Early reports indicate that a likely Islam-inspired lone terrorist killed four Marines in two separate shooting incidents in Chattanooga, Tennessee today. I will not grant the alleged perpetrator the dignity or respect of mentioning his name here, as such cowards deserve neither. But if these initial findings are true, they do not square with the Department of Homeland Security’s reported domestic terrorism threat warnings from earlier this year (or previous years).
Perhaps worse, the Marines were mercilessly executed at least in part because they were stripped by their own government of having even the barest decency to a fighting chance, as this incident appears to have (yet again) taken place in a supposed “gun-free zone.” Of course, even had the Marines been allowed to individually carry arms at the reserve center in question, there is no guarantee that they would be alive tonight. But do they not deserve to have that chance nonetheless if they so choose, so as to not die like slaughtered cattle but to instead die (if that is their destiny, so to speak) with some degree of dignity? There is no guarantee that any Marine will return home safely from a combat tour either, but the state at least acknowledges their right to arm themselves for their own individual defense when they deploy.
As with the Islamic-inspired terrorist shooting that took place at Fort Hood in 2009, it is the height of inconsistency and consequent injustice that trained servicemen, who are entrusted to go “over there” and wield firearms in defense of their persons and others, are not allowed the same courtesy “over here.” It remains absolutely pathetic that soldiers and Marines have to await the arrival of police officers to save them from the very threats they are specifically trained and charged to close with and destroy. In these two cases, as with so many others in America, that help came too late. It is truly abhorrent that Marines, who served their country and took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of these United States, were at home denied the very rights and privileges guaranteed in the Constitution in exchange for that service – quite possibly at the cost of their lives.
This is another sad day for liberty and justice. The government – and the constituent supporters of such supposed gun control measures – owns at least a part of this tragedy in my mind for continuing to blindly assert and pursue the moralistic fallacy in the face of an obviously different reality. Perhaps the government should next try “criminal-free zones” or better yet – “terrorist-free zones.”
Semper Fi Marines and God bless.
UPDATE (17 July 2015): When the truth does not suit, make stuff up. That is presumably the motto of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, at any rate. While interviewing one of the alleged perpetrator’s former classmates, the anchor continued to fish for a heretofore nonexistent gun control angle: “Were guns a big part of activities – social or other activities?” … “Did he hunt, did he shoot?” … “Was that just part of small-town Tennessee activity?”
All of this, I must assume, is meant to further propaganda that suits the gun control agenda even though reality does not actually reflect that newspeak and the data show this. Also, I am sure the state-media alliance would love nothing more than to downplay the Islamic terrorism factors in this and other cases as much as possible.
This is why the mainstream media must always be taken with a strong dose of skepticism, and why Andrew Mitchell’s integrity should be considered… flexible.
UPDATE (21 July 2015): It now appears that two of the intended victims possessed individual firearms (as opposed to service weapons) and attempted to engage the perpetrator at the time of the shooting. Speculation abounds as to whether either wounded the assailant. One of the reported handgun wielders was a Marine that died; the other the naval officer in command of the center. If true, both were in possession of their weapons illegally. It will certainly be interesting to see if the state decides to prosecute the survivor for putting his own self-interest (defense of life) above the state’s self-interest (control).