Skip to comments.Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones
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 ...
Maybe it’s just me, but the whole idea of a “gun-free Army base” is the most preposterous oxymoron I’ve ever heard.
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.
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....)
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 . . .
Evidently, that's a wrong assumption:
New Obama Military Rules of Engagement:, Dont shoot back http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2384383/posts
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.
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.
> 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.
Thats my experience also.
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.
What was the name of this piece of legislation? Anyone have it handy?
(This has got to be one of the most inane things I have ever heard of!)
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.
Bill Clinton has blood on his hands for this one.
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.
Obama should be, because our military isn’t going to take crap lying down...
“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.