Posted on Dec 2, 2014
Why do trust service members with weapons that can decimate entire cities but not to carry a firearm for personal protection?
5.05K
23
25
6
6
0
Why is it that we entrust service members with weapons that can decimate entire cities but they are not allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection on post? It is a well established trend among mass shooters to execute their crime in "gun free" zones- which includes (in the past few years) military installations. I think if a service member goes through the appropriate training and certification, they should be able to carry- even on the job. Yet we have installations that have strict garrison policies that disarm service members. We support and defend the Constitution but are denied a fundamental right that the Constitution grants to citizens of this great nation. What is your position on this?
Policy
Rights
Firearms and Guns
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 10
3
3
0
Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That’s why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/#ixzz3KuSJRXD7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/#ixzz3KuSJRXD7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
The policy that bans open carry on base is short-sighted. Granted we can't have a bunch of cowboys walking around base, but we are taught gun safety from day one in uniform and if it was ever allowed, an annual re-crert should be required.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Not only service members but properly licensed concealed carry retirees and veterans.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google