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 ...
“After Fort Hood: Should soldiers be allowed to bear arms on base?”
Dont be stupid. How can you trust soldiers with guns? /sarcasm
________________________________________
Sarcasm? Don't be so sure. SFB liberals have already pointed out that soldiers have PTSD and are suicidal. They can't be trusted with guns.
Yes, the language in the Second Amendment is unmistakable in its intent: knives were meant to be maintained in the custody of the militia only. Private ownership of knives is in no way guaranteed.
ACTUALLY IT Also could be arguably held that it is an infringement upon the Militia`s right to bar arms under Second Amendment.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The first ft hood incident was a terrible tragedy. The second was the responsibility and culpability go the officer corps wh or forced the no firearm policy and the cic who continued the policy.
Where is the uproar, the shame, the responsibility?
Culpability of
Who enforced
Judgmental, judgmental, judgmental.
Can't do it.
I saw one of those dumbass retired military talking heads on FOX say, “You can’t have every soldier walking around with his M16!”. What a maroon. Guess he never heard of concealed carry of private weapons.
other questions:
should USN ships carry PFDs (personal flotation devices,
AKA life preservers)
should EMTs be allowed to start IVs?
should construction workers wear hard hats.
sick of these questions
That means when we have pork chops for dinner we need to go
to the militia to get a knife. Oh me. We are in a hail
of trouble. Next will be forks.
We women have a weapon, it’s called a curling iron, It won’t kill, but it can give one heck of a burn.
No, in fact those in the military should undergo intensive anger management courses followed by sensitivity training...Only give them weapons with ammo when they are sent off to foreign countries to do dirty work for the ruling class, the well connected wealthy bankers and their good friends and associates in D.C.
When I served at Ft. Ord in 1969, at Ft. Benjamin Harrison in 1969, and at Wharton Barracks, Heilbronn Germany in 1969-70, the weapon assigned to me was always locked in the armory, unless taken out for training reasons.
In other words, soldiers on and off duty did not carry firearms.
MPs presumably had firearms. Soldiers guarding the secure crypto-area had their rifle, and live ammo.
It is a uniform and security issue.
Solution is to make a loaded sidearm part of each duty officer and NCO’s uniform.
YES
Allowed? Hell! They should be required. What part of “Armed Forces” is so hard for people to understand? If I had my way, we’d do it like the Israelis. Everyone would carry their weapon with them at all times whenever in uniform or on duty. (Allowances made for work center and job) and have the option of carrying it at all other times.
By enlisting or accepting a commission as a member of the United States Armed Forces a person is swearing to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States by force of arms. Persons unfit, unwilling, or incompetent to handle a firearm safely and professionally at all times, should not be in the Armed Forces in the first place.
Duh! Gun-free zones are profoundly immoral.
LOL!
Can anyone in their right mind answer no to this question?
Easy - let the soldiers who want to be armed be armed. If a person can't be trusted to carry a gun they have no business being in the military in the first place.
If they had there would’ve been no second round of this crap
In the sixties I would pull guard duty both in the States and Germany. We were guarding tanks, APC's etc. and ammo. We were not issued ammunition.
IN this day, it has proven itself, that another Clinton Democratic gun ban has failed to protect those, who are trained in their usage of handguns.
In this day of Obama-welcomed-acts-of-terrorism, yes, arm the men and women in uniform. They put their lives on the line, and they cannot protect themselves?
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.