“The strict control of weapons on army bases goes back many decades,...” ..... “So it’s just not a recent liberal thing.”
You think LIBERALISM is a recent thing?
Fine. You come up with some sort of evidence that strict control of access to weaponry by the military is connected to liberal concerns and I’ll be happy to agree with you.
I’ve seen quite a number of comments on this subject by active or retired military personnel, and none of them believed the policy was part of a “guns are bad” liberal worldview. The policy may be misguided, but it isn’t a liberal policy in its origin.
Historically, officers were armed at all times. In fact, their sword or pistol (sidearm) was the primary indicator of their status as gentlemen and officers. Giving it up to the enemy was the physical token of surrender.
Rankers, as members of the lowest social orders, were issued arms (or sometimes ammo) only when conflict was imminent.
Noncoms might or might not go armed.
This was probably less true of US armies than of the old European armies, but still largely the case.
On the old sailing ships, one of the primary concerns of the officers was to keep all smalll arms under control as a way of preventing mutiny, usually in locked cabinets in officers’ country or even in the captain’s cabin. This prevention was also the original purpose of having Marines on board. They were there to stomp all over mutiny by the impressed sailors and they carried small arms as part of their duties.
When a boarding action was imminent, in either direction, then and only then were small arms handed out to sailors.