• Printer friendly
• E-mail to a friend
• 112 comment(s)
• Recommend

  ( 19 )

• 

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

Personal Weapons on Army Posts : 11/10/2009

Careful documentary and empirical research have proved that the most certain and secure way to smuggle personal weapons onto a post such as Hood is to drive up to the front gate, return the MP's salue, and diddly-bop on down to the BOQ.

Flavet

Solutions Proposed by VPC and Brady's : 11/10/2009

The Brady Bunch and the Violence Policy Center have already come out blaming the Ft. Hood shootings on America's "lax handgun control laws". They say the solution would be "reasonable restrictions" on posession of handguns by the general population. They have not yet provided us with any specifics on what those restrictions would be or how they would work. I'm getting a headache trying to imagine a law that would comply with the Supreme Court ruling in DC v Heller yet would have stopped a US Army major from buying a handgun.

DDS -- NRA Life Member

The Gun Prohibition....are you serious? : 11/10/2009

I didn't get your no guns angle at first. Hell, death sell papers man! But after reading a little father I see that nasty little word...prohibition. Seriously Daily Beat Down! This ain't 1910! I wish my postings had some kind of appreciable effect on eliminating your moronic ranting about how bad we have it in the world today. Get any On Patrol ads today losers! I hope the other poster is not suggesting metal detectors and strip searches for every officer and non-com that enters a military base....if you are, you're a real Daily Beat Down reading retard!

Boycott Boy

Gun Control in the Military? : 11/10/2009

If it was up to the 'Wackos' at the VPC and 'the Brady bunch' the military would be patterned after 'Oddball' and his 'Paint Ball' tank in Kelly's Heros. Morons, one and all!

Hipshot Percussion

Bravo! : 11/10/2009

Great article. Gun Free zones are an illusion.

Tim

Police and Self Defense : 11/10/2009

AMEN on a well write pieceand remember Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” The right to self-defense has been recognized for centuries. Cicero said 2,000 years ago, “If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right;” English jurist Sir William Blackstone observed that the English Bill of Rights recognized “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” as intended “to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights,” the first of which is “personal security.”14 Sir Michael Foster, judge of the Court of King’s Bench, wrote in the 18th century, “The right of self-defense. . . is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society.”15 The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), recognized that the right to arms is an individual right, stating that it “is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” In Beard v. U.S. (1895), the court approved the common-law rule that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and concluded that when attacked a person “was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.”

Mark Buono

Same conclusion! : 11/10/2009

It is ironic that many states allow concealed carry for its citizens, and yet, the military (to my knowledge) does not allow its troops to do so on base. It seems to me that high-ranking NCOs and officers, after being vetted by the Department of Defense or the FBI, should be allowed to carry. What is true in civilian life is also true in this case. "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." If we can't trust troops to handle weapons on base, then who can we trust? Many of those 13 who were killed would be alive today if they had had their own weapon handy.

2nd Fundamentalist

Wow! A breath of reality! : 11/10/2009

It's about time someone gets it and writes about it! This opinion piece is right on the money on so many counts. Prohibition doesn't work, it never has. History has shown us this, the facts are in our face everyday. And religion... don't get me started on those people! Well done, well done pointing out logic, truth and reality. Now if you can only get the liberal tards to learn this ever so simple lesson, we would be better off.

Ian - California

An intelligent article : 11/10/2009

This is a great article, you can add that cities with the most restrictive gun control, have the most violent crime rates. You can also add that countries with the most restrictive gun control has the same,plus less freedom for it's people.

Johnny Bang Bang

Gun Control : 11/10/2009

The only thing that would ever be accomplished by the gun control being advocated by to many of our leaders, the Brady Bunch, Bloomberg and his mayors, etc. is that our society would become a collective group of "soft targets" , ripe for anyone intending to cause bodly harm, hence there name, criminals. Almost any item you can think of can be used as a weapon. I am not advocating the arming of all troops on all bases, but had there been some in the area the Major would not have gotten very far, as it was it took one armed female MP to end it. As sad as this incident was it does prove a point for all who are willing to open their eyes. My heart goes out to the familys of this tragedy, I can understand seeing what familys of freinds are going through with their children deployed in the middle east, as my family did with me during Vietnam.

CCW premit holder and NRA Patron Member

Firearms on Military Posts : 11/10/2009

Laws have never stopped a terrorist. This is precisely what this Major was. More gun control? History has proven that gun control does not stop crime. As a 30 year Army Retiree, I simply refuse to go onto a miltary base or post, because I must disarm. 37 states trust me to carry a firearm for personal protection and I do. As a retired military person I refuse to go into a Gun Free Criminal Protection Zone. Gun free zones, are killing zones!

Stu Strickler

Military, guns and the Brady Bunch : 11/10/2009

I think we should settle all wars with Super Soaker squirt guns, that way getting our hair wet will be the worst that will happen. When we come home, we would put a trigger lock on that super soaker and separate the gun from the water for safe storage. That sounds all nice and dandy but if Mexico can send truckloads of drugs up the boarder, then they could do the same thing with guns, then it will be a matter of time before it’s something worse. If they ban guns, will the gun black market be as bad as the drug war? I understand the military’s stance on accountability of weapon and sensitive items, but this event occurred (like all the rest) where guns are illegal to carry. In every single gun shooting, the location was Brady Bunch approved. Yet they are pointing the finger at guns (and legitimate gun owners) as if they caused the perpetrator to commit his crime. If anything, this should be another reminder of dangers of radicalisms, not lax gun laws. No law could have prevented this; even if he couldn't buy a gun, all he would have to do is wait until his unit opened the arms room. If he wanted to cause mass murder, he could also very well have done it easily with a homemade destructive device. If anything, we should change our mindset and culture of how the typical American sees what a gun is, and how it became important in the American Tradition. Until then, the Brandy Bunch efforts will always be counterproductive if all they do is based their fictional ideas on what they see in action films. One thing they never seem to understand, is that criminals love what they do, since it makes their jobs so much easier to carryout crimes.

NRA Member

No guns, criminals will use bombs : 11/10/2009

If we ban guns, it will be a matter of time criminals will start using bombs. Today in Pakistan: 24 Killed, 100 Wounded. That overshadows that tragedy at Fort Hood, and not a single bullet was fired. Yes it happened in Pakistan and not USA, and yes terrorists were involved, but if we Americans continue being as politically correct as we are now, what won’t they do? Check it out: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091110/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan I'll keep my gun and neither crime will occur. I gun in my pocket is a better deterrent than any law on paper!

NRA Member

Concealed Carry in a Military Uniform : 11/10/2009

The Laws of Armed Conflict, or LOAC as it is referred to in military jargon prohibits uniformed military personnel from carrying any weapon that is not in plain view and Posse Comitatus prevents them from acting in behalf of the police force. These facts make concealed carry by uniformed servicemembers impossible on post. I am one such member and have been licensed to carry concealed weapons since 2001. I do not foresee the day when installation commanders allow the carrying of concealed weapons by anyone except CID, NIS, or OSI who all operate under a different set of rules and SOPs. Were that to change I would be the first to volunteer to be one of the uniformed concealed weapon carriers.

Right is Right

Firearm restrictions : 11/10/2009

After reading the article and the posts. iIhave to make my first ever comment. I am retired Navy and still work for the Navy as a civilian. In all the years that I have been following the Second Amendment "discussion" this is the closest I have seen to getting my point out there. During Prohibition, people started making their own liquor. I left the Navy after working in a highly classified communications situation and wanted to try something new. Apprenticeship at a Naval Shipyard was the thing. They trained me as a machinist. Guess what any moderately trained machinist can read, interpret and use a blueprint or computer design. From this they can make their own gun. A short search of the internet will put so much info on making ammunition, gunpowder, primers and bullets that making my own gun would only take a matter of weeks. That would be for the first one. Once something has been devised by the mind of man, it cannot be erased from the collective. Someone needs to let the "banners" know this fact. Blackmarket booze was bad, how bad would it be if firearms went the same way. I also hate going on military bases as it restricts my ability to carry. If i have to go, the arm stays in the safe and I am not. I do not have solution but keep thinking of ones. Maybe someone out there can figure an angle to get those of us who have been cleared and trained, allowed to carry when on base.

Paul Kelley, USNRet

I've never heard it put better : 11/10/2009

This article is right on, I have never heard the argument put in a more concise and clear manner! I agree 100%.

Liberty & Justice For All

Personal Weapons on Army Posts : 11/10/2009

Making semi automatic handguns illegal with strong penalty would reduce the number of people a person can quickly kill. Police can easily be outgunned. There is no defensive or hunting reason to have one.

Eleanor York

: 11/10/2009

Finally someone with intelligence is writing an article that seems to effectively assess our violent nature without suggesting that we give up our right to protect ourselves.

Eleanor York : 11/10/2009

"Making semi automatic handguns illegal with strong penalty would reduce the number of people a person can quickly kill. Police can easily be outgunned. There is no defensive or hunting reason to have one." WRONG, RIGHT and WRONG! 1. Making semi-auto handguns illegal would make no difference regarding the amount of people that could be killed by one. 2. Police can be easily out gunned, therefore citizens need to pick up the slack 3. Doesn't this article directly prove that there IS a defensive reason to have one? People like you are the reason this sh*t is going to continue to happen in YOUR schools, YOUR towns, to YOUR loved ones. Get a clue lady!

Realist

personal weapons 11/10/09 : 11/10/2009

every state that has law biding citizens qualified to carry a weapon crime goes down. criminals are bullies and if they dont know who is or who isant packing crime goes down. they go to states like california not texas. we also need to cal a spade a spade and stop this political correctness bull a terriost is a terrorist. i pack and carry (period) to protect my family ajd myself.

Finally!! : 11/10/2009

Finally someone who has his facts straight. The morons in the Brady Bunch tend to ignore the facts or just replace them with their own statistics in order to scare people into thinking that any form of gun control is worthwile at all. It's just rediculous. I'm glad that there are some people who know what's what and have their facts straight. A very good article.

Matt, NRA Life Member

FT. HOOD shootings : 11/10/2009

"These disordered minds can be found within the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths." Care to give some ratios? Just off the top of my head I can recall FAR more killings in the name of Allah than I can for Yaweh or his kid. We are not a multicultural nation - we are multi-ethnic but ONE culture. Islam is incompatible with America and I shudder to think of how many more will die to the chant of "Allahu Akbar!" until it sinks in.

oatka

Failure of Gun Control : 11/10/2009

Yep. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the futility, and immorality of gun control as well as an incident like this. The utter failure of absolute gun control is perfectly modeled here in the microcosm of the Ft Hood military post. All that expensive training, all the background checks, and all those weapons and ammunition locked up in the armory. Why in the hell can't 1 of 5 or 10 soldiers be designated to carry at all times, in the interest of military base security?

Christopher J Hoffman

Laws are not magic wands . . . : 11/10/2009

If laws against killing people won't stop a criminal, how is a law against having a gun supposed to do it?

Christopher J Hoffman

No Gun Zone : 11/10/2009

I challenge all anti-gun advocates to post prominent signage all over their personal property declaring "This Is A Gun Free Zone". Let's see how that works for them. Had a single, law abiding, concealed carry permit holder been at Columbine, Virginia Tech or Fort Hood, the loss of life would have been minimized.. A fact the anti-gun nutz continue to overlook, to their detriment, and ours.

Michael Moore

Total ban in Gritain-- gun crime there up 17% last year. : 11/10/2009

At last a sensible article in the press. All too often journalists and reporters ignore the facts. Gun bans don't stop crime, but they do make it impossible for the law abiding citizen to protect him or herself and thereby reduce crime. Preventing law abiding citizens from carrying does not stop criminals -- they ignore the law. There are now more armed criminals in Britain than there were before the ban, but the British public cannot defend themselves. "Hot" home invasions (where the family is at home) are now common over there, thugs armed with baseball bats and worse know that the family is defenseless. More and more we see British police arming themselves, a real indication that guns bans totally fail.

TBJ

Responsibility : 11/10/2009

This once again illustrates that we are all personally responsible for our own safety. The police cannot be at your side 24/7 to protect you. The people of this nation need to assert their god-given right to arm and protect themselves rather than simply lying down and waiting for the police to show up and draw a white line around them. There was most likely several hundred trained combat veterans within seconds of this incident. If only 1 of them had a concealed weapon, the dead & injured numbers would be much different. How can anyone support white lines drawn around victims over allowing self defense?

choprzrul

WHY ? : 11/10/2009

the question isnt weather or not this idiot got his guns or if he managed to get them on to a military base wich doesnt allow guns other than SPs the question is why he did it and why we could not get him out of the military the gun control issue is DOA criminals dont care about laws the best defense is a stong offense if every one who wants to protect themselves carry a gun then the criminals would think twice about commiting a crime . and personally the miliatry really needs to rethink its policy on bases if more where armed on base he would ahve been dead in about three shots with a lot less loss of life

mrndmk

Gun banns in general : 11/10/2009

"Making semi automatic handguns illegal with strong penalty would reduce the number of people a person can quickly kill. Police can easily be outgunned. There is no defensive or hunting reason to have one. Eleanor York" Oh PLEASE Eleanor, How are you going to make criminals follow any law banning any gun? All gun bans do is keep the criminals armed and the law abiding citizens (who actually follow the law) UN-armed!! How are you going to get all the guns away from the people who decide NOT to "turn in" their guns? Go door to door kicking them in and searching their homes? Should we give up our 2nd Amendment rights as well as our 4th? Which one is next? I am of the opinion (as are many), that the 2nd Amendment actually helps to protect the other ones..... Cheers, LtCol USAF (ret)

Rick

Pertinent : 11/10/2009

Excellent. Needs to be widely circulated. Thanks.

Common Sense in the media? Hard to believe! : 11/10/2009

Ample empirical evidence clearly show that gun control laws don't work. Only a few years ago the CDC issued a report indicating that in its research gun control laws don't work. Ditto the National Science Foundation. Research at Florida State Unversity has shown that guns are used for self defense roughly 2.5 million times each year in the U.S. Research at the University of Chicago has shown that the states which routinely allow qualified civilians to carry loaded, concealed handguns have far less violent crime than highly restrictive states. Where's the "rocket science?" Right now we have a complete prohibition against certain drugs. Cocaine, heroin and meth-amphetamines, to name only a few, are totally prohibited. Does this fact prevent anybody who wants these drugs to obtain them. HELL NO! Another poster has correctly stated that these drugs find their way into prisons! But somehow, the Brady Bunch and others continue to indulge themselves in the illusion that more gun laws will make things better. How dumb do they think we are??

RealityCheck

Spot On! : 11/10/2009

Intelligent article, nicely done. Unfortunately, the liberal gungrabbers are as fervent in their misinformed views as are the mooselimbs in killing everyone who doesn't subscribe to the "religion of peace." So, while you're points are very valid, I don't think you can beat sense into the anti-2A crowd, much less have any salient points sink in...

Capt. Troy

Gun Facts Version 5.1 by Guy Smith : 11/10/2009

from page 49 Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime Fact: Thirty-nine states282, comprising the majority of the American population, are "right-to-carry" states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states restrict the right to carry and two deny it outright. Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.283 Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).284 Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year afterenactment, and 500% faster in the second.285 Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.286 Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws287: Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.288 Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995,289 the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.290

Californian

Gun Control .. : 11/10/2009

All military bases have Strict Gun control Laws. Yet a Lone Psychopath was able to obtain and circumvent the so called "security of Gun control", and managed to Kill a dozen Law abiding Citizens, Soldiers of the United States. Yet it took a Gun to stop it! Imagine if every soldier PFC and above was required to carry at all times? I wounder if that coward would have tried it then! I also wounder how many Family members would be smiling right now instead of visiting a Headstone! The Response time in this situation was the fastest Ive heard of, yet the Heroics of that young Woman was not enough. I have done my part to stand up for right to Keep and Bear arms, by joining and donating to Known Organizations that support it also. Montana Shooting Sports Association, NRA. I carry 99% of the time, and will defend the Freedom of others!

MT PATRIOT

CCW Would Work on Base? : 11/10/2009

Yup...

DesertMarlin

Gun control : 11/10/2009

It's nice to finally see the mainstream media see through the fog. As pionted out in the artical, prohibition dosen't stop or control any of the things it's used to control, be it drugs, sex, alcohol or guns. Most fearful people need to remember if guns are out lawed, then only out laws will have them. Remember YOU are your first line of defense, not he alarm nor the officer on the beat, YOU.

Tony Wixon

: 11/10/2009

This article contains far, far too much common sense for the common man to comprehend.

Eric

Someone needs to buy Randy Alcorn a beer... : 11/10/2009

Because that was a fantastic article that actually used common sense and history to show why any attempt at gun control is doomed to fail and only serves to support criminals and put citizens at risk. i commend you for a well written and educational piece of writing, and The daily Sound for having the balls to print it. i cant remember the last time i saw an article talking about firearms and a right to carry in a positive light in any California publication.

Tristan

guns : 11/10/2009

the more law abiding people that carry consealed the safer i feel and anny body that is smart feels the same way . they can save lives

nov 10

You Can't Legislate Against Evil : 11/10/2009

I could not have said it any better. I live in the real world where vice, greed and evil effect everyday people everyday. Weapons for defense or for war are as old as the oldest profession mentioned in the article... as old as good and evil itself. The same people who invented prohibition of alcohol are at the reigns

Bravo Sierra

So Much for gun control. : 11/10/2009

A FREE PEOPLE OUGHT........TO BE ARMED. GEORGE WASHINGTON 1791. This is one of the best articles i have ever seen. Right to the point and very forthright.

elmocsherman@yahoo.com

Fort Hood : 11/10/2009

I totally agree with you. Our, and I use the word "our" jokingly, government. Along with the media have created a hysteria around the word GUN. Under most circunstances, if someone sees the outline of a handgun under your shirt or a suspicious bulge under your coat. They flip out, call 911 and you the lawful CCP holder may find yourself sitting in the back seat of a patrol car. The same effect is not seen if a person is wearing a hunting knife or if someone takes a pair of brass knuckles out of their pocket, or is holding a baseball bat. All of which are deadly weapons. Of course, the goal of this and past governments is to disarm the lawbiding citizens. Why? There are several reason for their legislatied actions. Not one of them designed to secure the safety of Americans. Democracy, because of its inherent flaws cannot last forever. This is not the same democracy our fathers and grandfathers grew up under. Greed, corruption, and a never ending thurst for control over other are the main culprits. People who desire theese things purchase the support of those we elect. Once on Capitol Hill or in the Oval Office. These so called representatives of the people. whose sole purpose is to create and pass laws. Continue to churn out law after law. Nine times out of ten never reading what they've signed. This being the case. It's only a matter of time before their laws begin to chip away at our Constitution. We've see this more and more. Especially under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and now, Barak Obama. How much longer will America remain a Democracy? Don't kid yourself. It's not a Democarcy now. We're in the final innings of the most important game of all. The game of Freedom.

davidarnold

Self defense is among the most basic of human and civil rights. : 11/10/2009

Very well written. Precise and accurate. Kudos also to poster Mark Buono, "Police and Self Defense : 11/10/2009" (above). Both this article and the poster reach the only logical conclusion: "Free people should not only be able to arm themselves, they should be able to carry those arms on their person as they do their cell phones (today). Self defense is among the most basic of human and civil rights."

Eddie

I don't believe it : 11/10/2009

Well what do you know. Somebody in The Peoples Republic of Commiefornia has a logical realistic and rational point of view on gun control. I guess wonders never do cease. I have been making the very same points as are in this article for as long as I can remember. As a former activce duty Marine stationed at Camp Pendleton I acn testify to the difficulty in possesing firearms on base. Even privately owned firearms were "required" to be stored in the armory. This could have happened at any of our military bases because, the very people tasked with protecting our freedom are themselves denied that freedom when on a military installation. If that isn't an injustice I don't know what is. This was a tragedy that DID NOT need to happen.

Ken Baker

"So much for gun-control" : 11/10/2009

Well though out response to the "Gun-Control" myth championed by those who view the World through "Rose-Colored-Glasses'. Reality is sometimes...hard for those mis-guided-souls to accept. They continue to focus upon the "Gun", not the person using it in a dastaredly manner. What about "forks"...as the cause for obeisity. Where is the out-cry? Same thing; it is not the fork...but the person using it.

bc1 NRA-Life

a policy that makes no sense : 11/10/2009

Laying aside the issue of civilian gun control just for a moment, why is there a prohibition on military personnel carrying weapons while in a military installation? Aren't we talking about trained soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen? Haven't these people all completed at least six to eight weeks of boot camp, including firearms training? Do US bases and posts inside foreign countries have this same nonsense policy as the stateside ones? What about the ones in war zones like Afghanistan? It seems like pure idiocy. Shouldn't these trained military personnel be helping to defend the base from outside attack if necessary, as well as acting as a check on rogues already on the base? I though the Left were arguing that soldiers were one of the handful of groups that SHOULD be armed at all times. It's hard for me to understand why these people aren't walking around with at least a sidearm at all times. Other people have already stated the obvious as far as why civilians in Anytown, USA should be armed, so I won't even go there.

Cylar

fratricide is nothing new : 11/10/2009

The military probably can and should be doing more to eject unhinged nutballs from the service before they hurt friendly forces, but let's be realistic. The net isn't going to catch everyone, and some military personnel might even BECOME unstable after dealing with some of the horrors of modern warfare. This is one more reason every man and woman in the US military should carry a sidearm or have one within reach at all times while on a military installation, regardless of MOS or job description, regardless of where the base or post is geographically located. Isn't that what we pay troops to do - carry weapons and be prepared to use them whenever necessary? Even those who merely act in support roles still receive ample firearms training prior to their first duty posting. There's no reason for this.

Cylar

Government and its' guns : 11/10/2009

Just an hour or so before the Ft. Hood killings, I encountered a uniformed man with an automatic rifle, standing beside a policeman across the street from the Capital building where Congresswoman Bachman was speaking to people she invited to be there. Isn't it interesting how the government can aim its' weapons at us and yet not allow us to have weapons to defend ourselves? Has anyone ever seen that happen before in history?

Wittness

Say It Again : 11/10/2009

Well thought out, well written, and truthful. The author will probably be branded a right wing pro gun fanatic and driven out of town. Shame, we could use more like him.

Lynn

Military Conceal Carry : 11/10/2009

I served in the Marine Corp and I didnt see any reason why back then we needed to concal carry a gun on base. BUT I SURE AS HELL DO NOW!!!! Get these men and women in uniform an opportunit to conceal carry, for the love of God we are in the middle of two wars, and things here at home have gotten just a little freaking CRAZY! A civillian police force hired to protect a military base. God bless the women who took this nut out....... but on a military base. WE LIVE IN CRAZY WORLD!!!

Former Marine

agree with many : 11/10/2009

I think this is a very well written article, of which I can agree with about 95% of what was stated. I also agree with the grunt that asked what is going on having civilian cops on a military base. If you don't want everyone on a base packing , how about e-6 and higher and all officers armed at all times. Get rid of the cops, save some money, and self protect.There is so much BS stuff you do anyways why not have military patrols on base. I guess the issue w/ Ft. Hood is there are so many families living on base that it functions like a city, so there is a civy police force. They also outa put more of the fat base wives to work anyways, 50% of them are just looking for a meal ticket and by the size of the caboose they have found it. Maybe if they had a decent job on base, we could save some money, and everyone would benefit.

Old grunt/er

So much for gun control : 11/10/2009

California has the most restrictive gun laws that effectively boost crime and put honest citzens at the mercy of criminals. CA needs to get a "shall issue" concealed carry law and repeal all the anti gun laws presently on the book. I am a US Navy Veteran and live in a state with shall issue consealed carry law. The local sheriffi deputies are all supportive of civilian shall issue concealed carry.

AJ

Ban Gun-Free Zones : 11/10/2009

Gun-free zones (ie military installations, most schools, most churches, federal buildings, many businesses) by definition deprive law-abiding citizens of the most effective means of self-protection -- a gun. These dis-armed potential victims are left completely vulnerable to attack by those who, by definition, disobey laws such as gun bans. It is my firm opinion that any person, government, agency, business, school, or any other entity that creates a gun-free zone must provide absolute security and safety for all who enter therein.

Blaine Nay

Weapons on Military Posts : 11/10/2009

Having been a MP on active Duty for about 15 yrs, I do know that the Military does allow the possesion of (POWs) Privatly Owned Weapons on instalations. Each weapon is supposed to be registered and kept unloaded, and locked in your Quarters, or if you live in the Barracks in the Unit Arms room. You are allowed to take it from the quarters to a range or hunting, but the ammo is suposed to be in a seperate part of the vehicle. When I was younger, I liked the restrictions on Firearms on the Instaltions, but as I got older and hopefully wiser I began to dislike them. Having been stationed on Ft. Hood for almost 5 yrs till this year,(for the above reason, when I was stationed to Fort Lost in the Hood, I bought an Off Post house to live in) I knew and worked with SGT Munley more than a few times. She was always a calm person as well as a very good deescilator to a given situation. I have seen in very rare occasions, were it wasn't fiscally ambiguise for the Military Comand certain people have been allowed CCP's with very extreme extenuating circumstances, but these are at the Posts Commanders Discretion, and extremely rare.

XMK2CATX1

Ft Hood Shooting : 11/10/2009

While I agree with most of the article, it totally misses the point. This incident is not about gun control and the rantings of the Brady Campaign are so far off base that they do not even deserve comment. This is about an Army officer that was in contact with a radical iman in another country that promoted violence against the US, an officer that was making radical statements against the security of the US, and was guilty of malfeasance of duty in his counselling of returning soldiers. An officer in the military takes an oath when commissioned to preserve and defend the Constitution of the US. He should have had his clearance revoked and been charged with conduct unbecoming an officer at the very least. The FBI was watching this guy. Why was nothing done? Was it because of political correctness? If so, political correctness has no place in the military. Was the FBI laying low with the idea of watching where all of this led? If so, they are guilty of playing with the lives of other soldiers. The activities of this Major simply cannot be allowed in the military. Considering all of the warning signs that there were serious problems with this Major we all should be demanding to know why he was allowed to continue with his conduct.

Charles Miller

The number of Talmud-quoting murderous Hasidim in the US have been how many? : 11/10/2009

Don't strain yourself searching. It's the religious culture, stupid. There isn't an imam on the planet who would or could deny that there are but three permissible outcomes for non-Muslims: conversion, dhimmitude or death.

A in LA

great on guns, stupid on jihad : 11/11/2009

"Not unexpectedly, after the shootings there soon followed threats against mosques and condemnations of Muslims." Really? FROM WHO? CAIR? Pres. Training Pants Who "used" to be a Muslm? Whats the matter, your wife insist you "balance" the article for her friends?

Joe Notadhimmie

DISSERVICE TO OUR SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN : 11/11/2009

FOR ALL THAT THESE MEN AND WOMEN DO FOR US PROTEST SERVE GIVE AND KEEP OUR FREEDOM. THIS IS JUST WRONG IF THEY CAN'T PROTECT THEMSELVES WHY DO WE EXPECT THEM TO PROTECT US WITH ALL THEY HAVE. GOD BLESS AND KEEP THEM. HAPPY VETERENS DAY!

what he said : 11/11/2009

Well articulated. I would say, however that having read the Koran (in as much as I could understand) I find it a particularly intolerant religion, it's protagonist Mohommad having converted many at the oint of a sword.

Dirigo

DISSERVICE TO OUR SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN : 11/11/2009

lol. why are you shouting?

asshole

Weapons : 11/11/2009

How amazing that this excellent piece appears in a newspaper in California, where every screwball anti-gun law is born. How's that working out? The rate of guns used in crime plummeting? I spent most of my life in CA before moving to Texas when I retired in 2003. What a breath of fresh air. People here understand that all citizens have the right to protect themselves from the predators with whom we (sadly) have to share the planet. I've been carrying concealed since I moved, to protect my wife, myself and any innocents who might fall into harm's way when I'm around. The situation at Ft. Hood was a terrible tragedy, but it was committed by a crazy person, not by a gun. I honor and respect those who were slain by this madman, and tip my hat to all fellow veterans (USAF '65-'69) for their service to our country.

BikerBill, Lago Vista TX

GOOD FOOD FOR THOUGHT : 11/11/2009

THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THE ANTI GUN GROUP THAT NO GUNS FOR GOOD PEOPLE = GUNS FOR BAD PEOPLE... WE NEED TO STOP BEING SO PLOITICLY CORREDT AND CONCIDER THAT SOME RELEGIONS DO NOT NEED TO BE IN THE U S MILITARY!!!!

A breath of fresh air : 11/11/2009

It's nice to see a rational argument for a change, Bravo! to the author for having the good sense to use facts instead of fear to sell the paper.

dirtnap

Gun control... : 11/11/2009

I worked for the federal prison system for 27 yrs. with 9 of those yrs. in the most maximum at the time. It was the ultimate in "weapons" control. 12 inmate on inmate murders took place during those 9 yrs. 3 staff members have been killed in the same prison. Point is...bad people will always find a means to harm, hurt and destroy. Controlling my defense against them in order to curb their violence is a rather ridiculous "logic."

MJB

Right to Life and its defense : 11/11/2009

The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit [emphasis] of happiness includes the basic right to defend your life and that of those for whom you care. Also, what is it about "shall not be infringed" that so many otherwise intelligent Americans cannot understand? Laws only affect the law-abiding. Criminals by definition pay no attention to laws. "Gun-Free" Zones are only "gun-free" for the law-abiding citizen that is being denied their fundamental right to defend their life. Just sayin'

Paladin

Democracy, No, Democratic Repuclic, yes : 11/11/2009

A democracy is nothing more than tyranny by the majority over the minority. Our form of government is NOT a democracy and never was intended to be. It's a Democratic REPUBLIC. There's a BIG difference. I won't explain because if you research it yourself, you'll better understand it. DavidArnold: I understand and agree with your points if view but a correction was necessary. It's an IMPORTANT differentiation.

Paladin

Armed Soldiers : 11/11/2009

I did 2 years in the army,i was in Germany when communism was still in bloom.when we were on alert to border,that's the only time they gave us ammo.We did guard duty at night with empty m14's.Th post was in the middle of the town with open gates,no guards at night and the day guards were unarmed.what's wrong with this picture.the army is still the same,no weapons on post except the MP'S Were were the MP'S.The armed forces have to change it's policy,in times or terrosim,we better keep on guard.

ARM THE SOILDERS

Thank you very much! : 11/11/2009

It is refreshing to see clear and logical thinking in the media backing up what gun owners have known for a a few hundred years. The cat's out of the bag, and even if the government could confiscate 100% of the weapons within our borders, it would be a matter of hours before criminals would be able to procure guns from outside of the country, and anyone with access to a halfway decent machine shop can build a quite effective weapon up to and including large caliber rifles. Criminals break the law because, for the most part, they feel that they will never be caught, and statistics support that. They get caught when they "make mistakes". Adding on 1 or 50 additional laws will not make a difference to them.

CB - Chino

weapons vs. muslim radical ideaology... : 11/11/2009

your post is 99% correct. The part missing is simple. If the army/intelligence agencies had email postings of "radical rants", whether it be a Christian wanting to kill the abortionist, or, the muslim wanting to kill the infidel.........this could have been stopped. The part that proves your point is simple, the policewoman shows up, first on the scene with a gun and shoots......right? so, how, at any point, would a person believe that carrying a weapon is bad. Its only bad when no one else has one. Ft. Hood proves that.

mbrown

Good Article : 11/11/2009

What a well written article! Finally somebody sees that gun free zones only apply to law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop the criminals. If you value your life and the lives of those around you, support CCW issuing.

Kudos : 11/11/2009

Great article Mr. Alcorn and kudos to the Daily Sound for printing it.

Ted Truscott

Common Sense : 11/11/2009

This has to be the soundest and most common sense article I have ever read on the subject of gun control. How sad, that so many are deluded into believing that we can be kept safe by prohibition of guns in the hands of citizens. Gun Free zones are safe playgrounds for the psychotic mass murderer. Where else can the murderer be assured of doing the most destruction of innocent lives in the shortest amount of time than a 'gun free' zone? It is time the people of this country wakes up to the realities of life. Prohibition did not eliminate booze. It made criminals like Al Capone rich and powerful. Prohibition of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens makes our schools, churches and other public gathering places shooting galleries for the insane with an agenda of killing. Those who continue to preach and push for 'reasonable gun control' are NOT interested in our safety. They are only interested in their power. The folks behind the gun bans worldwide want to create a one world government, destroy borders between countries, eliminate national sovereignty and take away the freedom and liberty of the common people. They are an elitist group who want to rule the world. They have succeeded in many countries around the world (Europe, UK, Australia, etc) but they cannot actually take over and rule until the citizens of the USA are stripped of their arms. Beware the UN's worldwide gun ban treaty. Do the research and check for yourselves. The same people who convinced Australia that they would be better off after passing a ban on individual firearm ownership then came to the USA and organized the Million Mom March against individual ownership of firearms in the USA.

susu

Guns on military bases : 11/11/2009

Thank you, Mr. Alcorn for a superbly written and researched article. You are a breath of fresh air Sir, and kudos to The Sound for printing the article as well. I agree entirely with the article and its points. I would like to point out that your poster "Right is Right" is incorrect in his assumptions about the laws of carry on-post, however. First off, military personnel are not prevented from acting to "assist the police" in an on-post setting (where there is no local civilian law enforcement issue). Indeed, it is not "acting in assistance of the civilian police" when one is defending one's self, whether on or off-post. The issue of carrying concealed being forbidden by the LOAC is also erroneous, except on the field of combat, which setting does not apply in the Ft. Hood case. In any case, it would be perfectly feasible, indeed it would only require an order from the post commander, to have all personnel carry sidearms openly, as a part of their uniform. If everyone (or even many troops - someone suggested all E6 and above) were routinely armed on-post, the feasibility of an act such as occured last week would be greatly reduced. At least, anyone who tried it would be stopped before they did as much damage as Maj. Hassan was able to do. Oh, and for Eleanor: Realistically, even if we could ban semi-autos and somehow get rid of all of them (which we couldn't) it would simply reduce the number of people someone could shoot without reloading. You can shoot lots and lots of people with a revolver; just ask our Native Americans. You'll note that the murderous Major at Ft. Hood was carrying a .6-shot 357 revolver as well as a high capacity semi-auto, and that he reloaded several times. Such a law couldn't have stopped the incident, whereas, a regulation requiring all troops to be armed probably would have prevented the whole incident, as the Major would have known he couldn't succeed (he probably would have just written off for an explosive vest from his Al Queda online catalog instead). Before someone starts in about how many troops would be shot accidentally, or in "rage" incidents, if we did this, I'd suggest you look at the miniscule number of such incidents that occur in combat zones, where everyone is armed virtually all the time. We are simply talking about arming exactly the same troops, only while they are on their home base in the states, as well as when they're in a combat zone. The incidence of such events is already minimal, and there is no reason to think it would increase if carrying arms were an everyday event on-posts everywhere. Actually, the biggest problem would likely be the issue of how to handle those arms when a soldier drives off-post into the local civilian community (TX at least, is still one of the few states that does not allow open-carry by its citizens, although that may be about to change.

Oldshooter

Gun Control : 11/11/2009

My sentiments exactly. Think about it, Most shootings occur in gun free zones. So legally pack heat, and lessen your chances of becoming a victim. God bless.

RJ

: 11/11/2009

Great article, thank you for your well articulated thoughts.

Cassie

Good writeup : 11/11/2009

Great job Mr. Alcorn. Hope this gets MUCH wider circulation than usual.

ConstitutionalDefender

A few comments : 11/11/2009

Congratulations, Mr. Alcorn on a pretty fine article. Paladin, I agree with your comments, but technically, we are a Constitutional Republic. The process of democracy is available only as proscribed in the U.S. Constitution, as amended, and your State Constitution. susu - succinctly put: Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.

RWNJ

: 11/11/2009

On a side note, Alcorn leaves out one important fact. His attitude toward paying cops a decent wage virtually guarantees that they won't be around to do their jobs--there simply won't be any. He seems to believe that the competitive free market applies to every job except police work.

Frank James

Well written! : 11/11/2009

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and believe in the individuals Right to protect themselves, their property and their family. The debate over gun control will never end. Criminals do not respect the law. As long as they have weapons and are intent upon doing harm to me I will have firearms to protect myself and my family.

Heath

Gun Control : 11/11/2009

Thank you for a well reasoned and detailed piece on the effect of restricting firearms. As long as there are gun free zones, they well be seen by deviant types as free criime zones. What better chance to shoot fish in a barrel, with said fish being unable to fight back. This is the exact scene which we have seen played out for years. Armed assailant, crowded public place, not one person able to stop the assault. Time we reviewed our attitudes toward self defense.

David Colwell Cotopaxi, CO

Every body shoudl be armed just like the old west : 11/11/2009

The american People should be able to carry firearms just like we did back in the Wild West. Crime would go to a single didget number. Plus once somebody kills somebody you get one appeal, and if you lose you die immediately. If you are a mass murder you die 10 min after the trial. Second is when are we going to impeach Obama? When does the Boston Tea Party begin again our government its past time.

cardude

armed guards : 11/12/2009

Why, when these young men and women are willing to place themselves in harms way, are we not guarding them as we would any VERY Valuable thing we cherish. You cannot tell me that any military base does not have MP"s or SP"s etc that can be stationed everywhere on a base to be available to protect these people. Why not have these police available near every place these people gather? They are all placed in confined areas and left unguarded. WHY??? Let's at least offer the protection we can on our own bases, in our own country!

Jeff RN, veteran

Thanks! : 11/12/2009

Thank you for this common sense article. I love to see people think rationaly and sharing it with the rest of us. Anti-gun radicals who also prove to be tyrants, started blaming guns righty away. Like Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago who blamed the "gun culture" ignoring that unsupervised guns are not allowed on military bases. Just makes me sick how mayors of cities who ban guns preach to the rest of us while their citizens are victimized by criminals who ignore their gun laws.

TS

This Article : 11/12/2009

Speaking of Morons Boycott Boy..... Did u read past the first 3 sentences?? If U had u would know how well written and truly INTELLIGENT an article this is. Yer poster name should be Richard HEAD To ME whats TRULY AMAZING is this was written and PRINTED in a California newspaper............My Hats off to u Randy for speaking the truth.......

onedumhick

This country would be so much better off if we stuck to the basics... : 11/12/2009

Girls, God and Guns!

Why people need to be armed. : 11/12/2009

ANY religion that manages to get a 12 year old girl to call out for bloody jihad is not a peaceful one, and only shows me that EVERY American citizen that wishes to protect their family, and community, needs to be fully armed AND ready for ANYTHING. It's time to choose sides NOW, it's coming fast, so be prepared. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkJkN5Dkbk&feature=related

Concerened American

: 11/13/2009

the liberal dream : 11/13/2009

When are the liberals going to wake up to the fact that there dream of a pacified world is a pipe dream. Liberals believe if you ban guns the problem will disappear. Even if all guns were outlawed it wouldn't outlaw the evil in some peoples hearts. To denied someone there right to self defense for a pipedream is cruel. The pandora's box is opened guns are here to stay. I for one would rather take my chances with a gun than without one. I hope I'll never need it. But to restrict my right to self defense for an idealistic dream is nonsense. And than theres the chief evil, governments. The founding father's wisdom is great. They knew that government will always work toward total control. If your foolish enough to think this government will last forever read history and name the country that didn't have a massacre or two over the years. The second amendment was there to guard against it. Remember this, it's better to have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have it.

H20

WOW : 11/13/2009

This article came out of California? Right when I was starting to think that whole state needed a psychological overhaul. The land that spawned Diane Feinstein? I am pleasantly surprised by the content of this article. Not why it was written mind you. I am fresh out of wacko meters so I guess I will resort to self defense in presence of a wacko. Unlike members of our own armed forces that couldnt because of stupid politicians legislating laws with a Brady bunch mentality. What does Brady claim for cause? The kiiller was using ILLEGAL armor piercing ammunition. Anyone see any vests on the dead and wounded? By the Brady standard it was illegal for him to have a weapon. I guess the Brady bunch expected him to throw the illegal ammunition at his victims. The massacre cannot be blamed totally on Bill Clinton. With the same stroke of a pen OBAMA could get rid of that law. Why didn't Bush? Liberal and conservative have a share in this aftermath. We have commercial airplanes being used as missiles. We are up against nut jobs strapping bombs to their chest so they can be surrounded by vestal virgins in the after life. In the midst of all this we have an army protecting this country and cannot protect themselves. Texas isn't in California. This unmistakenly came from the white house. I am still in shock that this article came out of California. Good job. Spread your common sense a little further north to San Fransisco.

Minnesotan

From a Santa Barbaran : 11/13/2009

Wow! am I dreaming? Was this actually written in a santa barbara newspaper? Looks like people here are finally "getting it". Well, at least the author is. From the looks of the posts, not many locals are chiming in. Too busy driving their prius' and trying to ban something.

SB boy

1968 gun controll bill : 11/13/2009

The 1968 gun control bill signed in America was a from Germany just change to English. Get the Nazi gun control out of USA all of it!

Hawk

Right to bear arms... : 11/14/2009

Arming all soldiers, Marnes and sailors on their bases is an iffy proposition. There are many individuals in all branches of service, particularly the young and the reckless, who should not be allowed to constantly carry loaded weapons. I don't have the answer to the gun-free zones on military bases. Hiring a much larger group of civilian police or widely expanding the MP/SP branches of the military police to provide highly increased security would help. Keep in mind that the overwhelming number of active duty military personnell are not combat soldiers. The number of clerks and bakers, essentially untrained in firearms use, (other than basic training qualifications), comprose the overwhelming number of active duty personnell. Most of them couldn't hit a bull in the asss with a bass fiddle. So arming evry individual on a baae is not the answer. It takes extensive traiing to gain proficiency with a handgun. The cost of training all military personnell to proficiency would be prohibitive and tremendously time consuming. Very few military personnell are trained shooters or combat experienced troops. There is no easy answer to this problem. Good article, though. The best I have seen on the subject so far.

jetdrvr

So Much for Gun Control : 11/14/2009

Our Freedom, Safety, and Security is best assured by a balance of power. Therefore, we should never allow ourselves to be out gunned, out trained, or out witted by our advisaries. We have these capabilities so what is the motive of our leadership? This is a great article.

KRM

No gun crimes by guns! : 11/14/2009

I am a retired police Officer in Oklahoma City,Okla. I have always had a gun in my home and now have one in my night stand. In all my police career (30 Years) I have never filed a gun crime charge. Yes, that is just what I said!. Every gun charge I can remember was not committed by a gun, all of them have been committed by a criminal using a gun in the wrong way. My gun has never killed anyone nor held up a bank, these type offenses are alway committed by people not guns - ALONE, On Ther Own! Lets find better ways to halt fire arm offenses other than blame it on guns and not the ill willed that abuse them. I am amazed that those that think the way to end gun crimes is by disamring the innocent public that own and keep them. All of the criminals I dealt with in my career had one night mare in common - an armed would be victim. Lets be honest with ourselves, if you do not want a gun in your house, do not buy one but those of us that want one of the best answers to crime - a gun have them without having to be a criminal by having one. Wayne Mills OKC

ZZJ4A

Gun free Zone = no resistance for mass killers : 11/14/2009

Just think, nearly every place ther is a mass killing, it is a gun free zone. I and my wife carry legally. Some places we go, we must go unarmed inorder not to violate the law. I hope we are never in a situation where the law will make us and others unarmed dead victims. We carry because our daughter was killed in violent gang related assination--- she was an unarmed attorney. She had no means of defense and her killers knew it.

larryloslunas@live.com

Excellent Perspective : 11/14/2009

I took time to read every Post. Too bad the "Uninformed" has to go on a rant about wanting to outlaw semi automatic fire weapons. What makes the "Uninformed" think a semi automatic weapon any more deadly than a revolver? Anyone with common sense and has had practical application of using a semi automatic will tell you, after the first two shots one CAN NOT fire MOST semi automatic weapons with accuracy because of the recoil throwing the Aim far off target! In essesence if one wants to toss a ten, twelve or more round clip of firepower, few of the rounds will ever make the target. For most of the fact, for controlled on target shooting, a Revolver will be a better choice. But then again there will be the anti gunners that Profess that any weapon that holds more than one round is an "Assault Weapon" ROMFA! I have heard of EXPEN$iIVE small semiautomatics as well as small revolvers referred to as "Saturday Nite Specials" These terms are used only by the Liberals to cloud the agenda. For instance Mr. Liberal Gun Snatcher, an Antique Baby Browning .25 is one of the SMALLEST semi automatic pistols ever manufactured, but it is still referred as a "Saturday Nite Special" They can be purchased on the market for upwards of $700.00! But the term is used to describe many of these weapons as if they were JUNK and have no need on the market. It seems like any weapon that can be conceiled is Targeted as a Junk Gun! Take another Liberal Ploy.. if the weapon is painted black and ugly in their terms, it suddenly becomes an ''Assault weapon'' Take a pretty wooden hunting rifle with a nice wooden stock. Paint it black and suddenly it becomes sinister! I am am an Ex Cop, have sub contracted out for the D.O,D, in some pretty deadly occupations, and have NEVER had a problem with someone carrying a weapon! Look Folks, it is not just the Firearm that gets the Bad Rap. It is ILLEGAL in a whole bunch of places to carry Pepper Spray? A woman is not even allowed to protect herself with a pretty Benign means. Taser Weapons are also Targeted as Outlawed Defense weapon. I really Believe is goes much farther in the Liberal mindset than just Handgun Snatching. It appears that these Communist do gooders do NOT want the common man to be in the position to defend themselves from any attacker with any weapon or device be it a firearm, a Taser, pepper spray, a knife, a club, or even their own fists. So look around and see the way the perception is and the way these laws are written to prevent any law abiding ciitizen from protecting themselves from any Criminal. And by the way, look at the so called enlightened ones in Chicago.. They maintain the Second Amendment does not apply to their city? Well does that mean any Amendment or portions of the constitution does not apply to any state city if they choose? So much for free speech? When every one on this board expounds upon their second Amendment rites I Maintain, if a city can maintain certain amendments do not apply to their city, and also certain cities such as San Francisco ignores Federal Laws, I wonder if truly if there are any federal laws or sections of th Constituion where we are protected. What is the state that Governs this board, decides the first Amendment as well is not guarenteed. We all can be charged as violating the law! Think this over, we are indeed headed down a most slippery slope. In closing I can say I am of an age that I remember the "Peacenicks" of the Sixties and seventies spouting "Better be red then Dead" Now I hear the same retoric from the Appeasers that question weather it would not be all easier if we made the Muslim Religion and the Muslim Way of Life to be our own? They surely they would not hate us and we all could live under Muslim law and wear rose colored sunglasses.. Well perhaps not the sunglasses, because they would problably be outlawed by the Cleric.

Raptor

Ft Hood : 11/14/2009

So much for "A well regulated militia"

Old griz

Personl weapons prevention on Army Posts : 11/15/2009

Had concealed carry been allowed on Ft Hood and all other military installations by servicemembers possessing CCWs, the rampaging Major would have likely chosen another more "gun free" target rich environment. Why don't mass murderers perform their attacks in Police Stations? I wonder?

Joes's Pro Shot

So much for Gun Control : 11/15/2009

Thanks Randy for a article that truly reflects the feelings of all Americans. As we watch our rights slowly erode away by a Congress that fails to see the light, maybe there is hope. Everyone should put pen to paper and let their elected officials know how they feel, just as you have. Thank you again for your enlightening article.

John S. Galloway

Arming Soldiers : 11/16/2009

Commander's "Risk Averse" policies have been around for decades. Stateside, no service member is allowed access to live ammo except under strictly controlled conditions on a live-fire range (MPs excepted). The result is complacency about weapon handling, and an attitude of "if I put bullets in it, I'll get into trouble". In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we now have "Green" FOBs/Bases, where everyone (except contractors/civilians) are armed, but not allowed to put ammo into weapon unless they are going "outside the wire". Again, because "nobody has ammo in their weapon", a sense of complacency exists regarding weapon handling, and also the "I'll get into trouble if I put bullets in it" carries forward into Theater. Sexual harassment prevention is a big thing here just now, but the standard line is "travel with a battle buddy, wear your reflective belt, and blow your whistle if you feel threatened." My answer is "if you feel threatened; lock & load". When the other person hears the bolt/slide going forward on a live round, they will leave quickly if they have evil intent. I also disagree with "Green" bases (no ammo in the weapon). "Amber" is better (magazine in, no round in the chamber) because everyone is more muzzle-aware - complacency in weapon handling just falls away and everyone is more alert to mishandling. "Green" doesn't mean "Safe": I was on a base last year in Afghanistan, where one young Soldier was shot with his own weapon by his buddy. The kid had improperly cleared his M16A2 on returning from a mission. He and his buddy started playing "take my weapon away from me" (STUPID - WHERE WERE THEIR NCOs!), and they found out the hard way that, even though it "looked unloaded" (magazine out), there was a round in the chamber. 1. Complacency kills. 2. Poor NCO supervision kills. (Same-same poor parental supervision) 3. "Risk Averse" policies kill. They can also make mission accomplishment difficult, if not impossible (can't get anything done if you won't go where the danger is.) 4. All "Gun Control" laws are "Risk Averse Policies".

Mike Settles, Bagdad, Iraq

Contractors/US Civilians in Theater : 11/16/2009

One more thing: I have had people suggest to me that I go to Iraq or Afghanistan as a contractor and so make lots of money. I refuse to go into Theater in a civilian capacity, because they (except security contractors) are not allowed to be armed for their own self-defense. KBR in Iraq now has a "safety" policy which disallows their employeed from possessing a knife with a blade longer with three inches - even the ones who commonly run missions outside the wire. DUMB!

Mike Settles, Bagdad, Iraq

So much for gun control : 11/16/2009

Mr. Alcorn,
Thank you so much for writing this common sense article. Thomas Jefferson stated, "Americans ought always to be armed". I agree with him. I can apply for a concealed carry permit in the state that I live in. However, according to the Constitution, I don't feel that I should have to. I believe that all states should be like Alaska, where no concealed carry permit is required.
Gilbert Gillispie
Madisonville, Kentucky

We Should All Have Guns : 11/16/2009

I agree with the pro gun people (as stupid as they are). I think out entire society should be packing heat. Just imagine how wonderful everything would be. Wouldn't it be great to nervously walk around, awkwardly smiling at every person you come across hoping not to upset them. Think about how fun an argument over a parking stop would be know that you and the other person each had side arms. Wouldn't it be great to see those young gang members all the gun lovers love soooo much driving around town in converted pick-up trucks with 50 cals bolted to the backs of them. It would be a virtual Shangri la.

Guns, ra ra ra!!!

What?? : 11/17/2009

@WE SHOULD ALL HAVE GUNS: You don't have a clue. We ARE among you. 80 million of us and 5 million concealed gun carriers. Have you experienced parking lot gun rage? Gunfights? You have brought nothing to this discussion. 13 of our ARMED service people who had no ARMS had to wait for a GUN to stop the massacre. You don't have a right to an opinion. Please. Just go bury your head and crawl under a desk like our servicemen had to.

Minnesotan

We Should All Have Guns : 11/17/2009

Forget concealed weapons! If the NRA had its way, we would all revealed weapons. And it wouldn’t just be the responsible amongst us. The type of people that would shoot someone over a parking spot would have them. People at bars would have them. People at sporting events, the list goes on. And by the way, I have an absolute right to an opinion! No matter how tongue and cheek or different from yours it may be. Get your head out of the sand! I vote just like you bud. These horrible incidents would happen more frequently if there were more access to guns.

Ra Ra Ra Guns!!!

to: "We Should All Have Guns" : 11/17/2009

funny thing about your little sarcastic rant, i live in a place where any law abiding citizen may choose to carry a gun, openly or concealed, at his/her discretion, with no "license" or "permit" required by any agency of the state or local goverment, yet none of the things you describe happen. no one walks in fear, no fights over parking spaces or places in supermarket lines and folks treat each other with plain common courtesy, and our police have no problem living and working among their armed neighbors. i don't know, or even care how it is where you live, but i have live here over half of my life quite comfortably and expect to continue to do so with all those guns around me.

"gunner"

We should all have guns : 11/18/2009

I dont lock my house or take the keys out of my car. Know why? My neighbors all have guns and the criminals know it. I refuse to live in fear or let the criminal element dictate my lifestyle.
There are three tragedies that blow your rantings to hell. Can you say Virginia Tech, Columbine, now Fort Hood. See if you can figure out what all three have in common.
Hang a sign around your neck. " I hate guns." Put one on your front door too. There will be one less idiot in this world to breed.

To The Last Two Posters : 11/19/2009

I simply don't believe either one of you. First, "gunner", where do you live? When making a point about how where you live everyone can carry a gun and you never have any problems, you really should mention WHERE you live. Anyone can use that cheap writing trick. Watch...I live in a place where everyone is free to carry a gun and we have problems all the time. People shoot one another for even the smallest slight. I’ve lived there almost half my life and it is terrible...See, I can do it to!
To the last poster. First off, I don't believe that you leave you doors unlocked and your keys in your car. I think you said that in an attempt to make your point. Second, how do the criminals know that you and your neighbors have guns? Do you live in a neighborhood that is prowled exclusively by psychic burglars? It just doesn't make sense and you know it.
You wrote "There are three tragedies that blow your rantings to hell. Can you say Virginia Tech, Columbine, now Fort Hood. See if you can figure out what all three have in common." Once again, there is no point made. A big no no in writing. My answer would be that they all involved people being shot by individuals that had far too easy access to guns.
You also wrote "Hang a sign around your neck. " I hate guns." Put one on your front door too. There will be one less idiot in this world to breed." Is that a threat or are you saying that people that aren't head over heels in love with guns don't get laid? Because I assure you that I don't do bad for myself. Generally though, in the courting process, my and their feelings on gun control don't really come up.

Guns, Ra Ra Ra!!!!

Ft. Hood - Manchurian Candidate 2? : 11/20/2009

We sure need a close look at the Ft Hood shooter, With his high security clearance it seems likely he is a patsy, someone designed to go berserk on command to further an agenda. Disposables, like many before him, oswald, mcvey, sirhan, obama? and even his fort mate from last years mass shooting (M. Yu?) lots of crazy shooters produced at FT Hood?? Google up MK ultra for your dose of mind control assassins and how they work.
If you want more watch FALL OF THE REPUBLIC on Utube. Yikes...

InfoWars.com

To: We Should All Have Guns : 11/21/2009

Re: To The Last Two Posters : 11/19/2009
"I simply don't believe either one of you. First, "gunner", where do you live? When making a point about how where you live everyone can carry a gun and you never have any problems, you really should mention WHERE you live."
Look up gun laws and crime rates in Vermont and Alaska.
"See if you can figure out what all three have in common."
Have you lived under a rock for the last decade? All of those were full of forcibly disarmed victims, unequiped to effectively defend themselves... because that was 'Safer'.
Guess those "gun free" zones don't offer a lot of protection, do they?
Where the heck do YOU live?

PavePusher

Law of Armed Conflict : 11/25/2009

I know I'm behind the boat on this one but I wanted to correct an erroneous statement by a well intentioned poster. The law of armed conflict does not limit the concealed carry of weapons in garrison. The law of armed conflict in fact only applies to international armed conflict which is why our cops and security personnel can carry with hollow point rounds but we may not down-range. The only thing stopping us from carrying concealed weapons on base legally are the policies our government has put in place and could easily be reversed.

AF JAG (would love to carry concealed but cant legally)

wow. : 11/25/2009

What an awesome article....i fully agree with you, there should have been armed soldiers in that slaughter at fort hood, the mere presence of them may have deterred the whole incident.

na