William Jefferson Clinton has blood on his hands

Those of us who are actually paying attention have noticed that mass murders consistently happen in gun-free zones.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a killer is likely to be more effective if he’s not dodging bullets heading his way.  He’s the fox in the hen house.  (Or maybe it does take a genius, because the stubbornly ignorant folks on the right refuse to recognize this cause/effect nexus.)

What most people didn’t realize before the Fort Hood massacre is that military bases — which are the places where you’d think everyone is armed — are places where no one is armed.  This is because William Jefferson Clinton decided in 1993 that, while the military can carry guns to protect him (think of those Marine guards), they’re not allowed to bear arms to protect themselves.

Jeff Bruner describes vividly the fallout from Clinton’s “I don’t like scary soldiers” policy:

Excepting military police and troops shooting under supervision at practice ranges, no person (regardless of rank) is today allowed to carry any weapon (including standard service pistols) onto any US military base or to keep any weapon, even stored securely, in his office or personal quarters.

Prior to that order, officers of certain ranks were required to wear side arms.

Anyone who watched more than a few minutes of the extensive television coverage of yesterday’s attack at the Navy Shipyard saw multiple accounts by senior Navy officers who described running for their lives after others nearby them fell or hiding under their desks, desperately texting colleagues seeking and offering reassurance that they had escaped the shooter thus far.

Think about that.

Career commissioned officers of the United States Navy–the Navy of “I have not yet begun to fight!” and “Don’t give up the ship!”–the Navy of “We have met the enemy and they are ours!” and “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”–the Navy of which George Washington said “[W]ithout a decisive Naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious!”–had no choice but to “shelter in place,” cowering despite their proven personal courage and the best training in human history, while a lone gunman without benefit of body armor calmly executed 12 of their colleagues and wounded as many others.

As a former anti-gun liberal myself, maybe I should give Clinton a pass. Nah, on second thought, nah. You see, I’ve figured out how dumb I was, and I try to make amends (including an NRA membership). Clinton and the party to which he belongs have instead decided to double down on a policy that transcends stupidity and heads into evil.

As you know, I wholeheartedly support America’s military.  I know that, as an entity, it will survive the Obama years.  If America elects another Democrat president, however, I would strongly advise people not to enlist or to re-up. There’s nothing more dangerous to America’s military than a Democrat in the White House. What makes Democrats worse even than Republicans such as Bush who took the military to war is that, with war, at least military members expose themselves to risk doing what they’re trained to do and, because we have a voluntary military, what they want to do. Under Democrats, though, they’re exposed to unreasonable risk when being forced to do something that goes against their training, ability, and instincts.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Jose says

    Piers Morgan insists the Navy Yard was not a gun-free zone, as they had armed gate guards.  Nevertheless, the police, who arrived in 2 minutes, couldn’t stop the killing for 30 minutes.  30 Minutes!
     
    The police took 20 minutes to arrive at Sandy Hook, and didn’t even have to confront the killer there before he killed himself.
     
    Depending on the authorities to protect your life or your loved ones is the height of foolishness.  You are on your own.

  2. Spartacus says

    The overall point of the article is a good one, but it is actually rather offensive that Mr. Bruner seems to be giving the exact number of deaths for which the Arkansan was responsible as 26 (Navy Yard + Ft. Hood).  Those were eight years of horrifically bad policy, with horrifically bad consequences.  Tallying up all the people who died as a result of White House policies 1993-2001 would make a poor drinking game due to the inevitability of alcohol poisoning.
     
    Where even to start?
    - Full, spit-swapping embrace of the Abortion Industrial Complex?  Hundreds of thousands more babies likely died because of his active support.
    - Open borders?  People who enter a country illegally are — this may come as a shock — criminals.  For some, that’s their most serious crime, but the demographic is still skewed toward toward the not-so-lawful, and their wildly disproportionate representation in our prison system confirms that.  How many extra murders could have been avoided?
    - Mogadishu?  (20th anniversary coming up on Oct. 3-4, for those who care to commemorate.)  Gen. Garrison requested an AC-130 and M-113′s to have enough firepower and armor protection.  Denied by the new administration, who didn’t want the military to look so… military-looking.  18 KIA, 73 wounded, and a lesson to the world that if you want the Americans to leave your country immediately, just kill 18 of them.
    - Bin Laden?  Some East African governemt (Sudanese?) offered us Bin Laden on a silver platter, and the guy who always had an excuse for everything and never met a legal theory too outrageous to be believed in his entire life suddenly protested that we couldn’t take custody of a notorious terrorist because there was no proper legal pretense!  Then, on his watch, all of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country, lived here (some for years), and some entered flight school.
    That’s the short list.  It doesn’t total 26.

  3. nuqlv9ol7u says

    “Those of us who are actually paying attention have noticed that mass murders consistently happen in gun-free zones.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a killer is likely to be more effective if he’s not dodging bullets heading his way.”
     
    I suspect that you have never lived in an inner city. In the violent gun-free zones, everybody has a gun, and everybody also has enough sense to know who not to shoot. It is not advisable to begin shooting at gang members. They tend to take it personal, and you will eventually become a statistic. Also, they are not particular about who gets shot. Friends and relatives with you will not be spared.

  4. says

     
    “I know that, as an entity, it (the military) will survive the Obama years.”
     
    In a recognizably traditional form?  I’m not so sure.  Depends on the courage of the next President.
     
    Integrating females into the combat Marines will assure that they’re no longer the Marines….call them “Marines”.  And that’s where it’s starting….stand back and watch, because it will not be the same in a year or two.  The men will leave, and you’ll end up with the girls and the girlie-men.  Good luck with that on some lonely beach somewhere…….

  5. Charles Martel says

    Unlike “progressives,” who seem committed to the meme of “Bush Then, Bush Now, Bush Forever,” I’m willing to flush Bill Clinton down my memory hole. Gots enough problems trying to stay abreast of the latest high crimes and misdemeanors of our president, Hussein, Wuss Boy of the United States.

  6. says

    No mercy, no compassion, for any member of the Left.
     
    Those who don’t agree, may change their minds when the boot lands on their family and children’s heads. Maybe they will understand the importance of emotion in the good vs evil conflict.
     
     

  7. says

    Blaming Clinton isn’t necessary. A member of the Left contributed=the Left is responsible. That’s all that matters one way or another.
     
    Whether it’s one dictator doing the policy or a string of things they did over 50 years, doesn’t matter.
     
    They are responsible. They need to be held to account. You don’t want to know what’ll happen in this country if you let small things slide for awhile.

  8. says

    “I suspect that you have never lived in an inner city. In the violent gun-free zones, everybody has a gun, and everybody also has enough sense to know who not to shoot. It is not advisable to begin shooting at gang members. They tend to take it personal, and you will eventually become a statistic. Also, they are not particular about who gets shot. Friends and relatives with you will not be spared.”
     
    Everyone has a gun in Chicago and Los Angeles? Who the Hell Do you Think You are Kidding Here, Mr. Gang banger wannabe.
    Gang bangers can’t shoot straight even from 5 feet away. That’s why friends and relatives are dead. Civilians armed with 5% of the force used to subdue Fallujah would absolutely destroy the inner city gangs, if it wasn’t for their Democrat political protections. The gangs and criminals exist because the Democrat mayors and police commissioners deem them necessary to maintain power, not because they have any particular advantage in firepower.
     
    If “every one” had a gun, your dear gang bangers would be hanging from the light lamps, impaled six ways. Their drive by cars would have 50 holes in it by the time they got off the street, and 45 of them would be in the bodies, not misses.
    “They tend to take it personal, and you will eventually become a statistic.”
     
    Even Black Panther esque leaders know the stats and it’s not as nice as the hood bums think it is. Well, it’s easier to let them explain things to those in the dark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VqG_4ADFfQ
     
    While the blacks and whites in cities are untrained and have been kept disarmed, it doesn’t take long for cadre to train up the local denizens.
     
    And if you want to know how long that takes, just spark a Fallujah inside the US. You’ll know soon enough, nuqlv9ol7u, who the real dangerous shooters are.
     

  9. Charles Martel says

    Ymarsakar makes a good point–gangbangers are terrible, undisciplined gun handlers. When savages who have guns come up against people who know how to shoot them, the savages lose. Ask the Sioux.
     
    Better yet, ask the badass gangbangers during the Rodney King riots in 1992 what happened when they came up against heavily armed Korean shopkeepers—or California National Guardsmen.
     
    In a showdown between the Crips, Bloods, Mara Salvatrucha and civilized men, the punks will get their clocks cleaned.

  10. nuqlv9ol7u says

    @Ymarsakar
     
    “Everyone has a gun in Chicago and Los Angeles? Who the Hell Do you Think You are Kidding Here, Mr. Gang banger wannabe.”
     
    I am quite impressed with your reasoning. I have lived in and around the hell-holes, but I can see where those with no experience of these areas would be more informed. I assume that I am supposed to be insulted, but you would do better to make a coherent argument.
     
    “Gang bangers can’t shoot straight even from 5 feet away. That’s why friends and relatives are dead.”
     
    Quite true, but they are still dead. Unlike in suburbia, the encounter does not end when the police arrive. You do not just piss-off one gang member. You become a target for all gang members, and they do not have a time limit on revenge.
     
    “Civilians armed with 5% of the force used to subdue Fallujah would absolutely destroy the inner city gangs …”
     
    Do I need to get a permit for my 60mm mortar? Do I need a special license for my M1A2 Tank? Do I need to register my M203 seperately? I hate to break the bad news, but Fallujah ain’t goin’ so well.
     
    “The gangs and criminals exist because the Democrat mayors and police commissioners deem them necessary to maintain power, not because they have any particular advantage in firepower.”
     
    Like I stated, you need to make a coherent argument. I am fairly certain that my comment had nothing to do with politics, but since you seem to be so well informed about everything else, you probably know what I actually meant to write.
     
    It is a complex subject, but the two main drivers are the confluence of the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Poverty”. Criminals tend to inhabit poor communities because they are more vulnerable. Poor folks are stuck in the tar pits created by “War on Poverty”. The infusion of federal money from the “War on Drugs” has transformed traditional police work into a revenue stream for police departments. Therefore, increasing the number of drug violations also increases the revenue for the PD.
     
    Two suggestions would be for police to return to traditional police work and for the government to stop creating tar pits. Most Americans do not live in violent neighborhoods because they move out when the criminals move in. In the attempts to eradicate poverty, poor folks have been warehoused out of sight, and these warehouses trap the folks living there.
     
    (NOTE: Ending the “War on Drugs” does not mean legalizing drugs.)
     
    “If “every one” had a gun, your dear gang bangers would be hanging from the light lamps, impaled six ways. Their drive by cars would have 50 holes in it by the time they got off the street, and 45 of them would be in the bodies, not misses.”
     
     
    You should get a little more experience about the subject matter, but possibly, you would be willing to move there to show how it should be done. I have no affiliation with any criminals in or out of a gang, but I see that you have absorbed your Saul Alinsky. Like liberals everywhere, you insult when you cannot make an argument.
     
    “Well, it’s easier to let them explain things to those in the dark.”
     
    I do not follow links, and Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. I do not engage third parties for an argument that someone cannot make.
     
    “While the blacks and whites in cities are untrained and have been kept disarmed, it doesn’t take long for cadre to train up the local denizens.”
     
    Again, the “local denizens” are not unarmed, but these law abiding folks are criminals because of the gun laws. As to training, they are no different than the majority of gun owners in the US.
     
    To recap, you need to:
    1. get more first hand experience about the subject matter,
    2. use your own cognitive abilities to make an argument,
    3. keep your argument cohesive, and
    4. leave your Saul Alinsky tactics for others.
     
    When reality collides with your opinion, it is best to go with reality. Otherwise, you are a clown.

  11. nuqlv9ol7u says

    @Charles Martel
     
    In a showdown between the Crips, Bloods, Mara Salvatrucha and civilized men, the punks will get their clocks cleaned.
     
    Are there no “civilized men” in the inner city neighborhoods?

  12. Charles Martel says

    Nuqlv, yes, there are individual civilized men in the inner city, but they are disorganized, unarmed, and terrorized. I thought that my two references to groups that were the opposite—Korean shopkeepers and national guardsman—made it clear what I was describing when I used the word “civilized.” Perhaps “militia” in the constitutional sense would have helped me make my point better.

  13. nuqlv9ol7u says

    @Charles Martel
    “… but they are disorganized, unarmed, and terrorized.”
     
    They are not unarmed. They are breaking any gun laws by owning and carrying guns, but this does not make them uncivilized. The reason they own and carry a gun is for personal protection, and like the majority of gun owners, they do not intervene against criminals.
     
    I am not being disrespectful, but I am baffled by the idea of militias patrolling any neighborhoods in the US. This is the purpose of law enforcement. A neighborhood watch is useful to assist the police, but it is not intended to replace them.
     
    The poorer folks do not need more guns, and they do not need to form militias. They need the police to return to traditional police work, and they need the failed policies to be removed. The NYC’s “stop and frisk” is an example of traditional police work, and it has dramatically lowered the violence. It may need some tweaks to be monitored, but it is effective.
     
    I am also baffled by your usage of civilized in relation to effective military tactics. In this usage, militias are a poor substitute for an organized military unit. The Korean shopkeepers turned a gun store into a quasi military outpost, and they ran a few missions to other stores to return merchandise. There were a few skirmishes, but this was a one off event. The Koreans and the black folks had an ongoing problem, and the riots allowed it to manifest itself.

  14. Charles Martel says

    Nuqlv, central city thugs are not civilized—that is a given. The people they terrorize may be civilized and even armed, but they are not organized. When civilized men do organize, such as the Koreans or the guardsmen, the thugs were dissuaded because they do not know how to fight in a coherent, organized way.
     
    My reference to the militia goes back to the Second Amendment, which reserves the right of armed self defense to the people, with the admonition that they be “well regulated,” that is, proficient and organized. The Koreans certainly met that specification.
     
     
     
     

  15. nuqlv9ol7u says

    @Charles Martel
     
    Honestly, do you have any idea of what it would take to operate a militia? This militia nonsense is a fantasy.
     
    Let me help you with reality. When the bad guys move into your neighborhood, your neighbors are not going to be forming a militia. They are going to pack up and move. You may decide to hold out against the enemy, but most people do not want to endanger their family.
     
    If you choose to stay, you will find property values dropping, and those who moved too slowly will be trapped in underwater houses. As the neighborhood worsens, police protection will also worsen. You may be as heavily armed as possible, but it will not help you. Against an individual criminal you may have a fighting chance, but against a gang, you will have no chance.
     
    On the upside, you will gain an enormous amount of experience. You may lose a family member, but hey, you stood up for your principles.

  16. says

    Charles Martel, look up On Killing. Probably cheap for kindle (yeah, right, now we got kindle libraries for killing people, what else is next in this Star Trek sci fi universe of ours).
     
    Grossman has a lot of various different interpretations and explanations for why humans find it hard to kill people, even so called “hardened” thugs and criminals. That’s independent of their marksmanship or abilities in fighting/war.
     
    I guess for the last few years since 2001, I’ve been undergoing “operant conditioning”, if you understand what that means.

  17. says

    What this means is that “we” have the methods to train regular unarmed civilians into killing anyone they want to kill. This training requires work, and is mostly unavailable to the criminal or Democrat networks.
     
    For the most part, the secrets of conditioning, training, and marksmanship are unavailable to the common masses. Too dangerous, too taboo, like sex in a Puritan society. It’s something taboo or evil or whatever. They ignore it. That means the rest of “us” who study it like crazy and practice, are better. Practice makes better. Same for sex. Same for killing. In love and war, experience matters more than theory.

  18. Charles Martel says

    nuqlv, really, your tone of smug superiority is becoming grating, especially in a room where close reading is an expectation. You’ve taken things I’ve said and run off with them in your own direction, I suppose the better to conquer the straw men that you’ve been busily setting up.
     
    I don’t recall saying anywhere that people living in central city sh*tholes should or could organize militias. I simply pointed out that under the Second Amendment they have a right to arms and self-protection. I am as aware as you are that the principle and the reality are two different things. Nevertheless, my original assertion stands uncontested: civilized men, when organized, can deal a death blow to punks like inner-city gangs.
     
    Speaking of unreality, your prescription for greater and better police work cannot and will not happen in Los Angeles. The LAPD has been thoroughly politicized and is afraid to patrol South Central and adjacent areas other than to show up to write after-the-fact reports. The local courts have also been politicized, and will never allow stop-and-frisk. Heck, even New York City is poised, thanks to PC idiocy, to stop what you have correctly cited is an effective crime-fighting tactic.
     
    While for now my militia and your enhanced police work both exist only in fantasy, I have the sneaking suspicion that the Koreans of the world are going to get to the punks before the cops do. 

  19. says

    I personally don’t need Koreans. I can take a bunch of black youths from single parent homes, and teach them how to execute black thugs and Black Panther Democrats.
     
    Six months. My original instructors could take 2 days, but that is why they are instructors.

  20. says

    N here is good at running away. Which is fine if that is his choice to make. But to think that the rest of us would abandon our common human allies behind, the women and children, to be barbequed on the racial war of the Left’s gang turf… that’s something else entirely.
     
    Other people are other people. They won’t make the same decisions as N. N won’t know what decisions they will make, because he has no idea who those people are to begin with. He’s just extrapolating his own behavior unto the rest of humanity.
     
    If you want to run away, that’s your perogative. The rest of humanity is not necessarily going to follow those fleeing peeps into Serf land.

  21. says

     
    Well said, Martel!!
     
    You aren’t the only one around here who’s thinking similarly.
     
    I truly like some of what our friend has written….but if he’s going to be around for more than a drive-by or two, he needs to get with the program at this blog.  Read carefully, apply reason, and write with respect for those you would like to pay attention to your thoughts.
     
    Age really is often a bitch, but it’s taught me that courtesy is cheap, but pays big dividends.

Leave a Reply