Gates Approves Tighter Gun Restrictions After Ft. Hood Shooting - Page 2

Gates Approves Tighter Gun Restrictions After Ft. Hood Shooting

This is a discussion on Gates Approves Tighter Gun Restrictions After Ft. Hood Shooting within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; November 5, 2009 In 10 long minutes 13 were dead and 30 others wounded on a military installation with a population of over 30,000. This ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 40

Thread: Gates Approves Tighter Gun Restrictions After Ft. Hood Shooting

  1. #16
    Member Array reinhold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Catamount Tavern, Vermont
    Posts
    72
    November 5, 2009 In 10 long minutes 13 were dead and 30 others wounded on a military installation with a population of over 30,000. This moment this creep drew his weapon he should have been stopped dead in his tracks. But instead he was handcuffed and kept alive so he could now cost the taxpayers millions in legal fees and his team of pinko defense lawyers can get filty rich. Only in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSteve View Post
    I am an officer in the Army. I am professionally trained in advanced marksmanship, reflexive fire and CQM techniques, additionally, I'm ceritifed to train others in those techniques (and have, extensively).
    I've qualified/familiarized on everything from an M9 to stinger missile.

    Guess where the one place I am most vulnerable is because I'm not allowed to carry my personal weapon.

    You guessed it. On the installation.
    Pathetic! The most qualified, trained, professional military weapons systems specialists in the world are not allowed to carry sidearms when on the base where they work and train. That makes sense.

    Just keep electing self serving liberal nuts, so they can keep passing liberal laws and appointing liberal freakshow judges.

    Let's just take weapons away from the military entirely. National defense and military power is overrated anyhow. We should be able to resolve our conflicts with those who's views differ from ours through politically correct dialog, some loving embrasses and happy-happy Kumbaya sing-a-longs.

    .
    I know what you're thinking: "Did he fire six shots or only five?" "Is that a Smith & Wesson 686+ 7 shot or 627 8 shot?" "Does he have a concealed Sig P226 SCT and two spare mags?" You've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,126
    The stupidity of bureaucracy never ceases to amaze me.
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  3. #18
    Member Array yoyomeng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    93
    Anyone know how they enforce the no weapons on your person on base policy? Knowing what I know now I'd hope there are a few that are concealing on base.

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array JAT40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ma
    Posts
    2,366
    How about we restrict Muslim extremists on base, instead of promoting them to Major?
    While people are saying "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, ... and they will not escape. 1Th 5:3

  5. #20
    Member Array reinhold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Catamount Tavern, Vermont
    Posts
    72
    This is what the liberal acedemics want you to believe about "extremism";

    "extremism is a disease where people look to violence to provide a feeling of being alive. The lack of identity associated with extremists is the result of self-destructive self-hatred that leads to feelings of revenge toward life itself, and a compulsion to kill one’s own humanness. Thus extremism is seen as not a tactic, nor an ideology, but as a pathological illness which feeds on the destruction of life."


    Childhood mommy / daddy issues, sandbox trauma.....etc. Nobody is responsible for their own actions or for diferentiating between right and wrong anymore. I miss the old simple days when "the devil made me do it." defense would be used, yet you still got your butt thrown in the slammer or the electric chair.
    I know what you're thinking: "Did he fire six shots or only five?" "Is that a Smith & Wesson 686+ 7 shot or 627 8 shot?" "Does he have a concealed Sig P226 SCT and two spare mags?" You've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

  6. #21
    Member Array xrmeav8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    69
    For a guy who supposedly had no training on firearms I find it strange that he was able to reload so many times and so fast while handling two firearms. You think he may have picked up some additional training from 'friends"?

  7. #22
    Member Array Holger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by JAT40 View Post
    How about we restrict Muslim extremists on base, instead of promoting them to Major?
    The AP article clearly says he was merely "disgruntled." Soon there will be zero evidence he was muslim, let alone an extremist. And he "somehow managed" to get guns? When will these anti-gun zealots realize the horse left the barn a long time ago? Guns are easy to get, both legally an illegally. Restrictions merely limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to get guns, as the criminally minded pay no heed to laws. I know I'm preachin' to the choir on that one.

    Anyway, I like Secretary Gates and support many of the initiatives he currently advocates, but this is dumb. Not ONE of the provisions of this new policy would've prevented the Ft Hood massacre. But, hey, some senior officers are going to get some good OPR bullets out of this and everyone can sit around, pat each other on the back, and feel like they're "doing!" something.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,156
    The new policy is expected to mirror restrictions already in place at some military installations that, for example, require guns brought onto a base to be registered with military police.

    This is as close as the article comes to giving facts. I would think that registering your guns with the MPs is a lot LESS RESTRICTIVE than not being allowed to have them on base.

    Did the media jump to a conclusion with their headline?
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  9. #24
    Senior Member Array Beans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ Border Territory,
    Posts
    1,002
    The new policy is expected to mirror restrictions already in place at some military installations that, for example, require guns brought onto a base to be registered with military police.

    Let see how that works.

    A "disgruntled" person brings a unregistered firearm on base and attemps to murder someone with it.

    NANA- NANA- NANA - you can't shoot it because it is not registered with the MP's

    ***???????????????????????? Maybe I missed something!

  10. #25
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,588
    "The new policy is expected to mirror restrictions already in place at some military installations that, for example, require guns brought onto a base to be registered with military police."

    Amazing.
    The Air Force has always had this policy. Nearly 20 years after I retired, I still have my copies of the registration paperwork (makes a nice list of make, model, and S/N).
    Yet at no time was there anything (except regulations and morals) to stop me from going to my base housing, getting my "registered" guns, and going back out and shooting someone.

    Regs won't do it; it's a matter of what's right and wrong.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Amazing.
    The Air Force has always had this policy. Nearly 20 years after I retired, I still have my copies of the registration paperwork (makes a nice list of make, model, and S/N).
    Bingo. Gates is standardizing the system throughout the US military.

    I came in the US Army in 1959 and retired in 1979. When I got to my very first Army unit in 1959 the unit clerk made a private weapons card for me. The card listed each gun by caliber, SN and make. My weapons were placed in the unit arms room. When a gun was taken out to shoot or hunt my private weapons card went on the arms rack.

    I often hunt and shoot on a local Army installation. It is mandatory that all weapons brought on the installation be registered. Getting caught on the installation with an unregistered gun just may get a civilian or retiree a quick trip to the US Magistrate.

    Input is made into a Pentagon database. I am looking at my current Weapons Permit which is dated 17 December, 2009. Eight of my guns are registered on the installation. If a gun is not listed on that permit it cannot legally be taken onto the installation.

  12. #27
    Member Array can2boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Grand Prairie, Texas
    Posts
    242
    another "gun free zone"???? we all know how safe they are.........
    haven't they learned from all the schools that are "gun free zone"
    got to texas as fast as i could...Fuhgeddaboudit!

  13. #28
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    "The new policy is expected to mirror restrictions already in place at some military installations that, for example, require guns brought onto a base to be registered with military police."

    Amazing.
    The Air Force has always had this policy. Nearly 20 years after I retired, I still have my copies of the registration paperwork (makes a nice list of make, model, and S/N).
    Yet at no time was there anything (except regulations and morals) to stop me from going to my base housing, getting my "registered" guns, and going back out and shooting someone.

    Regs won't do it; it's a matter of what's right and wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    Bingo. Gates is standardizing the system throughout the US military.

    I came in the US Army in 1959 and retired in 1979. When I got to my very first Army unit in 1959 the unit clerk made a private weapons card for me. The card listed each gun by caliber, SN and make. My weapons were placed in the unit arms room. When a gun was taken out to shoot or hunt my private weapons card went on the arms rack.

    I often hunt and shoot on a local Army installation. It is mandatory that all weapons brought on the installation be registered. Getting caught on the installation with an unregistered gun just may get a civilian or retiree a quick trip to the US Magistrate.

    Input is made into a Pentagon database. I am looking at my current Weapons Permit which is dated 17 December, 2009. Eight of my guns are registered on the installation. If a gun is not listed on that permit it cannot legally be taken onto the installation.
    I hope you guys a right that "already in place at some [emphasis addded] military installations" will mean no more that registration.

    However, I know that there are installation w/ far more restrictive rules. And I doubt that DOD will relax anything. A uniform move toward the toughest is more likely, IMHO.

    I fear the statement "The Pentagon will adopt a broad policy governing how privately owned guns can be carried or stored at military installations...." will evolve to the lowest common dominator.

    Anyone want to set up a pool?
    Last edited by DaveH; April 18th, 2010 at 04:19 PM.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,320
    So, an officer or grunt that goes ballistic on the base will now be effectively stopped by these new procedural and policy changes, right? Right?

    Somehow, I doubt it.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  15. #30
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    Gun registration on post is not an issue. I've been stationed on 5 bases so far, and that has been normal on each (it's the same system that tracks our vehicles). On all 5 of those bases, however (and I can only assume on all others), we can not carry on our person or in the cab of the vehicle.
    This is one more reason I always live off post.
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Fort Hood shooting suspect's hearing to be open
    By DaveH in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 18th, 2010, 09:20 AM
  2. One more reason for Tighter Border Security
    By ErnieNWillis in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 13th, 2010, 08:32 PM
  3. Mass Shooting at Ft. Hood Texas Army Base (Merged) - Updated
    By kdydak in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 326
    Last Post: November 26th, 2009, 07:35 AM
  4. Fort Hood Shooting
    By Feanor in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 5th, 2009, 07:56 PM
  5. OKC police chief wants tighter gun laws
    By falcon1 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 4th, 2008, 12:34 AM