XD Owner
Regular Member
imported post
Following LTE appeared in the July/August 2008 issue of the Foreign Service Journal. The FSJ is a publication of the American Foreign Service Assocation (AFSA), the professional association of the American Foreign Service.
Bearing Arms
AFSA has repeatedly made references to unarmed diplomats being sent to war zones, presumably a bad thing. Because the State Department is going to continue sending diplomats into harm’s way, AFSA should call for letting them be voluntarily armed. While controversial (to utopians who do not believe in the right to self defense), it would at least give our colleagues overseas a fighting chance in case they were kidnapped by terrorists or criminals.
I cannot understand why otherwise intelligent people would be against this idea. After all, enshrined in the Second Amendment is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” When I joined the State Department, I understood there would be some restriction on my rights. Despite the First Amendment, I cannot publicly disagree with administration policy, but the department cannot totally prohibit me from expressing my opinions.
Before the regional security officer can search my sleeping quarters for illegal guns, he’ll need a warrant. Or am I deprived of my Fourth Amendment rights, as well, when overseas?
In some places, like Jamaica for example, certain personnel can keep a firearm in their sleeping quarters. Why isn’t the same true for those serving in active war zones?
Before diplomats deploy to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, they get firearms training along with combat lifesaver and Humvee rollover training. They should be allowed to keep and bear arms if they so choose; otherwise, the firearms training is worthless.
John Higi
FSO
Embassy Kuwait
Following LTE appeared in the July/August 2008 issue of the Foreign Service Journal. The FSJ is a publication of the American Foreign Service Assocation (AFSA), the professional association of the American Foreign Service.
Bearing Arms
AFSA has repeatedly made references to unarmed diplomats being sent to war zones, presumably a bad thing. Because the State Department is going to continue sending diplomats into harm’s way, AFSA should call for letting them be voluntarily armed. While controversial (to utopians who do not believe in the right to self defense), it would at least give our colleagues overseas a fighting chance in case they were kidnapped by terrorists or criminals.
I cannot understand why otherwise intelligent people would be against this idea. After all, enshrined in the Second Amendment is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” When I joined the State Department, I understood there would be some restriction on my rights. Despite the First Amendment, I cannot publicly disagree with administration policy, but the department cannot totally prohibit me from expressing my opinions.
Before the regional security officer can search my sleeping quarters for illegal guns, he’ll need a warrant. Or am I deprived of my Fourth Amendment rights, as well, when overseas?
In some places, like Jamaica for example, certain personnel can keep a firearm in their sleeping quarters. Why isn’t the same true for those serving in active war zones?
Before diplomats deploy to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, they get firearms training along with combat lifesaver and Humvee rollover training. They should be allowed to keep and bear arms if they so choose; otherwise, the firearms training is worthless.
John Higi
FSO
Embassy Kuwait