Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones
foxnews.com ^ | 10 November, 2009 | John Lott

Posted on 11/12/2009 4:48:12 AM PST by marktwain

It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.

The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. Mandy Foster's husband had been shot but was fortunate enough not to be seriously injured. In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband "still scheduled for deployment in January" to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?"

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; clinton; foxnews; fthood; gun; gunfreezones; johnlott
The Clinton rule should be recinded, but don't hold your breath.
1 posted on 11/12/2009 4:48:12 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Maybe it’s just me, but the whole idea of a “gun-free Army base” is the most preposterous oxymoron I’ve ever heard.


2 posted on 11/12/2009 4:50:26 AM PST by Zeddicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I agree -- Army Bases should not be gun-free zones.

This part had me puzzled, tho', and as I'm not familiar with the way the US Army trains, I'd be interested in knowing more about this:

> The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped... But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.

True? Do they not teach unarmed hand-to-hand combat in the modern army anymore? If not, perhaps they should.

3 posted on 11/12/2009 4:54:47 AM PST by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeddicus

When I was at the gun range yesterday, everyone was armed, and wonder of wonders, no one became a wild-eyed Jihadist and started shooting up the place.

(But, if they did....)


4 posted on 11/12/2009 4:56:09 AM PST by gigster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms

Was he afraid of a military coup?

How many terrorist attacks are the fault of that corrupt little dork? WT-1; 9/11; Ft. Hood . . .

5 posted on 11/12/2009 4:59:33 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
At least he's safe there (Afghanistan) and he can fire back, right?

Evidently, that's a wrong assumption:

New Obama Military Rules of Engagement:, Don’t shoot back http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2384383/posts

6 posted on 11/12/2009 5:06:48 AM PST by MissMagnolia (Obad. 1:15: As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter
Do they not teach unarmed hand-to-hand combat in the modern army anymore?

Wow...so quick to judge!

These troops were in a relaxed and supposedly safe environment when someone opens fire on them.

Do you really think that their first instinct and reaction was to rush the assailant or self preservation by seeking cover?

Now I'm ready to have you tell us how you'd get up and bravely rush an armed attacker.

7 posted on 11/12/2009 5:48:13 AM PST by Eagle Eye (3%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

Funny thing is that I cannot ever recall any base that allowed troops to carry personal firearms going back into the mid 70’s.

The only people really shocked by this are those who don’t know anything about military bases.


8 posted on 11/12/2009 5:50:16 AM PST by Eagle Eye (3%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

> Wow...so quick to judge!

Settle down, mate, and don’t be silly — I haven’t “judged” anything at all. The article said that the troops were “unable to stop the attack” and “could do little more than cower”. I have only asked if that was indeed true. And I’ve asked whether the modern army teaches unarmed hand-to-hand combat.

> Do you really think that their first instinct and reaction was to rush the assailant or self preservation by seeking cover?

I don’t know: I haven’t asked that question.

> Now I’m ready to have you tell us how you’d get up and bravely rush an armed attacker.

You’ll be disappointed, then, because I’m not going to.

In fact, I’m on record in earlier threads (eg the VT massacre) of questioning whether it is indeed feasible to attack a mad gunman. Do a search of the threads and convince yourself.

But seeing how you mention it, I wonder why it would be OK for trained troops at Fort Hood to be unable to respond effectively against a mad gunman, whereas many people believed the Virginia Tech students should somehow have been able to overpower Seung-Hui Cho — but that’s a whole ‘nuther issue.

I think perhaps it is *you* who are quick to judge, mate.


9 posted on 11/12/2009 6:09:22 AM PST by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
"...I cannot ever recall any base that allowed troops to carry personal firearms..."

Thats my experience also.

10 posted on 11/12/2009 6:16:20 AM PST by gnarledmaw (Obama: Evincing a Design since 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

We don’t even know if those were combat troops or support troops.

Even if they were combat troops, by the time they recover from their initial reactions it was probably already too late for them to launch an unarmed counter attack.

Had this been a slower or semi hostage taking situation, then perhaps the could counter attack. It has been done before effectively, even by students.

Unlike a lot of freepers, I’m usually reluctant to second guess those on the scene unless there is an obvious breech of protocol.


11 posted on 11/12/2009 6:51:42 AM PST by Eagle Eye (3%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The Clinton rule should be recinded, but don't hold your breath.

If Bush didn't rescind this rule, Zero most certainly won't.
12 posted on 11/12/2009 6:57:08 AM PST by algernonpj (He who pays the piper . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: algernonpj

What was the name of this piece of legislation? Anyone have it handy?


13 posted on 11/12/2009 6:59:45 AM PST by VA_Gentleman (Everybody says they have a plan, until they get punched in the face. - Mike Tyson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: VA_Gentleman

Cited here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382387/posts

(This has got to be one of the most inane things I have ever heard of!)


14 posted on 11/12/2009 7:14:43 AM PST by algernonpj (He who pays the piper . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

That is like taking a knife to a gun fight. I was taught hand to hand combat in basic but not enough to do much good.


15 posted on 11/12/2009 7:54:11 AM PST by Piquaboy (Military veteran of 22 years in Navy, Air Force, and Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Bill Clinton has blood on his hands for this one.


16 posted on 11/12/2009 10:30:09 AM PST by GVnana ("Obama is incredibly naive and grossly egotistical." Sarkozy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

BTTT!


17 posted on 11/12/2009 11:45:58 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I think the Armed Forces should defy any Executive order and nullify that law.

Arm the troops, we the taxpayers have paid to teach our sons and daughters to defend our country from enemies abroad and within.

At the very least and grudgingly I admit even this is a pitiful decision allow anyone the choice to carry at least a modern taser.


18 posted on 11/12/2009 11:50:46 AM PST by Eye of Unk ("If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." T. Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

Obama should be, because our military isn’t going to take crap lying down...


19 posted on 11/12/2009 4:08:10 PM PST by Schwaeky (The Republic--Shall be reorganized into the first American EMPIRE, for a safe and secure Society!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

“The only people really shocked by this are those who don’t know anything about military bases.”

I’m not shocked, only disgusted. You must be very young.

Hank


20 posted on 11/12/2009 4:21:02 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

Tell us where and when privately owned weapons were commonly carried? Which bases? When?

I’ve never known any since 1976.


21 posted on 11/12/2009 5:29:40 PM PST by Eagle Eye (3%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

1960, Fort Dix, Fort Devens.

I and many others carried, or not, as we chose. Nobody made anything of it one way or the other.

I and other’s bought and sold firearms on base as private sales. Nobody recorded anything, which is exactly they way it ought to be.

The only arms one could not carry were military issue. Don’t think there were any other restrictions—at least no one ever heard of them.

I had several small arms in the bottom of my duffle bag when shipping out to Southeast Asia in 1961. Many of us did, and we were even provided range time to practice with our own weapons once deployed.

(Those in basic training at Dix were not allowed to carry any weapons, for obvious reasons)

How things changed in 16 years.

Hank


22 posted on 11/12/2009 5:46:19 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

1960...that was like...HALF A CENTURY AGO!

You probably wore them old brown boot,too.


23 posted on 11/12/2009 6:12:22 PM PST by Eagle Eye (3%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

> Had this been a slower or semi hostage taking situation, then perhaps the could counter attack. It has been done before effectively, even by students.

From the reports to date, it sounds like the shooter just started shooting, and took everyone by surprise — rather like what happened at Virginia Tech.


24 posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:20 PM PST by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy
> I was taught hand to hand combat in basic but not enough to do much good.

I wonder why they teach it in Basic Training, then? That's got to be of some concern.

Here's a demo of hand-to-hand combat by the British Royal Marine Commandos. It looks like it could be very useful.

25 posted on 11/12/2009 10:37:03 PM PST by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson