7 Days Later

[mrjarrell]

J. Neil Schulman has a piece on the Ft. Hood event. What this really points up is that a Bill Clinton anti-gun rule, (kept in place by Bush) resulted in the deaths and wounding of too many people there. Once again, politician inspired and supported gun control killed the innocent, along with the actions of a turncoat madman.
From J. Neil Schulman

The American Humiliation Buried at Fort Hood

It’s now been seven full days following Thursday November 5, 2009, when U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, using only unremarkable handguns, murdered 13 fellow American soldiers and civilians, and wounding 30-odd others, including combat veterans. Hasan — an American-born-and-bred Muslim who initiated his attack by jumping on a table and in Arabic shouting the Muslim affirmation “God is Great!” — continued to shoot unarmed soldiers and civilians unopposed by any armed military personnel, and was finally stopped only when — after ten-minutes — two civilian police officers with no previous combat experience arrived on the scene to return his fire.
These days have allowed the commanding officers at Fort Hood — America’s largest army base with a population the size of a small city, and their superiors at the Pentagon and the Department of Defense — to make official statements and answer reporters’ questions.
These seven days allowed the current President and Vice President of the United States, Barack Obama and Joe Biden — and the White House press secretary and communications office — plus former living U.S. presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, the most recent U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates, John McCain and Sarah Palin, past and present United States Senators and Members of Congress too numerous to mention, and all other official voices who have debated and shaped our national life, all to go on the record with both their immediate gut-reactions and, later, more considered reactions.
These seven days have been filled with coverage on the twenty-four-hour-news-cycle cable news networks, on network and syndicated talk radio, on newspaper editorial and Op-Ed pages, and in web-based forums such as this one.
These seven days included both Veterans Day — a day for honoring those who have defended the United States wearing its military uniforms — and a memorial service, attended by the President and First Lady of the United States, held for the fallen at Fort Hood.
These seven days have resulted in thirteen counts of murder, to be tried in a military court martial, against Major Hasan, with debate over whether his murder of a pregnant woman might result in a 14th murder count. There has been no charge of treason.
So I have been watching, listening, and reading my prominent countrymen for a week, now, waiting for a reaction I have never found.
I have found sorrow for the dead and wounded victims.
I have found praise for the military at Fort Hood as caregivers and rescuers.
I have found bewilderment, apologetics, and even pity for the minority attacker, on the one hand, and frustration at his not being regarded by the political establishment as part of a more widespread ideologically-driven enemy on the other.
I have heard angry questioning of why neither the FBI nor Army intelligence — both of which were aware of Hasan’s conflicted loyalties for over a year before his attack — left him in a position of military authority, and unwatched.
I have even seen echoes of my discovery of a Clinton-era Army regulation which I disclosed in the article I published here this past Monday — and which the magnificent John R. Lott, Jr., put on his own web page — reverberate to the editorial page of the Washington Times — without, of course, any credit to my copyrighted article, because doing so would have foiled the Washington Times‘ editorial redaction of that part of my article where I pointed out that the Bush administration had left this Clinton administration policy untouched for its eight years.

More at the source.

[Leadeye]

Considering the history on this guy and his continued problems it really surprises me that he made it past 2nd Lt. The question I want answered is how he made it to major and why. There are lots of hard working, deserving young officers out there. Why promote this ....person?

[femurphy77]

Originally Posted by Leadeye

Considering the history on this guy and his continued problems it really surprises me that he made it past 2nd Lt. The question I want answered is how he made it to major and why. There are lots of hard working, deserving young officers out there. Why promote this ....person?

I'm sure political correctness had nothing to do with this. When will our nuts drop so we can get back to using the phrase "Sorry you're offended. . .get over it".

[Paco Bedejo]

Short answer to the writer's question; guns have been demonized. Guns are so bad that military personnel aren't to be trusted with them except on the range & the battlefield. In fact, Hasan is innocent, the guns made him do it.

It's utter lunacy that neither enlisted soldiers nor officers are permitted to carry on base. It should be a requirement.

[JetGirl]

Originally Posted by Paco Bedejo

Short answer to the writer's question; guns have been demonized. Guns are so bad that military personnel aren't to be trusted with them except on the range & the battlefield. In fact, Hasan is innocent, the guns made him do it.

It's utter lunacy that neither enlisted soldiers nor officers are permitted to carry on base. It should be a requirement.

Repped

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by mrjarrell

J. Neil Schulman has a piece on the Ft. Hood event. What this really points up is that a Bill Clinton anti-gun rule, (kept in place by Bush) resulted in the deaths and wounding of too many people there. Once again, politician inspired and supported gun control killed the innocent, along with the actions of a turncoat madman.
From J. Neil Schulman

More at the source.

Prohibition of the carrying of arms on base, on or off duty, and no-one carrying arms except police and security guards in the performance of their duty) predates Clinton. There was such a rule in place when I was in during the Reagan years.

[mrjarrell]

The Clinton regs changed the previous laws, as the .pdf in the article shows. Here's the relevant summary of changes from the .pdf, the exact language and changes are in the document, the relevant regs are posted online.

AR 190–14 Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties
This revision--
o Implements applicable portions of Department of Defense Directive 5210.56.
o Clearly establishes minimum qualification requirements for military police and Department of the Army law enforcement and security personnel (para 2-3).
o Expands authorization documentation options for authorizing officials (para 2-4).
o Limits and controls the carrying of firearms by Department of the Army military and civilian personnel (para 2-6).
o Prohibits the carrying of non-Government owned or issued weapons or ammunition (para 2-6).
o Prohibits carrying of firearms by persons taking prescription drugs or other medication that may cause drowsiness or impair reaction or judgment (para 2- 7).
o Prohibits consumption of alcohol within 8 hours of carrying firearm or flying in aircraft (paras 2-7 and 4-3).
o Requires the use of deadly force with firearms be applied equally to personnel using a weapon or equipment which, when properly employed in their intended application, would exert deadly force (para 3-2).

[rambone]

Originally Posted by mrjarrell

The Clinton regs changed the previous laws, as the .pdf in the article shows. Here's the relevant summary of changes from the .pdf, the exact language and changes are in the document, the relevant regs are posted online.

Yep, it is important to give credit where credit is due.

Clinton's gun control.

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by mrjarrell

The Clinton regs changed the previous laws, as the .pdf in the article shows. Here's the relevant summary of changes from the .pdf, the exact language and changes are in the document, the relevant regs are posted online.

It says certain areas that the regulations were changed. It does not say the extent of those changes. We'd need to see the previous reg to know that.

The making of military bases, from the standpoint of personal protection, "gun free zones" long predated Clinton.

As I said, the basics of it: for someone not involved in a task that directly called for carrying a gun (military police and security guards mainly when/where I was), then one didn't carry an issued weapon. And, on base, one was required to have any personal weapons locked up in the armory except when taking it out to go shooting off base. Whatever revisions happened during the Clinton administration, the core that made something like Ft. Hood possible was in place as far back as the Reagan administration and I suspect it was the case well before that as well.

Rambone said "credit where credit is due." Well, the flip side of that is "fair is fair" and you can't really lay this one at Clinton's feet.

[CarmelHP]

I believe at least as far back as the '70's it has been the case.