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 ...
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.
I don't know - because Obama thinks guns are icky?
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.”
When did this start happening?
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
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
Blame the womanizing, draft-dodger, congenital liar b klintoon. He started it.
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.
Now the Left will wail about gun control. Well, it was gun control that made the base a gun free zone.
To break the spirit of the US Military.
Biily boy Clinton.
“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.
Perhaps if Republicans win the House and Senate they can pass a Federal CCW law.
0bama prohibits dress swords. For cry-eyed.
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.