Posted on 11/11/2009 7:19:53 AM PST by R4Roger05
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 week's 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Yes, yes, let’s BAN GUNS from our military on the base.
(I’m being sarastic)
How insane!
bookmark
Police - Only minutes away when seconds count!
Back then Idaho only had an open carry law, with the exception of the city of Boise, but you could not open carry on base.
Heck, even during the 1983 Marine Baracks Bombing, the sentries were not allowed to carry a loaded weapon, due to the insane rules of engagement.
I did not remember this from the Clinton years. I was shocked to hear that it was a ‘gun free’ zone. How appalling!
Nothing like getting right to the point. Nice job 'Ms. Foster'.
(I'm being sarcastic)
How insane!
Ah, maybe they should PUNISH the military person that SHOT THE TERRORIST too! If it were not for Officer Kim Munley, who was shot herself and BROUGHT THIS TERRORIST DOWN, there would be more deaths. These men and women risk their lives for you and me and people they don't know. Now their own, with the support of political correctness is allowed to MURDER THEM. Now we want to make the defenseless? This is so insane!
If guns are banned on military bases this will demoralize and confuse our military - all for the sake of political correctness and coddling our enemy within.
I would also bet this terrorist is getting the ULTIMATE in health care and attention as they try to just make him look like he "cracked under pressure" - BULL!
Only if there is no chance that a civilian is within a 1000 mile radius of the terrorist shooting at him.
J. Carter, E. Kennedy, B. Clinton, B. Obama. The list of politician losers just grows and grows. It is disgusting how the malignant thoughts of their disturbed brains became policy for the USA. God save us all!
It’s true.
...
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 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. That’s why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage
...
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 husband’s upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: “At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?”
...
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. Clinton’s 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.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/
It’s true!
It was an OFF BASE police woman that shot the TERRORIST.
It’s true. It’s not “B.S..”
...
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 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. That’s why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage
...
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 husband’s upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: “At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?”
...
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. Clinton’s 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.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/
It’s true!
It was an OFF BASE police woman that shot the TERRORIST.
I have to leave my weapon at home all day if I need to swing by the base for something, and I have a Texas Judge CHL that permits me to carry anywhere at any time. Oh, and I put about 600 rounds a year through my weapon, just to make sure I’m not more dangerous to myself than to the bad guys.
It’s a completely ridiculous prohibition, IMHO.
Colonel, USAFR
If soldiers were allowed their side arms that were assigned them by the military at Fort Hood I doubt that the major would have gotten off so many shots before being taken out but the way it was he was able to reload and continue firing
because only he and a civilian police officer had a weapon.
The military should be able to have armed military police anywhere large groups of personnel will be forming or this will be repeated.
Thank God the police officer was close and able to respond or more lives would have been lost.
I’m sorry, Mr. Lott is just wrong about this. The noted criminologist and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has weighed in and let us all know that it was the gun’s fault, not the terrorist. I’ll take his opinion over John Lott’s any day, especially given his outstanding record of expunging crime from Chicago by banning and regulating guns. The man knows of which he speaks.
Clinton was another despiser of our military. Electing men like him & Bozo to be CICs is the fault of the American people who vote for them. It is something that should be seriously considered at election time.
Liberals are responsible for all the political correctness that is poisoning our country & our military. All of us know that national security is not safe in the hands of a democrat. They talk a good game to get elected & the first thing they do is tear down our military & our national defense.
I am in favor of our military being armed - but at this time, with the people we have in command, it could be another disaster, like the one that happened at Fort Hood. They can't or won't recognize a jihadist.
Until this PC mentality is stopped - arming the troops on base would be deliberately arming the enemy within the ranks.
Yes, please end the ban. These people are targets. Arming them will discourage more attacks.
Instead, they'll just pass more restrictive regulations and maybe buy some metal detectors.
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.