politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: DONALD TRUMP: ABOLISH GUN FREE ZONES ON MILITARY BASES
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... -free-zones-on-military-bases/
Published: Jul 10, 2015
Author: AWR HAWKINS
Post Date: 2015-07-10 02:01:49 by out damned spot
Keywords: Trump, guns, military
Views: 3390
Comments: 34
Donald Trump says that if elected president, he will abolish the gun free zones currently imposed on U.S. troops by “[mandating] that soldiers remain armed and on alert at our military bases.” In an interview with Ammoland he said: “President Clinton never should have passed a ban on soldiers being able to protect themselves on bases. America’s Armed Forces will be armed.” Trump went on to decry gun free zones on military bases as a product of “political correctness” and said removing those zones “will… [enable soldiers] to defend themselves against terrorists.” He added, “Our brave soldiers should not be at risk because of policy created by civilian leadership.” Trump’s opposition to military gun free zones is in line with his opposition to other gun control measures currently being pushed by gun control proponents like President Obama, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Gabby Giffords, and Sandy Hook Promise. Chief among these is his opposition to expanding background checks. Trump explicitly stated that he does “not support expanding background checks” because our current background check system proves such checks do not work. He added: They make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire firearms while consistently failing to stop criminals from getting guns. We should re-examine our policy to make sure that these prohibitions do not impede law abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights Breitbart News has previously reported that the most prominent of public attackers over the last 15 years all passed background checks to acquire the guns they used to commit their crimes. These attackers include Dylann Roof (Charleston), Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), Wade Michael Page (Sinkh Temple), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta). Background checks proved impotent to prevent any of these attackers from carrying out their heinous deeds but served well to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get the guns they need for self-defense.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: out damned spot (#0)
He's right.
He's pandering to the GOP base voters, nothing more. Trump was always quite pro-abortion and largely anti-gun, as are most New Yorkers. Only when trying to campaign for the GOP nomination has he suddenly realized how pro-life and pro-gun he is. I'm not sure the military wants or needs to have all the personnel on bases fully armed at all times. This sounds like Trump shooting from the hip.
Trump changed his mind on abortion in the early 2000s, and has been consistent on the matter since then. Same as me. I care as much about guns as I do gays: not at all. Guns and gays are fetish issues of crazies. I don't care what people do, as long as they don't do it in the street and disturb the horses. I don't care how people have sex, or with whom. Never did. Still don't. And I don't care how many guns people stock, or carry around with them. I care if people have chemical or biological weapons, or put out landmines, or have Stinger missiles or grenades or nukes. Regular guns? Don't care. I care if people pull guns or kill people. Then I care. What I care about is the crime, not the gun. I do not believe that the Second Amendment is the vouchsafe of the rest of the Constitution, because I look at the long train of usurpations and abuses by local, state and federal government in the United States, and I see that the only time that Americans actually pulled out their guns and started seriously shooting at government officials was to defend slavery. And I note that they failed and the region of the country that did it was wrecked so badly that, when faced with desegregation, no matter how furiously angry they were, they never did it again. I do not believe that the will to fight exists in Americans sufficient to ever actually take up arms against the government. So it's all just theoretical nonsense, to me, this "rise up against tyranny" business. Americans are not going to do that. Guns are to protect yourself against crime, to kill yourself with when you get depressed, to go commit crimes, to hunt animals and to shoot at targets and think about one or more of the above. Oh, and to spend a lot of money on buying and keeping. I don't want to bother people with that fetish. Let them be. It doesn't threaten ME unless they start brandishing the weapons. Then, of course, I have the right to shoot them dead on the spot, in self defense. So do the police. So, what's my policy on gun control? I don't believe in it, really. I don't care enough about the issue to spend a penny of political capital on it, but it's a horse I'll gladly trade to get what I want on something if I care about. If I could outlaw abortion and impose a fair taxation structure by striking down all gun laws, I'd do it. If I could outlaw abortion and impose fair taxation by confiscating all guns, I'd do that too. I don't care, and therefore, I am willing to make political deals on that subject, in order to get what's important. If you need me to believe in your cause, whether you're a gun-grabber or a gun-worshipper, then I'm not your man, because your fear of or fetish for guns is silly. But, if you want a steady vote for either position, then give me what I want on abortion. It's called quid-pro-quo. You don't have to believe that abortion is murder. You can actually think it ought to be a right. As long as you'll unwaveringly vote to outlaw it, I'll join you in voting for, or against, guns, depending on what you need. Left alone to my opinions, abortion is murder and guns are mere tools. All anybody can do with a gun is kill me and send me to God, and then he's bought himself two world's of hurt but I'll be fine.
Interesting posit... I believe you're right IN THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS. As long as bread & circuses are still running full tilt; As long as people can still water their tomato plants; As long as the bed is soft, the heat and A/C work, and none of our children are being herded into FEMA Camps, the kind of "will" you speak of isn't yet required. But make no mistake -- the will to fight IS available if required. It's not nonsense nor theory. American fighting "DNA" still exists. Ask anyone who serves, who has served, or has a deep sense of American history.
Guns are NOT a fetish; Just like freedom is not a "fetish." Guns represent the ONLY weapon standing in the way of a fascist regime that would remove ALL liberty and freedom and your ability to post at LF in one fall swoop. In a world without guns, the "abortion" of un-wanted would then include...you and I. Don't take my word for it, just ask Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Then do the math. I don't care how people have sex, or with whom. Never did. Still don't. Do you care about the hows and the with-whoms are taught at the nation's "educational" institutions to young children? Sanctioned by the monopoly called "PUBLIC EDUCATION"?
OR, maybe he means what he sez. IMO, the worst REAL pandering I've seen is out of the mouths of Jeb Bush, Perry, Christie, and Rubio. That Trump is force-feeding several unmentioned, verboten crucial subjects that GOP bobbleheads believe don't need to be addressed is the best, most constructive political carpet-bombing I've seen...maybe in my lifetime. How much longer are the establishment Republican going to keep on pretending all a post-0blabla "Fundamentally Changed" Amerika needs is a simple tweak here and there?
Until Jeb Bush is sworn in, and then onward to the universe, and beyond!
I served for almost 20 years, and I have a deep sense of American history. I know that Americans have legends about themselves and believe those legends. And my knowledge about those legends are deep enough to see where Americans are blind to their own flaws and weaknesses. Americans obey law. They're reflexive about it, really quite German in their outlook, which isn't surprising in a country whose largest ethnic group is Germans. The will to fight specifically AGAINST THE LAW does not exist in the American DNA. Americans can't be trapped by foreign foes or by small conspiracies. They have used military might against foreigners, and politically shrug off movements. General Smedley Butler may have dreamed of a coup, but he had no prospect of winning. But when it comes to the Law itself, the Constitution - as interpreted - Americans are not able to defy it, even when it is oppressive and wrong. Some are, but as a general whole, they won't. So, if you trap Americans with law, all correctly passed and ratified, Americans have no tool in their box to allow them to assert that their personal opinion and sense of justice is above the Law, supersedes the Law, and gives them the right to break the law, to smash down the Law and to take matters into their hands, stage a revolution, overthrow the Law itself, and establish a new Law. That's a French trait, not an American one, and Americans (and British) have spent more than a little of their educational capital teaching themselves that because they DON'T do that, they're better than the French. Truth is, Americans CAN'T do it. It's not in the DNA. Truth also is that the leaders will never push the bulk of Americans into the position where it's rebel or die. Rather, the leaders will continue to use law to divide and conquer. The blacks were substantial in number, but were held down by superior force for almost two centuries. Today, there is a clear difference between the will of elites, and the will of rank and file whites. The elites never provoke direct confrontation. Rather, they work at the edges, and all the while lifestyle choices (contraception and abortion and not marrying because "why buy the cow?") cause white birth rates to collapse and white numbers to dwindle. Eventually, a several outnumbered minority will find itself treated like the Blacks, and then any sort of rebellion will be suicide. So they won't do it. Ever.
Hitler's, Stalin's and Mao's armies were chock full of men with guns who could have turned their guns on their officers and blown them away. Truth was, the soldiers mostly agreed with their leaders, and viewed the enemy as a much worse thing than their leaders. Freedom in America is not maintained by guns. The government and the police are not waiting with 'bated breath to swoop in and impose fascism the instant the population is disarmed. It's the general consensus of what is cricket that does it. Americans are not inclined to stand up to the law with weapons. It's not an American trait. Americans like to THINK they are, because it gives a justification for all of the focus on guns. It's a fantasy. But, as I said, I don't care about guns either way. I think gun ownership will gradually be restricted and reduced, and that Americans will never, ever turn those arms against the police and the government to protect their "right to keep and bear arms". That right has already largely been eroded, and it will erode further and further, and Americans will never fight for it. Therefore, they have already mostly lost it, and will further lose it. And it won't matter, because tyranny is not really held back by people owning guns.
How? More people own guns now than ever before.
And those guns are licensed, registered, known. Their ammunition is tracked. And the right to have one can be, and is routinely, denied for various reasons. There is a complicated skein of laws as to who can carry what, and when, and where. These laws change by jurisdiction, and they're draconian. Run afoul of one, and they hammer you. To exercise that right to bear arms you have to do legal research before you walk out of the gun store, and before you walk out of your house. Even in your house, if you keep it wrong, you can be prosecuted and your kids can be taken away from you. There are lots of guns, and lots of people have them, and it's a mighty tricky thing now to own a gun, let alone to carry one. Nobody tells you what right you have on any plot of ground, and if you get it wrong, you're hammered. Gun ownership and bearing arms has become a treacherous, difficult, legally dangerous thing to do. And that's a massive erosion of a right that "shall not be infringed" according to the Constitution.
Gun ownership and bearing arms has become a treacherous, difficult, legally dangerous thing to do. Not true. Guns weren't registered years ago and private sales are not always registered. Many guns are stolen and serial numbers removed. There are probably millions of guns that are not registered or traceable. Not for the semi-literate. Very few law abiding citizens run afoul of the gun laws.
It would never happen unless the military installation was under direct attack. However I advocated we go back to battalions or companies have round the clock armed staff duty officers and NCOs. Such is still controlled by military discipline. The duty personnel sign out the weapon, and ammo. As the threat increases the duty NCO becomes the Sergeant of the guard and they establish the armed guard force within general orders. It would never happen unless the military installation was under direct attack. IIRC,it was a brigade of the 101st Abn Div that has a fire base over ran by the NVA one night because the only soldiers there that were armed was the skeleton crew on night watch on the berms. The NVA were through the wire and in there before weapons and ammo could be issued. This was a forward fire base full of infantry troops,but their officers didn't trust them enough to have weapons and ammo unless they were part of the guard detail on the berms. When I first got to VN I was on physical profile with a pulled muscle in my lower back and a dislocated shoulder. Because of this I couldn't stay in SF,so they shipped me off to a leg signal company at Nha Trang,where I became the company armorer. There were guys who served a whole tour in that Battalion and never once even had their rifle in their hands,or even saw the ammo because it was locked away in bunkers between the barracks.. In this case it was probably a good thing nobody was armed because the "plan" that was in place for an attack was to issue M-14's and to leg signal soldiers that hadn't even held a rifle since basic training,and they would then fall in behind the sand bag walls along side of the barracks,and face the guys in the next platoon about 25-30 feet away who were behind the sandbag walls along side their barracks. Can you imagine what would have happened if just ONE shot had been fired? And anyody that has ever trained troops to carry and handle firearms KNOWS there will be at one one dummy with round in the chamber,the safety off,and his finger on the trigger. One night 3 NVA mortar rounds came in close enough to hear the explosions,and everybody panicked and were running around like chickens with their heads cut off. I refused to issue anybody any weapons or ammo,and had some people panicking and mumbling because of it. Mumbling quietly because *I* did have a couple of loaded weapons on me. I didn't issue them because there was and still is no doubt in my mind that ONE VC with ONE bullet in his old Mosin Nagant 1891 Bolt action Soviet rifle could shoot one time straight up in the air,and there would have been hundreds of causalities. BTW,there was no ground attack that night,or any other night. Not even during Tet of 68. The base was just too damn big for the NVA to attack. They limited their attacks to downtown Nha Trang. *I* am in favor of a platoon or so of well-trained infantry troops being assigned to each support unit as a security detail,but support troops are NOT combat troops and just don't have the experience and judgement to be handed automatic weapons when there isn't even an established perimeter. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
And even then I doubt they would arm everyone, some just don't have the appropriate training. The situation would have to be extremely dire for that to happen. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we under Threatcon Bravo at the present time?? Which would mean they are taking base security much more seriously than during Alpha. At least where I'm at they are, you see more vehicles running around with weapons on them, especially at entry/exit points. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I am pretty sure it is standard procedure not to arm soldiers except guards on bases as SOP. Trump is just repeating talk show radio talking points by people who thought they had the answer to that Muslim shooting up the base.
I think over all it is Bravo. For where I work they are doing A LOT more vehicle inspections. Before 9/11 the AF and Navy had the best entry control screening. Army posts were open mostly with no entry control points. About 18 months before 9/11 the Army decided to adopt the AF policy of entry control at the contonement portion of post. Money was delayed but magically appeared on 9/12/01. The Army kept getting dinged on antiterrorism/force protection assessments. I would know as I was the operations officer for the Joint staff facility vulnerability assessment team's:) They installed some of those new in ground "pop up" barriers just a few years ago but not at all the ECPs (Entry Control Points). They look to be a steel plate that when it pivots into the upright position is about 6' tall and extends across all lanes of traffic. Haven't gotten a real good look at one so don't really know how large a vehicle it could stop when rammed. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Seems like a sensible medium to me. Just because they are too unarmed now doesn't mean we should arm every typist and motor pool clerk. I can readily see why the Pentagon wouldn't want every soldier armed at all times on bases. Weapons go missing, some angry dispute ends in gunfire, a young man goes quietly schizophrenic then violently psychotic at age 20, etc.
I have no idea what that ever means. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Military Police are always armed,and in some areas on some bases the security is very tight and lots of people are running around armed within the compounds. There are compounds even the MP's and the Commanding General of some bases can't get into and would be shot if they tried to force their way in. If your name and photo aren't on the access list,you don't get in,and if you don't have valid reasons to be in there for operational or training purposes,your name is NOT on the list. Period. BTW,you would be shot as a last resort. If you were by yourself instead of a member of some assault team,you would be handcuffed and detained for questioning initially by the people who run the compound,and then by people higher in THEIR particular food chain. At some point the regular army,navy,usmc,or af legal system may get involved,but you can't count on it. That all depends on what they find out about you during the initial questioning. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Back in the early 70's I was driving around the nuke sub pens at Norfolk Naval Yard one night. Maybe 2 AM,I was drunk,and I didn't have a base sticker on my car,was no longer in the military,and did not work for the Navy Base. The Marine gate guards let me in to drop off a couple of drunken sailors whose ship was leaving in the morning,and a sailor who was just along for the ride offered to show me around. At the time I had a beard maybe 8 or 10 inches long and a pony tail almost halfway down my back. No way was anybody going to confuse me with a active duty,or even reserve,sailor or marine. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
http://www.defense.gov/specials/threatcon.html “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Every ECP has those pop up barriers. What's incredible is the training reservation areas are more vulnerable. Then again about 90% of training exercises has class V uploaded so no issues:)
I can readily see why the Pentagon wouldn't want every soldier armed at all times on bases. Weapons go missing, some angry dispute ends in gunfire, a young man goes quietly schizophrenic then violently psychotic at age 20, etc. That's why an approach which incorporates military discipline is the right approach. Well it doesn't take someone psychotic to misuse fire arms. Young and old are not immune to crimes of "passion." Maybe they thought you were a SEAL:) I am just saying this notion that having unarmed soldiers on base is some sort of liberal scheme is stupid. There is a perfectly good reason to restrict arming soldiers on a base to select personnel as much as that conflicts with talk show radio wisdom.
Vic 13, I always assumed you to be a fairly educated man. "You see " obviously you need some new glasses. I guess you never heard of Lexington-Concord, Bunker Hill, Battle of Trenton, Cowpens, etc, etc, or never heard of the Battle of Athens Tennessee. I am surprised. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Maybe they thought you were a SEAL:) Nah,back then SEALS were all frat boys. They didn't get the beards and long hair until they started hanging around with people that stayed in the bush longer than overnight,and then grew it so they would fit in. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I meant at AMERICAN government officials, obviously.
Not to mention the Whiskey Rebellion. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Good point! Si vis pacem, para bellum
Yea that would have a tendency to discourage undesirables from trying anything... :) “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
#2. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#1)
He's right.
#3. To: TooConservative (#2)
Trump was always quite pro-abortion and largely anti-gun, as are most New Yorkers. Only when trying to campaign for the GOP nomination has he suddenly realized how pro-life and pro-gun he is.
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
I do not believe that the will to fight exists in Americans sufficient to ever actually take up arms against the government. So it's all just theoretical nonsense, to me, this "rise up against tyranny" business. Americans are not going to do that.
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
I care as much about guns as I do gays: not at all. Guns and gays are fetish issues of crazies....your fear of or fetish for guns is silly.
#6. To: TooConservative (#2)
He's pandering to the GOP base voters, nothing more.
#7. To: Liberator (#6)
How much longer are the establishment Republican going to keep on pretending all a post-0blabla "Fundamentally Changed" Amerika needs is a simple tweak here and there?
#8. To: Liberator (#4)
But make no mistake -- the will to fight IS available if required. It's not nonsense nor theory. American fighting "DNA" still exists. Ask anyone who serves, who has served, or has a deep sense of American history.
#9. To: Liberator (#5)
In a world without guns, the "abortion" of un-wanted would then include...you and I. Don't take my word for it, just ask Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
That right has already largely been eroded
#11. To: Kluane (#10)
(Edited)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
And those guns are licensed, registered, known.
#13. To: TooConservative, sneakypete, GarySpFc, CZ82 (#2)
I'm not sure the military wants or needs to have all the personnel on bases fully armed at all times.
#14. To: redleghunter (#13)
I'm not sure the military wants or needs to have all the personnel on bases fully armed at all times.
#15. To: redleghunter (#13)
It would never happen unless the military installation was under direct attack.
#16. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, sneakypete, GarySpFc (#13)
#17. To: sneakypete (#14)
#18. To: CZ82 (#16)
#19. To: redleghunter (#18)
#20. To: redleghunter (#13)
However I advocated we go back to battalions or companies have round the clock armed staff duty officers and NCOs.
#21. To: CZ82 (#16)
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we under Threatcon Bravo at the present time??
#22. To: Pericles (#17)
(Edited)
I am pretty sure it is standard procedure not to arm soldiers except guards on bases as SOP.
#23. To: redleghunter (#18)
Before 9/11 the AF and Navy had the best entry control screening.
#24. To: sneakypete (#21)
I have no idea what that ever means.
#25. To: CZ82 (#19)
#26. To: TooConservative (#20)
Seems like a sensible medium to me. Just because they are too unarmed now doesn't mean we should arm every typist and motor pool clerk.
#27. To: sneakypete (#23)
At the time I had a beard maybe 8 or 10 inches long and a pony tail almost halfway down my back. No way was anybody going to confuse me with a active duty,or even reserve,sailor or marine.
#28. To: sneakypete (#22)
#29. To: Vicomte13, Liberator (#3)
" I see that the only time that Americans actually pulled out their guns and started seriously shooting at government officials was to defend slavery. "
#30. To: redleghunter (#27)
At the time I had a beard maybe 8 or 10 inches long and a pony tail almost halfway down my back. No way was anybody going to confuse me with a active duty,or even reserve,sailor or marine.
#31. To: Stoner (#29)
#32. To: Stoner (#29)
I guess you never heard of Lexington-Concord, Bunker Hill, Battle of Trenton, Cowpens, etc, etc, or never heard of the Battle of Athens Tennessee. I am surprised.
#33. To: sneakypete (#32)
" Not to mention the Whiskey Rebellion "
#34. To: redleghunter (#25)
Then again about 90% of training exercises has class V uploaded so no issues:)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]