DOD Regulation 190-14 Must Be Rescinded!

On Thursday, July 16th, I was watching the horrifying news reports coming in concerning the shootings that had taken place in Chattanooga. A friend, who is an expert on the issue of radical Islam, posted on a social media outlet that the events were eerily similar to those that took place in Little Rock, AR, in 2009. That is when a converted Muslim fired on the Army recruiting center killing Private William Long and injuring Private Quinton Ezeagwula. About half an hour later, the name of the shooter was released. It turns out that he, also, was a Kuwaiti-born Muslim. Although the situation was different, in November 2009, a Muslim Army officer fired at fellow soldiers at Fort Hood killing thirteen and wounding 29 others.

After the shooting in Little Rock, Long’s father, Darrell, later remarked, “They weren’t on the battlefield; but apparently, the battlefield’s here.” This grieving father clearly understood the problem. Meanwhile, it wasn’t until earlier this year that the two victims, as well as the 42 at the Fort Hood shooting, were awarded the Purple Heart.

Why the six-year delay took place before the awards were honored is at the crux of the issue. For reasons known but to God, the United States government does not seem to understand that we are still under attack and at war with a real enemy.

In the last post on this site, I wrote that Department of Defense Regulation 190-14 prohibits members of our armed forces, or anyone else, from carrying a weapon while on federal property. Specifically, this rule is for members of the Army carrying for personal protection. Read this excerpt:

  1. “DA (Department of the Army) military and civilian personnel may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection when the responsible intelligence center identifies a credible and specific threat against DA personnel in that regional area. Firearms will not be issued indiscriminately for that purpose. Before individuals are authorized to carry a firearm for personal protection under this regulation, the authorizing official must evaluate —

(1) The probability of the threat in a particular location.”

If I’m reading this correctly, it means that, in order for a soldier to be permitted to carry a weapon for his own safety, someone in authority has to confirm that he is in a location in which he could get shot. I feel fairly confident about this assessment of the section listed above. Therefore, I have to ask: Does working at a location that bears the same name as other locations that have been targeted in the past qualify that location to be considered as one under threat? If so, then why can’t Army recruiters (and recruiters for every other branch of the military) carry a sidearm? If not, then how many more recruiting centers have to be shot up before they are considered to be under a threat? One more? Five more? Enquiring minds want to know.

It is simply incomprehensible that the men and women who have volunteered to protect our nation are not permitted to protect themselves. Our enemy has made it clear that our nation is under attack and they plan to defeat us, apparently even if they have to pick off our military one person at a time.

Our current presidential administration has told women in the past that preferred methods to stop a potential rapist include urinating on them or firing a shotgun outdoors off the back porch – not at the attacker, but just in the air. This reminded me of how school children were once told to duck under their school desks in the event of a nuclear attack (In the 1960’s, did a student desk also serve as a Faraday cage?). What’s next? Will they also advise our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to hide behind their desks if a shooter attacks?

This is the same president who tried to shake hands with a Marine who was saluting him as he exited Marine One. This is the same president who returned a salute to a Marine while holding a coffee cup in his hand. This is also the same president who insisted that a Marine hold an umbrella over him when he gave an address in the Rose Garden. This is the same president who said he would stand with Muslims should the political winds shift. And this is the same president who can light up the White House with rainbow colors, but cannot light it with red, white, and blue in honor of Independence Day a week later.*

Sure, he can quote the platitudes about “our men and women in uniform.” We’ll only know if he means it if he convinces the Department of Defense to overturn Regulation 190-14 and eliminates the laws concerning gun-free zones. Unless you have been in a coma for six years, it should be quite evident that this president is far more interested in protecting Muslims than he is with protecting our military. He has little regard for these men and women who voluntarily serve our nation.

Meanwhile, a handful of state governors have already called for the National Guard units within their states to be armed as quickly as possible. Some of the more mealy-mouthed governors claim to be studying the issue while others are awaiting a directive from our dear leader. I’m waiting for that announcement, too, but I’m not holding my breath.

~Temerity Dowell

*I’m not going to get on the bandwagon about lowering the flags to half-mast upon the death of members of the military. If we did that, the flag would be lowered all the time. I am, however, grateful to Governor Bill Haslam of TN for ordering that flags be lowered in the state.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s