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 ...
When a Constitutional Right (2nd Amendment ) is taken from you and you are caused harm, the people who took away that right take on the responsibility for your safety. Your harm is because of their action, and the law should prosecute them...and yes, I’m talking about a Senator who votes to restrict your RIGHT to be safe. If I were harmed in a gun free zone where I was not allowed to carry my self defense weapon, I would sue the establishment that out up the sign. By putting that sign there, THEY are taking responsibility for my safety. If I am harmed, then it is neglect on their part.
YES!
Soldiers bearing arms - what a novel concept!
Dont be stupid. How can you trust soldiers with guns? /sarcasm
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Trust soldiers with guns? That would be like trusting a carpenter with a hammer. Who ever heard of such a thing? You may as well trust a logger with a chain saw.
........having served 7 years in the service I know there are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of 18, 19, and 20 year olds that I personally think are too young and immature to be walking around with a loaded weapon if it is not absolutely necessary. On weekends, most of the time most of them are drunk.
Now, in the line of duty, carrying is another matter. I carried a .45 regularly due to carrying US Registered Mail between cities in Japan. But, when I was not doing that, it was locked up. And, I had to qualify (tests) for the job which was easy for me because I grew up in the country around lots of guns everyday.
On a battlefield like Afghanistan is a different deal altogether since they are much busier, much more intensely supervised, the threat is huge and I don’t think alcohol is allowed for anybody in country.
I just think we need more not all people armed on these bases. If you think “All” is better, I appreciate and respect your opinion.
“as an effort to make the military a more “professional business-like environment.””
Kinda hard to be business like and keep sharp creases in those woodland BDUs when working at the motorpool doing PMCS on a HEMTT fuel truck, changing tires, moving petroleum products, stuff like that.
That was an excellent and reasoned post. I have no problem with officers carrying weapons. I have no problem with Sargents carrying weapons. I have no problem with selected enlisted carrying weapons.
Prior to the ban on weapons we did not have these problems on our Military Bases.
My wife worked for many years at Fort Hood as a civilian. If I wanted to go to her place of work I had to present photo ID and then be cleared in. The persons manning the gates to her area did not have weapons. In effect she lived and worked in a “FREE FIRE ZONE.” A bad guy would have had a great deal of time to do bad things until men with guns arrived. THIS IS INSANE.
When Nidal Hassan killed many people some years ago at Fort Hood my wife was there, fortunately not in the area of killing. Her area was locked down and they effectively hide and and cowarded in place. Neither they nor the gate guards had weapons. This insanity must stop.
Good men and women with guns make your areas safe. Bad men with guns love gun free zones.
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.