On the heels of yet another shooting in what looks like an intentional targeting of two military facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the issue of self-defense, or lack thereof, of our military members has once again arisen. Why? Because of, according to a Washington Times editorial, an executive order penned by none other than Bill Clinton clear back in 1993. But first, here’s what we know so far about the Chattanooga attack. From Fox News:

•  A man (initially described as “white”) driving a “Mustang” rolled up to a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, pulled out a “big, black” rifle, and started spraying the area with bullets. He then drove to a second location. (see map)
• At least four Marines are reportedly dead.
• One police officer was shot, and is reportedly in stable condition at an area hospital.
• Local police “neutralized the attack.”
• The shooter is reportedly dead, shot by “law enforcment.”
• FBI is investigating the attack as “an act of domestic terrorism.” No verification yet.
• FBI: “Guns typically not allowed on federal property without authorization.” AKA Gun Free Zone.
• ISIS tweeted about “Chattanooga” eleven minutes prior to the attack (some pundits are disputing the time that the message was tweeted). Here’s a screen cap:

• ISIS is reportedly celebrating on social media.
• The attack lasted, according to several witnesses, for twenty minutes, at two separate locations.

Did you catch that last part? The attack—which is very likely terrorism based on the language being used by the FBI—lasted for twenty minutes. Imagine hiding, hoping, praying you don’t get shot, knowing you’re fully capable of ending the onslaught, for twenty minutes, but you can’t because you’ve been disarmed. And, CBS News is now reporting the shooter’s name. Hang on to your hats:

NEW: #Chattanooga shooting suspect ID'd as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, law enforcement sources tell CBS News http://t.co/2ToNoHTmQk

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 16, 2015

Keeping criminals safe. #ChattanoogaShooting pic.twitter.com/RxO8YzjeBG

— US Patriot Brigade (@USPatriotBrig) July 16, 2015

But let’s not jump to conclusions…**cough Confederate Flag**

So, why was there no return fire from the Marine recruits and other military personnel reportedly on-scene? Well, that brings us back to Bill Clinton and the insanity of federal property “Gun Free Zone” policy, under which military recruitment centers fall. From the referenced Washington Times editorial:

Time after time, public murder sprees occur in “gun-free zones” – public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week’s slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different – except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.

Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That’s why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage.

Are you as angry as I am yet? And this editorial was penned clear back in 2009. To crickets from this administration. And succedding the Fort Hood shooting where unarmed soldiers also couldn’t defend themselves from a terrorist attack by a Muslim Jihadist, who was also a fellow soldier who’d waved obvious red flags about his intentions.

But not to be outdone in their sheer ignorance, here’s CNN, that bastion of critical analysis, explaining why the military members were unarmed during today’s attack:

“Recruitment centers are at shopping malls…in places you wouldn’t anticipate an attack.”

Quadruple face palm.

Here’s the full FBI briefing on what they’re telling us so far. Note the response on federal Gun Free Zones:

It is painfully, dangerously, clear that the Democrats, with the acquiescence of too many Republicans who’ve also let this issue go unaddressed for far too long, have left our military members, whose Second Amendment rights do not end upon enlistment, unable to defend themselves both on and, as confirmed yet again today, off the battlefield. The question is, particularly in the “new normal” of the clear and present danger of domestic attacks by Islamic jihadists, will Barack Obama finally reverse this lunacy—which to a determined terrorist are perfect “soft targets”—with his pen and his phone? Highly doubtful. What’s more likely: The old and tired calls for stringent gun control in 3…2…1.