GOP rep: Soldiers should be allowed to carry guns on a military base

posted at 11:21 am on April 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, not until Ivan Lopez was confronted by an armed MP did he stop shooting at others and turn his gun on himself. Quote: “He was approaching her at about 20 feet. He put his hands up, then reached under his jacket, pulled out the (.45) and she pulled out her weapon and then she engaged, and he then he put the weapon to his head.”

The no-guns policy, which is normally associated with Clinton, actually dates back to Bush 41′s Defense Department. It’s lasted more than 20 years and has now survived more than one mass shooting on a military base, despite sporadic Republican attempts to undo it. At this point, what possible reason is there to deny troops the right to carry where they’re stationed? Cops are allowed to carry their sidearms inside the precinct (and take them home), no? Obviously, there’s no worry about soldiers lacking the proper training on how to safely handle a weapon. The policy seems essentially gestural: The federal government discourages American citizens from carrying concealed, so, to demonstrate its disapproval, it’s going to force its own military to do without when they’re not in combat. How’s that working out?

Here’s one argument from a veteran, who sees a huge logistical problem looming if the policy changes:

Fair enough, although that just shifts the debate from “should troops be armed on base?” to “how many troops should be armed on base?” You could grant carry privileges to some fraction based on rank or even by lottery. Another rationale, which I bet plenty of pols harbor but are loath to articulate, is the fear that vets with PTSD can’t be trusted with easy access to firearms. Studies show, however, that the link between PTSD and violence is weak. By some estimates, roughly one in five cops suffers from PTSD yet they have access to guns routinely without incident. It’d be useful to know from vets themselves how easy it is to gain access to a weapon on base if you really wanted one, since that would give us some sense of how useful the the current policy is as a deterrent. Lopez, I believe, brought his gun into Fort Hood from outside. How hard is it to do that? Is there any way to request extra firearms training, or access to the armory, if your goal was to steal a gun? The easier it is, the less sense the policy makes.

Don’t expect any changes soon, though. A Defense Department that’s considering banning tobacco sales on base isn’t going to grant its troops more substantial freedoms. Exit quotation: “We don’t have a way to protect ourselves. … We are all hostages on post.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It isn’t as though target ranges are expensive to build or maintain. Just find an empty hillside :-)

MJBrutus on April 3, 2014 at 1:36 PM

There’s a lot more to it than that.
Targets to shoot at – and that means range safety/control officers to control hot/cold range so targets can be changed out.
And if you’re doing training – you really need instructors/evaluators to observe and help the soldiers adjust whatever they might be doing wrong. And much more.

And – if using tracers, they have a tendancy to start grass fires when they go outside the range – and that means fire department on call (yes – that has happened a couple times at our county range that’s on Ft Carson property – even though tracers are prohibited).

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 1:43 PM

It isn’t as though target ranges are expensive to build or maintain. Just find an empty hillside :-)

MJBrutus on April 3, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Unless the government gets involved. :(

All should be at proficient at some basic level militarily.

Rocks on April 3, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Concur.

do you think that magically putting on a uniform makes you mature even at 17-19?

KW64 on April 3, 2014 at 1:37 PM

No, but training makes a huge difference. Take a look at the maturity level of 18yos right before they get off the bus at Basic, and their maturity level after A-school. Where their weapons are concerned it tends to be several notches higher.

Stonewall Jackson was an agressive military commander, he did not have troops carrying weapons on post and stacked them during breaks in a march.

He didn’t stack weapons during a march because of concerns that someone would go off and start shooting his fellow soldiers. He did that because it was necessary to let his soldiers do things like cook or eat or take a dump in the woods. The long rifles and muskets were a pain to carry when you needed your hands for something else, and stacking them was much safer than everyone laying them on the ground. (And I would contend that you need a link to some evidence as to the status of weapons “on post” in that era.)

It may be good for a company to have armed security; but should they have all employees openly armed?

Why not? What makes “security” more competent to handle a firearm than an employee? Training? You don’t know much about most security companies, then.

GWB on April 3, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Army posts are more like a civilian workplace than a war zone. It may be good for a company to have armed security; but should they have all employees openly armed? That is what some are advocating for army posts here and I disagree based not on conjecture but personal observation.

KW64 on April 3, 2014 at 1:37 PM

I don’t think EVERYONE has to be armed, and I don’t mind not being allowed to bring a gun into my office – mainly because I’m in a heavily restricted area with lots of armed guards.
However, as a concealed carry owner with permit, I would like to be able to have a weapon in my car for my commute – and just leave it in the car on base while I’m at work.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Whats wrong with the following restrictions to on post / base carry.

1. Obtain a CCW from the surrounding State. This would put the age over 21 right there.

2. No storage in a Barracks. That would limit storage to BEQ (NCOs), BOQ (Officers) and Married Personnel living in Post Housing.

3. Off Post Housing and Civilian Workforce must declare what weapons they will carry and register those (and those ONLY) with the Post MPs.

Comments?

Old Dog on April 3, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Old Dog on April 3, 2014 at 1:49 PM

I think it’s too restrictive of a Constitutional right, but it’s miles better than the current policy, and might satisfy the government urge to put a bike helmet and knee pads on everyone.

GWB on April 3, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Make them register the weapons to be carried on base, and require some proof of training and/or certification that the carrying person is fit to carry and use a weapon responsibly, but leaving these people without the ability to defend themselves against an armed assailant that did not respect a ‘weapon free zone’ is indefensible, and perhaps should be found to be criminally negligent.

s1im on April 3, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Interesting twist to this – first of all, in Colorado you have to be 21 to buy a handgun and get a concealed carry permit. Second – some proof of training is required to get the CCW permit – and proof of any form of military weapons training qualifies.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Old Dog on April 3, 2014 at 1:49 PM

I think it’s too restrictive of a Constitutional right, but it’s miles better than the current policy, and might satisfy the government urge to put a bike helmet and knee pads on everyone.

GWB on April 3, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Ya – I don’t understand the resistance some people have to allowing our military personnel to have the same 2nd Amendment rights as the rest of the population.
In general, military personnel are better trained (with weapons), more mature, more disciplined, and more responsible than most civilians – and their JOB is fundamentally to handle weapons to defend this country.
I’ve done many dozens of employer panels on the surrounding military bases for people transitioning out of the military, and across the board civilian employers WANT to hire vets for exactly those reasons.
I say that makes military people possibly MORE deserving and trustworthy of 2nd amendment rights than many civilians.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 2:05 PM

1. Obtain a CCW from the surrounding State. This would put the age over 21 right there.
2. No storage in a Barracks. That would limit storage to BEQ (NCOs), BOQ (Officers) and Married Personnel living in Post Housing.
3. Off Post Housing and Civilian Workforce must declare what weapons they will carry and register those (and those ONLY) with the Post MPs.

Comments?

Old Dog on April 3, 2014 at 1:49 PM

The newly deceased Army shooter in this case was 34 years old, married with children, lived off base, and illegally brought his unregistered weapon on base.
How would any of your proposed rules have stopped this shooting?

My point is, you and others are for some reason tap-dancing around all of the standard liberal arguments for gun control and/or confiscation – and apparently all because this shooting happened to be on a military base – in a federal government gun free zone.

Would you guys be making the same gun control arguments and proposals if this guy happened to do his shooting at a civilian school or other gun free zone?

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Anybody who has ever been in the Army would know it is not practical for soldiers in garrison to go around armed all the time. The only time a rifle is loaded is on guard duty or on the rifle range. For other occasions, the rifle would be used for inspections, close order drill and parades. Even in the field (except in combat, of course) rifles are rarely loaded. Most of the time the weapons remain in the rifle racks. Better screening of nuts and fanatics and more armed guards at assembly areas would be the best prevention.

The advantage, due to surprise, always lies with the attacker and no attack can 100% be stopped even if every soldier were armed to the teeth with rifles, sidearms and machine guns. In fact, in the initial confusion of an attack, having 30-40,000 men and women running around waving rifles and pistols may even help disguise the true attacker. In a worst case scenario some gun-toting GIs may even me mistaken for terrorists and shot accidentally. Plus children and other non-military personnel could even be injured in a crossfire between two parties shooting at each other–each mistaking the other for an attacker.

The best solution, I believe, is throw PC out the window and report and profile the nuts. Plus armed guards around any spots where unarmed GIs are likely to assemble.

MaiDee on April 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM

MaiDee on April 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Other than the better screening for nuts and fanatics, the rest of your comments are no different from the gun-grabbing liberals’ standard arguments against the 2nd amendment.
Why are our military personnel LESS trustworthy, in your eyes (it seems), than the average civilian?

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 2:22 PM

you and others are for some reason tap-dancing around….

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM

I was giving OldDog the benefit of the doubt on his proposal – it looks an awful lot like civilian carry rules in some jurisdictions.

more armed guards at assembly areas would be the best prevention.

MaiDee on April 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM

*facepalm* Really? *smh*

Plus armed guards around any spots where unarmed GIs are likely to assemble.

So, good guys with guns is ok, but they have to be special good guys with guns?

having 30-40,000 men and women running around waving rifles and pistols

30-40,000? Really? And the second part makes you sound like nonthinker on a thread the other day about the shooting in the Dollar General.

GWB on April 3, 2014 at 2:24 PM

I can’t just go around shooting anyone waiving a gun in the air and claim self-defense

nonpartisan on March 30, 2014 at 12:35 PM

having 30-40,000 men and women running around waving rifles and pistols

MaiDee on April 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Admittedly, you did spell “waving” properly.

GWB on April 3, 2014 at 2:28 PM

<blockquote In fact, in the initial confusion of an attack, having 30-40,000 men and women running around waving rifles and pistols may even help disguise the true attacker.

Is this what happens overseas during battle? People randomly running in all directions shooting indescriminitely, too stupid to know who the enemy is?

Or do you reserve this distinction for only soldiers on base?

What an idiotic, liberal argument.

Lifeisdeath on April 3, 2014 at 2:28 PM

I was giving OldDog the benefit of the doubt on his proposal – it looks an awful lot like civilian carry rules in some jurisdictions.
GWB on April 3, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Ya – I got that. But the more I thought about it the more I came to see it as no different than the liberals’ standard gun control arguments – just like MaiDee and a few others.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Did we outlast them, Arthur?

GWB on April 3, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Did we outlast them, Arthur?

GWB on April 3, 2014 at 3:06 PM

It would appear those who seem to favor gun control for our military personnel have left the battlefield….

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 3:12 PM

I was hoping we could get this thread moved over to Top Picks…..

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM

GWB actually I thought the spelling was ‘wavving’ but I made a typo error.

To some extent I would agree with you that armed guards are window dressing especially if they aren’t properly trained. When the MP told Lopez to ‘Halt’ and he pulled out the gun, she had no way of knowing whether he was going to shoot her or herself. Lucky for her, he shot himself. Otherwise there would have been a 4th. victim.

Check what most military people think of arming garrison personnel. even Alan West disagrees with that position.

MaiDee on April 3, 2014 at 3:21 PM

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Maybe nonpartisan will roll in on it – that’s good for at least a couple dozen more troll-bashing posts. ;)

GWB on April 3, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Lucky for her, he shot himself. Otherwise there would have been a 4th. victim.

Check what most military people think of arming garrison personnel. even Alan West disagrees with that position.

MaiDee on April 3, 2014 at 3:21 PM

According to the briefing last night – she pulled her gun and “engaged the shooter” – at which point he shot himself. She may NOT have been a 4th victim even if he tried to shoot her.

Pay attention to the details of what other military people are saying.
There’s a difference between issuing government owned weapons to all military personnel every day versus allowing them to have 2nd amendment rights on base. As it stands right now, NOBODY other than on duty security personnel are allowed to have weapons on base at all. That includes military vets, government civil service, and government contractors, many of whom have concealed carry permits that are valid everywhere off base (with some exceptions) – but not at all on base.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Check what most military people think of arming garrison personnel.

MaiDee on April 3, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Then they don’t have to carry. I don’t see why their reluctance should doom everyone else to victim status. The people who are scared by open-carry folks in Virginia don’t get to stop me from open-carry because of their fear.

even Alan West disagrees with that position.

MaiDee on April 3, 2014 at 3:21 PM

I am not so besotted with any individual that I let their opinion of a topic sway me without valid arguments. If his arguments are the same as yours, then I think he has not thought it through adequately.

Mind you, I am not advocating that we should just require every soldier/sailor/airman to cart about their service weapon at all times, everywhere. That would be a royal PITA. (I’m not talking about logistics of armory transactions, but simply adding this … thing to what everyone carts around everywhere every day.) I am arguing that military posts should not be “gun-free zones” where our well-trained military personnel should be victims merely because the government is scared by the prospect of firearms in the hands of ordinary people.

In saying that, I don’t want restrictions on who can carry (other than, perhaps, the state’s where the base is located – personally, I think the federal government should be required to adopt the most lenient laws of the states in which bases are located, as a matter of expanding freedom), based on rank or position or security clearance or anything else.

GWB on April 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM

As I’ve mentioned here before, during my Iraq deployment every single serviceman was – even the Air Force – was required to be armed and carrying live ammunintion at all times. Weapons were carried unloaded and cleared on the FOB, but it was mandatory. If you tried to enter a DFAC (chow hall) or the PX, the guards would check. No loaded magazine? Back to your CHU to get it. Regardless of rank. Officers and senior NCO’s could opt for handguns (M9 Beretta, usually, .45s for some of the special ops types), the rest carried M-4′s or M-16′s.

Why active combat arms branch Soldiers are not only permitted but required to do that stateside is an utter mystery to me. During our drill weekends, we often have Soldiers draw weapons and carry them even if we aren’t using them. Why? Because its good training. An infantryman needs intimate familiarty with his weapon.

So why on Earth are actually prohibiting combat-trained combat arms MOS Soldiers from carrying even their own weapons on post, even when they have a CCW license? It’s beyond inane.

I never felt safer than when I was surrounded by so many guns. I knew people were trained to use them, I knew EVERYONE was watching each other for safety violations, and I KNEW that if something happened, 100 armed Americans would instantly have my back.

I understand mass shooting in civilian office buildings and gun-free zone college campuses and public schools. But military bases should never, ever have this happen. There is no reason for it. None.

For the record, I know MANY people who willfully disobey orders on this one and carry concealed despite the prohibition. And God bless them for it.

Professor Blather on April 3, 2014 at 3:42 PM

As a civilian, I am really surprised that they don’t allow most military personnel in the US to carry guns. I wouldn’t have even known this was the case if it hadn’t been for stories like this. I just assumed that they were armed. I feel like the US is less secure knowing now that they’re not. This seems like a no-brainer.

My dad (who’d been in the Army) tried to convince me to join the military when I was 18. Like an idiot, I didn’t listen. I was a dumb, lazy criminal.

Today, I live a block from the Pentagon. I talk to military guys every day. You’ll never meet a bunch of more disciplined, decent people. I wish I had joined the military. I would have had a much different life, for the better.

This whole thing just sucks.

WhatSlushfund on April 3, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I was one of those MPs.
most likely the difference in treatment would not be as much as you think. anyone of those people can, and as we see, and will have a weapon if desired.
any mp that goes into a situation trusting a no weapons sign to protect them is a dead mp.

dmacleo on April 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM

That bolsters my point. I don’t think any MP goes to an enlisted barracks because of a disturbance and really thinks anyone is going to be armed but they will be ready if they are, the equation changes if they know everybody is armed or probably is. Equating going to the barracks with entering a crackhouse or the project is just strawman argument..

major dad on April 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM

GWB on April 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Yup.
Basically, for me it comes down to the point that military bases should not be any different from the civilian areas around them with respect to 2nd amendment rights.
If I can carry a weapon in my car for self defense anywhere else I go, it should be ok for me to have it in my car when I go on a military base as well.

Gun free zones do not prevent crime anywhere else – and they sure as he11 aren’t effective on military bases either – so there’s no reason to make military bases different from the civilian world in that respect.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Equating going to the barracks with entering a crackhouse or the project is just strawman argument..

major dad on April 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM

So why do you seem to think military barracks are worse than a crackhouse or the projects?
Really? That sure seems to be what you’re saying.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Major dad, the MPs don’t need to worry. If everyone was armed it would be over before they even got the call. No need to worry who the bad guy is. Just clean up the mess.

Lifeisdeath on April 3, 2014 at 4:01 PM

The shooter only stopped when confronted with a gun. Granted, if I was the MP I would have already had by gun out when I see the shooter, but either way, the shooter ate his own gun when confronted with a gun.

There is ample of studies that show shall/will carry states tend to have lower gun violence than otherwise.

Anecdotal evidence shows the same. Chicago, for example, the city where it is almost impossible to own a gun legally, is extremely dangerous in regards to gun violence. Ditto for Detroit and Washington D.C.

In some states, one is allowed to open carry, carry a gun on your hip. In Texas one can legally carry a rifle in public.

Yet, military bases are gun free zones.

The issue isn’t the gun. You should be allowd to carry on base. Heck, you should be allowd to open carry on base. It should be part and parcel of your uniform.

Would that Brit soldier have been hack to pieces by the Islamic Jihadist if he was armed?

Just sayin’

TexasDude on April 3, 2014 at 4:10 PM

It would appear those who seem to favor gun control for our military personnel have left the battlefield….

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Nah, I just had to go back to work after lunch.

I still want more armed security on base, I just don’t want all the people you want armed at work. Accidental shootings are real whether you believe it or not.

KW64 on April 3, 2014 at 4:56 PM

I still want more armed security on base, I just don’t want all the people you want armed at work. Accidental shootings are real whether you believe it or not.

KW64 on April 3, 2014 at 4:56 PM

I agree with your first part. But the sad fact is, the number of armed security guards on base have been going down due to budget cuts.

And I’m not saying everyone on base MUST be armed – at a minimum, just let military bases reflect the gun rights of the state they’re in.

I’m even ok with leaving my weapon in my car while I’m in the office – which is in a restricted area with a lot of armed guards. But let me at least have it in my car while on base – so I can have it in my car for my commute across town (and empty prairie) in accordance with my local civilian gun rights and concealed carry permit.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:03 PM

I’m even ok with leaving my weapon in my car while I’m in the office – which is in a restricted area with a lot of armed guards. But let me at least have it in my car while on base – so I can have it in my car for my commute across town (and empty prairie) in accordance with my local civilian gun rights and concealed carry permit.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Concealed carry by people with concealed carry permits is something I advocate. I believe it will reduce the number of people killed in these incidents greatly as killers seem to seek out gunfree zones. OTOH I do not support giving concealed carry permits to teenagers whether in uniform or not. While arming young troops in combat is essential, we police them with mature supervision. CONUS bases do not need to arm 17-19 year old privates to have some firearms nearby in most locations.

KW64 on April 3, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Concealed carry by people with concealed carry permits is something I advocate. I believe it will reduce the number of people killed in these incidents greatly as killers seem to seek out gunfree zones. OTOH I do not support giving concealed carry permits to teenagers whether in uniform or not. While arming young troops in combat is essential, we police them with mature supervision. CONUS bases do not need to arm 17-19 year old privates to have some firearms nearby in most locations.

KW64 on April 3, 2014 at 5:12 PM

That’s why I advocate just allowing the local gun laws to apply to the military bases as well. I don’t know off-hand if all states are the same, but in Colorado you have to be 21 to buy a handgun or get a concealed carry permit.
But fundamentally, I’d trust a military 18 year old with a gun more than I would trust the average civilian 18 year old.
In fact, the majority of the armed security police charged with protecting the bases, and carrying M-4/M-16s and sidearms while on duty are in fact somewhere in the 18 to 25 year old range.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM

I think we are mostly on the same page. My son was President of Concealed Carry on Campus at SUNY Buffalo.

KW64 on April 3, 2014 at 5:32 PM

As I’ve mentioned here before, during my Iraq deployment every single serviceman was – even the Air Force

And what do you mean by even the Air Force, I carried a 9mm, Gau5 and a Biden.

Sven on April 3, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Just the fact that the shooters don’t know who is carrying is a deterant, I don’t think it is a coincidence that most mass shootings are in “gun free zones”.

Sven on April 3, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Fort Hood is encompassed in the district represented by John Carter (R) – Texas.

However, Congressman Carter is a Boehner lieutenant and RINO who according to one source, went on CNN and supported the current “gun free zone” madness. I’m ashamed to represented by Carter.

Bleed_thelizard on April 3, 2014 at 6:34 PM

The shooter only stopped when confronted with a gun. Granted, if I was the MP I would have already had by gun out when I see the shooter, but either way, the shooter ate his own gun when confronted with a gun.

TexasDude on April 3, 2014 at 4:10 PM

This is not the first I have heard that shooter have either surrendered or committed suicide when they finally encountered armed resistance. I would have thought that going out in a, blaze of glory, fire fight was what they intended, but that doesn’t seem to be the case at all.

DFCtomm on April 3, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Un-Armed Forces? It takes a Clinton.

whatcat on April 3, 2014 at 7:23 PM

I’m sorry, but Tommy is full of crap. There’s no logistical nightmare with allowing troops to carry firearms on base. Sure, there would be a nightmare associated with actually arming them with military-issued weapons. Allowing troops to carry on base if they meet the licensing requirements of the state they’re in, however, would actually reduce logistical nightmares for the military. No longer would they have to worry about storing private weapons, or trying to enforce a virtually unenforceable law.

Snaqwels on April 3, 2014 at 7:47 PM

There’s no logistical nightmare with allowing troops to carry firearms on base. Sure, there would be a nightmare associated with actually arming them with military-issued weapons.
Snaqwels on April 3, 2014 at 7:47 PM

I have no problem with them wearing issued sidearms. If we were talkin’ RPGs, that might be a problem.

whatcat on April 3, 2014 at 8:11 PM

That bolsters my point. I don’t think any MP goes to an enlisted barracks because of a disturbance and really thinks anyone is going to be armed but they will be ready if they are, the equation changes if they know everybody is armed or probably is. Equating going to the barracks with entering a crackhouse or the project is just strawman argument..

major dad on April 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM

you really that dense?
we went in expecting it.
to not do so would be suicide.
and many people on base do not live in barracks, yet they also are not allowed to exercise their second amendment rights.
and I bet most of the people in barracks would not want to have one anyways, many of them are not shooters/aficionados and would not carry one.
but its nice to see how stupid and irresponsible you think soldiers are.
at 1 I was guarding nuke missiles yet somehow I wasn’t (to you) responsible enough to carry off duty.

dmacleo on April 3, 2014 at 8:22 PM

at 1 I was guarding nuke missiles yet somehow I wasn’t (to you) responsible enough to carry off duty.

dmacleo on April 3, 2014 at 8:22 PM

that should say at 18

dmacleo on April 3, 2014 at 8:25 PM

dmacleo on April 3, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Ya – I really don’t understand these people, especially those who are current or former military, who don’t trust our military members with the same 2nd amendment rights as the rest of the civilian population.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 8:56 PM

The twitter poster in the post is assuming that Soldiers would be carrying government-owned and issued weapons, which would be a logistical nightmare.

It would be pretty easy to just let Soldiers carry their own legally owned firearms.

BadgerHawk on April 3, 2014 at 10:20 PM

Soldiers should be allowed to carry their arms on the base. Give me a break – the ARMY knows how to shoot, clean, distribute and keep track of weapons.

How many more soldiers need to get murdered b/c of the leftist/Dem mindset that no one should have a gun – oh, except their bodyguards.

MN J on April 3, 2014 at 11:30 PM

RUSSIAN GENERAL TO PUTIN:

Here is our Plan to sack the American Army Bases —

First we send in ONE Soldier with Fire cracker, a BIG one, Russian Cherry bomb. He lights it, it blows up…KABOOM……..

Stupid Americans will then LOCK DOWN ARMY BASE….then we have Americans locked up with no chance to get Weapons to fight the next wave of RUSSIANS as they STORM Ft. HOOD and join their firecracker Comrad and sack the unarmed Americans.

Is good Plan, Yes ?

Putin: I LOVE IT !!

JayTee on April 4, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Don’t be silly.
Only the National Park Service, NOAA and the like have the skills necessary to carry firearms, not the military.

Remember that dream of Obama about a civilian force as strong as the military?

justltl on April 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Someday in the future, historians will wonder what the hell we were waiting for.

justltl on April 4, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Someday in the future, historians will wonder what the hell we were waiting for.

justltl on April 4, 2014 at 2:37 PM

We likely won’t be here as we only have “a small talent for war”.

dentarthurdent on April 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Those infantry soldiers should not be allowed to carry guns — they should be required to do so. That would include those living off-base — they should take their weapons home with them, and during any stops along the way.

All of them should take special weapons training about the different rules that apply when they are not in a war zone.

J Baustian on April 5, 2014 at 9:32 PM

The suggestion that somebody should check in guns daily like soldiers do when issuing rifles at the arms room is stupid… and what would the point be anyway? People get shot because their guns are elsewhere.

The solution is already out there – just allowed concealed carry like is done off base. The soldiers go through the background check and required training and qualification drill.

John_G on April 6, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Let the military have open carry on base. Those who wish to carry can do so. That would deter shooters from attacking the base as a gun free zone, where they can murder multiple victims before a response (a bullet) stops them.

searcher on April 6, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2