Skip to comments.Navy Yard Shooting Another Clinton Gun-Free Zone Fail
Posted on 09/17/2013 4:50:48 PM PDT by raptor22
Security: As the usual suspects call for stricter gun control, the fact remains that a gunman with two prior gun-crime arrests entered a secure military facility with a stolen ID and found no one able to shoot back.
It was Fort Hood all over again. Aaron Alexis, a gunman whose prior behavioral warning signs were ignored, opens fire in an installation belonging to the most powerful military on Earth and those who protect our nation and design our weapons are not allowed to have a weapon to defend themselves.
He was more equipped than the 12 people he killed on the base who were not permitted to carry weapons on the base, thanks to former President Bill Clinton.
In 1993 the president issued orders that barred members of the military and their civilian contractors from carrying personal firearms on base. Even officers were disarmed under the law.
Almost as soon as Clinton assumed office, in March 1993 the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.
That ban extends to virtually all U.S military bases and related installations.
Under the ruling enacted by the Clinton administration, there must be "a credible and specific threat against personnel" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection."
This was the reason that the Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was able to go on a rampage for a full 10 minutes in 2009 without being stopped.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Other threads have said that this was actually George HW Bush policy.
No tiger so toothless as a disarmed military.
It originated under Slick Willie. Close, but no cigar.
Why don’t they call these zones ‘defense free’, or something like that? It’s true, once it’s called ‘gun-free’, the bad guys are welcome to come in with guns, so it’s not a gun-free zone at all.
Bill Clinton has helped to murder 23 service men.
... jaw drops... I didn’t know. I just assumed that it was out of some vague PC drift of the command mentality. I didn’t know it was a specific order. It sounds like it was an Executive Order from Clinton as CIC.
GW Bush could have done away with it.
He was busy defending the country.
I doubt if any of his advisors (way too many from across the aisle in his administration) brought it up to him.
Send out the MSM clowns to question H!.
How many attacks by Muslims have we had? 10 billion? Yet liberals and RINOs still won't profile. Same with this situation: There can be a billion Fort hoods and they will still refuse the military the 2nd amendment.
Last night while flipping through channels there was some host on MSNBC (I know, but it was like looking at a car wreck - I couldn’t look away) saying gun free zones are the way to prevent all these shootings. His logic? He showed a sign from a gun show that said you can’t enter if you have a loaded weapon.
So he said that shows even conservatives know gun free zones are safer.
So I guess gun shows are full of helpless people, like schools, or people w/o access to protection (like the thousands of guns, and presumably guards) at gun shows.
Or maybe he’s hoping by pointing this out someone will decide a gun show w/b a good place for a nut case to attack people.
“Regulation 90-114 regulates firearms on military bases and was implemented by President Clinton in 1993.”
The other threads are wrong.
IBD EDITORIAL PING
It was George HW Bush that did away with the time honored tradition of bring back war trophy guns.
George HW Bush was just another “progressive”.
I was in the Army Combat Engineers from 1966 to 1968. Stateside, we carried arms only when training. Otherwise, our weapons were stored in the company arms room. In Vietnam, while stationed at a large base attached to the 4th division, we stored arms in the company arms room at the end of the day. We carried them when off base. When quartered in a small field camp, we kept our arms by our cots as we slept. While in the camp, they stayed by our cot. Only when we left camp, did we carry them. Bill Clinton had nothing to do with policy in the 1960's.
I don’t believe that either Bush president would worry about meeting armed American servicemen. It is Democrats who fear them.
IBD EDITORIAL PING
See the editorial below, this has been all Clinton’s doing. Until the military quits the role of welfare payments generator for America’s minorities (yes that is what it has become in case you haven’t noticed), and until the U.S. military has returned to it the right of military personnel to be armed while on base, these kinds of incidents will continue to occur and innocents will lose their lives. And while the American people are at it, they may as well reinstate some logical and non-suicidal rules of engagement for our troops. I know—I’m dreaming, right?
EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban
The Washington Times
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
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 weeks 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.
Among President Clintons first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.
Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. Thats why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasans rampage.
Everyone wants to keep people safe - and no one denies Mr. Clintons good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal - or in this case, the terrorist.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husbands upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: At least hes safe there and he can fire back, right?
It is hard to believe that we dont trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clintons deadly rules even disarmed officers, the most trusted members of the military charged with leading enlisted soldiers in combat. Six of the dead and wounded had commissions.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Research also shows that the presence of more guns limits the damage mass murderers can unleash. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone - soldier, civilian or law enforcement - arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack. All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.
Thirteen dead bodies in a Texas morgue are the ultimate fruit of gun-control illogic - in which guns are so feared that government regulation even tries to keep them out of the hands of trained soldiers. With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can end Mr. Clintons folly and allow U.S. soldiers to protect themselves. Because we clearly cannot protect our soldiers from harm, the least we owe them is the right to protect themselves.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/#ixzz2fCX6iTe4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
IBD EDITORIAL PING
Thanks for the diatribe on Clinton and the virtues of being armed, but you completely ignored my experience of the 1960’s when the defacto policy of being disarmed on secured camps happened decades before Clinton issued any directives.
Warning signs should be placed on ‘gun free zones’ so those of us who enjoy living can stay out of them...
This was Department of Defense directive 5210.56, originated 2/25/1992. Prior to that year’s election.
“George HW Bush was just another progressive.”
Nah, Bilderberger/CFR! You know, a “we run the world type.” He was one of Reagan’s few mistakes.
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.