Posted on 11/11/2009 7:19:53 AM PST by R4Roger05
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
It certainly is!
It is not just military bases that are unarmed. The recruiters stations follow the same rules. That is why it took a SWAT team, and a hand full of FReepers, to thwart another attack on the recruiting station in DC in March 2008. The week before this photo, the commies stormed them and trashed the place.
"Lt. Col. Les Melnyck, a Defense Department spokesman, said that as of August, 3,557 active duty troops of roughly 1.4 million identified themselves as being Muslim."(Fox News)
1.4 million to 3,557. I'll take those odds. Arm our soldiers. (It sounds crazy to even have to say it!)
This needs to be posted large, and often.
Obama has the power to restore a basic self-defense capability to our military people. If he does not use the executive power of his office to do this, then he is leaving our military open to more attacks by deranged jihadists - BY CHOICE.
That's a keeper.
It's like not allowing fighting in the war room.
The military was anti-gun before Clinton. I guess he just made it official. My father retired from the Navy in 76 and they were anti-gun back then. When I was in during the Reagan/Bush years they were anti-gun. If you were caught with a weapon or ammunition in your car or barracks room you would face charges. You were treated like a criminal for exercising your second amendment right. I can go on but I won't.
The military does no like big knives either.
Realistically how many soldiers would of brought their sidearms to a deployment screening if allowed before this?
I am thinking that knowing you would have to take off the sidearm for medical exams and such and that everybody there is either military or DOD civilians so what’s the risk?
So everyone in Texas has a gun EXCEPT those people in the military base.
BRILLIANT!
Thanks - thats totally NUTS.
I can maybe understand a distinction between issued and personal weapons and following certain protocols, but what is the underlying rationale for almost nobody being allowed to carry any type of weapon on post? If it is that the facility is supposed to be "base" and therefore a zone of safety, well here's a news flash - the giant wooden horse rolled in a long time ago.
Anything about it that makes sense just isn't apparent to me.
Hopefully is has just been inertia which is, unfortunately, a fact of life. And hopefully it has just been overcome. We'll see I reckon.
I am retired Army, live in Copperas Cove, Tx, just west of Ft. Hood. I have a TX CHL and this rule is why you see me on Ft. Hood maybe once every 6 months. They give 18-19 year old kids a couple of months training as MPs and give them guns, but I can’t be trusted to carry and defend myself and possibly others? Does the Army take FULL responsibility for the safety and well being on everyone on base? They can’t and won’t.
I am sorry, but my safety and the safety of my loved ones is best left to me, not those the military says can be trusted with a gun. I still cling to the idea of personal responsibility for my actions.
BTTT!
Go to http://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedom and you will hear me speak with Uncle Jimbo of BlackFive on this very subject.
Page in about a quarter of the way and you will hear Uncle Jimbo and I going over this very thing!
That was an early confused report. But she was not from off base, she was a civilian Police Sgt working for the post's Department of Emergency services. An Army employee, not a civilian contractor (like the gate guards, who are also armed), nor a police officer from any of the jurisdictions around the post. The Senior Sgt, who also shot the terrorist after she did, was her partner and also a Civilian police officer from DES.
MPs do carry firearms routinely when on duty. They could provide such guards, if there were enough of them. Most are deployed guarding terrorists, protecting convoys and such as that.
But the argument that somehow the solders (and our own civilian Allegra) are safe to be armed while on a base in Iraq or Afghanistan but somehow become irresponsible and too dangerous to be armed because they are walking around a US post/base rather than an overseas one, is just..stupid.
But as we have seen, they are armed if they choose to be. Like all gun bans, this only affects those who follow the rules, not the homicidal few who do not.
Major Hasan was not one of them. His records show "No religious preferance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.