Our military men and women, our military bases are all points of pride for patriotic Americans. Many of us have served or have family members who have done so. My own service is modest, with two deployments, the first one to the Middle East for the first Gulf War, the second to Germany in support of the Balkans fracas, during which the only risk I took was earning a hangover from too much great German beer. Like so many families, in ours, it was something of a tradition; Dad was a WW2 vet, Grandpa, a Great War vet.
As recently as World War 2, a surrendering officer at the end of the war, including many German officers formally surrendering after the shooting stopped, were allowed to keep their sidearms. An officer's sidearm was recognized as a defensive weapon and was treated accordingly.
But now, inexplicably, our military bases are "gun-free" zones. There have been a few high-profile mass shootings on military bases in recent years, including places like Naval Air Station Pensacola, Pearl Harbor, and Fort Hood. And, candidly, the possibility of terror attacks on our military bases is aggravated by this policy.
So, my proposal to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is this: Our military members are in the profession of arms. We trust them to wield arms to protect the libery and property of the citizens of the United States, to support and defend the Constitution. So, arm them.
At Pensacola, the shooter walked into classrooms and opened fire, assured that there would be no meaningful response for some time until local law enforcement arrived to save military servicemen. In this instance, the local law enforcement would seem to have done a good job, but my question remains: Why was their response necessary at all?
At Pearl Harbor, the gunman attacked workers near the dry dock of the U.S.S. Columbia, an attack submarine to which the shooter was assigned; he did so knowing that there would be no meaningful response until local law enforcement arrived, and even though in this case the victims were civilian workers, there were still service members in the immediate area. Again, my question remains: Why was their response necessary at all?
Here’s my proposal:
All officers and all enlisted personnel above the rank of E-5 (I’d be willing to consider raising that to E-7 if necessary to get this done) should be each issued a personal sidearm, should be required to train with that sidearm, to qualify with it at least annually, and to carry it loaded at all times while in uniform and on duty on base. The sidearm should be part of the uniform. When off-duty and in civilian attire, I’m not sure if I’d require carry of the sidearm, although I’d certainly allow it, and further, I’d consider serving active military to be by default concealed-carry permit holders just as serving law enforcement officers are, and therefore able to legally carry a personal sidearm concealed anywhere they go. Anywhere they go, subject to command discretion.
Further, gate guards at closed installations should be armed. Back in 1996 when I was reactivated for the Balkans fracas, I worked in a Top Secret facility in Heidelberg, Germany; that facility was guarded by three layers of MPs, the first with a holstered sidearm, the second with a loaded M-16, the third at the end of a long approach hallway with a loaded riot shotgun. Gate guards at secure installations should be no less well-armed, and roving patrols of MPs likewise.
Now, there would have to be some qualifications, especially after four years of meddling by the incompetent Biden administration when it comes to recruiting and retention.
First, no service member on any kind of profile or who is undergoing any kind of medical treatment that has any mental health component should be handling weapons of any kind. Ever.
Second, any commander at the company level or higher should be able to withhold a sidearm from anyone under their command, with written justification to their next-level commander.
We have seen too many cases where an armed citizen has prevented a crime in action, and that happens as many as 3 million times a year. Making many of our civilian areas hard targets has, on balance, worked out well. Making our military bases likewise hard targets should work equally well, and any terrorist goblin would likely think twice about attacking a military base where every officer and NCO had some 9mm Attitude Adjustment on their belts.
See Also: Trump, Hegseth Want a Mighty Defense Budget With a Massive 'T' in It
'What Peace Through Strength Looks Like'—Hegseth Visits Panama Canal, Vows to End China's Influence
Our service members are, as I’ve said, in the profession of arms. It’s counterintuitive that we can’t acknowledge that by ensuring they are armed, and it’s even more staggeringly stupid that on our domestic bases, we deprive them of the very thing that would make our bases secure, and not the soft targets for gunmen that they are today.
