7 Days Later

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    J. Neil Schulman has a piece on the Ft. Hood event. What this really points up is that a Bill Clinton anti-gun rule, (kept in place by Bush) resulted in the deaths and wounding of too many people there. Once again, politician inspired and supported gun control killed the innocent, along with the actions of a turncoat madman.
    From J. Neil Schulman

    The American Humiliation Buried at Fort Hood

    It’s now been seven full days following Thursday November 5, 2009, when U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, using only unremarkable handguns, murdered 13 fellow American soldiers and civilians, and wounding 30-odd others, including combat veterans. Hasan — an American-born-and-bred Muslim who initiated his attack by jumping on a table and in Arabic shouting the Muslim affirmation “God is Great!” — continued to shoot unarmed soldiers and civilians unopposed by any armed military personnel, and was finally stopped only when — after ten-minutes — two civilian police officers with no previous combat experience arrived on the scene to return his fire.
    These days have allowed the commanding officers at Fort Hood — America’s largest army base with a population the size of a small city, and their superiors at the Pentagon and the Department of Defense — to make official statements and answer reporters’ questions.
    These seven days allowed the current President and Vice President of the United States, Barack Obama and Joe Biden — and the White House press secretary and communications office — plus former living U.S. presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, the most recent U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates, John McCain and Sarah Palin, past and present United States Senators and Members of Congress too numerous to mention, and all other official voices who have debated and shaped our national life, all to go on the record with both their immediate gut-reactions and, later, more considered reactions.
    These seven days have been filled with coverage on the twenty-four-hour-news-cycle cable news networks, on network and syndicated talk radio, on newspaper editorial and Op-Ed pages, and in web-based forums such as this one.
    These seven days included both Veterans Day — a day for honoring those who have defended the United States wearing its military uniforms — and a memorial service, attended by the President and First Lady of the United States, held for the fallen at Fort Hood.
    These seven days have resulted in thirteen counts of murder, to be tried in a military court martial, against Major Hasan, with debate over whether his murder of a pregnant woman might result in a 14th murder count. There has been no charge of treason.
    So I have been watching, listening, and reading my prominent countrymen for a week, now, waiting for a reaction I have never found.
    I have found sorrow for the dead and wounded victims.
    I have found praise for the military at Fort Hood as caregivers and rescuers.
    I have found bewilderment, apologetics, and even pity for the minority attacker, on the one hand, and frustration at his not being regarded by the political establishment as part of a more widespread ideologically-driven enemy on the other.
    I have heard angry questioning of why neither the FBI nor Army intelligence — both of which were aware of Hasan’s conflicted loyalties for over a year before his attack — left him in a position of military authority, and unwatched.
    I have even seen echoes of my discovery of a Clinton-era Army regulation which I disclosed in the article I published here this past Monday — and which the magnificent John R. Lott, Jr., put on his own web page — reverberate to the editorial page of the Washington Times — without, of course, any credit to my copyrighted article, because doing so would have foiled the Washington Times‘ editorial redaction of that part of my article where I pointed out that the Bush administration had left this Clinton administration policy untouched for its eight years.
    More at the source.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,693
    113
    .
    Considering the history on this guy and his continued problems it really surprises me that he made it past 2nd Lt. The question I want answered is how he made it to major and why. There are lots of hard working, deserving young officers out there. Why promote this ....person?
     

    femurphy77

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 5, 2009
    20,268
    113
    S.E. of disorder
    Considering the history on this guy and his continued problems it really surprises me that he made it past 2nd Lt. The question I want answered is how he made it to major and why. There are lots of hard working, deserving young officers out there. Why promote this ....person?


    I'm sure political correctness had nothing to do with this. When will our nuts drop so we can get back to using the phrase "Sorry you're offended. . .get over it".
     

    Paco Bedejo

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 23, 2009
    1,672
    38
    Fort Wayne
    Short answer to the writer's question; guns have been demonized. Guns are so bad that military personnel aren't to be trusted with them except on the range & the battlefield. In fact, Hasan is innocent, the guns made him do it.

    It's utter lunacy that neither enlisted soldiers nor officers are permitted to carry on base. It should be a requirement.
     

    JetGirl

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 7, 2008
    18,774
    83
    N/E Corner
    Short answer to the writer's question; guns have been demonized. Guns are so bad that military personnel aren't to be trusted with them except on the range & the battlefield. In fact, Hasan is innocent, the guns made him do it.

    It's utter lunacy that neither enlisted soldiers nor officers are permitted to carry on base. It should be a requirement.

    Repped:yesway:
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    J. Neil Schulman has a piece on the Ft. Hood event. What this really points up is that a Bill Clinton anti-gun rule, (kept in place by Bush) resulted in the deaths and wounding of too many people there. Once again, politician inspired and supported gun control killed the innocent, along with the actions of a turncoat madman.
    From J. Neil Schulman

    More at the source.

    Prohibition of the carrying of arms on base, on or off duty, and no-one carrying arms except police and security guards in the performance of their duty) predates Clinton. There was such a rule in place when I was in during the Reagan years.
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    The Clinton regs changed the previous laws, as the .pdf in the article shows. Here's the relevant summary of changes from the .pdf, the exact language and changes are in the document, the relevant regs are posted online.
    AR 190–14 Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties
    This revision--
    o Implements applicable portions of Department of Defense Directive 5210.56.
    o Clearly establishes minimum qualification requirements for military police and Department of the Army law enforcement and security personnel (para 2-3).
    o Expands authorization documentation options for authorizing officials (para 2-4).
    o Limits and controls the carrying of firearms by Department of the Army military and civilian personnel (para 2-6).
    o Prohibits the carrying of non-Government owned or issued weapons or ammunition (para 2-6).
    o Prohibits carrying of firearms by persons taking prescription drugs or other medication that may cause drowsiness or impair reaction or judgment (para 2- 7).
    o Prohibits consumption of alcohol within 8 hours of carrying firearm or flying in aircraft (paras 2-7 and 4-3).
    o Requires the use of deadly force with firearms be applied equally to personnel using a weapon or equipment which, when properly employed in their intended application, would exert deadly force (para 3-2).
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    The Clinton regs changed the previous laws, as the .pdf in the article shows. Here's the relevant summary of changes from the .pdf, the exact language and changes are in the document, the relevant regs are posted online.

    Yep, it is important to give credit where credit is due.

    Clinton's gun control.
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    The Clinton regs changed the previous laws, as the .pdf in the article shows. Here's the relevant summary of changes from the .pdf, the exact language and changes are in the document, the relevant regs are posted online.

    It says certain areas that the regulations were changed. It does not say the extent of those changes. We'd need to see the previous reg to know that.

    The making of military bases, from the standpoint of personal protection, "gun free zones" long predated Clinton.

    As I said, the basics of it: for someone not involved in a task that directly called for carrying a gun (military police and security guards mainly when/where I was), then one didn't carry an issued weapon. And, on base, one was required to have any personal weapons locked up in the armory except when taking it out to go shooting off base. Whatever revisions happened during the Clinton administration, the core that made something like Ft. Hood possible was in place as far back as the Reagan administration and I suspect it was the case well before that as well.

    Rambone said "credit where credit is due." Well, the flip side of that is "fair is fair" and you can't really lay this one at Clinton's feet.
     

    Fletch

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 19, 2008
    6,379
    48
    Oklahoma
    It says certain areas that the regulations were changed. It does not say the extent of those changes. We'd need to see the previous reg to know that.

    The making of military bases, from the standpoint of personal protection, "gun free zones" long predated Clinton.

    As I said, the basics of it: for someone not involved in a task that directly called for carrying a gun (military police and security guards mainly when/where I was), then one didn't carry an issued weapon. And, on base, one was required to have any personal weapons locked up in the armory except when taking it out to go shooting off base. Whatever revisions happened during the Clinton administration, the core that made something like Ft. Hood possible was in place as far back as the Reagan administration and I suspect it was the case well before that as well.

    Rambone said "credit where credit is due." Well, the flip side of that is "fair is fair" and you can't really lay this one at Clinton's feet.

    Realizing of course that the source should probably be taken with a grain of salt, it seems to me that in Richard Marcinko's book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-Warrior-Richard-Marcinko/dp/0671795937"]Rogue Warrior[/ame], he mentioned not being allowed to carry locked 'n loaded in Beirut during the early/mid 1980's when the place was a powder keg. This would corroborate what you're saying.

    Thinking back on history, I wonder if the gun prohibition mindset might have started after the Kent State shooting, as far as the military was concerned. Of course, that happened about 5 months before I was born, so I obviously can't do more than speculate. According to Wikipedia, it did change the National Guard's SOP for crowd control, but nothing is said about overall weapons policy.

    My father was in the Marines in the early 1960's. I suppose I could always ask him if there were similar rules in effect while he was in, but I'm sure there's folks here who were in at the same time who could give the answer just as easily.
     

    XMil

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 20, 2009
    1,521
    63
    Columbus
    Considering the history on this guy and his continued problems it really surprises me that he made it past 2nd Lt. The question I want answered is how he made it to major and why. There are lots of hard working, deserving young officers out there. Why promote this ....person?

    It was automatic. Doctors start as Captains, and get Major if the are specialists.
     

    jedi

    Da PinkFather
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    51   0   0
    Oct 27, 2008
    37,669
    113
    NWI, North of US-30
    <Evil Jedi Typing here>

    Okay so lets allow all soldiers on base to carry their issued sidearms & ARs loaded while on base. Do we have "enough" firearms for all of them? Probably not since some billets don't need a firearm (eg. cooks, doctors, PC techs, mechanics, etc..).

    But lets skip over that one and say we do have enough 1911 and ARs for everyone along with the ammo for them. Now at lunch time on Ft. Hood (I have been there before) the soldiers are allowed to go off base to eat (if they want) granted their is plenty of stuff on base as well.

    So what are they to do with their firearms? They **CANNOT** take those firearms off the base you know. Or else ya will be screaming and yelling that we move have mil personnel on US soil with firearms and that the poss comu (??sp??) is being violated!
    =)

    So do we have them leave them at the guard shack before they leave? The armory? The barracks? Logistics is going to be a nightmare on that one.

    Just for food for though playing devil's advocate.
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    <Evil Jedi Typing here>

    Okay so lets allow all soldiers on base to carry their issued sidearms & ARs loaded while on base. Do we have "enough" firearms for all of them? Probably not since some billets don't need a firearm (eg. cooks, doctors, PC techs, mechanics, etc..).

    Fixable. There are about 1.4 million people in the combined active duty military, guard and reserve. Buying an M-16, M-4, or M9 (Don't like it, but that is the current standard duty pistol) would be between $1,000 and $2000 each. Let's go with the high end so that makes it about $3 billion to buy brand new firearms for everybody. The total military budget is about $515 billion. That makes the necessary outlay about 0.6% of the total budget.

    Oh, I'd also add something like $4-6 billion or so to the training budget. That would buy enough ammo for everyone in the military to have range practice to the tune of about 100 rounds per week.

    Goal:
    Foreign warlord: "How many do you have stationed here?"
    US Col: "About 10,000"
    FW: "What would you do if I sent 20,000 heavily armed troops against your base?"
    USC: "Shoot twice and go back to bed."

    As for buying the weapons, I'd make that an ongoing operating cost and let honorably discharged vets keep their weapons, but that goes quite a bit beyond the idea of having bases no longer be "gun-free zones."

    But lets skip over that one and say we do have enough 1911 and ARs for everyone along with the ammo for them. Now at lunch time on Ft. Hood (I have been there before) the soldiers are allowed to go off base to eat (if they want) granted their is plenty of stuff on base as well.

    So what are they to do with their firearms? They **CANNOT** take those firearms off the base you know. Or else ya will be screaming and yelling that we move have mil personnel on US soil with firearms and that the poss comu (??sp??) is being violated!
    =)
    This would require an act of Congress. Since Posse Commitatus is also an act of Congress (not a Constitutional provision as some people think), there would be no conflict. In fact, their already isn't since they are not acting in a law enforcement capacity--just in the same capacity that any military individual, who happens to have a carry license good in the State in which he or she is stationed, would be in if carrying while off duty.

    As for screaming: let them scream.

    So do we have them leave them at the guard shack before they leave? The armory? The barracks? Logistics is going to be a nightmare on that one.
    Pass an article in the UCMJ (which is law, passed by Congress, and signed by the President) which simply requires that all military personnel be armed at all times. Period.

    Make that provision part of any Status of Forces agreement about US military personnel stationed overseas.

    People will scream, but if you really want to hear screaming, tell them "fine. You don't want armed servicemembers in your area? Okay. We'll take them away along with the military contracts that pay out to your local economy, the military paychecks spent in your restaurants, bars, hotels, and other establishments, and we'll just mothball the base and move them to someplace more amenable."

    Just for food for though playing devil's advocate.
     
    Top Bottom