Soldiers Should Carry
Can the average person mitigate a mass shooting? Have public massacres ever been stopped by civilians? When a mass shooting is ended by a civilian, is the body count less than when ended by a cop?
Yes. Yes. And yes. As seen from colleges to churches to apartment complexes, there's ample evidence that an armed, trained civilian is more than capable of dealing with a mass shooter.
Why then - in the wake of yet another military mass shooting - do combat-trained soldiers remain unarmed and therefore unequipped to defend themselves on base? If a civilian can neutralize a deadly threat in a shopping mall, then surely a soldier can eliminate such a threat on a military base. After all, these are the same people the State sends to Afghanistan armed with rapid-fire, belt-fed machine guns. Can they somehow not be trusted with a semi-automatic handgun while at home?
While the calls to legally let soldiers carry on base are, I think, well-intended and appreciated by many service-members . . . they really highlight the dire need for working class people to assert our human rights. Notwithstanding the masses' religious adherence to the law, we do not need the State to "let" us defend ourselves. We need only to value our lives and to act accordingly.
The choice is ours. We can continue to outsource our personal security, waiting eight whole minutes before the authorities arrive . . . to 3 dead and 16 wounded - as was the case last week at Fort Hood. Or we can heed the words of one of the empire's most well-known employees . . .
“Your security is in your own hands.”
