Google +LinkedInPinterestYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

In light of the shootings at Fort Hood, do you support designation of military bases as “Gun Free Zones”?

 

View more polls

 

CLIFFORD KENT

April 3, 2014 - 2:33pm

Seems to me that Army Regulations require fire arms on base to be registered with the units. Single Soldiers I think are still required to have their POWs stored in the unit arms room. The idea is silly and the question is ignorant of Army regulations and culture. A gun free zone which is what is already in place for the most part would not stop someone coming on post to kill someone else as demonstrated.

Robert Nowak

April 3, 2014 - 9:35pm

What part of "Armed Forces" do people don't understand? They can be trusted and required to carry a weapon 24/7 when deployed to another country. But, at home can not be trusted to carry a weapon on base when off duty or out of uniform. They can not be trusted to properly secure it in their own homes on base.

Philip E Jarvi

April 4, 2014 - 11:46am

I agree wholeheartedly. A "gun free" zone is really a DEFENSE FREE ZONE.

Chris Roehl

April 5, 2014 - 1:00am

We need to quit letting terrorists into our armed forces. We also need to get back to making basic training tough, and not hugging the recruits and giving positive reinforcement for making it to PT formation on time and agreeing to do a push up. Our whole society has gone ape shit violent, and no one blames the person who commits the wrong doing, be it on a military base, a school, or a public venue, no no no, the media instantly pulls out the "history of mental illness" bull shit! Lets face it boys and girls, if you have ever been married or in any kind of relationship, you have suffered through some type of mental illness. : ) It's partly based on the gov't/society giving in on this "don't offend" anybody bullshit concept. I think there is still a way to use FREEDOM of speech and not be an ass hole to people, defend yourself and others when needed, but make it worth your while, because the system is a joke. Sorry for the rant.

Bob McDonald

April 4, 2014 - 8:16pm

The more gun free zones the more free fire zones for villains. How many more times do things like this need to happen.

Brian P Murphy

April 3, 2014 - 2:38pm

I didn't care for the additional BS after the Yes & No option. I voted "No", in spite of the comment after No. It is a MILITARY base. It seems to me that a military base should be the last place in the world with a Gun Free Zone.
While this is most certainly a tragedy, how about the government add some funding to Mental Health in both the DOD and the VA? That's what people should be talking about right now, not Gun Free Zones.

Grandmother

April 3, 2014 - 6:43pm

Good answer from above comment!

Robert J. Aquaro

April 3, 2014 - 2:43pm

I was stationed at Hood (Second Armored Division) for three years. Breaks my heart to see this happen again......BUT, don't disarm the military, for Gods sake. Don't disarm civilians either. That is NOT the answer. The answer is to get these people off the street, especially those that need mental help.

460Racer

April 3, 2014 - 2:46pm

Do shooter's care if there are registration requirements? How stupid can we be. How many recent shooters have had mental issues? Most! Do we need a national registry for temporary restrictions of mental patients to purchase firearms. Of course that will not keep them from stealing a gun and using it to kill us. Maybe we should just enjoy the fact that the Second Amendment gives shooters the right to slaughter a few thousand of us every year. Think! How many of us have been diagnosed as having PTSD and own guns? Should we?

Del

April 3, 2014 - 7:29pm

There are many people who use guns to commit henous crimes that have no history of PTSD and many with PTSD have lead normal lives and own weapons all there life with there never being an incident.. Just because the media made the choice to create that for a talking point doesn't mean that is where we need to put our focus. After working over 40 years as an R.N. and growing up at a Pen some of my life around criminals I can attest IMHO it has more to do with anger issues and poor self control than anything else. Making places gun free zone just makes it an ideal place for a sick person to do serious injury to many people easily. The only rational way to address such an individual is to have good people with weapons to remove the threat. Granted people will die but quite a few less than if we keep pushing gun free zones. How many shootings occur in an armory or police station? Darn few!! Is it because people without anger issues hold those jobs or the fact that weapons are all around with people that know how to use them.

Viet Vet 71

April 4, 2014 - 9:41pm

We don't need a national registry of soldiers who have 'been there & done that' and live with the memories of what they did 'for their country'! Are you saying 'Diagnosed with PTSD, take your rights away'? Guess what... they already had PTSD 'in combat zone'! Guess it was fine there, 'cause they mostly could only kill people in someone else's country! You'll never know how many 'innocents' get killed in war, by soldiers with PTSD. But... you'll also never know how many soldiers with PTSD did NOT kill 'innocents'. As to your last question: Should soldiers with PTSD be allowed to own guns? YES!!! The constitution says so in the Second Amendment! Isn't that part of what we were fighting for??? Oh, national registries were a primary tool used by Hitler, Mussolini & other dictators to 'disarm' the civilian population(s)during their take-over of the country. Hitler also used it to identify 'Jews' for extermination & experimentation. I don't want either, here in USA. Oh, how about enforcing the laws already 'on the books'? Treat criminals like what they are 'criminals'; not 'guests of the state'!

Chuck Spence

April 3, 2014 - 2:46pm

Regulations already exist that require personnel living in dorms to store their weapons (firearms, guns, bow/arrows) either with their unit or MP/MA/SF detachment. Additionally, housing residents ae required to register their firearms with MP/MA/SF detachment so responding officers are aware that weapons are in the house during a response. Trying to establish a base/post/installation as a "gun free zone" is short sighted in concept and unenforceable in the long term. Here's a different perspective; allow military personnel to carry firearms while at work. After all they are in the profession of arms. Possible assailants might think differently if their chance of meeting an armed adversary was increased ten-fold.

Dale Leeper

April 3, 2014 - 2:48pm

I served in the Air Force from 1964 to 1968, people like this person were not allowed to serve. Why has that policy changed?

George C. Hall

April 3, 2014 - 2:49pm

I wouldn't feel safe in a gun free zone, because anybody who wanted to
kill people would have no opposition, and they know that.

Cujos mother

April 3, 2014 - 11:45pm

I fully agree with G,c,hall

DrAnalog

April 3, 2014 - 3:01pm

The stupidity of gun free zones, especially on a military base, is mind boggling.

Talentless Hack

April 3, 2014 - 3:05pm

I've heard just about all of the BS NRA excuses and explanations and talking points that I want to hear. They will have you believe that a society where everyone is carrying a concealed weapon is a safer society. What a load of bollocks!

You all actually did serve in the military, right? Ever been in a bar fight? On post? You all do remember how much some service people drink, right? Now add guns to that.

You all probably knew at least a few people personally during your military service who didn't have it quite all together upstairs for one reason or another. Now add guns to that.

You all probably knew at least a few people personally who were simply hotheads, loners, heavily endebted, cuckolded, etc. Now add guns to that.

How many of you were MPs? Now, just the MPs, how many of you think CCW on military bases is a good idea?

I realize I'm in the minority here, and I wouldn't dare bring up the subject at my home post, but I believe there needs to be a serious debate on the usefulness to society of the Second Amendment. I believe there should be a constitutional convention charged with amending it severely, clarifying it, or repealing it outright, because this business of people going postal (with legally-owned guns, BTW) has gotten seriously out of hand.

Rev. Grady Mills

April 3, 2014 - 4:25pm

Nothing wrong with being in the minority. I agree with you wholeheartedly. But, I had to laugh at the idea of a Gun free military base where the controversy in my own state of Georgia has reached the point of doing away with gun free schools, places of worship, and airports. The roads will become more friendly though because road rage will get the unfriendly shot.
The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, repeat: A well regulated Militia, repeat: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And how far has that been stretched? To provide a well regulated militia in places of worship? schools? airports? Answer: As far as NRA money can stretch the polititions ambitious goals.

Joseph A. Clark

April 3, 2014 - 4:44pm

Rev. Mills, the first three words of the Preamble to the United States Consitution are "We the People". There is no mention of "We the States". The definition of "people" in the Constitution is "citizens of the United States". The definition carries throughout the entire document, so the definition of "people" in the Second Amendment is the as the definition in the Preamble.

Mac Daddy

April 3, 2014 - 5:54pm

Mills, you’re quoting the PREAMBLE. Preambles provide examples of the blessings of Liberty, our responsibilities, and a few reasons why We The People established the Constitution. A well regulated militia is simply one good reason the “RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

Mac Daddy

April 3, 2014 - 5:54pm

Mills, you’re quoting the PREAMBLE. Preambles provide examples of the blessings of Liberty, our responsibilities, and a few reasons why We The People established the Constitution. A well regulated militia is simply one good reason the “RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

Doc Perkins

April 3, 2014 - 6:56pm

Reverend,
Been there, done that!
Your comments concerning the Constitution are right in line with the age old semantics debate.
The grammar of the clause is not that difficult to understand, though it does require context. So that, the "well-regulated Militia", is manned by "We the People", and in the days of the framing of the Constitution, the Militia had defeated the British. They used the weapons hanging on the wall at home, the same gun to get meat and defend the homestead from unfriendly natives, was used to defeat the British. "We the People", in order to have the ability to defend our Homes, Community, and Nation were not to have our rights to own, purchase, use, practice, drill, or carry our personal weapons infringed upon by the Government.
It seems to me, that the infringement has already occurred. Albeit by slow degrees, and now like a bunch of "Rip Van Winkles". We find we must have to have permission of the state and the community to own, much less carry a sidearm, and MUST NOT go out in public with a long gun, ever...hide it until you are in the hunting woods. Fact is that if all carry, then all are respectful, courteous, and able to do the right thing. Failing to carry is an abdication of citizenship and denies the weak the defense our police have no way or intention of providing.
The fact that this issue is being taken so seriously by either side of the argument brings to light the fact that our nation is not what is used to be, for better or worse, it and we have changed. We are not the same nation I accepted my retirement from nearly 20 years ago; much less the nation I pledged my oath of enlistment to 40 years ago.
Of course, that is just one man's opinion. The view from my foxhole, if you will!

Joseph A. Clark

April 3, 2014 - 4:42pm

And in every state that I'm aware of, it's against the law to carry a firearm if you're drinking alcohol. So, what you're saying is that you don't trust people to obey regulations, right? What's to say that those very people you don't trust are obeying the regulations right now? Hmm? So, if they're disobeying regulations now, your argument is really superfluous. If you really want to repeal the Second Amendment, then be ready to have your other rights severely curtailed. Your statements of "a few people" don't encompass the majority, sir, and when you punish everyone for the actions of a few, it's like spanking every one of your children because one of them drew on the walls with a crayon. I believe you're wrong, but you are certainly entitled to your position.

Dan Martin

April 3, 2014 - 4:49pm

Tell that to Mr. Putin, the Chinese military, the radical islam terrorists (who still exist, believe it or not), and all the others who want to eat America's lunch. That was the stupidest question I've heard in a long time. Of course, NO is the right answer, and it looks as if 90% agree that NO is the right answer. The 10% bleeding libs just don't get the idea of National Defense, and they never will. The U.S. Military is the U.S. Military, thank God we have it (us). Ban guns, nuts! I'm a USAF combat vet and damned proud of it. I'm glad there are so many young Americans who are willing to serve, as I did once upon a time.

Clint

April 3, 2014 - 6:43pm

Well said Dan! Liberals with their pebble-sized brains are destroying this country.

Anonymous

April 3, 2014 - 7:15pm

Rev. Grady Mills, 1st Lt. Infantry, US Army, Vietnam Veteran. and no one, repeat, no one is prouder of our Military.

Burt

April 3, 2014 - 4:58pm

Is your name Obamma ?

Army1969

April 3, 2014 - 5:14pm

You may be in the minority in this meeting of nut jobs but you are 100% correct. The Army did not allow troops walking guard duty to use guns, only base ball bats! I cannot imagine the people I served with walking around with guns on base. Colonel Jack Jacobs who was a Vietnam Congressional Medal of Honor winner was interviewed today, commenting on the Texas Congressman who wanted to arm all soldiers on base. The Colonel called this Congressman a wack job! He said there is no place for personal side arms on any US installation with the exception of MP's or CID. I agree Colonel!

Cpl. Crivello USAR

April 3, 2014 - 6:00pm

Bull shit in 1964 at fort Dix on guard duty we had weapons and depending on what you were guarding we were armed with M 14 with a loaded weapon .

MSgt Loftis

April 3, 2014 - 6:18pm

Just to clarify for you, Talentless, I spent about 24 years in the Marine Corps. If I personally decided I want you dead, you would probably wind up dead, regardless of all the regulations and rules those like you would try to fob off on everyone else. I am a gun owner, and I know many more. None of us have, to my knowledge anyway, taken our guns out to shoot down innocents or even those we just don't like. A gun is a tool, just like a knife, shovel, or hedge trimmeers which can be used in many different ways, determined by the "user". Looking back, over the years, I cannot really remember when the military took the weapons away from members on our installations, didn't seem to make much impact on all those shootings and slayings that must have been going on back then. Right now, with all the rules in place on bases, an individual can still get a gun on bases and use them to kill, because the individuals who live there are not allowed to carry guns in self-defense. Schools, malls, post offices, etc., which arae designated gun free have proven to be less save over past years than you and others would try to make folks believe. A criminal, or killer, doesn't worry about your rules, only the after effects.

Mac Daddy

April 3, 2014 - 6:19pm

Guns have been a part of American Life since our Founding but have only become a problem since the Great Society. Guns are NOT the problem. Big Government and Gun Control Laws are the problem. Gun Control Laws were first established following the Civil War to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves. So tell me Hack? Are you afraid of a black man bearing a gun to defend himself? It was the Democrat voter and politician alike who, then as now, want to keep the poor from having guns to protect themselves from the other half of the equation – millions of uncontrollably violent government dependents. Every Gun Control Capital in the US - Detroit, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC – is also a Government Dependency Capital and a Murder Capital. You are rooting for the wrong side.

MP

April 3, 2014 - 6:35pm

As an MP and as a civilian PO, I support the right of every person to be able to defend themselves. Just like driving a car, if you are going to indulge in alcohol, leave your crap at home. If you are too dumb to do that, you must go! Period! No society will ever get rid of all the persons with mental illness, which causes 99% of the "postal" behaviour. However, the "postal" behaviour with "legal" weapons is a very small percentage of incidents in the US and the world. Most gun related and other voilent related deaths have nothing to do with legal gun owners. Do some research on legal CCW carriers and how many deaths result from those persons that are not justified. FBI numbers are about .001%. I would rather be surrounded by a small amount of danger than be a slave... ALWAYS!

MP

April 3, 2014 - 6:35pm

As an MP and as a civilian PO, I support the right of every person to be able to defend themselves. Just like driving a car, if you are going to indulge in alcohol, leave your crap at home. If you are too dumb to do that, you must go! Period! No society will ever get rid of all the persons with mental illness, which causes 99% of the "postal" behaviour. However, the "postal" behaviour with "legal" weapons is a very small percentage of incidents in the US and the world. Most gun related and other voilent related deaths have nothing to do with legal gun owners. Do some research on legal CCW carriers and how many deaths result from those persons that are not justified. FBI numbers are about .001%. I would rather be surrounded by a small amount of danger than be a slave... ALWAYS!

tom carney

April 3, 2014 - 9:07pm

It is tiresome to hear you assign qualities of stupidity and evil to those who don;t agree with you. The true logic is that in a universe of armed men , say like an military post, if all have guns then in a sense none have them. What have we come to when even a soldier mistrusts those in his community? It is unfortunately true that in this world, once in a while someone will kick the traces of sanity and attempt to go postal. But if those around this wretch were also armed, can't you see his success would be meager and his demise almost instant?

Mike The Tiger

April 5, 2014 - 12:08pm

Guns are not the problem, Talentless. People with mental issues are the problem. People who lack a respect for the lives of others are the problem. Angry people are the problem. Selfish greedy people are the problem. Get my drift? How about we just get rid of all people - that solves the problem, right? But that wouldn't work either because if we got rid of all the people, there would be no one to enjoy the peace and quite. So the real answer is get rid of the sick, violent, greedy, selfish people who lack respect for others. People who love themselves and love others don't go out and kill others. Guns don't kill people - people kill people!

Dennis McCormack

April 3, 2014 - 3:07pm

Military bases obviously can't be 'gun free' zones, as most of them have thousands of weapons on base to support their mission. And these are already tightly controlled and locked up in arms rooms when not being officially used for training. Personally owned weapons, like the ones used in the two shootings on Ft. Hood, also have tight restrictions. Single Soldiers living in the barracks have to keep theirs locked up in the unit arms rooms also, and those Soldiers who live off post can't bring them on post without them being registered with the MP's, and only to be enroute to recreational shooting ranges, skeet shoots, and other post sanctioned activities on the installation if there are any. They are not allowed to carry them on their person or in their cars on a casual basis, even with a State issued concealed carry permit, as that does not apply on a Federal installation. In any case, any restrictions they already have will not be obeyed by a anyone who possessed a personal weapon and is intent to bring it on base to commit a crime. They can't search every vehicle entering the base. As a result, 99% of the Soldiers on a military installation on any day are unarmed, and have to rely on the MP's, Federal Police, or other agencies to respond to a shooting. This is not something new, but has been in place for many decades. Allowing each Soldier to carry his own individual loaded military or individual weapon anywhere on post will never happen for many reasons.

Mello165

April 3, 2014 - 4:17pm

Where is this concealed carry coming from? Officers and SNCOs are required to qualify with a pistol. Why can't they carry a pistol when in uniform and on duty? Installation commanders can make the call about drinking on duty--they do that now--why can't we have the deterrent of armed, trained, military personnel carrying a weapon in plain sight to let anyone who wants to be a shooter know that now the targets fire back?

John Baker

April 3, 2014 - 4:29pm

To think a bad guy with a gun will not enter and do harm because it is a gun free zone is simple minded. The have tried it for decades how long will it take for the do gooders to figure out IT DOES NOT WORK. As a Veteran retired L.E. I learned a long time ago citizens with a gun can stop evil. I have stopped 12 armed robbery's off duty from NY City to Las Vegas NV without firing a shot. Just drawing down on them stopped the crime. Evil yelds to good , they do not want to be a victim. Not evryone should carry without proper training , good moral charicture and a sheep dog attitude. We allow or Troops to carry over seas and protect and defend. Most can be trusted to never misuse a firearm. Where people are allowed to carry the bad guys do not commit crimes they go to soft targets. Why should our service men & women be made victims? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ;The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

Joseph Clark

April 3, 2014 - 4:37pm

If we entrust our soldiers with firearms in combat, why can't we extend that trust to them while they're on base? Anyone with evil intent already knows that military bases are gun-free zones, and with any forethought, they also know that it takes at least 10 - 15 minutes for security forces to arrive, evaluate, and then start taking countermeasures. This idiocy about "soldiers should feel safe on their own bases" is fine, except they AREN'T safe. Every mass shooting in the past how many years has been in a so-called "gun free" zone. That certainly didn't stop the shooter, and Army regulations already in place at Ft. Hood didn't stop Major Hassan from his killing spree, either. If you can't trust our men and women in uniform with firearms on base, then you certainly can't say that you trust them with firearms in a combat situation where there is even more stress.

Charles Lauer

April 3, 2014 - 4:55pm

In was in the Air Force 65/66 and I don't ever remember having things like this happen on any base I was stationed at, including Viet Nam. You can't be every where or protect every one either. You do the very best you can with what you have to do with, and hope to God it's enough.Better screening might have made a difference

Larry Burgess

April 3, 2014 - 4:56pm

What difference would designating bases "Gun Free Zones" make? "Gun free zone" designations do nothing more than let criminals and nut jobs know where they are more likely to get away with their plans. Stupid and ridiculous idea!!!

John Scanlan

April 3, 2014 - 5:18pm

Chicago has the tightest gun control laws in the country, and the highest gun mortality rate in the country. We have no effective way to prevent guns from being in the wrong hands. So there is absolutely no sane reason to take guns out of the hands of the military.

Army1969

April 3, 2014 - 9:49pm

Back assed logic my friend. We have the toughest gun laws BeCAUSE we have the highest crime rate. Once the effects of these laws are seen the crime rate will fall in line.

No name patriot

April 3, 2014 - 5:57pm

Has anyone ever thought of all the prescribed mind altering drugs which the pharmaceutical companies are pushing on the medical profession to enhance their profits? It seems to me that most of these incidents are perpetrated by individuals with mental problems for which they are taking drugs that are not natural remedies. Just wondering.

Miguel Romero

April 3, 2014 - 6:09pm

I serve in the United State Army for 24 years It never head about these every body fail to realize that the new army or arm forces do not have the discipline, respect, the pray. Since 1984 all the arm forces let go the experience soldier who suppose to train the new one because the politician want to save money and now we have the results, I retired from the army because everything my drill Sgt teaches me I teach my soldiers but the new army have a new theme "it's not what you Know is who you Know" and because of these I retired before my time and it brake my hart to read about the problems the arm forces live right now and the problems maker's are the National Guard and the reserve components they do not the training and the majority of the officers are politician of some sort and to conclude ARM FORCES = guns for god and country

Mac Daddy

April 3, 2014 - 6:37pm

The world is ruled by force. If we try to disarm everyone then only the law abiding are disarmed. This allows the evil to shoot and kill at will. When the good are left alone and can choose to be armed the evil become concerned the People might shoot back. The Gun Free alternative forces the good to disarm, hide, and die until the Police (PEOPLE WITH GUNS) show up. Please limit your utopian BS to your own world and don’t infringe on mine because when (not if) the shooting starts, I’ll protect myself, thank you. I’ll leave the writing of the reports and the picture taking of the dead to the Police.

Dennis "Doc" Perkins

April 3, 2014 - 6:52pm

Reverend,
Been there, done that!
Your comments concerning the Constitution are right in line with the age old semantics debate.
The grammar of the clause is not that difficult to understand, though it does require context. So that, the "well-regulated Militia", is manned by "We the People", and in the days of the framing of the Constitution, the Militia had defeated the British. They used the weapons hanging on the wall at home, the same gun to get meat and defend the homestead from unfriendly natives, was used to defeat the British. "We the People", in order to have the ability to defend our Homes, Community, and Nation were not to have our rights to own, purchase, use, practice, drill, or carry our personal weapons infringed upon by the Government.
It seems to me, that the infringement has already occurred. Albeit by slow degrees, and now like a bunch of "Rip Van Winkles". We find we must have to have permission of the state and the community to own, much less carry a sidearm, and MUST NOT go out in public with a long gun, ever...hide it until you are in the hunting woods. Fact is that if all carry, then all are respectful, courteous, and able to do the right thing. Failing to carry is an abdication of citizenship and denies the weak the defense our police have no way or intention of providing.
The fact that this issue is being taken so seriously by either side of the argument brings to light the fact that our nation is not what is used to be, for better or worse, it and we have changed. We are not the same nation I accepted my retirement from nearly 20 years ago; much less the nation I pledged my oath of enlistment to 40 years ago. Of course, that is just one man's opinion. The view from my foxhole, if you will!

Army1969

April 3, 2014 - 7:40pm

All of you gun lovers deserve each other. Makes me remember the moron culture in the Army.

Coach Roy

April 3, 2014 - 7:48pm

Remember that during Pearl Harbor, they were afraid to issue weapons to the soldiers because they didn't approval.

Not that it would have stopped the attacks but you never know how many people might have been saved if we had been able to shoot back.

sp/418

April 3, 2014 - 8:17pm

I am all for gathering up every weapon in the United States and destroying each and everyone.The way we went about gun control after the civil war was that every militia that gave there guns to the hospital were put on paid disability. I would also like to say that not only a gun free zone but a gun free country.

Army1969

April 3, 2014 - 9:42pm

From another SPec4. Yours is the most same comment on this whole page.

JoJosLaNina

April 3, 2014 - 9:20pm

With terrorism, the battleground encompasses the entire world, including US Military Bases in the United States. Give our soldiers the tools they need to defend themselves and our country.

Cav Trooper

April 3, 2014 - 10:22pm

Todays military recognizes soldiers can suffer from PTSD, they gave it a name. Treatment is not funded well enough, and it appears it is not recognized as a mental illness as is defined by our government as cause to reject the sale of a firearm.
Designation of a military installation as 'weapons free' is an empty move. As stated above, a crook or someone mentally deranged who has the desire to carry a gun on an installation, need only stick a gun under the car seat and drive in. Responsibly armed citizens are a potential defense to mass shootings and other crimes.
As far as repeal of the Second Amendment, when 'OUR' government accomplishes that, wave good bye to your First Amendment rights. Possibly your other RIGHTS as well. After all, who in this country, other than the illegally armed criminals would be prepared to stand up against 'OUR' government. Gatherings of citizens could be construed as harmful to the peace and good order of 'OUR' country.
Bottom Line: our founding fathers did not write the Bill of Rights or the Constitution so some kneejerk politicians could arbitrarily change it through 'legislation'.
Sick soldiers need to be treated. If it is a mental illness, don't hedge the issue.

Capone

April 4, 2014 - 8:57am

One Ex-Cav trooper to another, I totally agree. As the saying goes, "They can have my gun..." You know the rest. Just because I feel that way doesn't mean that I'm going to psyco and start hurting people. Yes, I think PTSD is a real mental problem, but I also believe that it's recoverable. Short term maybe drugs might be a way of cooping but long term I think counseling is a better solution. Unfortunately, when I ETS'd it was like, "There's the door see you later." and they released my on the public. It took me years to readjust. I might be in jail now if I had not decided that I shouldn't buy a pistol again because I knew I might not be able to control myself sometimes. Still haven't got that pistol yet. would like a new Colt 787.

Lawrence H. Skelton, LtCol, USAF (ret.)

April 3, 2014 - 10:44pm

Recently a bunch of people in China were killed by knives. I would expect the PRC to be rather controlling of firearms. Maybe they (and we) should ban knives & other pointy things. In my personal experience, I know of three homicides committed with a chair. Better not allow chairs on bases either.

Cav Trooper

April 3, 2014 - 10:54pm

Good point. No pun intended. Tobacco may soon be banned on installations if Hagel has his way. How about alcohol. Maybe even cars, look at all of the military members and innocent family members killed by those uncontrollable four wheeled beasts.
Sorry, I really don't mean to detract from the real tragedy in this discussion, the loss of life and serious injury to people attempting to live their lives the best they could.
Let's get help for injured soldiers.

Greg C USA Retired

April 4, 2014 - 6:01am

No I don't think they need a ban or any more bureaucratic rules, they seem do be doing a lot of it lately. What happened to "Sergeants Business" and "Chain of Command" they all use to work pretty good at squad, platoon and company level. You don't need Col's, Generals, Secretary of Defense, Senators etc. involved in ever cotton picking thing. For 20 yrs I and many other guys would deer hunt too and from work, and we would always bring our pistols & rifles into our offices and stash them behind our desks or leave them locked up in our vehicles during the day while at work. We didn't have any problems and neither did our co-workers. I'm sure that would not go over at all now.

WEcho

April 4, 2014 - 7:26am

I kind of expect name calling and rudeness in the general population. It's disappointing to see it, to this degree, here. There are valid arguments all around this issue that can be expressed without using perjoratives. One specific comment, I personally wouldn't trust any group of contemporary legislators, nor even citizens off the street, to conduct a constitutional convention -- the depth of knowledge, wisdom and selfless dedication presnet at the first one would be real hard to find today.

Capone

April 4, 2014 - 8:39am

When I lived on base, I have a nice Colt chrome 357 7-shot. Loved that pistol but I got rid of it because it was such a hassle to check in and out of the arms room when ever we wanted to got shooting. It had to be cleaned to the same standard as all of the other weapons in the arms room too.

jeb stuart

April 4, 2014 - 9:24am

The designation military base is a characterization to begin with. What exactly do we mean? Are we talking about everything from the main post to the impact areas? What could they do different to govern the ranges they aren't already doing?
Would changing the rules on Post make any difference if a soldier is determined to do crazy?
Some surveys are asking in response to this tragedy if more soldiers on Post should be armed.
This is a situation where the attending counselor, and recruiter should be scrutinized more closely.
I also will not get my smile until I know they have absolutely ruled out two factors. That Lopez who came in through the Guard didn't get in because some recruiter lowered the standards to fill an enlistment quota ignoring red flags and that Ivan was not a Muslim convert. My personal experiences in the Guard and with some counselors and recruiters is they can leave the gate open when it should be shut especially when a State is trying to keep its numbers up. The fact that this soldier was enlisted in PR? should make no difference.

Robert Schlotter

April 4, 2014 - 12:03pm

I am a retired NCO with 25+ years in the US Army. I really believe that making gun free zones on a military base is not the answer, but making a better way to treat and help soldiers with mental issues and PTSD issues to become better soldiers. The military services should swallow alittle pride and do what is best for the soldiers not for their image. Show the troops that you do care for them instead of treating them like just another number in their ranks that is expendable. The bottom line is HELP THEM TO HEAL!

Patrick O'Grady

April 4, 2014 - 1:56pm

I was a infantry ground pounder in the 173rd ABN 2/503 back in the 60's, and then a police officer for over 33 years. To this day I do not understand the logic of our military. Every civilian person employed on a military reservation should be back ground checked, and everyone should be required to weapon when on the base. I just recently seen pictures of Israel soldiers off duty walking around town with their weapons slung over their shoulder. I understand many Americans will not agree with me, but guns keep us free and safer.

Wade, USAF, Ret

April 4, 2014 - 4:29pm

Clint, your delight in disparaging those who disagree with you lends credence to arguments that gun access should be controlled. Mix more guns with angry people at odds over complex issues that have been oversimplified is a dangerous path. I personally don't want to live in old "Deadwood " or "Tombstone."

mel wilson

April 5, 2014 - 12:35pm

Wade I understand you don't want to live in Tombstone. Chicago has more gunfighters on the street than all the Tombstones and Deadwoods have ever thought of having. and it is unlawful to kill one another but they don't care.
Ps I don't want too live there either

EJCox

April 5, 2014 - 3:38pm

Simple awnser "Hell No"... What do people not understand about mental illness. This guy was still able to buy a gun? When a person wants to buy a gun a persons physician also should be required to chime in with a yea/nea...

Old Grunt

April 7, 2014 - 3:22pm

All I have to say on the subject: How the hell have we gotten to this place we are in?? I can't/won't jump on the military CoC about this mess, it's not just behind the gate, it seems to be everywhere in our society. I own fire arms( my wife says way to many!) served in two wars, saw and did some things I'm not real proud of; but, I can't say I've had the urge to just start taking people out 'cause I'm upset about something. I am convinced that there a breakdown in our country in morals/in the contract of civilization we are supposed to live under/ that thing called laws that govern our behavior. I fell it started in the early sixties and is running down hill faster and faster. How do we at least slow this train down??

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think