The 1st and 2nd ammendments,together

H

HiBC

New member
This is inspired by the tragedy at Ft Hood,but out of respect for those that are suffering I'd like for the discussion to be taken to a hypothetical.Lets not make this specific to Ft Hood.

There are some stress factors running amuck in our culture right now,like over 10% unemployment and other factors in the economy.Some folks will go over the edge.

And sometimes ,all over the world,people rationalize religion as a reason to harm other people.Throughout history,it might be one religion or another.

It is possible we will see more tragedies of this nature as time goes on.

One of the officials of our current administration,and I do not recall which one,said something about always exploiting a crisis to get something done that would otherwise be impossible.

It would not be unusual if there was a sudden push for more restrictive firearms legislation.

I think it best to hold the individual who hurts or kills people accountable for what they do.

It is not the Liberty that is the problem.

In this case,we must simultaniously and equally consider the 1st ammendment rights of freedom of religion with the second ammendment right to keep and bear arms

I vote we keep and honor the liberty

And hold the perpetrator solely responsible.
 
I think it was Pelosi... Though it could be the "turn them in Mr. & Mrs. America" lady...

My memory is failing to remember anything but rabbit-hunting hotspots at the moment...
 
While I understand the spirit of the OP, I feel it may be a bit premature to assume that this tragedy will bring about stronger anti-gun legislation.

Why? Well, I don't think the fact that a gun was used in this crime will be as large an issue as another issue that will soon come up; Question: How the Hell did someone simply walk into the largest, (and one would assume from that, the most secure facility) the US Army has, with this weapon, without being detected? What role does base security play in this?

I believe that the government is going to have it's hands full trying to come to grips with this issue more so than vilifying guns in general.

I would have thought that since 9-11, security at military installations would have been more strictly monitored than back in the 80's when I was in, and I can assure you that it would have been almost impossible to have brought a weapon in to any of the AFB's I was stationed at.
 
Question: How the Hell did someone simply walk into the largest, (and one would assume from that, the most secure facility) the US Army has, with this weapon, without being detected? What role does base security play in this?
Click to expand...
The base is huge. A large number of people need to go in and out daily as part of their normal routine. Trying to implement security tight enough to prevent a person from bringing in a handgun would bring traffic in and out of the base to a standstill.

Think about how long and slow the security lines at an airport are. Now think how long and slow they would be if each person had to have their car thoroughly searched besides what they have to go through to get into the airport secure area.

It's not even remotely practical.
I would have thought that since 9-11, security at military installations would have been more strictly monitored than back in the 80's when I was in, and I can assure you that it would have been almost impossible to have brought a weapon in to any of the AFB's I was stationed at.
Click to expand...
I've been in and out of military facilities for the last 19 years and I have NEVER once been subjected to any security check that would have prevented me from bringing a handgun into the base. Security has gotten a bit tighter since 9-11 but it's still not anywhere near tight enough to prevent someone from bringing a handgun onto the base if they want to.

Are you honestly saying that EVERY time you entered these AFBs you speak of you went through a metal detector and/or were patted down? That your car was searched thoroughly enough to find a handgun secreted in the vehicle? That every container (briefcase, lunchbox, etc.) was opened or subjected to X-ray or metal detector search?
 
About the installation... Medical buildings on mil sites are not metal detected, and I've personally walked in carrying my M-16 and seen other people carrying their weapons into and out of them. While in a duty like position.

As a Major he is issued a side arm... So it's easy for him.

About the thoughts on this post, I am behind both amendments fully, and Always believe the individual is the one to be blamed for the crime, not society nor their religion.
 
Question: How the Hell did someone simply walk into the largest, (and one would assume from that, the most secure facility) the US Army has, with this weapon, without being detected? What role does base security play in this?
Click to expand...

While I don't know for sure...Ft Hood and other bases aren't 100% gun free zones are they? Right or wrong, maybe guns on base...aren't automatically seen as the poison that I think you are referring to, from the gun control advocates. There seem to be exceptions.

http://www.forthoodhunting.com/Hunt__Fish_Council_Minutes.pdf
 
I worked all aspects of security/law enforcement during my short 18 years as an Air Force Security Specialist. It is in no way inconceivable for anyone to bring anything onto an AFB, or even into a restricted area.
The closer you got to a restricted or priority area, the more intense security was. Very few areas had security metal detectors.
A medical facility, with the exception of the pharmacy (which is a controlled area), was not a restricted area, nor was it even listed in the controlled area realm.
Security is expensive and it can not always be handled with mechanical means. Being that people are involved, there will always be some degree of fallibility in any security operation.
It is my understanding that this was a medical center for deploying personnel. As such, I am surprised there was even that much security at the building (The two civilian LE personnel outside).

When we join the military, we give up, or are forced to curtail, certain rights to protect those rights that we feel are important to us. I had the freedom of speech, but not on the base and not in Uniform. I had the freedom of the second amendment, but not while on base, nor while I was under the control of the base. It is ironic, but true.

I wonder if the major (who, in my not so humble opinion, is a traitor not only to this country, but also to the men and women he served and those who served him!) had to go through the process of getting the provost Marshall's approval to purchase the firearm? This is going to be a very interesting case as it unfolds, but unfortunately, being the military still insists upon political correctness, instead of personal accountability, I do not think we are ever going to hear the full report.
 
Even though I think religion is the cause of a host of ills; I don't think we have enough evidence to say that was the driving force in this case. It could be lone nut job or religious wacko, or a combination of both. We just don't know yet.

I don't see this as any more of a casus belli for the anti-gun movement than any other incident. By that I mean I don't think they'll get any more attention or traction than they have with other similar mass shootings.

I do see a possible 1st amendment backlash against Muslims. Probably a 4th amendment backlash as well. Though that amendment is close to moribund as it is.
 
Security at military bases is certainly tighter than most places, but it only goes so far. Only very high value places will have security at or above TSA-levels. Base security is put in place mainly to deter and to detect people trying to con their way inside. Someone legitimately stationed there, who travels through security frequently, and has all the proper credentials normally wouldn't have a hard time sneaking something small through a main gate.
There are times when security is tightened at random intervals, but most of these are impractical for permanent operations.

The Brady campaign and others are already trying to drum up support, but I think their arguments are fairly easy to refute. How do most mass shootings end, when the shooter doesn't commit suicide? It's usually by a "good guy" with a firearm.

At this point, I'm more worried about the 1st Amendment implications. I've seen more than a few comments about taking actions against Muslims, and many don't pass Constitutional muster. We need to remain vigilant against these knee-jerk reactions.
 
A co-worker of mine was recently at FT Hood. He is an ex-US attack helicopter pilot, but is a civilian now. He had no troubles waltzing in. His cargo (armed robot!) attracted some attention but his person apparently didn't. Next trip will be different

I agree with HiBC

I see and hear and read a lot of "muslim this" and "muslim that" right now. The constitution, if we honor it truly, is a document that essentially says : "even if you don't like the fact that somebody has a right, its still a thing you must honor and defend". That's because its impossible to demand rights for ourselves while advocating limiting the rights of others

We here feel 'gun control' is wrong- it limits a right, making it mere privilege. When rights become privilege, the the concept of rights goes steadily down and we lose what the US should be.

Religion-control is un-American too. And that is exactly the gist of some things I see and hear and read. And its scary. We are truly in danger of losing ourselves.

When a US soldier betrays his country and murders his comrades in arms, I call that Treason; not religion, not terrorism, but plain old fashioned Treason. That's all I'll say about FT Hood I think
 
I disagree, Chris. We are at war with Muslim extremism, or, should I say, the Muslim extremists are at war with us. For whatever reason, we sugarcoat this in the interest of political correctness, placing our men and women armed service members in harm's way without giving them the proper tools and directives to effectively fight those who wish to kill them. This happens not just in faraway places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but even within our own borders, at our own military installations.

Members of the military give up many rights and privileges when they join the armed service; in return, we owe them the courtesy and respect of allowing them the resources and authority to fight our enemies wherever, and however, necessary.
 
csmsss, it is not political correctness to insist upon freedom of religion.

The Constitution and our BOR are not a smörgåsbord that we get to pick and choose what we like or don't like. We take it all or we take nothing. Full Stop.

This thread, as far as I can see, is not about whatever religion the Major belonged to. It's not even about the Ft. Hood massacre, except in passing.

I highly suggest everyone go back and read the OP until you fully understand it.

Any further posts like that above, will be deleted and the member will be denied the privilege of posting in this forum, possibly TFL as a whole.
 
One of the officials of our current administration,and I do not recall which one,said something about always exploiting a crisis to get something done that would otherwise be impossible.
Click to expand...

That was Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste".
He was echoing many people who've said the same thing before or accused others of the same thing. ie Bush and 9/11, Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin, Kennedy and the missile gap, or Palmer and the post WWI Red Scare.

imho the Columbine tragedy signaled the end of gun controls ability to use a crisis to advance their agenda in any meaningful way. Following the event there was a very strong movement for greater restrictions on gun ownership. That movement died with a whimper.

On the other hand many other rights have been greatly degraded over the last few decades. The drug "crisis" started the degradation of the 4th amendment and the war on some terrorists pretty much killed it.
The 1st amendment has been up and down like a yo-yo since the US was founded. Now is a real down time. Ari Fleischer pretty much summed it up when he said "people should watch what they say".

Of all the Bill of Rights it seems like only the 3rd is safe from encroachment.
 
I would have thought that since 9-11, security at military installations would have been more strictly monitored than back in the 80's when I was in, and I can assure you that it would have been almost impossible to have brought a weapon in to any of the AFB's I was stationed at.
Click to expand...

I live right next to WPAFB. I went to a school with a lot of AF kids and many teachers were spouses of AF personnel/contractors. I was able to get onto base several times without correct paperwork between 2001 and 2003. Mostly in a vehicle through a CP. When I entered with kids from my HS our car was only searched once and that a day following us entering the gate in boxers only b/c there was a cute guard on duty and we thought it would be funny. I assume the two occurrences were related.

I think this guy just cracked. I have heard indications that 8 years of treating soldiers who have PTSD, depression,etc. has had a toll on the Psychiatric staff in the military, just like 8 years of IED amputees/burn victims has had a toll on the medical staff.

I think the direction this event will be taken will be that the military is spread thin and we are pushing it too hard in "lost wars overseas", not for gun control. I view it as an indication of being spread thin/worn down, I won't make a judgment as to whether the wars are lost or not.
 
I am the OP

As more comes out on ths case,I for one,am having to ponder some on what I believe.

I still firmly believe in the Bill of Rights.The first and second ammendment have not changed.

I refuse to be check mated by fear or correctness ,or the terrorist succeeds in tearing down America.

In the extreme backlash,we end up like Bosnia,Serbia,Milosevich,and ethnic cleansing.That is not the USA I want.

This in no way says I am tolerant of jihadist terrorists,or a Timothy McVeigh,or the Aryan Nation that gunned down radio personality Alan Berg,or the two thugs who murdered Matthew Shepard or the two punk cowards who murdered my brothers son or pedophiles who bury little girls while they are still alive.
Its all the same.Its all evil.

And I believe in being able to shoot back.

Yes,I am angry,and yes I differentiate between someone choosing how to pray versus someone plotting to kill people.

But this forum is not the place to elaborate on those views.
 
Allowing for slight thread drift....in this particular case, does the Army's Code of Conduct allow for the full protection of all Constitutional rights of servicemen?
 
Last edited:
does the Army's Code of Conduct allow for the full protection of all Constitutional rights of servicemen?
Click to expand...

Not sure about the Army's policy in particular, but military leaders are notorious for limiting and infringing on our rights. We fight for these rights for the American people, but often are not able to enjoy them ourselves due to ridiculous regulations.
 
Does the Army Code of Conduct...

The Army Code of Conduct really has nothing to do with this. I believe you are referring to the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice).
The UCMJ does/does not protect our civil rights. Depending on the issue (1st or 2nd amendment) and the circumstances around it.
Basically, you have those rights, so long as you exercise those rights, in civilian clothes, off the military installation.

1. I can go to political rallies, off post, in civilian clothes and be free to say basically what I want to say.
A. I can not go to an aryan brotherhood or black panther meeting and expound upon my views IF they bring discredit upon the armed forces.
B. I can not be quoted as "MSgt Buck, United States Air Force, says that he thinks (politician) will be bad for this nation." Neither can I be quoted as saying "MSgt Buck, United States Air Force, says that (insert race religion or sex) should be barred from serving in the military
C. I can be quoted as saying "Uncle Buck thinks..."

2. I can own firearms, but there are restrictions on possession of that firearm.
A. I may not be allowed to keep it in my quarters on base.
B. I may need to get the Security Police Commander or Provost Marshall to approve the purchase of a new firearm.
C. Any firearm I do own and have possession of must be stored in the prescribed manner that the installation commander has dictated.
D. If I live off base, then the installation rules may or may not apply towards my situation.

Either way, I have never been on an installation that allows concealed carry, except for certain job descriptions and never the general population.

So yes, the UCMJ does allow for us to maintain our civil rights as outlined in the Bill of Right, but they are definitely curtailed while in uniform or on-duty.
Off the top of my head, I do not remember what article of the UCMJ covers it, but there is a catch-all article in there that covers "Prejudicial to good order and discipline."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top