Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

Military Bases Became "Gun-Free" Zones Under Clinton Admin 1993


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
52 replies to this topic

#1 Wild Eyed Southern Boy

Wild Eyed Southern Boy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,222 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:40 PM

http://www.foxnews.c...-gun-free-zone/

Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. Mandy Foster's husband had been shot but was fortunate enough not to be seriously injured. In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband "still scheduled for deployment in January" to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?" It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, most of CNN's listeners probably didn't understand the rules that Ms. Foster was referring to.



Wasn't that also the time when, during inspections by Prez Clinton, that the slides were removed from M9 Berettas so that only the lower frame was carried in the holster to make the wearer appear armed?

"Only the police and military should have guns". Yeah.

Watch out Coppers, you're next.

Maybe they'll let you keep the baton & flashlight. Opps! forgot, no more aluminum Mag-Lights either.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Martin Luther King Jr.

#2 skeemer

skeemer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,537 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:42 PM

"At least he's safe there" is a foolish sentiment. He certainly isn't safer in Afghanistan than he is here in the US.

They should be armed on base though. If we trust them with weapons amongst each other overseas, they can be trusted with weapons at home.

#3 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56,085 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:43 PM

How long has Clinton been out of office? You got a boner for the guy or what?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#4 veritas

veritas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35,250 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:44 PM

What? Soldiers on a military base with guns?:eek: What's the world coming to?:P
Ne Nuntium Necare

#5 Wild Eyed Southern Boy

Wild Eyed Southern Boy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,222 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:44 PM

How long has Clinton been out of office? You got a boner for the guy or what?


Just the facts, dude.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Martin Luther King Jr.

#6 douger

douger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 28,168 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:46 PM

How dare those evil guns get on that base and kill those people.

Bad guns. Bad, bad guns.

#7 old school

old school

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,099 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:49 PM

Obviously you folks have never spent any time on a military installation. The only armed personnel are either on the range or military police. We were never allowed to carry personal weapons while in uniform unless your duty required you to do so and out of uniform it was not permitted.

#8 veritas

veritas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35,250 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:51 PM

Obviously you folks have never spent any time on a military installation. The only armed personnel are either on the range or military police. We were never allowed to carry personal weapons while in uniform unless your duty required you to do so and out of uniform it was not permitted.


Perhaps it's time to change that policy. I wonder how many Hasan kills if everyone is packing a sidearm.
Ne Nuntium Necare

#9 Baltimatt

Baltimatt

    Site Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,392 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:53 PM

How long has Clinton been out of office? You got a boner for the guy or what?


If this is a policy change instituted by President Clinton, the point of this thread is valid. One could question why another president didn't reverse it. One could also debate the wisdom of this policy.
Dieser Weg wird kein leichter sein; dieser Weg wird steinig und schwer.
Nicht mit vielen wirst du dir einig sein, doch dieses Leben bietet so viel mehr. --Xavier Naidoo

#10 ToxicBob

ToxicBob

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,900 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:53 PM

I couldn't believe how false this editorial is, then I noticed that it was written by Mary Rosh.........er John Lott or whatever name he is going by these days.

I would believe "The Onion" before I would believe anything John/Mary writes.
It isn't the rebels who cause the troubles of the world. It's the troubles that cause the rebels.

#11 douger

douger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 28,168 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 01:06 PM

Obviously you folks have never spent any time on a military installation. The only armed personnel are either on the range or military police. We were never allowed to carry personal weapons while in uniform unless your duty required you to do so and out of uniform it was not permitted.


My recollection was that it wasn't prohibited to carry so long as you were off duty and out of uniform. But I would modify the statement about only military police carrying firearms. Aircrew members...at least the aircraft commanders...wore .45s anytime the airplane was flying off station. My guess is that if you're duties required a firearm, you were authorized to carry and wear one.

But that was in the late 70s...before guns became inhabited with evil spirits.

#12 bullmikey

bullmikey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25,356 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 01:20 PM

I spent 23 years in the military under about 6 presidents (starting with Tricky ****) and I can't recall anyone walking around US bases (been through many of them on my way here and there) armed unless they were MPs or DOD cops, or troops about to deploy (in which case they would be on their way somewhere, and though totting their personal weapons, the live ammo would still be in the crates until they reached wherever it was they were going to use it). I don't recall anyone strutting around with side arms just for the hell of it.

In Vietnam, of course, it was different. You took your M-16 to bed with you, showered with it, and generally treated it better than your girlfriend. I even had a cute little .32 cal in an belt holster – it was my “just in case” piece. I bought it from a guy rotating back to the world. It had a five round cylinder and the guy sold me the 10 rounds he had with the piece. Might have been the only .32 cal ammo in country at the time. Anyway, I never had to use it and I sold everything to another guy when it was my turn to leave. Technically, I guess having a non-regulation weapon was illegal but nobody pays much attention to that kind of stuff when your in the ****. Everybody toted a little something extra, just in case.

Anyway, I don't recall Clinton making any changes to what was pretty much SOP everywhere military people are stationed outside of a combat zone. I was in the infantry, stationed in Berlin, and we only drew our weapons when authorized to do so by the CO. We didn’t walk around the base armed, except on guard duty or something like that.

Maybe what you are talking about is the banning of civilian arms from being carried onto a base. That could be. In the old days you could store your personal stuff in the company armory and sign it out when you wanted to go hunting or target shooting or something like that. Of course, if you lived in the barracks you couldn’t keep a personal arsenal in your footlocker for those times when you felt like shooting somebody. When I was in the navy I mostly lived on board a ship or off base. I owned a shotgun (same one I got now) and there was no problem about getting it secured in my ship’s armory. When I lived off base there was no need to secure it anywhere since I never felt the need to bring my shotgun to work with me. I merely had to comply with whatever state laws were in place at the time (for shotguns there usually aren’t many to worry about in most states unless you intend to use it for hunting).

Incidentally, with certain exceptions (plain clothes CID or security people) it has always been illegal for military people to carry conceal weapons. If you carried a sidearm – even in the field - and you wore your field jacket, you had to belt your sidearm on over the field jacket.

The shootings at Ft. Hood occurred in an office environment. I imagine the only people armed around the place were either MPs or civilian cops. It was a civilian cop who nailed the turd, wasn't it?
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”
__ Robert E. Howard, The Tower of the Elephant

#13 Phineas Finn

Phineas Finn

    Bewildered/Befuddled Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,000 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 01:37 PM

The problem with the "Rush-to-Bash-All-Things-Democratic-Party" mentality is that it usually goes along with absolutely no eye for detail.

For instance: The referenced Army Regulation (190-14), while it was published in March and April of 1993, implements a DoD directive 5210.56 -- that directive was issued on (wait for it) February 25, 1992. Which brings us to today's $64,000 question: Who was President in February of 1992?

Yo, Southern Boy, try to stop making it so easy.
Over 10,000 posts -- who would of thought you could stuff that much crap into one little cyber bag?
This is the day that the Lord has made
. Let us rejoice and be glad in it!
Psalm 118:24

#14 Rocketwolf

Rocketwolf

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 22,264 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 01:39 PM

One of the subs I was on there were more personal weapons in our lockers than in the Weapons Locker. We had skeet and trap shooters, those that practiced quick draw, and target shooters. The Captain once said "I'll never have to worry about repelling boarders."

I trust the Police
more than I trust President Obama


#15 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56,085 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 02:08 PM

If this is a policy change instituted by President Clinton, the point of this thread is valid. One could question why another president didn't reverse it. One could also debate the wisdom of this policy.


Actually Matt I served during the Reagan years and it was policy then
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#16 Baltimatt

Baltimatt

    Site Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,392 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 02:12 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Ken. That's why I made my earlier post a conditional.
Dieser Weg wird kein leichter sein; dieser Weg wird steinig und schwer.
Nicht mit vielen wirst du dir einig sein, doch dieses Leben bietet so viel mehr. --Xavier Naidoo

#17 Sonora Rebel

Sonora Rebel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,674 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 02:15 PM

I spent 23 years in the military under about 6 presidents (starting with Tricky ****) and I can't recall anyone walking around US bases (been through many of them on my way here and there) armed unless they were MPs or DOD cops, or troops about to deploy (in which case they would be on their way somewhere, and though totting their personal weapons, the live ammo would still be in the crates until they reached wherever it was they were going to use it). I don't recall anyone strutting around with side arms just for the hell of it.

In Vietnam, of course, it was different. You took your M-16 to bed with you, showered with it, and generally treated it better than your girlfriend. I even had a cute little .32 cal in an belt holster – it was my “just in case” piece. I bought it from a guy rotating back to the world. It had a five round cylinder and the guy sold me the 10 rounds he had with the piece. Might have been the only .32 cal ammo in country at the time. Anyway, I never had to use it and I sold everything to another guy when it was my turn to leave. Technically, I guess having a non-regulation weapon was illegal but nobody pays much attention to that kind of stuff when your in the ****. Everybody toted a little something extra, just in case.

Anyway, I don't recall Clinton making any changes to what was pretty much SOP everywhere military people are stationed outside of a combat zone. I was in the infantry, stationed in Berlin, and we only drew our weapons when authorized to do so by the CO. We didn’t walk around the base armed, except on guard duty or something like that.

Maybe what you are talking about is the banning of civilian arms from being carried onto a base. That could be. In the old days you could store your personal stuff in the company armory and sign it out when you wanted to go hunting or target shooting or something like that. Of course, if you lived in the barracks you couldn’t keep a personal arsenal in your footlocker for those times when you felt like shooting somebody. When I was in the navy I mostly lived on board a ship or off base. I owned a shotgun (same one I got now) and there was no problem about getting it secured in my ship’s armory. When I lived off base there was no need to secure it anywhere since I never felt the need to bring my shotgun to work with me. I merely had to comply with whatever state laws were in place at the time (for shotguns there usually aren’t many to worry about in most states unless you intend to use it for hunting).

Incidentally, with certain exceptions (plain clothes CID or security people) it has always been illegal for military people to carry conceal weapons. If you carried a sidearm – even in the field - and you wore your field jacket, you had to belt your sidearm on over the field jacket.

The shootings at Ft. Hood occurred in an office environment. I imagine the only people armed around the place were either MPs or civilian cops. It was a civilian cop who nailed the turd, wasn't it?


Concur. In my 20 years (Naval Air) carrying personal weapons on base/station was forbidden by base regs. Anyone under arms was in a 'duty' status requiring arms (some watchstanders and security functions). I know of no personal weapons allowed aboard ship. In Vietnam, not all personnel had a weapon on 'permanent custody', but drew them from the armory as required. (I ran the armory, among other things...) My weapon was issued by MACV at Richmond barracks (along with the rest of my 782 gear). They got it back when I DEROS'd. Anything else was organizational equippage for the unit. (Pistols, Rifles, SMG's, MG's, M-79's 'n such). This iidea that military personnel are routinely armed at all times or have immediate access to arms is patently false.
"It's easy to be a Communist when your Mom still does your laundry!"

#18 bullmikey

bullmikey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25,356 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 02:15 PM

One of the subs I was on there were more personal weapons in our lockers than in the Weapons Locker. We had skeet and trap shooters, those that practiced quick draw, and target shooters. The Captain once said "I'll never have to worry about repelling boarders."


Bubbleheads live in a world of their own. :D
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”
__ Robert E. Howard, The Tower of the Elephant

#19 Wild Eyed Southern Boy

Wild Eyed Southern Boy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,222 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 02:25 PM

The problem with the "Rush-to-Bash-All-Things-Democratic-Party" mentality is that it usually goes along with absolutely no eye for detail.

For instance: The referenced Army Regulation (190-14), while it was published in March and April of 1993, implements a DoD directive 5210.56 -- that directive was issued on (wait for it) February 25, 1992. Which brings us to today's $64,000 question: Who was President in February of 1992?

Yo, Southern Boy, try to stop making it so easy.



The link to 190-14 says it was issued:

Headquarters
Department of the Army
Washington, DC
12 March 1993
Military Police
Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties
*Army Regulation 190–14 - Effective 12 April 1993

Yo homie, just pointing out an article in a commonly seen news venue.
Like they say, "We Report, You Decide".:D

Edited by Wild Eyed Southern Boy, 12 November 2009 - 02:38 PM.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Martin Luther King Jr.

#20 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47,832 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 02:37 PM

Fox news:

Report first

Verify later
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"