• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP Introduces Bill To End Liberal Gun Free Zones On Military Bases.

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As history has shown us, every time the U.S. military is used for liberal social engineering experimentations, soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen and even civilians bleed and die.

GOP bill allows guns on military bases

>" The bill is a response to this month's shooting spree on a Washington, D.C., naval base that left 13 dead.

House Republicans on Thursday introduced legislation that would end the ban on carrying firearms on military bases in response to this month's shooting spree on a Washington, D.C., naval base that left 13 dead, including the shooter.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) proposed the Safe Military Bases Act, H.R. 3199, along with six other House Republicans. Stockman said the bill would reverse the Clinton-era gun policy that he said has led to two mass shootings on bases.

"Our disarmed military bases are vulnerable targets for terrorists, as we saw in Fort Hood and the Navy Yard," Stockman said Thursday. "Despite that, soldiers trained to use guns cannot carry on base.



"The result is two mass killings where defenseless soldiers had to watch as their friends were murdered."..."<

Read more: GOP bill allows guns on military bases - The Hill's RegWatch

Opinion:

>"Bill Clinton, whom told us he loathed the military, and whose administration treated the military like they were valet parking monkeys, pushed for and got a law that disarmed everyone on U.S. military facilities. Considering how the left looked down on the military at that time, I can see how these morons were scared of troops with weapons, and thought themselves pretty clever disarming them all. The media did a great job of keeping this piece of information away from people when Nidal Hassan killed innocents in his Jihad, then managed to bury that story completely. Fast forward to the Navy yard attack, and suddenly everyone is wondering how it could be that even the guards on base were unarmed. The base marines in addition to being told to stand down, couldn’t have responded anyway, since they had weapons and no ammo. It smacks of stupid on a level that should make everyone but the gun grabbers get whiplash. Gun-free zones have the same effect on deranged mass murderers as a Chinese buffet has on a 400lbs hungry hulk with a massive eating disorder.
So I am glad to see that some good will finally come out of this tragedy.


Service members and federal civilians could carry personal firearms on military bases under a bill introduced Thursday by Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, that would reverse a 20-year-old policy on firearms.
“Why are civilians at a restaurant allowed to defend themselves but soldiers trained in firearms aren’t?” Stockman said. “Why can’t we extend common-sense gun laws like open carry to our soldiers?”
The Safe Military Bases Act, HR 3199, is Stockman’s response to the Sept. 16 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard and is similar to legislation introduced after the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.
Stockman said mass shootings could be stopped if people on base carried their own guns.


Seriously, if we can not trust the people we let into the military with firearms, we have big problems. Then again, this administration has made no bones of their belief that the more immediate terrorist threat in America isn’t Islamofascists, but ex-military people with a grudge against our abusive nanny state, so I can see them not wanting to let the military carry weapons."<


About time they reversed that stupid Clinton era law preventing military personel from being armed » Right Thinking
 
We can't trust the military unless they are doing what we tell them too. ?? Wait. What?
 
We can't trust the military unless they are doing what we tell them too. ?? Wait. What?

It a dead giveaway that President Obama and his administration doesn't trust the military. If a member of the military whose Commander in Chief who they serve under doesn't trust them, how much respect do you think they have for Obama ? Not much. Obama has the lowest approval rating from the troops as their Cn'C than any other President in history.

Last January the Marines from the Marine Barracks at 8th & I who marched in Obama's second inauguration parade were ordered to remove the bolts from their rifles because Obama was scared of the Marines having rifles that could shoot.

inaugation-marines-missing-bolts.jpg

President Obama Dissed our Marines during his inaugural parade

Marines had to take the bolts out of their rifles for the Inaugural.
RIGHT SPEAK: President Obama Dissed our Marines during his inaugural parade

Now the scuttlebutt is, that when the shooting was taking place at the Washington Navy Yard, the Marines didn't have any ammunition for their rifles !
 
It's about time. The rules for owning a personal firearm on base is so dumb
 
It's about time. The rules for owning a personal firearm on base is so dumb

Especially stupid, since Soldiers who are married, and living in on-post housing can have a firearm in their domicile, but it's a huge no-go for any Soldiers who are quartered in the barracks. I mean, they trust us with a belt fed machine guns, grenade launchers, burst fire rifles, pistols, etc, outside of the barracks, but god forbid a Soldier have a pistol in their room. You'll get an Article 15 for that, and it'll be locked up in the arms room to rust until you either PCS or ETS.
 
Liberals will be against this, and it will prove that gun safety programs are enough for them......as they sometimes say should be required for gun ownership. Who gets more gun safety and training than military personnel?
 
Liberals will be against this, and it will prove that gun safety programs are enough for them......as they sometimes say should be required for gun ownership. Who gets more gun safety and training than military personnel?

Nobody, and that's how you know their claims that these "safety programs" should be required for public safety are just another lie meant to infringe further upon Second Amendment Rights. It makes absolutely no sense for military personnel to be disarmed in a military base. A military base for us is a military target for hostile personnel at any time, whether during a time of war or not. If the enemy rears its head on post, and starts ****, we don't need to have to wait for the MP's or on-post security (which is a joke in and of itself), we need the personnel already present to be armed so they can neutralize the threat the moment it shows itself. LEOSA allows police officers, active or retired, to carry concealed regardless of jurisdiction or state laws. Why not extend that to military personnel and veterans? Are we somehow less qualified to respond to acts of terrorism and violence?
 
Nobody, and that's how you know their claims that these "safety programs" should be required for public safety are just another lie meant to infringe further upon Second Amendment Rights. It makes absolutely no sense for military personnel to be disarmed in a military base. A military base for us is a military target for hostile personnel at any time, whether during a time of war or not. If the enemy rears its head on post, and starts ****, we don't need to have to wait for the MP's or on-post security (which is a joke in and of itself), we need the personnel already present to be armed so they can neutralize the threat the moment it shows itself. LEOSA allows police officers, active or retired, to carry concealed regardless of jurisdiction or state laws. Why not extend that to military personnel and veterans? Are we somehow less qualified to respond to acts of terrorism and violence?

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to all free Americans, not just to those in the employ of the government. There is no justification for allowing police officers or members of the military any more privilege in this regard than the American public to whom they are supposed to be servants.
 
The right to keep and bear arms belongs to all free Americans, not just to those in the employ of the government. There is no justification for allowing police officers or members of the military any more privilege in this regard than the American public to whom they are supposed to be servants.

Yeah, but the thread is about the military, did you forget?
 
Why is that?

Bringing weapons into work just creates an extra hassle to secure them while people do their work, either they would be secured in the arms room which you should know is nothing anyone likes to deal with, or if kept on their person its just an extra thing that serves no purpose for your daily work. Plus there's the possibility of theft, lost weapons, etc. There's a reason why the military secures your assigned weapon in an arms room, and doesn't just issue it to you along with your clothes.

Of course I'm talking back in garrison.
 
Bringing weapons into work just creates an extra hassle to secure them while people do their work, either they would be secured in the arms room which you should know is nothing anyone likes to deal with, or if kept on their person its just an extra thing that serves no purpose for your daily work. Plus there's the possibility of theft, lost weapons, etc. There's a reason why the military secures your assigned weapon in an arms room, and doesn't just issue it to you along with your clothes.

Of course I'm talking back in garrison.

I pretty much agree with that. Unless you are on actual guard duty a weapon is really unnecessary in garrison peace time situations.
 
Those who attend a NRA hunter safety course.

Or an Appleseed shoot. We regularly have military and LEOs attend and invariably they learn something. I've seen several who failed to qualify on their first time out (Not unusual, it took me 3) but came back and did it. We have shoot bosses who are invited on to military bases to teach. I am an Appleseed instructor, I don't even allow rifles to come to the line until we have established the safety rules and everybody can parrot them back to me.
 
As history has shown us, every time the U.S. military is used for liberal social engineering experimentations, soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen and even civilians bleed and die.

GOP bill allows guns on military bases

>" The bill is a response to this month's shooting spree on a Washington, D.C., naval base that left 13 dead.

House Republicans on Thursday introduced legislation that would end the ban on carrying firearms on military bases in response to this month's shooting spree on a Washington, D.C., naval base that left 13 dead, including the shooter.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) proposed the Safe Military Bases Act, H.R. 3199, along with six other House Republicans. Stockman said the bill would reverse the Clinton-era gun policy that he said has led to two mass shootings on bases.

"Our disarmed military bases are vulnerable targets for terrorists, as we saw in Fort Hood and the Navy Yard," Stockman said Thursday. "Despite that, soldiers trained to use guns cannot carry on base.



"The result is two mass killings where defenseless soldiers had to watch as their friends were murdered."..."<

Read more: GOP bill allows guns on military bases - The Hill's RegWatch

Opinion:

>"Bill Clinton, whom told us he loathed the military, and whose administration treated the military like they were valet parking monkeys, pushed for and got a law that disarmed everyone on U.S. military facilities. Considering how the left looked down on the military at that time, I can see how these morons were scared of troops with weapons, and thought themselves pretty clever disarming them all. The media did a great job of keeping this piece of information away from people when Nidal Hassan killed innocents in his Jihad, then managed to bury that story completely. Fast forward to the Navy yard attack, and suddenly everyone is wondering how it could be that even the guards on base were unarmed. The base marines in addition to being told to stand down, couldn’t have responded anyway, since they had weapons and no ammo. It smacks of stupid on a level that should make everyone but the gun grabbers get whiplash. Gun-free zones have the same effect on deranged mass murderers as a Chinese buffet has on a 400lbs hungry hulk with a massive eating disorder.
So I am glad to see that some good will finally come out of this tragedy.


Service members and federal civilians could carry personal firearms on military bases under a bill introduced Thursday by Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, that would reverse a 20-year-old policy on firearms.
“Why are civilians at a restaurant allowed to defend themselves but soldiers trained in firearms aren’t?” Stockman said. “Why can’t we extend common-sense gun laws like open carry to our soldiers?”
The Safe Military Bases Act, HR 3199, is Stockman’s response to the Sept. 16 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard and is similar to legislation introduced after the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.
Stockman said mass shootings could be stopped if people on base carried their own guns.


Seriously, if we can not trust the people we let into the military with firearms, we have big problems. Then again, this administration has made no bones of their belief that the more immediate terrorist threat in America isn’t Islamofascists, but ex-military people with a grudge against our abusive nanny state, so I can see them not wanting to let the military carry weapons."<


About time they reversed that stupid Clinton era law preventing military personel from being armed » Right Thinking

It seems like a good idea to me. I can't imagine why a military base would be a gun free zone in the first place. I would think that if anywhere in the country was going to allow the carrying of a firearm, it would be on a military base.
 
Those who attend a NRA hunter safety course.

While that maybe true it doesn't make the case for military personnel armed on military installations.
 
Enjoy

FYI


http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_14.pdf


Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties

SUMMARY of CHANGE
AR 190–14
Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties
This revision--
Implements applicable portions of Department of Defense Directive 5210.56.

These directives are in regard to law enforcement on military installations.

Two of the links are dated when Clinton was POTUS.

Not sure exactly when they started turning over military LE to civilians, late 80's or early 90's but the military had no problem of policing itself and providing gate, perimeter and interior security for almost 200 years. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

The current administration (Obama) has been pushing the expansion of having more civilians policing the military which seems to have more to do that Obama and the left don't trust provost marshals, MP's, shore patrol, master at arms and soldiers and Marines standing post.

What Obama has done was by pass Congress and paying for these civilian LE is taken right out of the military LE budget that was appropriated by Congress. Military LE has to make cuts to make up for the money being spent on civilian LE on the bases.

But the directives you provided have nothing to do with gun free zones that were established on military installations by Congress during the Clinton administration. These gun free zones also include military housing where you are forbidden from keeping your own personal firearms with in your home including personal defense weapons to protect your spouse and children and even your hunting rifle or that single shot .22 rifle that you use for plinking.

It's been awhile since I served. But when I unfortunately would be stuck as the battalion or company Duty NCO I carried a .45 with two loaded magazines. Add that with the area interior guard (OD, Sergeant of the Guard and all of those Marines who were stuck on guard duty) there were enough armed Marines to respond to any incident with in minutes any where in our area cantonment.

But with the free gun zones of today, I wouldn't be allowed to eat at the NCO club or stop by the PX to buy a pack of smokes while on duty and under arms.

During the era it was common that company CO's, XO's, the Top Kick and company Gunny to keep a .45 in their desk. There were times when I rated a pistol I kept my .45 in my locker at times.
 
These directives are in regard to law enforcement on military installations.
Two of the links are dated when Clinton was POTUS.
There are only two documents there.
One document is what is cited when tying the policy to Clinton--Army Regulation 190-14. The second document is what the first document cites--DOD Directive 5210.56.
Directive 5210.56 was published February 25, 1992. So, it is technically from the "Clinton Era" as the article in the OP describes it, but it wasn't actually during Clinton's presidency.

But the directives you provided have nothing to do with gun free zones that were established on military installations by Congress during the Clinton administration.
Please cite these DOD directives which Congress established.
 
There are only two documents there.
One document is what is cited when tying the policy to Clinton--Army Regulation 190-14. The second document is what the first document cites--DOD Directive 5210.56.
Directive 5210.56 was published February 25, 1992. So, it is technically from the "Clinton Era" as the article in the OP describes it, but it wasn't actually during Clinton's presidency.

Please cite these DOD directives which Congress established.

I have to stand corrected about Congress being involved with the military gun free zones. I was going from a N.Y. Times article. What would they know about guns or the military ? It seems you posted the correct directive, Regulation 190-14, issued on March 12, 1993 which would mean it wasn't Congress but either the Sec.of Def. or the Sec. of the Army who represents the President.

Reading the regulations it seems it would have disarmed me as Duty NCO. back during the day when the military was trusted. It may have resulted with soldiers and Marines issued rifles being locked up in rifle racks.

Back in the "Old Corps" a Marine had access to his rifle 24/7. It was not uncommon for some Marine on Sunday morning who didn't go on liberty to take his rifle from the rifle rack and go some place and clean it. Even remember a corporal who took his M-14 one Saturday morning and drove out to the desert and went rabbit hunting. He got caught and stood before the man.

Here is an excerpt of the bill now in Congress that would repeal all of these anti gun, free gun zones with a link to the entire bill. You may notice the bill mentions Executive Orders. Do you think when the Marines were ordered to remove their bolts from their rifles on Obama's second inauguration, was it a direct order from Obama since the Secret Service has no authority to issue such an order and aren't even in the military chain of command ?

>"(c) Repeal of Laws and Regulations Disarming Firearms-Trained
Military Personnel.--
(1) Repeal.--Effective on the date of the enactment of this
Act--
(A) Army Regulation 190-14, issued on March 12,
1993, is repealed; and
(B) Department of Defense Directive Number 5210.56,
issued on November 1, 2001, as modified on January 24,
2002, and by any subsequent modification, is repealed.
(2) Effect of other firearm bans.--Effective on the date of
the enactment of this Act, any provision in any other law,
rule, regulation, or Executive order that prohibits military
personnel trained in firearms from carrying officially issued
or personally owned firearms on military bases shall have no
force or effect with regard to such military personnel, and
such military personnel shall not be prohibited from carrying
officially issued or personally owned firearms on military
bases. This paragraph includes the relevant provisions in
section 1585 of title 10, United States Code (relating to
carrying of firearms), section 922 of title 18, United States
Code (relating to unlawful acts), and part 108.11 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations (relating to carriage of weapons).
(d) Prohibition on Military Personnel Gun Bans.--
(1) Department of defense.--The Secretary of Defense and
the Secretaries of the military departments shall not reinstate
the firearm bans referred to in subsection (c) or enact similar
restrictions prohibiting or restricting military personnel from
carrying firearms.
(2) President.--The President shall not take any executive
action or promulgate any rule or issue any Executive order or
regulation to prohibit military personnel from carrying
firearms.
(e) Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, a report describing the actions taken to ensure compliance
with this section. "<

RCP Congressional Bill Tracker - H.R. 3199 (version: ih) - Full Text
 
As history has shown us, every time the U.S. military is used for liberal social engineering experimentations, soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen and even civilians bleed and die.

GOP bill allows guns on military bases

>" The bill is a response to this month's shooting spree on a Washington, D.C., naval base that left 13 dead.

House Republicans on Thursday introduced legislation that would end the ban on carrying firearms on military bases in response to this month's shooting spree on a Washington, D.C., naval base that left 13 dead, including the shooter.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) proposed the Safe Military Bases Act, H.R. 3199, along with six other House Republicans. Stockman said the bill would reverse the Clinton-era gun policy that he said has led to two mass shootings on bases.

"Our disarmed military bases are vulnerable targets for terrorists, as we saw in Fort Hood and the Navy Yard," Stockman said Thursday. "Despite that, soldiers trained to use guns cannot carry on base.



"The result is two mass killings where defenseless soldiers had to watch as their friends were murdered."..."<

Read more: GOP bill allows guns on military bases - The Hill's RegWatch

Opinion:

>"Bill Clinton, whom told us he loathed the military, and whose administration treated the military like they were valet parking monkeys, pushed for and got a law that disarmed everyone on U.S. military facilities. Considering how the left looked down on the military at that time, I can see how these morons were scared of troops with weapons, and thought themselves pretty clever disarming them all. The media did a great job of keeping this piece of information away from people when Nidal Hassan killed innocents in his Jihad, then managed to bury that story completely. Fast forward to the Navy yard attack, and suddenly everyone is wondering how it could be that even the guards on base were unarmed. The base marines in addition to being told to stand down, couldn’t have responded anyway, since they had weapons and no ammo. It smacks of stupid on a level that should make everyone but the gun grabbers get whiplash. Gun-free zones have the same effect on deranged mass murderers as a Chinese buffet has on a 400lbs hungry hulk with a massive eating disorder.
So I am glad to see that some good will finally come out of this tragedy.


Service members and federal civilians could carry personal firearms on military bases under a bill introduced Thursday by Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, that would reverse a 20-year-old policy on firearms.
“Why are civilians at a restaurant allowed to defend themselves but soldiers trained in firearms aren’t?” Stockman said. “Why can’t we extend common-sense gun laws like open carry to our soldiers?”
The Safe Military Bases Act, HR 3199, is Stockman’s response to the Sept. 16 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard and is similar to legislation introduced after the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.
Stockman said mass shootings could be stopped if people on base carried their own guns.


Seriously, if we can not trust the people we let into the military with firearms, we have big problems. Then again, this administration has made no bones of their belief that the more immediate terrorist threat in America isn’t Islamofascists, but ex-military people with a grudge against our abusive nanny state, so I can see them not wanting to let the military carry weapons."<


About time they reversed that stupid Clinton era law preventing military personel from being armed » Right Thinking

The 2nd Amendment applies only to the People, not the govt. or its military or its police forces.
 
The 2nd Amendment applies only to the People, not the govt. or its military or its police forces.

damn I agree with that. well said though technically the second amendment only RESTRICTS the government. The peoples' right pre-exists the constitution and the BOR
 
Back
Top Bottom