The officer who responded deserves a medal of valor for her bravery and taking hits to stop the mainiac, and should be honored. But this brings up the question as to why did she have to be there on a Military Base full of soldiers? If they were armed this would have been a whole different story, no trial would be necessary. It makes no sense that these men and women will deploy to Iraq, Afganistan or wherever, but on their own base go unarmed. Armed forces??? Anybody have any idea why?

__________________
Craig

I have read two memoirs of American soldiers in Iraq. They have to be unarmed on the base even there, in a war zone, with a real possibility of insurgent attacks.

Soldiers have to put their lives on the line, but they cannot be trusted with firearms on their base.

It really baffles me.

I just read in a book by Jim Cirillo that for the management it is more important to avoid accidents that to provide proper tools of the trade for their subordinates. It is really, really sad that political correctness has taken us to this point.

Somewhere in my reading, I learned that an Imperial German soldier, at least before 1920, was liable for punishment if caught anywhere out of his barracks unarmed. They wanted the soldier to be always mindful that he was a warrior.

At least they were real cops. Too many "secure locations" in this country only have rent-a guards (like Wackenhut, etc.) providing security.

Unfortunately, our military is run by bean counters and politicians, not military leaders.

It makes absolutely no sense to me that highly trained military personnel are not allowed to be armed on post (at home, etc.).

Civilian cops and rent-a-cops are allowed to be armed 24 X 7 and are often far less prepared to do so.


Even if everyone on a base can't be armed for some reason I haven't thought of, then there should at least be more security echelons armed than currently are. Perhaps those who use are armed could be determined by a level of qualification (skill, training results, normal responsibilities of duty, etc.).

The current system just defies common sense.

Like many other terrible travesties levied upon us, the disarming of military personnel while at a US base can be laid squarely upon our good friend Jimmy Carter.

__________________
~ S&WCA No.2159 ~

You don't, by any chance, have a link to the EO or directive on this?

I do remember Clinton requiring the bolts be removed from parade rifles on several occasions when he was to be present.

[QUOTE=m1gunner;1172580]At least they were real cops. Too many "secure locations" in this country only have rent-a guards (like Wackenhut, etc.) providing security.QUOTE]


They were rent-a-cops at Ft. Hood. On the base that I work as a civilian we also have rent-a-cops for general security. All in all they are good people who do a good job. I don't know if they are better or worse than having military on the gates and patrol routes.

On the other hand we also have a USMC Security Force for certain parts of the base. They are not resposible for general security though. They just have a very specific job. They all take their jobs seriously, especially after what happened at Ft. Hood.

__________________
AL
Pax Per Potens

In the Concealed Carry Methods and Issues Forum there is a string, "No CC on military bases..", one of the board members cites an order issued by Slick Willie greatly restricting the carrying of small arms by AD personnel. As I noted in a couple of my responses the Army is really a very pantywaist organization when it comes to small arms proficiency, the gun buff is considered a "nut", the crack shot a potential psycho, the Expert Rifleman's badge sneered at-the "Bolo Badge". It is the clerk at the typewriter, the NCO with his clipboard and the officer who knows how to pencil whip the records and official reports who admired, respected-and promoted.

In Korea, in the early 50’s we were expected to be armed off post (checked out at the armory). On post only those on guard duty were armed and actually had ammunition. OD had a .45 with one loaded magazine, nothing up the spout.
In Japan, same time period, even those on guard duty were not armed. Gate MPs had .38s, but I think no ammunition. The OD had limited access to ammunition, but practically everyone was disarmed.

As near as I could ascertain the thinking was that someday, somewhere, someone, just might have an accident, which would require lots of paperwork and might be an impediment to some VIP’s career.

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus

Most military bases went to contract/DoD civilain police for law enforcement type duties, to free up military police/security forces for deployment. When I was in Iraq, 2004-2005, approximately 1 out of 3 troops were dedicated to base security; sometimes it was infantry troops, other times it was other combat troops, mostly artillery/ADA, crossed trained to do MP functions. MPs/SPs were assigned to convoy escort and detainee operations.
About being unarmed in Iraq, we had to carry a weapon 24/7, wherever we were. Inside the wire (on-base), we carried at least one fully loaded magazine for each weapon (M9 & M4). The magazines were not allowed to be locked into the weapon unless were we under attack (depending on where you were, that could happen daily), or as specified by the U code. U1 was normal uniform U2 required IBA and helmet to be worn during specified hours, U3 required IBA and helmet 24/7, U4 was all of the above plus loaded weapon. Whenever we went outside the wire, it was U4 plus loaded chamber.

Is an army base the perfect example of "where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"?
Ask the people of Ft. Hood.
clipper1

I was an Air Policeman (USAF) and when I went to Viet Nam, my AR15 was kept in my locker in my hut when not on duty, along with several loaded magazines as well. When we went to chow or the shower, or to the base movie, the weapons stayed in our huts, only coming out when we went on duty. We were allowed to drink beer and whiskey in our huts, and the weapons did not have to be locked up while doing so. No one ever took their weapon out while drinking and no one gave it a second thought that we kept our guns in our huts. I even had a hand grenade in my locker for several weeks before I decided I didn't need it and turned it in.

As much as I'd like to blame Jimmy Carter, military personnel have not been routinely armed, at least in my experience, on U.S. military bases for a very long time if ever! They certainly were not back in the 60's when I was in service except for Military Police and a few specialty situations. Except for periods when personnel were in the field or engaged in weapons training, I cannot remember any reason to be armed. I am surprised that most of the post security seems to have been taken away from Military Police and given to civilians. However, some posts, depots for example, have always had civilian guards rather than MP's.

Most general base security is contracted out. Military personnel are too expensive. Base security is considered a "tail" function and the Military has been pounded on for years by Congress to improve the tooth to tail ratio, regardless of what it did for safety, sea/shore rotation or quality of life. Part of this is trying to lower costs. Part of it is Wackenhut makes political contributions; the sailor at the gate usually doesn't.

The case in point....Fort Hood specifically....The civilian police that I might add went to the gunfire and stopped the slaughter,,,Who did they work for. The city, The Base, and what were their area of responsibilities.????Nobody seems to have said or indicated. They did every thing you can ask of any LEO no matter who they were employed by. But just who is the convening authority???Of course POTUS will choke before he calls the perpetrator a Muslim terrorist. We will wake up but will it be in time???Just curious about the authority of the brave officers that stood their ground while our warriors were relegated to throwing chairs and stuff trough no fault of theirs. We no longer use MPs for base law enforcement?????A new world not sure we are making much progress in this new PC world....Just a old coot Cop...USMC old Corps

21 years in the military.... the only time I was ever armed was for the occasional "qualification".

I hate to break the news but there are nuts in the service that have no reason to have a weapon.Just like anyother group of people.
Az'ol in Ft.Hood was one.I knew of others that scared the heck out of me.Not that they were muslem,they were just "touched".
Then there was the ones that just wern't confident or proficiant and I could never figure out how they made it in the service in the first place.
Remember it only takes one bad apple.
AGAIN I'm not making excuses for this idiot in Ft.Hood. He's another thing all together and I hope he rots in hell,with all his brothers.

D.G.

I find humorous that most of the ranters in this thread haven't served and simply don't know *** they're talking about. Soldiers on military posts are almost NEVER armed unless they are in a specific training situation. Firearms and ammo are returned and locked up after the training session. If you've served you'd know instantly why this is necessary.

We had arms and live ammo in basic ONLY when closely supervised. At my permanent duty station, the only armed soldiers were MPs when on duty and the OD(who had no freakin' idea what to do with his pistol). Even then we had several instances of MPs who got off base with a loaded 1911.....in one case the guy got smashed and shot holes in our cabin.

Think about it.......young guys with more testosterone than common sense and alcohol. DOH

__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821

Expect many more shootings and suicide bombings at military bases.

For someone who doesn't care about dying, the FT Hood event is a real eye opener regarding the security status of bases and posts.


The only thing going in the favor of the military, is the fact that terrorists would much rather kill completely innocent civilians.

.

[QUOTE=alde;1172633]I find myself wanting to defend (some) security guards. While there certianly are some pitiful firms and sorry guards, there are many who are highly trained and very dedicated. Many are former military or LEO's. Those that carry firearms typically have to meet the same firearms proficiency qualifications as LEO. Depending upon state/jursdiction, they may have arrest powers or are considered SPO's (Special Police Officers). Often small town/county LEO's will transition laterally into armed security services protecting gov't facilities or the sesitive facilities of gov't contractors as the pay is better than a small-town PD can muster.

There is a HUGE difference between your shopping mall rent-a-guard and the highly trained and dedicated armed security officer protecting many of our nation's most sensitive installations and facilities.

Our armed forces have had a problem with the idea of weapons being available to the troops for a long, long time. Read any good history of Pearl harbor and how they had to break into arms lockers and storage chests to get weapons and ammo to fire back at the attackers. The politicians and their body guards don't trust our troops any more than their commanders. When Roosevelt reviewed Patton's troops in Morroco the secret service insisted that all ammo had to be secured from the troops. Only Patton himself seemed to think that was a stupid idea in what was still a war zone. I am sure there are many reasons why this is, fear of misbehavior, accidents maybe even rebellion but this has been policy for a long time.

You are right about keeping guns away from the kiddies on base. But I have a problem with non certified security folks providing the only protection for the bases.

Real MPs are the only base security I remember, I thought that was their primary mission.

This new cost cutting environment will cost us big time in the long run.

The military arms for battle. No battle = no guns.

__________________
Don't kiss smiling dogs!

When I was in Kosovo and Afghanistan, our troops carried their weapons with them everywhere they went, on base or off.

Here's a link to the Marine Corps Civilian Police website:

Marine Corps Civilian Police Program

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

+1 "in the long run"

D.G.

It should be obvious to even our bureaucrats that security is necessary. What seems to be happening is that the Feds are shifting the costs of security from the Military to the local jurisdiction. The cost of local LE coverage for a military Post evidently lands on the local citizens.
The Military then gets what the local citizens can afford to provide.
I am by no means convinced that this cost shifting is our best interest.

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus

I was a Career M.P. and on posts M.P.'s, M.P.I.'s and C.I.D and the O.D. and Post Commander if he wanted were armed. The officers involved in the Ft. Hood shooting were D.O.D Police officers, Fully Accredited. They replaced the M.P.'s as so many are overseas in the sand box and surrounding areas. My National Guard unit has rotated over there 4 times since Desert Storm.

__________________
20 years Mil, 18 yrs Sac P.D.

Thank you for an answer to my question, especially Safearm and Muley Gil and others....DOD hires police for installations based on specific needs. the Marines have a like program. Interesting information and again thanks. this forum seems to always have somebody knowledgeable about just about every subject. sometimes you have to glean the facts from opinion, but in this PC world it is refreshing to have that choice......Again Thanks

I was in the Army for 24 years. My observation is that unfortunately most soldiers are not highly trained on small arms. Most qualify only twice a year in a very controlled environment, receive hardly any training and then do not touch a weapon again until the next time to qualify. I think this has happened for a few reasons. First and biggest one is it costs lots of money to train with weapons when actually shooting ammo. We trained every day on physical fitness, but twice a year on weapons. Why? Pushups are free. Second reason, the military is a reflection of society. Most officers are now of the generation that saw every television series at one time or another run the anti gun episode. Most of them have never handled a gun except to qualify themselves and they are basically afraid of guns. These are the decision makers in our military. Lastly, the military has become so PC that if a private accidentally discharges his weapon, everyone in his chain of command is going to suffer for that mistake. So, the very officers in reason 2 decide it is safer for their career if they never let soldiers have loaded weapons. I wonder how many hours I drug around an unloaded weapon on exercises and deployments. I think this is one of the largest flaws with our military and really don't see it changing any time soon.

Well said! Maybe we should get some Israeli trainers over here. Now that's not PC is it? Talk about "Enemy at your gate"

It's obvious that making a rule preventing anyone from defending himself effectively will keep everyone safe, right? (Just ask the folks who live in Prince George's County, Maryland.)

Btw, Heller applies on every federal enclave, reservation, and territory.

Quote :The current system just defies common sense.
Political correctness defies ANY sense.
Regards, Ray.

This is from today´s World Net Daily
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOMELAND INSECURITY
How 'gun control'
aided Nidal Hasan
Exclusive: John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPré
indict Clinton-era military rule on firearms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 14, 2009
1:00 am Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Did you hear about the two handguns that inexplicably shot and killed 14 people (one unborn) and wounded 30 at Fort Hood on Nov. 4? To hear some people tell it, radical Muslim and Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan did not kill people – his guns alone did.

According to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley – who is now arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court for the power to disarm law-abiding Chicagoans – it was not Maj. Hasan's radical Muslim beliefs that drove him to murder innocent colleagues; it was the fact that "America loves guns." Daley explained, "We love guns to a point that we see the devastation on a daily basis."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence also jumped at the chance to blame guns first, stating two days after the shootings, "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough." (Hasan's handguns have issued no statement in response.)

By this twist of logic, America's love of airplanes led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The solution to stopping the 9/11 Islamic terrorists, you see, was fewer people in fewer airplanes in fewer places.

As for Fort Hood, the Brady Campaign got it exactly backwards. Generally, thanks to a 1993 Clinton-imposed order, Army posts are an anti-gun advocate's dream, a microcosm of a "gun-free" society: Only the police are allowed to carry weapons, service weapons are signed out only for training or maintenance, and any personal weapons must be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal. Strangely, the same soldiers whom we trust with automatic weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq are not allowed to carry weapons on an American post or base. And yet all such "gun-control," which the Brady Campaign-types support, did nothing to stop Hasan from sneaking in two personal handguns. Killers with no regard for others' lives are hardly going to blink at anti-gun rules. Gun control only controls the law-abiding.

Thus, despite being "heavily fortified," Fort Hood had an unarmed population living under a deadly combination of a false sense of security and no means of self-defense. While soldiers should never have to worry about attacks from one of their own, forcing them to be unarmed makes them more vulnerable to traitors and saboteurs than the embattled enemy. Maj. Hasan knew this, and to maximize his evil plot he did not attack the armed MPs – he attacked dozens of soldiers and officers at the Soldier Readiness Center whom he knew would be unarmed. And they were unarmed precisely because of the "gun-control" measures at Ft. Hood.

Our college campuses suffer from the same deadly "gun-control" policies. On April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho, armed with a pair of handguns, massacred 32 fellow students and faculty and injured 25. Even then, the anti-gun fanatics rose up and condemned the guns. But Virginia Tech's campus, like most colleges, was a so-called "gun-free zone" where students and faculty were not permitted to carry weapons. This made people on Virginia Tech's campus, like those on Fort Hood, an easy target for a lone, suicidal, gun-wielding murderer.

What the Brady Campaign failed to mention is that it took "gun violence" to stop the gun violence at Fort Hood and Virginia Tech. Armed police officers brought down Hasan last week; and it took armed police breaking into the building where Cho had barricaded himself before he took his own life. But that means that until the armed police arrived, Hasan shot 42 people and Cho shot 57.

How much sooner would either spree have ended had any one of the hundreds of other soldiers or students (or even faculty) been armed? How many more unarmed victims in "gun-free" zones or cities have to die? How many of these shooting sprees would be deterred in the first place if the shooter knew his intended targets might also be armed?

The fantasy of a "gun-free" zone continues to be thwarted by practical truth, and it always will be. In 1775, Revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine explained that the fallacy of the pacifist Quakers was their failure to account for the fallen nature of man:

Could the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and the art of war would be wholly extirpated: But we live not in a world of angels. … I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation: but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven he has put it in my power.
The problem is not weapons, be they firearms, knives, fists or airplanes; the problem is that man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

With each news report about Maj. Hasan, it becomes more evident that political correctness handicapped the will of the Army and federal agencies to adequately investigate him and respond to the many indicators of his increasingly radical Muslim beliefs. Radical Islamic terrorists belong in front of our troops, not among them. Hopefully, America and her armed forces have finally learned that radical Muslims deserve purging, not promoting.

Nor should we be led to believe the politically correct lie that taking guns out of law-abiding hands is the solution to stopping the use of guns by the wrong hands. A "gun-control" law stops bullets as effectively as the paper it's printed upon. Until the homicidal sociopaths and the radical jihadists of the world "lay aside the use of arms" (or airplanes, or IEDs, etc.), the right of the people, students and soldiers to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPré serve as legal counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law, a religious-liberties organization founded by Judge Roy Moore in Montgomery, Ala.

Another reason to not have the soldiers armed stateside is the influx of gang members in the military. They have found that the military is the best way to learn and practice tactics that they can use against rival gangs & the Police. Look in some of the pictures from the current theater you will see American "gang graffiti" on buildings over there. When I was a M.P. we would have Gang fights between the east L.A. and west L.A. gangs in separate units.

__________________
20 years Mil, 18 yrs Sac P.D.

The answer to the original question here is:

Bill Clinton. By executive order soon after he took office.

Thanks a lot, Bill.

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Well..... I thought about it. And after due thought, I think it sounds like liberal gun-grabbing logic. A society where guns, alchohol and testosterone exist? Oh no... press the ban button.

Again, you bring NOTHING to the table and are in error.

I guess another reason to not allow civilians to be armed in society is because of the influx of gang membes in society?

The notion that we must disarm the law abiding in order to deal with criminals is the foundation of liberal gun-grabbing logic.

Of course! Just ban guns and all will be well. Gang members, jihadists, criminals... and the ever-evil young men with testosteron, will just shrivel up and go away.

what would hitler do? or what did he do?

__________________
WILL WORK FOR AMMO!

Here is my take on this discussion.

From another thread.

This entire conversation reminds me of one of the big reasons why I finally got out of the Army. Though I am proud of my service I eventually came to realize that I was a tool (which is the nature of military service) and therefore , ultimately, I was expendable because I was replaceable.

The military exsists to fight wars and wars are about the expenditure of resources. Soldiers are resources. You try to conserve those resources, but they are there to be used. I think that mentality might effect policies on many different things.

Private firearms with the troops is a possible threat to discipline. Therfore make it against regulations. Thirteen dead soldiers on a post in CONUS is a tragedy, but they can be replaced and probably already have been. Discipline is more important.

When I was in my teens and early twenties that way of looking at soldiers didn't bother me at all. But as I closed in on thirty I found myself disliking the idea of being considered expendable. I knew when that happened I was no longer cut out to be a soldier. So I returned to the civilian world.

It isn't stupidity or bureaucratic stupidity. It's a very different way of looking at things and the ability for a soldier to be able to defend him or herself against an active shooter dosen't outweigh the need to maintain good military discipline.

Now I think that sucks but so does war. the Army is about war fighting and that makes for some different way of thinking and acting.

Yeah, a lot of military facilities in Northern Virginia use armed Pinkerton guards. They were about one step above mall security in terms of quality and competence when I worked around them.

__________________
Save a cow, eat a vegetarian.

So many Army posts these days are switching to a civilian police force. When I was at Fort Belvoir they were in a transition from all military police to a civilian "military police." The thinking was that all soldiers were needed in deployments and that all garrison duties would be handled by DOD civilians.

At Fort Knox they tried getting rid of all garrison military slots. The only ones that would be left were the Garrison commander and Sergeant Major. I don't know if that worked out or not.

__________________
Save a cow, eat a vegetarian.

the officers that responded to the shooting were not "rent a cops". they are Dept of the Army Civilian Police Officers. as stated in earlier posts, many installitations now have DOA civilian police officers as the two front war we are fighting has taken away many of the military police(MPs) for a year at a time. many of these DOA officers are former MPs and are all highly trained officers as shown at fort hood. the senior sgt who took down the shooter is a retired army NCO. some army posts and other branches of the military also use contract personnel at gates for entry control now. they are not to be considered one step above a "mall cop" either. they are trained and cetified also. i have some friends that are both contract and DOA civilian police and personally take offense at some of the terms used here in earlier posts. i am sure most of those members never spent a day in the service of their country. lee

Another reason the leadership in the Army needs to step up and regain simple discipline. I didn't want to say this, but one of the biggest problems in the Army is officers won't police up their own. This guy should have been kicked out long berfore this happened, but instead, he was promoted. Same with NCO's, someone who is participating in gang acticity should be UCMJ'ed and then shown a chapter 13 discharge on the way back to the block. We don't do it, because it is easier to be PC.

This is correct. Back in the 60's we never had weapons, especially loaded, unless we were on the range. We did a lot of drilling with our M14 but they were unloaded and they were checked back in at the end of the day.

MP's were everywhere with a sidearm. Never knew what they carried but I guess I just assumed it was a .45.

The Civilian Police/Guard elements release soldiers (particularly MPs) for deployment.
The Major works for someone-and that superior is responsible for that Major's actions-on and off duty-7/24. The Major will be Court Martialed-the court will be comprised of Field Grade Officers. These guys will probably be old war dogs.
The military is very good at policing its own-and contrary to one writer-I never, and I know my son has never-considered soldiers as being "expendable". As an Infantry leader I always thought of my troops as family. My objective was to get the job done-and bring everyone home-same goes for my son (an Airborne Artillery Commander).
The Major is a terrorist-he's toast.

I prefer to call him a Traitor.

__________________
20 years Mil, 18 yrs Sac P.D.

I don't how the Convening Authority's going to find an unbiased board for that court-martial. It's going to be pretty tough. That being said, though, I'm sure the defense will go for the insanity defense.

The problem with this guy is that he's a doctor. The medical professionals have their own personnel system and promotion criteria which is different from the rest of the Army. It's easy to see how he got promoted and explains why he's only a major after all this time, especially in light of his medical specialty. Don't assume that the same rules apply for doctors like they do for the run of the mill officers because they don't.