Quantcast

Why are American Military Bases “Gun Free Zones”?

Screen Shot 2013-09-18 at 3.25.16 PM

Gun Fress Zones are to crazed killers what a desert oasis is to a dehydrated human.
Those zones are a saturation of relief for whatever is mentally ailing the assailant.

It’s bad enough that so many private businesses in this country have those ridiculous “Guns Prohibited” signs on their doors and expect patrons to frequent their establishment without the ability to defend life.
What is even more unconscionable is the fact that these “gun free zones” have made their way to our Military bases leaving United States Soldiers disarmed.

It hasn’t always been this way… where the only people on bases who could cary firearms were Military Police.

According to a Washington Times editorial written days after the Nov. 5, 2009 attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, one of Clinton’s “first acts upon taking office… was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.”
Breightbart shared that story yesterday…
According to The Blaze, it happened under the Bush administration.

Regardless of who is to blame, it seems so wrong to forbid military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and make it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.”

In other words, citizens who join the military to use guns to defend liberty abroad cannot practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms while on active duty at home.

As the Times editorial board put it: “terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood.”

The same theme ran true at the Navy Yard in DC on September 16. Police were called after the shooter opened fired, and reports indicate it took approximately three to seven minutes for them to arrive.
Each minute is an is like an hour when a crazed killer with a weapon decides the “gun free zone” rules do not apply to him.
Statistics have also proven that fewer people die in a mass shooting when law abiding citizens who conceal carry are on the scene.
So… lets take a look at this latest shooting and the effectiveness of gun free zones and anti-gun regulations

Although we don’t know all the details, we can make several observations:
* First, once again, the shooting occurred in a gun-free zone, filled with ID checks and metal detectors that everyone erroneously assumed would save them.
* Second, the shooting occurred in a jurisdiction, Washington D.C., which has been rabid in its efforts to take guns away from its own citizens — and to make it illegal for Washingtonians to defend themselves.
*Third, lest there be any question, Congress has banned the possession of any “firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility” [18 USC, Sec. 930]. Hence, they all but advertised to Alexis, that, with the exception of security, everyone in the Naval facility would be sitting ducks.
In sum, the shooting occurred in a jurisdiction where the firearm was illegal and in a building where firearms are illegal. Other than banning firearms nationally, how many more illegalities do anti-gunners intend to pile on?
Banning guns and imposing background checks won’t stop these creeps, but armed good guys will.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • bart e walker

    And this is another reason to let the military be the military and carry always. we could be attacked today, and it would take the military hours to get the people that need the guns their weapons…. fyi crazy people can get guns from anywhere in the world….

  • tommyboy

    I’ll never vote democrat again, never. I’ve had it with them.

    • vernabc

      Like you ever voted Democrat…

  • randyt

    I vote primarily Rep, but both parties are corrupt. Look this up “So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush.

  • randyt

    I DO THINK GUNS SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON ALL MILITARY BASES, even considering my pervious post.

  • jokersbackdoor

    JUST Wanted you to know it was President Clinton who made Military Bases Gun Free Zones! Check Your History. It only became law right after President Bush was sworn in. Thank You/

    • G Beard

      A friend of mine was in the USAF in the early 60’s. I was in the Army Security Agency attached to an infantry unit in 1970 & 1971 where security was a must. Neither of us were allowed to have our weapons or ammo except on the firing range. One time I sneaked some blanks into my locker, but that was considered contraband and I would have been disciplined had I been caught. Bottom line, NO weapons allowed back then either.

      • David in Dallas

        However, back then it was up to the individual facility Commander to make that policy decision–it was not a blanket policy enforced from the top. Many facilities did allow personnel to have weapons immediately available (and ammunition for them). Army posts during WWII had the rifles stacked between the rows of bunks in the barracks. As an officer on Mt. Hebo AFS, Oregon in the 1960s, I was permitted to have my personal weapons accessible to me; others did have them checked in at the AP office, but once they checked them out no one followed them around to see what they did with them. (Of course, they were expected to be checked back in within a reasonable time.)

    • vernabc

      You are wrong (and you are citing the wrong Bush). Check your history.

  • David in Dallas

    When I was in the military, Army troops had their issued rifles in the barracks building with them; they often carried them from place to place on post. I was USAF and we didn’t operate that way (heck, most of the troops had little to no training in small arms, which I always thought was criminal–all military folks needed to be capable with SA). As an officer, I was supposed to be qualified with a pistol, but circumstances were such that it took me 5 years to be certified capable. I was not happy with that. (Several remote assignments and few opportunities to travel for training.) I realize that the recent tragedy involved mostly civilians and that they would not have issued firearms; however, I suspect some of them could have had CHLs (although DC laws would not have allowed them to carry). The Fort Hood situation was different: those killed were soldiers, who did have assigned weapons, and I’m positive many of them also had CHLs and personal sidearms. It is well established that “Gun-free Zones” just do not work–the only folks who don’t have guns are those to be killed. The time has come (and long past) when GFZ should be done away with.

    • vernabc

      So you are suggesting that students also be allowed to carry guns at school? Look, the argument that the NRA came up with after Sandy Hook, is that we needed armed guards in the school. Well, guess what? There were armed guards at both Ft. Hood and Washington Naval Yard, and that did not stop the shooter. So now you are suggesting that everyone be armed (so I ask you again, are you suggesting that we are the students as well?). Military installations are not “gun-free zones, any more than the Capital or White House are gun-free zones. How about trying to place the blame where it belongs, and that is with the shooter. And maybe we need to take a look at how this person was ever allowed a security clearance.

      • David in Dallas

        If the students are of age and meet the state requirements for carry, yes, I do think they should be allowed to carry guns at school. For schools where the students are obviously not old enough to carry, then there should be a number of adults present who are carrying (and trained).
        A “Gun-free Zone” is any place where people congregate and are not permitted to carry arms to defend themselves. It matters not whether there are armed guards at the gates of military establishments–if they are not actually present inside where the workers are, and those workers are forced to be unarmed, then that is a “Gun-free Zone”. I do place the blame on the shooter, and agree that he should not have had access to that facility (access to Classified material is a different matter and is what a Security Clearance normally focuses on, not physical access–I’m pretty sure that most of the cleaning help don’t have Top Secret clearances, for example).

        • vernabc

          By you definition of a gun free zone, then I would have to say that 99% of places that people congregate are gun free zones, are they not? But this is more of a local and state issue at this point. My point was, regardless of whether or not you consider a military installation a gun free zone (I stated earlier that I consider a military base a gun free zone in the same manner I would consider the Capital or the White House a gun free zone), I would not call a military installation a soft target, as others have suggested.

          Now regarding you statement about allowing students to carry guns in school, if they are of age and meet requirements, are you at all taking into consideration that there would be many other students also in that school who are not of age or do not meet the requirements. And by allowing some of the students to carry weapons is school, have you not now allowed for an unarmed “crazy person” to enter a school (and get through all forms of security because he is unarmed) and gain his weapons from the weapons that are now in the school..?

          • David in Dallas

            First of all, it may well be that where you are situated most places where crowds congregate would meet my GFZ definition. That is not germane to the issue, for, IMHO, many of those places should NOT be in that category. Concerning carry at school by those of age, if the guns are being carried, then crazy persons would have trouble getting hold of them. If the school is not a GFZ, why would there be security checkpoints, anyway? The whole issue regarding GFZs is that no one in the targeted area has a gun with which to defend themselves and/or disable the crazy person wanting to kill people. Allowing carry does not increase the possibility of a crazy person (or one with an agenda) from entering with a weapon and attempting to harm/kill people–obviously it happens now–what it DOES do is make it possible that some one in the area will take him out before the carnage gets too high. Inside a GFZ (where the law-abiding have surrendered their right to self-protection), there is usually NO ONE present with the ability to stop him. Multiple murders happen only inside GFZs (how many police stations or gun ranges have had them?) which indicates that the crazy people are not stupid–they go where they know their chances of achieving their goals are good and avoid those where they might be stopped. I think we should increase the number of those places (non GFZs).

          • vernabc

            “If the school is not a GFZ, why would there be security checkpoints, anyway?”

            What? We are talking about a school… Every school has some level of security. So you think by arming students, then we no longer need security??? Sorry, but I do not want my children going to your school.

            “The whole issue regarding GFZs is that no one in the targeted area has a gun with which to defend themselves and/or disable the crazy person wanting to kill people.”

            That is not necessarily true. As in the most recent shooting. In fact, the shooter was able to obtain additional weapon/s from person/s that were armed at the scene. In the GFZ that I am referring to, there are armed guards there, so unless you are suggesting doing away with GFZ by arming every single person…? I guess I am not sure where this all ends (well, I think we already know where this is all going to end… more and more shootings. It seems impossible to convince some that there might, in fact, be a correlation between introducing more guns into a society, and an increase in gun violence).

            “what it DOES do is make it possible that some one in the area will take him out before the carnage gets too high.”

            There is no proof of that. Yes, you can find stories where someone with a gun was able to stop an active shooter, but you can equally (and some might argue many more) find stories where there were others with guns and they were not able to stop the shooter, and worse, they either shot the wrong person/s, or their guns were used against other innocent people. And that was the point I was trying to make with regard to allowing students to carry guns in school. Having those guns already in a school, would allow a shooter to go to the school without actually having to own his own gun. The gun/s he is looking for would already be in the school. All he would have to do is to take a gun from one of the kids… And, it certainly would make it a lot easier for a person to get into the school, if he was not already carrying a gun. Again, I am not convinced that more guns is the answer.

            “Inside a GFZ (where the law-abiding have surrendered their right to self-protection), there is usually NO ONE present with the ability to stop him.”

            There will never be a perfect solution. But I can tell you this. We will always have GFZ (by your definition), and we will always have some people that choose not to carry a gun. We will also always have crazy people. But we have to do a better job of preventing crazy people from getting a gun/s. Introducing increasingly more guns into a society is suicidal. The problem is, if we could get rid of the hype, I think most people would come to realize that we all have more in common… Everyone wants gun violence to stop. For myself, as a gun owner, as is true with most things in life, I am willing to give up something to get something. But the idea that we need more people with guns is not the answer, and in reality, only makes guns more accessible to everyone, including the crazy people.

            “I think we should increase the number of those places..”
            So you want our society to look like a police station or a shooting rang??? Look, crazy people with guns are always going to find targets, again, unless you are suggesting that every single person carry a gun. We have lots of gun free zones that do not have shootings. When was the last shooting on an airplane? When was there a shooting at a major sporting event? And can you imagine what would happened at a Dallas Cowboys game if everyone was armed and a shot was fired??? We live in a free society. We will always have GFZ. We have to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

          • David in Dallas

            You are reading a lot more into my statements than I put there. I do not suggest that every person carry a gun. What I do suggest that that individuals be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to carry and where they be allowed to do so. It does not require that every person in an area be armed to take out a crazy with a gun (or bomb, for that matter)–just that there be some there able to do so.
            Regarding the taking of a gun from a guard that was killed–that is a failure in training and facility design. Yes, we should insist on better attention to those matters.
            Regarding keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, I agree that more needs to be done. However, doing so brings up the matter of “who should decide who is allowed to have them?” If anti-gun people are allowed to set the standards, their intent would be to say no one was fit. Anyone who ever had an adult beverage or tried Pot as a youth would be permanently denied; anyone who ever consulted a doctor about minor depression would likewise be denied. Anyone whose family or neighbors disliked him would be subject to false witness (if necessary) to deny possession or ability to carry. Whimpering sheep who tremble just at the sight of a gun would be able to deny carry just because it made them “uneasy”. There would be no end to it.
            The gist of the situation is this: crazy people or those with an agenda will always be able to obtain the weapon of choice. Heck, soon they’ll be able to just print them. Black Markets will always exist to satisfy those needing weapons. It will never be possible to prevent people “who should not have them” from obtaining them. With that in mind, the best we can do is make sure that they are thwarted in carrying out their sick agendas by ending their rampage on the spot. The chances of there being a guard or policeman instantly available to do that are very slim. You claim to be a gun owner. You don’t act like one.

          • vernabc

            “If anti-gun people are allowed to set the standards, their intent would be to say no one was fit. Anyone who ever had an adult beverage or tried Pot as a youth would be permanently denied; anyone who ever consulted a doctor about minor depression would likewise be denied. Anyone whose family or neighbors disliked him would be subject to false witness (if necessary) to deny possession or ability to carry. Whimpering sheep who tremble just at the sight of a gun would be able to deny carry just because it made them “uneasy”. There would be no end to it.”

            Hogwash. You are sounding paranoid. Start with a discission, and go from there. Right now, because of the current atmosphere of distrust (see your comments above), gun owners, and 2nd amendment nuts are all worked into a frenzy, and this is due, in large part, by the NRA, and they love it. The NRA knows that all Obama, or any government official has to do is mention anything about guns, and the NRA riles up their base, and gun sales shoot (no pun intended) through the roof. I would go as far as to say that the NRA loves that a Democrat is in office, look at the profits gun manufactures have made since Obama was elected. And at the same time, find me one piece of legislation that the Obama administration has passed (or even proposed) that would lead anyone to believe they were going for a gun grab or be contrary to the 2nd amendment. I mentioned earlier that we may all have more in common than we don’t, but after reading what you posted above, I am not so sure.

            “The gist of the situation is this: crazy people or those with an agenda will always be able to obtain the weapon of choice.”

            That statement is not supported in other countries that have strict gun control laws.

            “It will never be possible to prevent people “who should not have them” from obtaining them.”

            Again, that is certainly not supported by the countries that now have strict gun laws.

            “With that in mind, the best we can do is make sure that they are thwarted in carrying out their sick agendas by ending their rampage on the spot.”

            Or how about making it harder for them to have access to a gun in the first place. And as I have already pointed out, there is little evidence that supports your claim that more guns will prevent more gun violence (in fact the reverse is true).

            “You claim to be a gun owner. You don’t act like one.”
            Oh really??? So exactly how is a gun owner suppose to act??? Is it because I am not spouting NRA talking points? Is it because I think there has been gun restrictions/regulations in the country from the moment the 2nd amendment was ratified? Is it because I can rationally look at the number of guns that we now have in this country and equate that to every increasing gun violence in our country? Is it because I have to listen to stupid comments like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and yet the gun lobby has successfully lobbied to absolve all gun manufacturers of any responsibility of harm their product may have on our citizens? So a gun is just a tool? Just an object? Well what is the purpose of that tool/object? It is to kill. And if a gun is not the problem, then why don’t we let everyone have one? And I know that just making these statements, I will now be subjected to the wrath of your beloved gun owners… So I guess the fact that you don’t think I act like a gun owner is a compliment. Thank you.

          • David in Dallas

            Sometimes paranoia is justified.
            Russia, Chechnya, Kenya.
            The purpose of a gun is to stop–killing may result.
            We don’t let people carry knives on planes, either, so limiting weapons carriers is not limited to guns.
            I suffer no wrath in your direction. However, it is obvious that there can be no meeting of the minds here and I will stop responding to this thread.

          • vernabc

            And sometimes paranoia is paranoia.

  • KC

    The left would love to see all police stations and prisons “Gun Free Zones” for Christ Sake!

    • vernabc

      If you are going to take the time to comment, could you at least try to say something that is not complete nonsense…? “For Christ Sake!”

  • Robert S Moulds

    Their should be armed guards in military and naval bases to keep them secure from terrorist or crazed gun men. If their was one Aaron would have been shot and at least most of the lives lost would have been saved. As for Piers Morgan he should have been departed or the British government should have a warrant for his arrest for illegal phone hacking. Too bad it not treason for doctoring pictures endangering Anglo American forces in Iraq 2004 just to sell more newspapers naturally the daily mail fired him. He even called a Remington 870 shot gun an AR 15 rifle so CNN should fire him then have him deported. Piers is homophobic, racist and sexist on Donald Trump show the apprentice he fakes gay passes to Garth Brooks too bad Garth did not nail him. Piers gloated over his victory over a bitter Omerosa.

  • vernabc

    “In other words, citizens who join the military to use guns to defend liberty abroad cannot practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms while on active duty at home.”
    That is a lie. The DOD Directive that is mentioned, in no way affects a soldier’s (or civilian’s) constitutional right to own a gun. What it does state (per each base commander) is that they are not allowed to bring their guns on base.