End clinton-era military base gun ban

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Philobeado, Nov 11, 2009.

  1. Philobeado
    Offline

    Philobeado Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    566
    Thanks Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Gulf of Mexico Coast, Texas
    Ratings:
    +173
    Wednesday, November 11, 2009
    Foolish military gun controls left soldiers defenseless
    By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    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.

    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.

    Everyone wants to keep people safe - and no one denies Mr. Clinton's 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 husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?"

    It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton's 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. 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.
     
  2. KentuckyThinker
    Offline

    KentuckyThinker Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    54
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +23
    I agree with you 99%. The 1% where you lose me is when you said Clinton had good intentions.
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,589
    Thanks Received:
    5,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,016
    Hate to break it to you but Uniformed military personnel can not carry personal weapons aboard base. Has nothing to do with Clinton at all. You can transport them in your car if you have a purpose to do so.

    Military bases are Federal property. Rules for carrying weapons have always been different on Federal property.

    Further I was in when Clinton took office and he did NOTHING to change who could or could not carry weapons on base if duty required it. In the Marine Corps all Armories aboard Camp Lejuene when I was in had a react guard force. Armed troops on duty 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Drawn from the Command with the Armory as their duty assignment.

    And I was in Maintenance Battalion of 2nd FSSG. No grunts there. Our team had Armory duty at the FSSG Armory and also the repair shop for weapons at the Battalion area.

    Further every Battalion had a duty officer, in our case the SNCO's pulled the duty not actual commissioned Officers. We were armed with a side Arm which had 2 Magazines of ammo with standing instructions to lock and load and remain loaded at all times while on duty. That was a standing order for the entire base. If you were issued a weapon for duty it would be loaded with a round in the chamber. ( well sidearms, I believe they did not chamber a round in the rifles unless needed to for situation)

    Uniformed personnel do not legally carry personal weapons for defense in the United States. And Clinton had nothing to do with that. You can not carry a concealed weapon while on base either.

    The center where the shootings occurred would have not had any military person with a private weapon ANYWAY. Not legally.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page