Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood massacre

[lovejoy]

Gun History
After reading the following historical facts, read the part about Switzerland twice.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated..
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

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

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.


SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
If you are too, please forward.

Just think how powerful our government is getting!
They think these other countries just didn't do it right.
Learn from history.

If any of the solders at the Readiness center carry guns and shoot back, the no.of death will be minimal.

"Going Postal" may not the best way to resolve workplace violence but it is the management that initiates violence against workers !

 

[Friday on my mind]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

It's not clear yet but I have already heard they beleive some of those shot may have been from friendly fire.It was a probably a real maylay in the place.

Don't think there is much control of 2nd amendement rights on bases,plenty of people packing weapons.Just goes to show if somebody is really determnined they can usually inflict a lot of damage before being shot down.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Exactly!

How can we defend ourselves as a public with self defense?

Do people honestly believe that the criminals will obey this one law about no handguns?

If you were a criminal and a town has a good bit of its citizens with firearms, and another town citizens have no firearms. Which would you feel safe to rob and get away clean?

If you do not like firearms, fine, whatever. I don't care! But do not try and strip it away from others just because you don't like it! Everyone has their form of self defense from firearms, blades, martial arts.

On a side note: watch an episode of Gangland on History Channel, preferably an episode about the Haitian gang in Miami and MS13. Do you really want them and the government being the only ones carrying firearms?

 

[lovejoy]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

The FBI and CID stated no friendly fire caused any injuries !

Both the shooter and the civilian cop used different prototype of handguns !

 

[JacknCoke]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

I've said this before and I will say it again. The second amendment does not give us a right to a police force. Honestly with how I have seen my local police force act lately I have zero faith in their capability to protect me. They would rather pull you over for speeding then to investigate a break in or to actually make an effort to stop a break in at your neighbors house.

 

[GregCentauro]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

The non-existence of the US Army would have prevented the shooting.

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

It's not clear yet but I have already heard they beleive some of those shot may have been from friendly fire.It was a probably a real maylay in the place.

Don't think there is much control of 2nd amendement rights on bases,plenty of people packing weapons.Just goes to show if somebody is really determnined they can usually inflict a lot of damage before being shot down.

The only people armed on the base's are the guards and MP's everyone else is not armed. Everything else is kept at the Armory.

if you think every Soldier is walking around with an M16, M4 or pistol you are sadly mistaken. we treat the base like our community we have plioce and guards that protect us. Believe me it would be VERY bad to let soldiers take their weapons home, with all cheating husband and wives and all.

 

[marquis2]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

There's a lot of confused thinking in the original post.The Romans had ab expression for it-post hoc ergo propter hoc which is the fallacy that if one event follows another it was caused by it.
It is utter nonsense for example to imagine that had the Jews been armed they would have been able to avoid the holocaust.There are plenty of reasons, not least that they had no idea about their fate.What do you do if a load of armed people in uniform turn up to your family home and tell you to come along?
Flipping the argument, we have been denied weapons for a long time in this country. Criminals as you say take no notice so we get about 50 gunshot homicides a year in a population of 60 million.And we haven't had mass exterminations.
The nonsense in the OP is that what happened was the result of gun control.The truth is that isolated armed people have no defence against organised might any more than do unarmed people.What happened to the Warsaw ghetto?

 

[lovejoy]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Ft Hood is very lucky to have civilian police at the base. Before 9/11, so many bases are wide open and you can walk/drive in to the Fx to get anything.

And there are so many gun shops, pawn shops at Fort Campbell, I wonder why?

I am talking about soldiers carry their own handguns for protection, not M16 military rifles ! (at least have handguns in the truck/car in case anything happens !)

 

[meesterperfect]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

It's not clear yet but I have already heard they beleive some of those shot may have been from friendly fire.It was a probably a real maylay in the place.

Don't think there is much control of 2nd amendement rights on bases,plenty of people packing weapons.Just goes to show if somebody is really determnined they can usually inflict a lot of damage before being shot down.

I agree friday if someones gonna go nuts with a gun theyre probably gonna do it no matter what.
which come to think of it is a pretty good arguement as to why gun control laws protect no one.

good thread.
its common sense
just like keeping your weapon in a safe place and or not shooting yourself with it.
I think most can still handle that.

 

[calpoon]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

For all the rhetoric about gun control, America is one of the most liberal countries in the world when it comes to gun ownership. In many states it is entirely within the law and requires no more than to hand an individual cash and to walk away with a gun on the spot.

There is no shortage of armed Americans and biggest reason that people are not armed is simply because they choose not to, not a lack of opportunity. Both the number of gun owners and the number of crimes continue to rise, seemingly an inevitability of population density. There is little evidence to support the conjecture that less gun restriction would amount to less crime.

If a maniac starts open firing on a group of people it's impossible to say what the casualty outcome would be if it was based on a vigilante intervention compared to a security officer. That's purely speculation.

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

I am talking about soldiers carry their own handguns for protection, not M16 military rifles ! (at least have handguns in the truck/car in case anything happens !)

Oh wel lthen ABSOLUTLY. I still to this day carry a .45 in my glove box. Yes people have pistols on them but you can not bring them into the buildings they MUST stay in your car. So even then they would not help them. The soldiers first priorty when another soilder is wounded/dead is that wounded/dead soilder everything else is secondary.

It's nice to see that combat lifesaver classes actually pay off. My old CO made sure the NCO's under his leadership were combat lifesavers and then we had to make sure our men were combat lifesavers as well. It pays big dividens in a combat area.

 

[calpoon]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Interesting points.

It is obvious why military bases would not want people bringing in weapons, but on the other hand soldiers of all people would be the ones that you'd think should be responsible to be armed.

 

[whoremaker]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Not that this is the only miscue in the OP, but I did want to point out that this is entirely incorrect. Japan, and Germany, both fully intended to eventually invade the continental United States. Japan's plans were dashed when the U.S. began island hopping across the Pacific, forcing the Imperial Navy to go on the defensive. With the carrier losses the Japanese suffered at Midway, this meant that the Japanese would not be able to return to an offensive stance and therefore would not be invading, ever. In fact, an armed and hostile populace is the reason why the Allies opted to nuke the Japanese instead of invading mainland Japan. The Imperial government had bastardized the Bushido code, and force-fed propaganda to the citizenry, to such an extent that the Japanese people were inclined to fight tanks with pitch forks, or throw themselves off of cliffs (see Okinawa) rather than allow the Allies to invade. It's all there in the books, should one opt to read them instead of poorly crafted chain mails.

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Interesting points.

It is obvious why military bases would not want people bringing in weapons, but on the other hand soldiers of all people would be the ones that you'd think should be responsible to be armed.

They should be and most are but like I said they can not have them inside building, unless they are DoD police of MP's. It's just one of the many regulations. Plus who would ever thing that something like this would happen on an Army post in the first place.

I think they might change the regulations now or at least have a few more guards/MPs placed at the reception buildings.

Also everyone learns how to shoot a M16, M4 and pistol but with really only combat MOS's training each and everyday I bet they are horrible shots now.

I can say with 100% accuracy that if I had access to an M16/4 if that ever happen when I was in I could easily put 3 rounds in the guys chest at 200 yards.

But my first priority is my fallen brothers and sisters.

 

[mrtrebus]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

I want bear arms!!

 

[Ace Bandage]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Just trying to inject a little humor. We all need to laugh a little even in the face of a senseless tragedy such as this. When I saw bear arms, this is the first thing that came to mind...

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

The fact is, even if EVERY civilian in this country was disarmed, and the only people allowed to possess firearms, were the police and military...he was still in the military, and may have found a way to get a gun. Even if he was never able to gain access to the armory...he could have gotten his hands on a Humvee, and run people down. He could have mixed some common chemicals together and blown a bunch of people up. The point is, he was intent on doing this, and he would have pulled it off. Unless of course, all of the big giant flashing warning signels he sent, would have been paid attention too.

 

[Facetious]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Most certainly in my opinion, just look at the states where civilian carry is legal ... now look at California

This asshat murderer / religious extremist from the Fort Hood (I forget his name already - I don't care either !) went as far as selecting a pistol that had lite recoil and capacity of 20 rounds per magazine FN "®Five SeveN", the most of any handgun of it's type (defensive) so, from an editorial point of view, I have to think that the slayer's intentions were to take out as many people as possible as efficiently as possible. Did we ever learn about the number of magazines he had at the ready ?

Oh, yea, hasan is the slayer's name... anyway, if more officials were known to be armed on base like they should have been and used to be in the good 'ol days, hasan would have sought different means of killing innocent Americans.

Does anybody know who changed the rules pertaining to on base carry ... was it Jimmy Carter ?

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Most certainly in my opinion, just look at the states where civilian carry is legal ... now look at California

This asshat murderer / religious extremist from the Fort Hood (I forget his name already - I don't care either !) went as far as selecting a pistol that had lite recoil and capacity of 20 rounds per magazine FN "®Five SeveN", the most of any handgun of it's type (defensive) so, from an editorial point of view, I have to think that the slayer's intentions were to take out as many people as possible as efficiently as possible. Did we ever learn about the number of magazines he had at the ready ?

Oh, yea, hasan is the slayer's name... anyway, if more officials were known to be armed on base like they should have been and used to be in the good 'ol days, hasan would have sought different means of killing innocent Americans.

Does anybody know who changed the rules pertaining to on base carry ... was it Jimmy Carter ?

I think this sums everything up

Can you carry a concealed weapon on a military base? No. People on military bases may own and use guns, but they can't carry them around whenever or wherever they want. Every gun must be registered with the base's provost marshal—the equivalent of their chief of police—and stored in the armory. If they want to use the gun, whether for a military exercise, for leisure time at the on-base shooting range, or for off-base use, they have to check it out from the armory and return it immediately when they're done. Visitors who arrive with guns must leave them with the guards at the gate.

The only people who can carry guns around a base—concealed or otherwise—are on-duty military police, who handle routine security. They then have to return their guns to the armory when their shifts are over. (The police officer who shot Hasan, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, is a member of the base's civilian police force.) Another exception is for on-duty local or state police officers who come to the base on official business. If they're off-duty or if they don't have official business at the base, they have to leave their guns at the gate. The base's company commander can make other exceptions—say, if a base is under attack or if officers need to carry guns for a special ceremony. But the commander then becomes responsible for anything that happens as a result of his decision.

I can't find anything about who made it law though.