Tuesday, November 10, 2009
|
|
Mayor Daley Blames Guns, Not "Groups"
|
|
Posted by:
Jude at
6:04 PM
|
The Fort Hood massacre/terrorist attack is best seen through the looking glass of what has become our crippling adherence to political correctness, rather than the prism of a 2nd Amendment debate. Still, when Chicago's second most powerful citizen makes a stretch so purposefully off-target, it's hard not to point out. As they say over at Big Government, they blame guns because guns don't vote:
"With no pogrom backlash after 9/11, no pogrom backlash after Bali, no pogrom backlash after Madrid, no pogrom backlash after London, no pogrom backlash after Mumbai, no backlash after countless other Jihad attacks, why would there be any reason to believe the reaction would be any different in this case? As we have written before, the West has already passed this particular civility test."
I understand that those more familiar with military procedure have explained the absence of guns at the particular location of the shooting on base, but every time we see a massacre in a "gun-free zone", I think it's at least worth a look at why that zone exists, and then making sure it's worth the cost going forward. Last week, Stephanie Gutmann, author of The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability To Win Wars , pointed her finger at the cost of taboo, recalling the Cole (via the Corner): "When asked if ordinary soldiers nearby had been carrying their service weapons, Fort Hood spokesman Lt. Gen Robert Cone said piously, "We do not carry weapons. This is our home." Defense is out-sourced to military police, or even — oh the indignity! — to civilian policemen. "This is not the first time American soldiers have been victims of politically correct policies. In 2000, Navy brass were so concerned about appearing to be "sensitive guests" in Yemen's Port of Aden, that sailors patrolling the deck of the U.S.S. Cole were not allowed to carry loaded weapons. The ship did not deploy "picket boats" and establish a perimeter. In other words, the destroyer was totally unprotected when a small motorized skiff packed with explosives steered by two men, now believed to have been al-Qaeda, plowed into it's hull, killing 17." Even two hours after the attack, as the wounded ship listed in the harbor, sentries spotted yet another small skiff motoring deliberately toward the them. One of them raised his rifle and aimed, not to shoot them — he couldn't have — but in the spirit (as he told Navy Times) of "Nobody's getting near this ship." Almost immediately, his superior told him, "Let me tell you something about the rules of engagement. You can't point a loaded weapon at these people. That's an act of aggression." "The U.S. military would like to pretend it's not about defense and aggression, and it's sacrificed many young men and women to maintain this fiction. How many more victims of political correctness can we afford?"
|
|
|