Posted on 04/09/2014 1:29:28 PM PDT by richardb72
In debates on gun control, gun opponents usually speculate about what might go wrong. Unfortunately, the current debate over arming soldiers on military bases is no different.
Except for the military police, soldiers on military bases are banned from carrying guns. But that hasn’t always been the case.
The ban itself hasn’t been around that long. It was proposed during the George H.W. Bush administration in 1992 as an effort to make the military a more "professional business-like environment." President Clinton rewrote and implemented the ban in 1993.
After the attack at Fort Hood this past week, many soldiers no doubt wished they had been carrying a gun. The six minutes before military police arrived at the scene proved much too long for the three people killed and 16 wounded.
Soldiers who survived the 2009 attack at Fort Hood, Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, Sgt. Howard Ray and retired Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, warn it is time the 1993 rule be revised.
Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham points out that there have been “nearly two dozen shootings at U.S. military installations” since the 1993 ban. Yet such attacks have not occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, where virtually all soldiers have carried a loaded weapon. Nor were they occurring when guns were allowed to be carried on U.S. bases. Gun-free zones in the military have not worked any better than they have in civilian life. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Should soldiers be allowed to bear arms on base?
In a word, YES!!!
At this point it is not only illogical to deprive free citizens of the right to keep and bear arms, but it is also immoral. How any base commander worth his salt can sit idly by and allow their troops to be helpless in the face of such is madness and worthy, IMHO of courtmartial upon the grounds of dereliction of duty.
YES... YES... YES...!
The right to keep and bear arms should never have been taken away from our military.
A few years ago, I had to get fingerprints in order to complete an application for a security clearance. I went down to the local police station to have print cards made. It cost $15.
The officer who took them was carrying. Great big .45. In the building, in police headquarters. His holster - judging from the scuffs and scrapes on it - had been worn every day for about thirty years.
I vote ‘Yes’ but ... well, here is the link ... http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/09/3769673/marine-guard-shot-to-death-by.html ... everyone is jumpy these days. Always happens afterwards a mass shooting. I still vote ‘Yes’!!! Am willing to take that chance.
Wait. Why would anyone want the Army to be “businesslike”?
You bet military personnel MUST be allowed to carry guns. They were trained in the maintenance and use of their
weapons. Every Israeli military carry their guns on and
off duty. They carry them while shopping, in a restaurant and everywhere they go. Switzerland has little to no crime
because every military reserve and active duty have their
weapons with them at all times. Thirty years ago, here in
Texas, and I imagine everywhere else in America, anyone with
any cajones carried their rifles on a gun rack in their
trucks. Now days where there are GUN FREE areas, it is a
place for easy picking gangsters. A bank in Texas has a
sign on their windows that every bank member has a gun and
has been taught how to use it. No one has tried to rob
them since the sign went up.
“After Fort Hood: Should soldiers be allowed to bear arms on base?”
Dont be stupid. How can you trust soldiers with guns? /sarcasm
“as an effort to make the military a more “professional business-like environment.””
And THAT’S when the whole thing started downhill. Our profession and business are being ready to kill people and break their stuff. What more professional appearance could a warrior have than the implements of war?
Colonel, USAFR
I think that the ban is insane.
I don’t want any military to be prissy about their job.
Their job is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. We should start letting our military be as a
military should be. Tough, and ready to protect those
around them.
I think the correct balance is a partial “yes”.
Meaning that IF there are zero soldiers now carrying weapons at Ft Hood and other bases, and since there are about 40,000 soldiers at Ft Hood, lets reorganize and arm THE BEST 20,000 guys and gals. These would naturally be older, maturer, more settled, more accomplished people.
On “legal” alone, these people would then have to be trained substantially as shooting someone accidentally in a war zone is one thing because there are no civil trial lawyers around but Ft Hood is near Austin with the highest per capita lawyer count on earth.
Then each soldier carrying would have to go through the training for and obtain their CCL.
That would be as balanced a policy as is humanly possible. The younger less mature soldiers more likely to become involved in fights could be continued on no carry a few years. The point is GUN FREE must immediately stop and thousands of soldiers need to be armed so they can respond in seconds not minutes.
After today’s incident in a PA school, knives will be next
on the list to take away from us.
According you your answer, we should not recruit the younger people into the military. We should recruit the older more mature individuals?
They’re already allowed, by the Constitution and their God-given rights.
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.