Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/13/2025 4:26:23 AM PDT by george76
On Wednesday, another mass shooting unfolded — this time at Fort Stewart military base in Georgia. A male Army sergeant, who illegally carried a gun on the base, wounded five soldiers before others tackled and disarmed him.
Typically, only authorized designated security forces such as MPs are armed on duty. Any other soldier caught carrying a firearm faces severe consequences, ranging from a rank reduction, court-martial, potential criminal convictions, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and even imprisonment.
So why would a soldier risk such harsh penalties? Because if you’re the attacker, planning to murder fellow soldiers, gun control laws won’t stop you. If you expect to die in the assault, as most mass public shooters do, extra years added to your sentence mean nothing. Even if you survive, you already anticipate multiple life sentences or the death penalty.
But for law-abiding soldiers, those same rules carry enormous weight. Carrying a gun for self-defense could turn them into felons and destroy their futures. These gun control policies disarm the innocent while encouraging a determined killer to attack there as they will know that they are the only ones who will be armed.
Yes, military police guard entrances, but like civilian police, they can’t be everywhere. Military bases function like cities, and MPs face the same limitations as police responding to off-base mass shootings.
Consider the attacks at the Navy Yard, both Fort Hood shootings, and the Chattanooga recruiting station. In each case, unarmed JAG officers, Marines, and soldiers had no choice but to hide while the attacker fired shot after shot.
Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, then commander of Third Corps stationed at Fort Hood, testified to Congress about the second attack there: “We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond … those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead.” But eight minutes was simply too long for the three soldiers who were murdered and the 12 others who were wounded.
Time after time, murderers exploit regulations that guarantee they’ll face no armed resistance. Diaries and manifestos of mass public shooters show a chilling trend: They deliberately choose gun-free zones, knowing their victims can’t fight back. While we don’t yet know if the Fort Stewart shooter made that same calculation, his actions fit a pattern seen in dozens of other cases. It’s no coincidence that 94 percent of mass public shootings happen in places where guns are banned.
Ironically, soldiers with a concealed handgun permit can carry a concealed handgun whenever they are off base so that they can protect themselves and others. But on the base, they and their fellow soldiers are defenseless.
These are soldiers trained to handle firearms. We trust them with weapons in combat, yet we deny them that same trust on their own bases.
In 1992, the George H.W. Bush administration started reshaping the military into a more “professional, business-like environment.” That shift led to tighter restrictions on firearms. In 1993, President Clinton rewrote and implemented those restrictions, effectively banning soldiers from carrying personal firearms on base.
After the 2015 Chattanooga recruiting station attack, the military slightly loosened the rules. Commanders gained the authority to approve individual service members to carry privately owned firearms. But in practice, commanders rarely grant that permission.
Importantly, U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan were required to keep their weapons on them at all times — even on base. These soldiers needed to protect themselves against threats, and there are no known cases of them turning those weapons on each other. The policy worked.
So why do we make it easy for killers to target our own troops at home? Why do we force soldiers, like those at Fort Stewart, to tackle armed attackers with bare hands?
Let’s stop pretending that gun-free zones protect anyone. They only protect killers.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
One would think that certain people...for example,those above a certain rank...would be allowed to carry a sidearm on base. Or,for that matter,would be *required* to carry a sidearm.
The government is afraid of their own soldiers, even under Trump.
The wife and I were renewing her ID card on Ft Hood the day before Maj Hasan did his cowardly attack. Said then I would never go anywhere without my weapon.
Because the military has yet to shake off the woke environment of Democrat/Communist Presidents. Maybe Trump,
if made aware of this error, will correct it.
Why would an army base be a “gun free zone”?
Wokeness
Because Democrat leaders were able to convince military leaders that military members can’t be trusted with weapons, apparently so obtuse they don’t realize the ludicrous disconnect.
Isn’t Chicago a gun-free zone?
Gun control rules on the military bases are ridiculous! You can’t even have ammunition and weapons in the same vehicle going to a range is an example. We are sitting ducks if the jihadists or PLA attack our bases in numbers that overwhelm the MP resources. In 2018, PDJT changed policies that keep troops from carrying personal weapons onto military but the author rightfully points out that the base commanders rarely approve CCW. The bottom line is that not t enough people being fired and Pete needs to free himself from the generals, admirals, and senior officials. They are timing him out.
Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
I know ... it's a cliche ... it's also true.
One can do a lot of good ... or bad ... in 480 seconds.
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Remember during President Trump’s first term when he floated the idea of letting select officers carry sidearms on our Military bases. What happened to that plan. It would sure beat waiting for Cops to arrive from off base !
Why would an army base be a “gun free zone”?
Why did US Troops on the battlefield in Afghanistan have to ask for permission to load live ammo ?
They did under Barack Hussein Obama !
Victim Disarmament Zones are evil. Same as Victim Disarmament Laws in general.
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.