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

Skip to comments.

Why Are Military Bases Such As Fort Hood Gun-Free?
Investor's Business Daily ^ | April 4, 2014 | IBD EDITORIALS

Posted on 04/04/2014 2:49:08 PM PDT by raptor22

Gun Control: Another tragedy at Fort Hood is compounded by the absurdity of well-trained and disciplined soldiers told to "shelter in place" until the police arrive.

The second mass shooting at Fort Hood is not considered an act of terrorism.

It is, however, a grim echo of its predecessor, which was an act of terrorism called "workplace violence." And to this day, the commander in chief calls Maj. Nidal Hasan's Nov. 5, 2009, rampage in which 13 were murdered and 32 wounded "workplace violence."

In that tragedy, Hasan, a self-proclaimed "Soldier of Allah," shouted "Allahu Akhbar" and opened fire on dozens of U.S. civilians and soldiers who were unarmed and unable to fire back. Then, as now and in the Sept. 16, 2013, mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, military personnel trained to defend themselves were unable to do so and had to wait until the police arrived.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: cincealedcarry; forthood; fthood; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 04/04/2014 2:49:08 PM PDT by raptor22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: raptor22
Silly Rabbit! How could our soldiers be slaughtered at home in the safety of their bases if they were allowed to defend themselves?
2 posted on 04/04/2014 2:50:46 PM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

The answer is that the bases are under the command of officers who are concerned with their careers. Should some form of “accident report” come out blaming them for an accidental discharge or a “workplace incident” (like this latest) or a “terror attack” (like Nidal Hassan) they could lose their post.


3 posted on 04/04/2014 2:54:02 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (At no time was the Obama administration aware of what the Obama administration was doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
Why Are Military Bases Such As Fort Hood Gun-Free?

I don't know - because Obama thinks guns are icky?

4 posted on 04/04/2014 2:54:06 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: raptor22; SandRat; Doogle; Foolsgold; ZULU; overbore; JLAGRAYFOX; mazda77; vette6387; onyx; bitt; ..

This is how Israel handles this issue per a Ping earlier.

“The IDF ensures that weapons are either with the soldier (or soldierette) while on duty, while on base or off base. Once they are home they can lock it up but the to and fro travels show them with the weapons all the time.”


6 posted on 04/04/2014 2:57:06 PM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

When did this start happening?


7 posted on 04/04/2014 2:57:18 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

Survey Sez..Icky Weapons!

Hassan was just expressing his Inner Jihadist Scumbag,...as a part of his Mohammadan “religious” practice.

Either asshat could have been stopped DEAD in their tracks by one armed American


8 posted on 04/04/2014 2:58:39 PM PDT by MeshugeMikey ( "Never, never, never give up". Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Among President Clinton’s 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.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/#ixzz2xxfVCeFb
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


9 posted on 04/04/2014 3:00:09 PM PDT by DocJhn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Blame the womanizing, draft-dodger, congenital liar b klintoon. He started it.


10 posted on 04/04/2014 3:00:38 PM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

By now it must be reaching the consciousness of people of all persuasions who for various reasons would target Americans in uniform, that attacking the military base is not as safe as attacking a school, but it isn’t so terribly different, and the payoff for terrorists, from Muslim to just anti-American, or anti-nuke, or anti-national policy whatevers, is incredible, mass numbers of unarmed uniformed representatives of the U.S. and on federal property, with maximum publicity.

I suggest that we should be in a rush to fix this vulnerability.

When I was in, the little arms rooms scattered around the bases were seen as a magnet for those who wanted to steal arms.


11 posted on 04/04/2014 3:00:44 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Now the Left will wail about gun control. Well, it was gun control that made the base a gun free zone.


12 posted on 04/04/2014 3:01:10 PM PDT by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
Why Are Military Bases Such As Fort Hood Gun-Free?

To break the spirit of the US Military.

13 posted on 04/04/2014 3:01:26 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Biily boy Clinton.


14 posted on 04/04/2014 3:07:28 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

“Why Are Military Bases Such As Fort Hood Gun-Free?
To break the spirit of the US Military. “

Ding ding ding.

Also, because when the SHTF, the only ones who will get arms are the soldiers who support the regime. Which explains the purge of general officers and the attrition rate.


15 posted on 04/04/2014 3:10:16 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("Heck of a reset there, Hillary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
Because of the leadership's deep rooted mistrust of ordinary men and women.

16 posted on 04/04/2014 3:11:46 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Perhaps if Republicans win the House and Senate they can pass a Federal CCW law.


17 posted on 04/04/2014 3:13:17 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Biily boy Clinton.

Not so fast.

This Is Why Most Military Personnel Aren’t Armed on Military Bases — and It’s Not Clinton’s Fault (The Blaze)"
18 posted on 04/04/2014 3:13:29 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

0bama prohibits dress swords. For cry-eyed.


19 posted on 04/04/2014 3:14:21 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
excerpt from above link...

So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush.
20 posted on 04/04/2014 3:15:16 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
Media Matters is a communist site and has no place on Free Republic, a fact-based forum. The reality is that draft-dodging Billy Klansman Klintoon denied Second Amendment rights to the military. As a leftist DemonRAT, Klintoon dismantled America's might and undid the years of good that President Reagan did during his two terms.
21 posted on 04/04/2014 3:15:37 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

This Is Why Most Military Personnel Aren’t Armed on Military Bases — and It’s Not Clinton’s Fault
It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/
Don’t shelter in place in da bushes


22 posted on 04/04/2014 3:16:24 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
This piece from the Washington Times (a reputable source in my opinion) of November 11, 2009 squarely places the blame on Klansman Klintoon, the "man" who hated (and still hates) America and our military:

Among President Clinton’s 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 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. That’s why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage.

23 posted on 04/04/2014 3:20:41 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

President H.W. Bush Enacted Military Base Gun Regulations In 1992, A Year Before Clinton Took Office. As The New Republic explained, a 1992 Department of Defense directive established the rules limiting firearms on military bases to “qualified personnel,” issued under former President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney:


24 posted on 04/04/2014 3:22:50 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

I think police stations, jails, and prisons should be gun-free zones. /s


25 posted on 04/04/2014 3:23:59 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Oh, I forgot courthouses, especially.


26 posted on 04/04/2014 3:24:52 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; markomalley; Clairity; Carlucci; grey_whiskers; meyer; WL-law; Para-Ord.45; ...

GUN CONTROL PING


27 posted on 04/04/2014 3:25:23 PM PDT by raptor22 (Follow me on Twitter @gerfingerpoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
I'd feel safer at the ice cream store.

(in Israel)

28 posted on 04/04/2014 3:25:34 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

A silly bureaucratic decision makes it easy to change in the future.


29 posted on 04/04/2014 3:30:06 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
President H.W. Bush Enacted Military Base Gun Regulations In 1992, A Year Before Clinton Took Office.

Even of that's so (but The New Republic is a commie rag), the fault is still on Klintoon. He should have overturned that regulation. But he failed to do so. Why? With a passion exceeeded only by zero, he hates these United States and he dismantled the peerless American military might that President Ronald Reagan built.

At least Bush 41 and Bush 43 loved America and both served with honor in the military. Klintoon burned his draft card.

30 posted on 04/04/2014 3:30:06 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

I hate to interject a little historical reality here, but throughout history, military bases frequently haven’t let enlisted or drafted soldiers carry weapons. This is to prevent attacks on officers, as well as attacks by hostile forces camouflaging themselves as friendlies.

As much as I hate Obama and his policies, I don’t think this began with with him.


31 posted on 04/04/2014 3:30:27 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni; All

The question is not why but why still. bama could have changed the regs after the 1st Ft. Hood shootings bt instead reissued them in 2011. Bush would have labeled that attack as the terrorism it was, not “workplace violence” denying benefits to the dead and the survivors.


32 posted on 04/04/2014 3:31:40 PM PDT by raptor22 (Follow me on Twitter @gerfingerpoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex

Bush 43 could’ve repealed it, too, but he didn’t.


33 posted on 04/04/2014 3:34:14 PM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

I notice that the article cites the Army to act on the DoD directive when Clintoon was in the Oval. When I was in, in another service, guys brought their personal weapons on base.


34 posted on 04/04/2014 3:36:19 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Also, because when the SHTF, the only ones who will get arms are the soldiers who support the regime. Which explains the purge of general officers and the attrition rate.

If soldiers are sold the false perception that the citizen public does not value or care for them, they will lose their loyalty to that citizen public, and then can be turned against them for the purposes of the tyrant.

This is the purpose of raises to welfare bums, all other government employees and cuts to the Military. Nothing Obama and the Rats do is out of stupidity or incompetence. They intend to destroy America and turn her Military against her in a deadly wave of hatred and violence.

35 posted on 04/04/2014 3:38:30 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; granite; GreenFreeper; grjr21; I got the rope; IchBinEinBerliner; jaredt112; JayB; ...

GUN CONTROL PING


36 posted on 04/04/2014 3:41:05 PM PDT by raptor22 (Follow me on Twitter @gerfingerpoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
Bush 43 could’ve repealed it, too, but he didn’t.

Correct, Bush couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag when "DemoRat" is written on it.

37 posted on 04/04/2014 3:42:17 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

” Why Are Military Bases Such As Fort Hood Gun-Free?”

Same reason our nuclear missile silos are empty.


38 posted on 04/04/2014 3:49:47 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
For your psycho gunman, a military base is basically a grade-school in uniform. - Mark Steyn
39 posted on 04/04/2014 3:53:01 PM PDT by GOPJ (For your psycho gunman, a military base is basically a grade-school in uniform. - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder
an accidental discharge

Had one once but luckily she was on the pill.

40 posted on 04/04/2014 4:07:58 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

The admin does not trust soldiers with guns.


41 posted on 04/04/2014 4:19:58 PM PDT by ully2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

b/c in 1993 bill clinton disarmed them.


42 posted on 04/04/2014 4:33:58 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Fear of Black soldiers in insubordinate revolt.


43 posted on 04/04/2014 4:46:17 PM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ully2

It would appear NO administration since Reagan has trusted the soldiers;and even then the guards of the Marine barracks in Lebanon were unarmed.The Bushes are NWO ;remember Bush 43 said Clinton is his brother. The manipulators have been thwarting the will of the people for a couple decades. It will never stop but might be abated if enough of those manipulators no longer were capable of action.

Politicians ,in or out of uniform,fear the common man if he be armed. And rightly,for career politicians’ goals are seldom aligned with the needs or wants of free,educated people.


44 posted on 04/04/2014 5:12:06 PM PDT by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

I hate to inject some reality into this gripefest but there are practical reasons for why the weapons are locked up when not actually in use.

First and foremost is accountability. I hate to burst bubbles, but the armed forces do have a small percentage of persons of less than sterling character that will not hesitate to grab up a weapon (or any other easily convertable item) however briefly it may be left unattended. Since the majority of personal weapons are automatic (okay, burst fire) rifles (M16, M4, SCAR, etc.) they are highly pilferable and eagerly looked for because they are so easily converted into cash.

As an battalion S-4 (infantry battalion, air control squadron, and CSS unit), for me twice-a-day weapons counts were a fact of life whether we were in the field or back in garrison. Nobody secured and liberty was not sounded until all weapons were accounted for, period.

A lost/missing weapon (or other accountable piece of pilferable ordnance) stopped EVERYTHING the unit was doing until it was found or we gave up and declared it missing (by formal message addressed to just about everybody in the world, I might add). You did not want to be the person who had a weapon go missing through inattentiveness. Really bad reflection on your basic leadership skills. Consequently, all the officers and Staff NCOs were keen to account for weapons when out of the armory and eager to get them securely stored back in the armory when not needed.

The only time you could relax a little bit was when, except for the duty stander weapons, they were all locked up in their company armories/squadbay rifle racks (I’m dating myself here). Even then, you had to pay attention for misbehavior on the part of the armorers and the junior watchstanders. I could tell you stories...but I won’t.

That was the background reality during my time in the Marine Corps (1967-1990) and I am absolutlely certain that it is still the dominant background reality today.


45 posted on 04/04/2014 5:23:07 PM PDT by Captain Rhino (Determined effort today forges tomorrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

44 years ago when I was stationed on my first military base there were few firearms carried in the course of the day. If you were permanent party soldier you could have a pistol or long gun in base housing, and the same is true today. You didn’t carry personal weapons in uniform but you get use them off duty to hunt and for protection in your residence or in the wild.

The only firearms carried were paymasters and the like and the occasional armorer issuing weapons for training.

Perhaps there is more registering of who has what weapon on a base now, but since there is less payment in cash at monthly pay tables, the side armed soldier was rare then and rare now. Weapons are a tool not jewelry. When there is no work for the tool, you don’t draw it or carry it in the workplace as a matter of course on a fairly secure military base. Planes and special gear get a certain amount of guard duty type protecting, then and now. MPs and other forces of a similar nature are armed.

The civilian and fort police are mainly guarding gates since 9/11. The military police are who roam the posts, and they are armed.

Military forts have never been an open carry area in the last three generations that I am aware of. If you work in a large factory you don’t carry on a work floor except the occasional guy who in a deep concealment fellow and who knows the count on that?


46 posted on 04/04/2014 5:25:10 PM PDT by KC Burke (Officially since Memorial Day they are the Gimmie-crat Party.ha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Obviously they are not...


47 posted on 04/04/2014 5:25:30 PM PDT by WayneS (Help Control Politician Overpopulation - Spay or Neuter Your Senator or Congressman Today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Clinton did it


48 posted on 04/04/2014 5:37:16 PM PDT by SisterK (behold a pale horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan
Fear of Black soldiers in insubordinate revolt.

Thank you very much. That serves to further the point that it was indeed Klintoon and his fellow Klansman Kolleague, Bobby "Sheets" Byrd who were behind the confiscation of guns from the military.

49 posted on 04/04/2014 6:00:52 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; StopGlobalWhining; Straight Vermonter; Tampa Caver; TChris; ...

GUN CONTROL PING


50 posted on 04/04/2014 7:18:25 PM PDT by raptor22 (Follow me on Twitter @gerfingerpoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

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