Time to revisit firearms policies on military posts

This month’s tragic — and probably preventable — mass shooting at Ft. Hood, Texas, certainly raises questions about why a lone shooter was able to unload not one but several magazines of ammunition over a several minute period – shooting  and wounding more than 30 soldiers and killing 13, at a heavily restricted US Army base.   Just as legitimate questions were raised following the mass killings on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007, both military personnel and civilian citizens alike ought now to be asking of themselves and our elected and appointed leaders, not only whether the perpetrators of such carnage could reasonably and appropriately have been identified in advance and prevented  from carrying out their obviously well-planned mass murders; but also, whether it makes sense to disarm a captive group of citizens (at Virginia Tech, the student body; at Ft. Hood, the military personnel assigned to the base).

In the case of Ft. Hood, it is important to bear in mind that since 1993, thanks to a policy ordered by then-President Bill Clinton, it has been essentially unlawful for individuals on military bases to carry firearms unless they are military police, or are training in firearms at a firing range.  Many of those who support this gun-free military base policy have reacted to calls to review it, by simply echoing the standard refrain of gun-control advocates that, “we don’t want everyone on a military base running around with a gun on their hip.”  (Of course, had this been the case at Ft. Hood, it is doubtful Maj. Hasan could have squeezed off more than a couple of rounds before being himself felled by an armed soldier.)  It is a false dichotomy that we either allow no one (except MPs) or everyone on military bases to possess firearms.  Rather, the debate should center on why is it made virtually impossible for any soldier on a military base to carry arms, even if they have in fact been properly vetted and trained in their use? 

Why, after all, should a citizen be forced to surrender his or her right to keep and bear arms, simply because they have entered military service; service expressly supposed to teach the proper and safe use of firearms? 

In the case of the students at Virginia Tech two years ago, it was Virginia legislators who decided to disarm them and make them sitting ducks for a single crazed gunman, Seung-Hui Cho.  For the military victims at Ft. Hood this Fall, it was three commanders-in-chief (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama), and a series of politically-correct base commanders, who rendered those who serve under them vulnerable to an apparent religious zealot bent on killing as many of his fellow service men and women as he could.  Continuing to stick our heads in the sand and refuse to even reconsider amending such policies as those that apply to campuses in Virginia (and other states across the country) and at Ft. Hood (and virtually every other military post across the country), vastly improves the chances that our students and our military personnel will be victims of other deranged individuals in the future.

81 comments Add your comment

anarcho-capitalist

November 18th, 2009
7:41 am

We have now had two terrorist attacks on our soil since Obama has taken office (Ft Hood and Little Rock Arkansas). I guess Biden was right.
Bob, you and I both know that the progressive mindset is one that does not allow us little people to make choices for ourselves unless the choice is having intercourse with somebody of the same sex, or if a woman wants to tear apart the baby inside of her (I forgot, they want you to register to vote, but only if you are voting for them).
C’mon, does it make sense that men and women who are trained to kill those that are a threat to life and liberty would actually be trusted to carry a gun?
This is progressive logic. Get used to it!

Indigo

November 18th, 2009
8:31 am

Great article Bob! Please keep the issue of gun control on people’s minds. We need, the People, need to have our right to protect ourselves and the people around us from individuals who have issues and find it acceptable to commit mass murder.

Chris Broe

November 18th, 2009
8:38 am

Why didn’t we disarm Al Queda instead? Oh, right, I forgot. Bush gave the order to attack Al Queda in Afghanistan (2002)and Rummy stood like a stone wall. Cheney had countermanded the order, knowing full well that if we had destroyed (disarmed) Al Queda, than no invasion of Iraq would have been possible. Americans would have wanted our victorious troops to come home. I dont know why I keep forgetting that. Never mind. Bob Barr is correct: Lets go down a path of anarchy and chaos instead, and arm all our citizens from birther to death panel.

Chris Broe

November 18th, 2009
8:41 am

I think we need a national target shooting competition in which all citizens must compete. I happen to think that I’m the best shot this side of the Mississippi. You have to go back to Daniel Boone to find a better shot. Or is it Davey Crocket. Which one keeled a bear when he was only three? Damn it! I always get my coon-skin hat wearers mixed up. Now I’ve got to go out and shoot at something. This is your fault, Bob barr!!!

Indigo

November 18th, 2009
8:51 am

Sorry Chris Broe, or flamebaiting troll, but owning an item which is the means to protect oneself is not “anarchy and chaos” as you call it.

We have laws regarding guns for civilian use.

People who do not obey those laws are jailed. This is done to protect the people.

However taking guns from the people completely removes their essential right to defend themselves in the many situations in which the police are not present.

These tragedies could have been greatly reduced by more libertarian gun laws, and that is a fact.

[...] Bob Barr – Time to revisit firearms policies on military posts Time to revisit firearms policies on military posts | The Barr Code [...]

jconservative

November 18th, 2009
9:40 am

Bob I entered the US Army in January 1968 & no one was allowed to carry weapons on the Ft Benning reservation except MP’s or while in training exercises. And even in training exercises the weapons were unloaded unless you were in active firing range training.

Members of the armed forces do not enjoy constitutional rights, only those rights granted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

TnGelding

November 18th, 2009
9:59 am

Did Clinton order the policy or did the Army request it? Why were civilian police needed? Don’t they have MPs any more? Who’s to say if they had been armed the carnage wouldn’t have been worse? There were plenty of warning signs the perp was unstable. The Army and the FBI dropped the ball, unless they were using him to track al Qaeda.

Michael

November 18th, 2009
10:04 am

Mr.Barr, I agree it is time to revisit the rules,that clearly violate the Constitution – the same one that many,including myself, swore to up hold and protect. I also found it strange, both while in and out of the uniform, that I was trusted by non-military authorities to carry a gun,and by the military to handle guns (in controlled conditions of course) that many citizens were restricted from purchasing or handling themselves – thanks to the NFA of 1934 and the NRA.

But yes, we need to allow out men and women in uniform to exercise their natural rights, the same ones they have obligated themselves to defend from tyranny.

DDS -- NRA Life Member

November 18th, 2009
10:15 am

Imagine for a minute what we would be discussing if, instead of a lone gunman, the attack had been carried out by a trained fire team with real assault weapons like in Mumbai, India? Are all of our troop on US soil as poorly prepared to be attacked as the ones at Ft. Hood? What would have happened if the Ft. Dix plotters had been successful? The DOD should be ashamed that their personel are no better prepared to respond than the diners at Luby’s Cafeteria were. Has anyone informed them that we are at war, and that the enemy intends to attack us whenever and where ever he can? I understand we cannot protect every soft target in CONUS. But come on, since when is an army base supposed to be a soft target?

Stu Strickler

November 18th, 2009
10:40 am

Gun free zones are killing zones.

Right is Right

November 18th, 2009
10:56 am

Folks, let’s not forget about the shooting at Fairchild AFB near Spokane Washington on June 20, 1994 when “Dean Mellberg, an ex-Air Force member entered the base hospital and shot and killed five people (including an 8 year old girl) and wounded many others. Mellberg had been discharged from the Air Force after failing psychological evaluations by base psychologists Maj. Thomas Brigham and Captain Alan London.” Quoted from Wikipedia.org. Mellberg had reloaded his weapon and was on his way to the dental clinic to murder the commander there when a lone Airman Security Police member felled the murderer from 70 yards away with his Ruger 9mm.
I am a military medic who, under the Geneva Convention, is supposed to be protected as a non-combatant. This gives me absolutely no protection from an insane gunman or a terrorist on a stateside base. I am fully aware that anyone who can access a military installation can bring a concealed firearm on base. Only sane and law abiding individuals will heed the gun free zone ban. Unless every building on every base searches everyone who comes in their doors, a weapon or weapons can be smuggled in to perpetrate any sort of heinous attack.
Military members are required to adhere to The Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC). LOAC specifically states that weapons carried by uniformed military members must be in plain view at all times. Also, Posse Comatatus prohibits active duty military members from carrying out the duties of the police. This puts us (military members) in a very vulnerable and defenseless position of essentially being unarmed very nearly 100% of the time. I personally cannot foresee the day when an active duty medic will be allowed (ever) to carry openly (never mind carrying concealed), a government issued sidearm. When that day comes I will be among the first to arm up so that perhaps one day I can stop a madman from doing what Major Hasan or Mellberg did. Until LOAC and Posse Comatatus are rewritten to specify the difference between periods of armed conflict and installation defense and until a president with the stones to undo then-President Clinton’s on base gun ban, this will never occur.

Chaps

November 18th, 2009
11:16 am

The Geneva Conventions alow medical personnel (and chaplains too) to carry sidearms for protection of their patients and self-defense. This does not affect non-combatant status. More restrictive rules are US military directives only.

Chaps

November 18th, 2009
11:19 am

Posse Comatatus prevents military personnel from being used as law enforcement in the civilian community. It does not apply yo military personnel on duty, on base. The best prevention of future attacks is simple: all Officers and NCOs should carry sidearms while on duty. The President should rescind the executive order and military dept heads should direct that Officers and NCOs carry sidearms.

1shot1expired

November 18th, 2009
11:23 am

Thanks,
Bill and all of the other Lib’s. Maybe they should go and talk to all of the families from the Fort Hood shooting casulities. Oh that is right they had nothing to do with it! Lets get real, If one of the many Fort Hood Military Personnel would have been carring concelled the body count and wounded would have been alot less or maybe “0″.

Richard

November 18th, 2009
11:25 am

In the case of the Virginia Tech shootings, I realize that we want the students to be able to protect themselves against a crazed gunman, but let’s be rational here. That gunman was a once in a lifetime occurance. You really think we should allow 50,000 18-22 year old college students (who are drunk more often than they are sober) to walk around with loaded guns on the chance today will be that one day? You’re going to save 30 lives one day by sacrificing 1 life everyday.

Fang1944

November 18th, 2009
11:34 am

As for the Virginia Tech shootings: ABC News ran an experiment in which students who had firearms training were supposed to react to a gunman suddenly entering the classroom. None of the students reacted properly. One got his gun caught in his pants. One shot the wrong person (with an airsoft gunn). One stood up and shot instead of taking cover.

You have to be wearing some big blinders to actually talk about arming students.

Chris Broe

November 18th, 2009
11:44 am

The inalienable right to bear arms is endowed upon us by our creator. Heaven expects sunday church-goers to be armed, too. Kneeling, standing and sitting is perfectly safe while one is packing. If someone gets shot, the confessional is right there! In this economy, there’s no evidence that the collection basket is a temptation for the piously unemployed.

The problem with arming off duty soldiers on military bases is the frequency of accidental discharge of firearms. I wouldn’t trust any at-ease citizen to handle a gun properly any more than I would trust him to drive properly. (40K deaths a year in car collisions).

We used to equate commies with terrorists. Our biggest 1950’s fear was that commie/terrorists had infiltrated our army.

Ironically, Tailgunner Joe was right. It turns out that there WERE commie rats in our army, in our Manhatten projects, and in our government. Worse, after McCarthy was removed, there was a golden age for Russian spies. Nobody wanted to check anyone out. It was not PC.

HOWEVER: It’s what saved us during the Cuban missile crisis. Russian intel was so accurate that they knew that we would not preempt them. Their fears were tempered with spy info. Spies are a good thing, it turns out.

The danger, looking back, was allowing peace-time countries to be armed with nukes, because accidental discharge of ICBMs was a high-probability, as soviet archives have revealed.

The angels must have saved us.

Hillbilly Deluxe

November 18th, 2009
11:46 am

My Daddy was a member of the US Army Occupation Forces in Japan in 1946-1947. He said he wasn’t allowed to have a loaded weapon when he was on guard duty, at night, in what was still considered a hostile zone. That very few people on a military base have loaded weapons is nothing new.

SFC TEF

November 18th, 2009
11:50 am

This is why I will never live on base……

Astronerd

November 18th, 2009
11:50 am

Richard,
The legal age for Conceal-carry is 21. No student below this age would be allowed. I don’t know about you but in my lifetime I seem to remember more than several school shootings in gun free zones.
Fort Hood was, in fact, a gun free zone also.

ArmUsAll

November 18th, 2009
11:55 am

“In the case of the students at Virginia Tech two years ago, it was Virginia legislators who decided to disarm them and make them sitting ducks for a single crazed gunman, Seung-Hui Cho.” So Bob Barr, you’re saying the students we all armed and the legislators decided to disarm them? What happened to all the confiscated weapons? Nice stretch of fantasty, misinformation and outright falsehood mongering. Keep up the excellent work Bob. Pathetic.

Reality

November 18th, 2009
12:03 pm

Fang1944, you would have to be wearing some pretty big blinders to cite that ABC “study” as evidence to prove your point. A modicum of critical thinking would make you realize that it was a highly biased and unrealistic sham.

Astronerd

November 18th, 2009
12:19 pm

Fang1944,
Notice in the experiment that the shirts that the participants were REQUIRED to wear were elastic and clingy. Also notice that the “experimental bad guy” walked into the classroom with absolutely NO fear. The clingy attire hindered the respondent from successfully returning fire. In a real situation, the first defending shot would get the attention of the “bad guy”… who would immediately retreat to a defensive position and concentrate on the student defender.
Whether or not the student defender is accurate in returning fire is immaterial. The student defender may even hit innocent by-standers with returned fire. Wounding or killing the “bad guy” is the point. Wounding the “bad guy” is usually sufficient to stop the episode. Even if another student is hit by returned fire, the “bad guy” is effectively neutralized to a point where other students can escape or even confront the “bad guy” with a chair or something. Three or four students dead ALWAYS beats 33 students being dead!

TerryLane

November 18th, 2009
12:27 pm

Richard, nobody is advocating that all 50,000 students be armed, just those law abiding ones that take the initiative to get proper training and actually obtain a CCW permit. I don’t know what college students you hang out with but I’d trust my life to the ones who’ve been through my concealed carry and personal protection courses. By the way, there is a zero alcohol tolerence for alcohol for concealed carry holders here in Nebraska, so drunk most of the time? I don’t think so.

Fang1944, did you actually read anything about the set up of the contrived student excercise you refer to? The armed students had minimal training, the shooter knew ahead of time which students were armed and where they were sitting, and the students were directed what type of clothing to wear such as long loose fitting pullover shirts instead of being able to dress properly for concealed carry like any knowlegable CCW holder does as a matter of course.

Fang1944

November 18th, 2009
12:29 pm

This year eleven state legislatures entertained bills that would have allowed college students to carry concealed weapons.

None were crazy enough to pass the bill. There is hope for America.

Ben Bryant

November 18th, 2009
12:35 pm

Members of the armed forces do not enjoy constitutional rights, only those rights granted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

That statement is generally true except in the case of National Guardsmen, who because they are part time soldiers under the authority of a respective state’s governor they don’t really fall under UCMJ authority. To illustrate my point; Have you ever heard of one of them being court martialed or being dishonorably discharged? It is an unsettled matter of military and civilian law because they can assert and demand that they are civilians and entitled to representation by a civilian attorney in a civilian court and not be tried under the UCMJ.

Reality

November 18th, 2009
12:35 pm

It’s 12:35 and Fang1944 is still oblivious.

Just Another Mil Officer

November 18th, 2009
12:53 pm

I hope that out of this might come a new DoD policy, allowing me to carry my weapon on my assigned base.
I grew up with firearms. They were always around as was a hammer or a pair of pliers, just another tool at our disposal. I am now trained in its use by the military, and repeatedly qualify “expert” with the 9mm. I qualified for and am licensed by my state of residence for concealed carry of a firearm. Yet every day that I go to work on my military base, I am now at more risk than when I go to the local grocery store, because the only tool I am allowed to carry on base for my defense is my knife. I can think of no greater idiotic irony than being shot on a US military base/post, having been forcefully unarmed by my own government.
For what it’s worth; the policy should not “REQUIRE” anyone to carry a weapon on base. It should only “ALLOW” anyone who is qualified AND desires to do so to carry their weapon on any DoD installation. I work with too many who have barely squeaked by the weapons qualification, never handle a firearm except during the required requalification classes, and whom I would not trust to not accidently shoot themselves or someone else. Those people generally do not desire to carry a weapon on a daily basis anyway.
It is sad that it always takes a tragedy to bring illogical policies to light.

CharlesP

November 18th, 2009
1:18 pm

It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop ANY CRIMES before they occur.
WHY?
When local businessmen were TRYING TO FRAME ME FOR CRIMES OF BREAKING INTO BUSINESSES, the local police told me that I SHOULD STOP GOING OUTSIDE MY HOME AND EXERCISING (walking/jogging). THEN THE BUSINESSMEN COULD NOT TRY AND FRAME ME.
This means that the POLICE DO NOT WANT TO ARREST THE CRIMINALS, they just want to harass ME, and KISS THE LOCAL BUSINESSMEN ON THE BUTTOCKS!! There is no telling how many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS they stole/filed false insurance claims for, YET THE POLICE WOULD NOT LIFT A FINGER TO ARREST THEM!! (what did I do? I Pretended to go out exercising some days, and turned around and went home. This confused the dumb crooks, AND THE POLICE “ACCIDENTLY” stumbled onto THE real criminals in the act— BECAUSE THEY WERE certain it was me!!)

BETWEEN 1970 AND 1991, I stopped 10 major wars from occurring. The US government and all of you American citizens ALL PRETEND THAT THIS DID NOT OCCUR!! You ignore that foriegn leaders OPENLY threatened my life, on MANY occassions. The CORRUPT NEWS MEDIA COVERED UP THE TRUTH! And this means that you are ALL IN DELUSIONS ABOUT RECENT HISTORY!
ALL your opinions/books/news articles/etc. ARE ALL A CROCK OF CRAPOLA!
A handfull of people know the truth, but even when THEY admitted the truth, it was covered up.
My point: WHAT GOOD WULD IT DO TO PREVENT ANY CRIMES? NONE OF YOU WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
ASK Atlanta Olympics bombing HERO, RICHARD JEWELL! HE DID HIS JOB WELL AND THEY TRIED TO FRAME HIM (HE DID NOT FIT THE PROFILE OF A BOMBER- THEY LIED)! EVEN THOUGH THE REAL BOMBER HAD PUBLICLY PROMISED TO ATTACK THE ATLANTA OLYMPICS, IF THE city of Atlanta were to win (just before the city was announced)!!

Mike

November 18th, 2009
1:51 pm

Luby’s was near Ft. Hood in a state, Texas, that had to accept CCW on account of the fourteen killings years ago. If the state where the military base is located has a CCW policy, then it should be honored by anything located in that state. A new state law would fix this one, but you’d thing that anything federal would have brains enough to defend itself? All those “deadly force zones” must be only in the movies?

In the mean time, an emergency order should go out to all bases in the U.S. to arm, carry and prepare. If necessary the national alert level should be increased during the rest of the time the U.S. is at war and probably for some decades after it. That’s only reasonable.

Chuck

November 18th, 2009
2:00 pm

One simple question and an honest answer could go a long way in our debate on guns. What is the harm of a law abiding citizen owning a firearm? Carrying it further, what is the harm of a law abiding, properly trained citizen in carrying a firearm? It is undeniable that where citizens may carry concealed weapons that the crime rate drops. The heaviest crime is in the cities with the strictest gun laws.
Regarding a military base, it is absurd for soldiers to not be allowed to carry firearms. We trust them with tanks, artillery, bombers, fighter jets and other implement that could easily cause mass destruction, yet we can’t trust them with a pistol?

[...] Time to revisit firearms policies on military posts [...]

Joe Levi

November 18th, 2009
2:51 pm

He killed fourteen, not 13. One of his victims was pregnant.

http://www.JoeLevi.com

Mt Gunny

November 18th, 2009
2:53 pm

Alkida Knows now, that are Military Installations are Vulnerable! What Are we going to do about That? We are at War With Terrorism we all should be armed. The MP’s Just like the City Police, are minutes away when seconds count. What will happen? before Everyone stands up and Fights against Bad polices that are the Antitheses to the Constitution. Pearl Harbor could be child’s play compared to what Alkida would do If they had the Means, Nukes, Bombers, Home grown Jihadists, OH Crap !! they are already here, DUH!! I’m ready for them! Are You?

M

November 18th, 2009
3:12 pm

People now can’t recall Sirhan Sirhan. All he did was to kill Bobby Kennedy. The Ft. Hood murderer didn’t like this and didn’t like that about U.S. policies. He sounds just like Sirhan who “was offended” by Bobby Kennedy’s support of Israel, at that time. Deja vu.

Don’t we ever learn? People are fed this stuff by the media about it being “an isolated incident.” If so, there are plenty of these “isolated incidents” floating around looking for places to happen. Bill Moyers (Johnson’s press sec., 1968) was the very first of the spinners saying that, “…Oswald acted alone.” That was more than a year before the Warren Commission Report. Talk about “insight!” In what way must a national emergency be packaged to be believable any more?

M

November 18th, 2009
3:14 pm

Moyers started as press secretary in 1963 as Johnson took over from JFK

Fang1944

November 18th, 2009
3:15 pm

Received this email from a Virginia Tech survivor. He was there, and he’s now working for the Brady Campaign.

Dear _______,

Surviving near-death experiences often yields new perspectives in life. My eyes were opened after I was shot and almost killed at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007.

No matter how hard it is to discuss that day, it is worth it if it brings greater awareness to some of the issues surrounding school shootings in this country.

With my story I try to convey the reality of the situation I faced in my classroom, as well as the reality that our nation’s gun laws are woefully inadequate.

Did you know, in most states, people can walk into gun shows and purchase firearms – from Glocks to AK-47s – from unlicensed sellers without a Brady criminal background check? This is legal and a currently glaring loophole within America’s background check system.

I’ve learned that the Columbine shooters obtained their guns through this same loophole in the law.

So now I ask you to help me deliver a petition to Congress of 100,000 signatures by April, 16, 2010, the third anniversary of the shooting, demanding that this gun show loophole be closed.

Please click here to view my video and sign the petition. Once you have signed it, I ask that you forward it on to friends and family.

Other fellow Virginia Tech survivors and families are working with me. Million Mom March and Brady Chapters have joined me in this ambitious effort, as well as students and other organizations in the gun violence prevention movement.

You can help even more by sharing the video on your Facebook page. Talk, tweet, and blog about it, too.

We have to increase public awareness on issues like these if we hope to move toward a safer America. Congress needs to hear a new perspective.

Sincerely,

Colin Goddard

Oldshooter

November 18th, 2009
3:22 pm

Holy Smokes, let me check the masthead again, is this really the AJC?! Wow!
Consider: a) If we trust military troops to carry loaded weapons, virtually all the time in combat zones, where the daily stresses are FAR higher than back home (and we do), b) if it is true that in places like Israel, troops routinely carry “assault rifles” everywhere they go, both on bases and in the local civilian communities (and it is), and c) if it is true that concealed carry licensees in 48 states routinely carry loaded guns in public without any increase in danger to the public (and it is), then it should be clear that there is no overwhelming danger inherent in allowing troops to carry weapons on bases. There ARE accidents in israel, and in our combat zones, and among CCW licensees, but they are so extraordinarily rare as to be statistically insignificant. There is no question that the danger of mass shootings is reduced in areas where there are likely to be armed bystanders, thus public safety is enhanced rather than decreased by such a policy (this would be equally true on-post or off). While I generally agree with “Just another mil officer,” that it would be easier to simple allow those of us who would prefer to go armed, to carry weapons on base, I also see that the liklihood of accidents, while it might increase during the first 6 months or so of a policy requiring military personnel to go armed on base, would quickly drop off to a statistically insignificant level, just as it is in combat zones. The biggest issue would probably be the problem of military personnel leaving the base in states that don’t permit openly carrying a weapon. In TX, for example, an officer wearing his sidearm on post at Ft. Hood, would have to secure it in his car or elsewhere before leaving the post, unless he had a CHL license and a way to a carry it concealed while in uniform off-post. If he were stationed on a base in California, it would be really interesting (probably impossible), but that is more an argument for changing California law than for restricting on-post carrying of weapons.

Curious Observer

November 18th, 2009
3:27 pm

Just what we need–30,000 men and women in the teens and early 20s walking around a military base locked and loaded. From what I saw as an active duty Marine, there’s a good reason that military personnel other than security personnel or those on a rifle range aren’t permitted to carry loaded firearms. If, next November 10, Barr will take the time to attend a Marine Corps birthday ball, he might change his current position.

william

November 18th, 2009
3:39 pm

Fang1944

November 18th, 2009
3:15 pm
Email him back and tell him to sell his socialist views to China! I remeber when Brady got shot. It seemed to me it was more that he and his wife were deprived of a great political life than just having a normal life. Hey what is normal in our today’s liberal mantra.

william

November 18th, 2009
3:50 pm

It is my 2nd admendment rights! I bet the native Americans wished we had these same policies in the 1800’s.

william

November 18th, 2009
3:52 pm

How about they checked out their weapons everymorning and checked them in every evening. If they have a personal weapon then the state law applies IAW the 2nd amdmt.

SadButTrue

November 18th, 2009
3:52 pm

To CHRIS BROE.

GUN FREE ZONES are KILLING ZONES!
I live in Texas and I can tell you, this guy did not go to a mall, restaurant or any other place to do this evil deed. Because he knew Texas has a great number of CHL holders. This guy was no dummy. He knew exactly where to go to get a good kill ratio.
Our forefathers knew there are crazy people in this world. That is one of the reasons why they wrote. (THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT INFRINGED). Its as simple as that.
How dare some Lawmaker tell me when, where and how I can defend myself. If you choose not to carry a weapon thats fine by me. But I can guarantee you. If you have been a victim of a violent crime such as I have you would change your attitude about carrying a firearm.

Minnesotan

November 18th, 2009
4:15 pm

@Fang
We have commercial airlines being used as missiles. We have nut jobs strapping bombs to their chest with visions of vestal virgins. We rely on our military to protect this country and they can’t protect themselves? C’mon. Can you see a correlation between Virginia Tech, Columbine and Fort Hood? Probably can’t figure out why the nut jobs do not choose our local gun clubs for free kill zones either. Does it escape you that if the terrorist knew the servicemen/women were armed he wouldn’t have done it? CWC is not for everyone but the choice should not be denied by anyone for reasons of “what if.”

Cup your hand to your ear and face UTAH. Hear any gun shots? UTAH’s universities ALL have concealed weapons carry, CWC. No beer barrel gun battles, no parking lot gun rage, no professors shot for handing out a bad grade. No Cho’s from Virginia Tech either.

There was an interesting study (Knoxnews.com). Prisoners in Tennesee were poled and asked; would you break into an unoccupied home, occupied home etc; with varying percentages of yes/no answers. The last question? Would you break into a home if they in fact new it was occupied by a gun owner. 100% answered, No. I wouldn’t let your views on gun ownership get around. A Pit Bull might be prudent.

I have seen no comments demanding that you arm yourself even though should your life be threatened we put our own lives at risk. Or would you rather have us let you die. The servicemen and women were not given the choice you or I have. That is not right.

STEVE

November 18th, 2009
4:36 pm

A goverment that dosn’t trust it’s people with a way to defend themselfs is not to be trusted.
back in time before ww2 a person we all know,or should.
told it’s people that with the removel of thier guns it would make safer better place. (adolf hitler)

those who don’t look to history are doomed to repeat it.

Bob's A Cherry Picker

November 18th, 2009
4:39 pm

Hi Bob,

Excellent cherry picking today. I’m extremely interested in the “thanks in part to Bill Clinton” part. Can you elaborate on that with some specifics…the way a real journalist might do?

Also, can you dig into the real reason why there’s a policy not allowing active duty military personnel to carry weapons on a base? I’m interested in that too.

I know that your job is to spread fear based on rumor and innuendo, but those two things definately deserve some additional attention.

Thks.

Clint

November 18th, 2009
4:56 pm

Fang, you can tell this to your friend also. There is absolutely no way possible to keep violence from occuring. None. Whether the idiots use a gun, knife, baseball bat, crowbar, vehicle, or their hands. If they want you to die, they will kill you. The only way to prevent this, or even having the slimmest of chances, are by envoking what is the solomn truth about protecting yourself. Your life is your responsibility. Period. Whether you choose to accept this truth is totally up to you. This can’t be made any more plain. There are countless people that have stated this, even me, but I’ll go ahead and say it again. There is nowhere in any state, county, or city that requires the police to protect OR save your life from ANY threat. There is even legal documentation stating this fact. Courts have ruled on this. Look it up and see for yourself. The delusions the anti-gun crowd has all of you believing are only that. Delusions. The gun show “loophole” is just another shot in the dark for the anti crowd. If you are buying or selling privately, it makes no difference where it is done. The states that have banned these types of transactions have made no difference in the number of illegal owning and uses of firearms. Like as stated earlier in another post, gun free zones are killing zones. By the way, for all that still think the gun is the bad guy, get your heads out of your asses. It is an inanimate object. End of disscusion.

Minnesotan

November 18th, 2009
5:30 pm

@Bob’s a cherry picker.

I agree. Bill Clinton, Bush, and Obama all share in the aftermath of this tragedy.

If 14 (one was pregnant) servicemen/women could be resurrected I’d be willing to bet a show of hands would give you your answer for why the policy was implemented. So they could not avoid their death comes as my first guess.

Maybe we should ask the ones that survived what they think of the policy. Might be quicker and easier than waiting for divine intervention.

The bigger question? What to do now that the entire world knows our military bases are safe zones. Quaida is not known to pass up a free lunch.

It took a gun for this terrorist to dust off sitting ducks, but remember. It took a gun to stop it. It just took too long to get there. It took 10 minutes? What if it took 15 or 20 or nobody came at all. Showing up to draw chalklines is a little late in my opinion.

Al

November 18th, 2009
6:03 pm

All people have an inalienable right to self protection granted by God. In the US our second amendment guarantees us of this right. No government agency local, state or federal can take that away. Thanks Bob!