Skip to comments.Time to revisit firearms policies on military posts
Posted on 11/18/2009 2:34:16 PM PST by neverdem
This months tragic and probably preventable mass shooting at Ft. Hood, Texas, certainly raises questions about why a lone shooter was able to unload not one but several magazines of ammunition over a several minute period shooting and wounding more than 30 soldiers and killing 13, at a heavily restricted US Army base. Just as legitimate questions were raised following the mass killings on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007, both military personnel and civilian citizens alike ought now to be asking of themselves and our elected and appointed leaders, not only whether the perpetrators of such carnage could reasonably and appropriately have been identified in advance and prevented from carrying out their obviously well-planned mass murders; but also, whether it makes sense to disarm a captive group of citizens (at Virginia Tech, the student body; at Ft. Hood, the military personnel assigned to the base).
In the case of Ft. Hood, it is important to bear in mind that since 1993, thanks to a policy ordered by then-President Bill Clinton, it has been essentially unlawful for individuals on military bases to carry firearms unless they are military police, or are training in firearms at a firing range. Many of those who support this gun-free military base policy have reacted to calls to review it, by simply echoing the standard refrain of gun-control advocates that, we dont want everyone on a military base running around with a gun on their hip. (Of course, had this been the case at Ft. Hood, it is doubtful Maj. Hasan could have squeezed off more than a couple of rounds before being himself felled by an armed soldier.) It is a false dichotomy that we either allow no one (except MPs) or everyone on military bases to possess firearms. Rather, the debate should center on why is it made virtually impossible for any soldier on a military base to carry arms, even if they have in fact been properly vetted and trained in their use?
Why, after all, should a citizen be forced to surrender his or her right to keep and bear arms, simply because they have entered military service; service expressly supposed to teach the proper and safe use of firearms?
In the case of the students at Virginia Tech two years ago, it was Virginia legislators who decided to disarm them and make them sitting ducks for a single crazed gunman, Seung-Hui Cho. For the military victims at Ft. Hood this Fall, it was three commanders-in-chief (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama), and a series of politically-correct base commanders, who rendered those who serve under them vulnerable to an apparent religious zealot bent on killing as many of his fellow service men and women as he could. Continuing to stick our heads in the sand and refuse to even reconsider amending such policies as those that apply to campuses in Virginia (and other states across the country) and at Ft. Hood (and virtually every other military post across the country), vastly improves the chances that our students and our military personnel will be victims of other deranged individuals in the future.
The other part of the Clinton policy that needs reversal is that those allowed to carry guns are seldom allowed ammunition for them.
It is very fitting that Bill Clinton leave a legacy of dead US servicemen. He and those of his generation and ilk managed to make life hell for their countrymen in the service while they themselves perfected the art of milking the public tit.
I had a firearm in my locker in 1957, was stationed on a Nike Missile base. Got the sidearm from a mail order in Chicago.
Times, they have changed for sure.
Create a rolling roster of soldiers to be armed with their individual weapon and two magazines of ammo. They report to the provost marshal as the post quick reaction force.
Just like guard duty. Post command sergeant major tasks subordinate units down to unit first sergeants. Soldiers draw weapons, report to post HQ, are issued magazines and given their general/special guard orders, and take up their posts. The officer or sergeant of the guard goes around and inspects them at their posts, which they quit only when properly relieved.
Guard posts to be determined by division or post chief of staff. Soldiers protected, terrorists warned.
EST 2000 firing simulator system will prepare soldiers for reaction to variety of situations.
It can be done.
More dodge and fake intellectualizing of distractions to avoid the obvious problem. Islam is bad. Terrorism is Islam. It isn’t guns. It isn’t Israel. It isn’t British imperialism. It isn’t Amreican imperialism, or Hinduism or Buddhism, or Christianity. It is Islam. That doesn’t mean all Muslims are terrorists, or that all Islamic states are terrorist states. It simply means that Islam causes terrorism, and it needs to be watched, controlled, and not ignored or excused. Don’t get sidetracked. Don’t get mushy headed with PCism and Multiculturalism. Don’t be stupid.
Actually that was a fictional character, Lazarus Long, who was created by the sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein.
It would be sort of additional duty but he only requirement would be that you carry the gun while going about your normal work day.
Some have suggested that ALL personnel be allowed access to guns 24/7/365. This is a terrible idea mainly because while our soldiers, sailors, and Marines are brave, they aren’t angels and often do stupid things (drink until they pass out, DUI, do drugs, fight, steal, run around with other soldier’s wives, etc.) when off duty. I know this for a fact because I WAS a young sailor who did some on the list and saw others do more.
Before 1968 you could own ANYTHING that you wanted, up to and including operational field artillery pieces with no government oversight at all.
Like all blogs, you need to judge whether the writer has one bit of common sense about this stuff. My answer is no.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong,”The ownership of machine guns was first regulated at the federal level by the National Firearms Act of 1934. “
A quater century of Active Duty compels me to endorse your assessment.
Additional duty, yes. When I was deployed to Uzbekistan, a much safer place than neighboring Afghanistan, a bomb blast in the latter obliged us in the UZ base to carry our M-16 and two magazines. At work, in the mess tent, the shower, chapel, didn’t matter. Went on like this for months.
But IMO those tasked for additional guard duty need to be stationed in & around targets of opportunity like the staging area where the goblin Hasan knew his targets were concentrated and unarmed.
Issue weapons to all? Negatron. The unit first sergeants can best determine who’s most trustworthy.
Gura's McDonald brief is in comment# 1 of this first link. Comment# 19 excerpts a NY Times' comment from the original 14th Amendment debate. Give me the old NY Times.
State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions N.B. CA, IA, MD, MN, NJ & NY need incorporation badly. IIRC, NY is supposed to cover RKBA in its civil rights law, but I've never come across it.
Did you read the article?
"Many of those who support this gun-free military base policy have reacted to calls to review it, by simply echoing the standard refrain of gun-control advocates that, 'we dont want everyone on a military base running around with a gun on their hip." (Of course, had this been the case at Ft. Hood, it is doubtful Maj. Hasan could have squeezed off more than a couple of rounds before being himself felled by an armed soldier.) It is a false dichotomy that we either allow no one (except MPs) or everyone on military bases to possess firearms."
He's against gun free zones.
What's the difference between his old OpEd columns and his blog? Are you in favor of gun free zones?
It’s a damned crying shame when in the name of PC, even our military are rendered helpless cringing sheep in a slaughterhouse.
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.