This is a discussion on A Proposed Solution to Fort Hood within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by EvilMonk The Supreme Irony of Fort Hood is that this happened on an Army Base, by an Army Officer, and it was ...
Not going to dispute anything said, however, much of the rules pertaining to Commanders signature and your weapon being stored in the armory applied only to soldiers living in the barracks.
When I was at Benning and Polk and Lejune, anyone living in on post housing or off post were not held to these rules.
1SG (ret) USMC Infantry '64 - '68/ US Army Infantry '75 - '95
SCOTUS told us in Heller that:
It seems to me that the requirement that people living on base keep their firearms locked up in the armory would make them "impossible for use" and fail constitutional muster...[firearms] prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
We need a case to bring this to light.
"a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.
Yeah, but I'm sure the interpretation would be that people willingly sign away their rights/expectations in exchange for being in the military, hence the "employer's" control of the weapons is justified ... otherwise, it would be an armed military on U.S. soil, and all that. W.A.G., but I'd bet the chips would fall exactly this way.
"Constitutional" is a word that has little meaning to a Member of the Armed Services. Even Double Jeopardy is no longer in play. Do sommething stupid out in town, and you'll face Civilian and UCMJ charges both.
It is a necessity however, to promote Unit Cohesion and Uniformity. You basically sign away 4 years per enlistment to join a Socialist Sub-culture of America whose only purpose is to defend it with everything it has.
It's all part of the price you pay. "Sacrifice" to a Service Member means more than a possibility of loss of life and limb, it also means a definite loss of rights and Traditional American Privilages.
This situation throws into stark contrast though, the need to re-examine the Military's policies concerning the 2A.
Or so it would seem...
That which does not kill us leaves us broken and bleeding...
Don’t mess with the guy who can barely stand up. His remaining options for self-defense don't include your survival.
Convenire Volui Spectatus
Only issue with having troops on "duty" armed is that...they can't be everywhere, all the time. Just like police officers can't be everywhere.
We are at war, and the enemy is here. The only real solution is an armed and ready populace. That includes our troops.
IMHO, they should all carry a sidearm, all the time.
Just wait...Mumbai is coming to a town near you...
The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger SP101, LCR, Mini 14; Marlin 336 .30-30; Mossberg 500
One thing is certain...
disallowing anyone the right to self defense just because they are on a military base is wrong.
The current mode of operation resulted in people being massacred. As long as that fact stands, it will happen again and its just a matter of time.
Terrorists dont like armed people that shoot back,there is no future in it.
The world is changing. It's time we changed with it and this time, we do it to our advantage.
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
Thought this article fit this topic.
- November 10, 2009
Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones
It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. Mandy Foster's husband had been shot but was fortunate enough not to be seriously injured. In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband "still scheduled for deployment in January" to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?" -- It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, most of CNN's listeners probably didn't understand the rules that Ms. Foster was referring to.
The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal. Hasan not only violated the army's ban on carrying a gun, he also apparently violated the rules that require soldiers to register privately owned guns at the post.
Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. Ten minutes must have seemed like an eternity to those trapped in the attack at Ft. Hood. All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. -- in which more than three people have been killed -- have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.
For several days now, some in the media and various gun control groups have focused on a so-called "cop killer" gun that Hasan used. The five-seven is a conventional semi-automatic pistol. In fact, the bullets that it fires are relatively small, only being in the .22 caliber class. Unlike rifles, even higher caliber handguns don't fire publicly available ammunition at sufficient velocity to penetrate a police officer's vest. There is a special type of handgun ammunition that can penetrate some types of body armor, but under federal law it is not legal to manufacture or import that ammunition for sale to the public.
For the safety of our soldiers and citizens, we hope that this simple fact about the Ft. Hood attack and the role that gun-free zones played in allowing yet another multiple victim public shooting becomes part of the news coverage itself. The political debate about guns would be quite different if even once in a while a news story clearly explained that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun-free zone.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."
Certified Glock Armorer
"I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?
I didn't realize Ft. Hood was near the city of Killeen, TX. I seem to recall another massacre there some time back, also talking place in a "gun-free zone":
Luby's massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ETA: The same number of people were shot at Luby's as were at Ft. Hood: 43 (though more were killed at Luby's).
West Carrollton, Ohio
Saturday, November 14, 2009
To: The Editor
Subject: For the sake of diversity if not for PC perversity
“For the sake of diversity if not for PC perversity…”
Thank God that a white female civilian cop and a black male civilian cop shot good and thereby stopped Major Nidal Malik [Soldier of Allah] Hasan’s deranged murderous rampage of fanatic Islamaniac hate at Fort Hood; rather than discriminating prejudiced suspicious racist white guys who profiled instead of smiled! Still, was this at least a discriminatory dislike crime about which we and the media elite/PC Police can ***** and whine? Can the ACLU still sue?
For the sake of diversity, if not for politically-correct/cowardly perversity [or for the sake of self-preservation and the defense of our nation]: We ought to have at least one hardcore patriotic paranoid prejudiced America-first nationalist cop, AP/MP/SP, Border Patrol, TSA, ICE, FBI or CIA gal or guy stationed and serving at every domestic border crossing, airport, seaport, military base and federal building. We need such and similar suspicious insensitive mean men and women [quota folks] who profile instead of smile; and who do not care or worry about being demoted or fired before they retire because of offending or otherwise hurting the feelings of foreign agents or Islamaniac fanatics who are crossing or within our national borders.
Thus, without expressing apologies or regrets, we can set an example and show all of those foreign and fanatic folks how moderate, tolerant, open-minded and nonjudgmental we are; and they can do likewise by accepting, accommodating and tolerating our guards who look at them hard. Once again, most of us Middle American [like Middle Eastern] folks wonder about where our common sense went, both before and after those infamous 9-11 terrorist attacks.
West Carrollton, Ohio
There's always a credible threat. It's just not always specifically identifiable before it happens. That because criminals are in the driver's seat. That's why it's called a surprise, being caught with your pants down, etc.Beginning in March 1993 ... the army .... mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection."
In short: the only way you're going to be able to defend against crime on the instant of attack is TO BE PREPARED TO DEFEND on the instant of attack. Can't be doing that, effectively, having been "armed" with only a finger and a phone.
When. Will. People. Learn.
You'd think that the folks charged with violent, physical repelling of boarders would appreciate the distinction in effectiveness between a finger and a firearm. You'd think. Apparently, they don't. Well then, it's hard to be surprised at our lack of preparedness, then, as a People. Unpreparedness. It's absolutely, positively assured.