselves, and when the entire population is under assault, they’re not going to have anything to spare for anyone other than themselves. The power of a nation rests upon its people. The weaker the people, the weaker the nation. If the leader has most of the power, then he has to somehow be omniscient in order to help everyone. But he’s not omniscient, and even if he was, he might not give a damn for one single family: yours.

  • Mike Devx

    Ymar, you say:
    Too many evil ideas floating around. They’re very annoying and I’d rather stick to the true strength, rather than cater to weakness. and quoting me: “I’m looking for the *reason* why it makes sense to prohibit soldiers from being armed.”
    Ymar, at times you and I have simply got different priorities.  This is a blog comment section; I encountered a debate situation with a liberal friend I couldn’t logically handle.  So I thought I’d toss a question out here, asking for insight and help.  In no way am I trying to spread evil ideas and float them around.  I don’t have an answer and I’d like one.  You consider the answer irrelevant, as you said: “Finding reasons for prohibiting soldiers from being armed won’t change things. Finding reasons for not prohibiting soldiers from being armed won’t change things either.”  

    At times both you and I advocate strongly for our positions here!  But at other times, I am simply interested in posing a question because the commenters here have better insights than I can find anywhere else.   So I pose the question as best I can.  It can’t be that dangerous to “float evil ideas” around; to pose questions so that I can bounce ideas off of others to have better resulting arguments.  Maybe there *is* no answer to my question where the answer provides a *logical* reason.  But I hardly think anyone here should be threatened by exploring it.  Maybe casual non-conservative readers will walk away with the impression that they’ve discovered a *fatal flaw!* in a conservative argument.  Gasp!  I hardly think we’re that fragile here.  I’d hope some intellectual fermentation might actually excite them, actually.
    If the only goal of commenting is to provide propaganda to prop up our arguments, and nary a question is ever heard – let alone a voice of dissent, which sometimes is voiced by a regular commenter here, too – well, that kind of rigid adherence to propaganda points would be fine for, say, the website run by a minister of government propaganda.  But I’d hope that there’s got to be a place for people to hone their arguments and get help when they want it. Why not here, among the best-thinking community I’ve yet found?  If not here, where?

  • Ymarsakar

    That was in response to the opening post. My response to you Mike, started after I quoted the relevant subject. Why people attribute things that aren’t intended for them all the time in a negative light, I do not care about but I have noticed happens too often to be coincidence.
    If one thought about it using reason, why would I make the claim that Mike Devx was spreading evil ideas? Does that even complete a logic check? 
    This is because humans don’t operate by reason. It is useless. In a sense.

  • Mike Devx

    Ymar, #10 and #12, just wanted to say, I read your arguments on those points and agree with every one.  In a military fight against a foreign aggressor, the leader is highly likely to – must? – be concerned primarily with force projection: the entire apparatus of war.  We haven’t faced such an existential war since WWII, and I think we’ve completely forgotten, and refuse even psychologically to face up to – what it would require these days.
    Also, I don’t know how much a leader can do these days to protect civilians and civilian families and communities.  Even in WWII the USA didn’t face very much threat there.  We rarely have faced it as a nation.  These days the possibilities are rather horrifying, *should* we enter a “symmetrical” war against an enemy with the military might to actually challenge us.  As an example, consider the effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, about which there is some scientific debate.  Suppose a relatively minor nuclear exchange occurred involving, say, “only” six warheads exploding in a grid above the continental USA at a height of say 100 miles.  If the worst scientific projections are correct, our “civilian civilization” would retreat 150 years instantly.  But 150 years ago they were equipped to survive at that level of sophistication; surprisingly we today are not at all ready to survive at that level, so we would descend within a year another two or three hundred years backwards.  It would take years to recover; tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, of deaths would be practically inevitable.  All from six EMP pulse detonations without even one single life lost from the military event itself.
    Tyranny, and the oppression of individuals by their own government, is a whole other concept worth looking at.
    No matter what crises we face in the future, the kind of people you envision as the best, with the qualities you describe, are the ones most likely to survive it and in the end prosper.

  • Ron19

    Today’s Gospel Reading resonates well in several places with the above comments:
    Luke 15:1-3, 11-32

  • Mike Devx

    Ymar, my sincere apologies for misinterpreting the two opening paragraphs of #10.  Miscommunication is far too easy with the written word.  I assumed those first two paragraphs were linked.  My mistake!  I should have asked.

  • Larry Sheldon

    You know?  There was an important question asked up there that I don’t remember (and a quick scan did not disclose) every being answered.

    “I’m looking for the *reason* why it makes sense to prohibit soldiers from being armed.”
    Could it be that if the weapons are not stored in the armory, the soldier would never be truly “off duty”?

  • Jose

    There isn’t a *reason*.

    There are only knee jerk reactions, feel good decisions, and lots of CYA.

  • Mike Devx

    Jose and Larry,
    Thanks, that is the conclusion I came up with.  It is not an issue of training; training is irrelevant.  It is the fact that the military views its soldiers as property, and property must be kept safe at all costs.  It is also the fact that the military is a bureaucracy, with mountains of regulations and paperwork.  Soldiers are not allowed handguns due to questions surrounding accidents and safety – and the mountains of paperwork, legal proceedings, questions and CYA are why guns are prohibited to them on base.
    I appreciate the responses!