The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 7, 2009, 03:28 PM   #1
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,632
The 1st and 2nd ammendments,together

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.
HiBC is offline  
Old November 7, 2009, 08:49 PM   #2
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
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...
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old November 7, 2009, 09:12 PM   #3
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,196
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.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old November 7, 2009, 09:59 PM   #4
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,339
Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
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?
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 7, 2009, 10:21 PM   #5
koolminx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2009
Posts: 520
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.
koolminx is offline  
Old November 7, 2009, 11:38 PM   #6
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
As a Major he is issued a side arm... So it's easy for him.
Err, no! Not in CONUS.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old November 8, 2009, 07:51 AM   #7
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
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?
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_...il_Minutes.pdf
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old November 8, 2009, 08:35 AM   #8
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,561
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.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old November 8, 2009, 03:17 PM   #9
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,624
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.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old November 8, 2009, 05:08 PM   #10
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,321
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.
raimius is offline  
Old November 8, 2009, 07:32 PM   #11
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 2,841
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
Chris_B is offline  
Old November 8, 2009, 08:57 PM   #12
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
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 is offline  
Old November 8, 2009, 09:18 PM   #13
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 9, 2009, 12:27 AM   #14
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,624
Quote:
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.
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.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old November 9, 2009, 01:58 AM   #15
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Of all the Bill of Rights it seems like only the 3rd is safe from encroachment.
Ha... Funny, but at the same time dishearteningly true...
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old November 9, 2009, 09:52 AM   #16
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old November 11, 2009, 12:58 PM   #17
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,632
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.
HiBC is offline  
Old November 12, 2009, 07:36 AM   #18
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
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?
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla

Last edited by alloy; November 12, 2009 at 08:39 AM.
alloy is offline  
Old November 12, 2009, 10:55 AM   #19
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
does the Army's Code of Conduct allow for the full protection of all Constitutional rights of servicemen?
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.
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old November 12, 2009, 11:22 AM   #20
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,561
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."
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old November 12, 2009, 11:43 AM   #21
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Thanks Uncle Buck, I was referring to the explanation here...altho your post(UCMJ) seems more relevant.

http://www.armystudyguide.com/conten...-indepth.shtml
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old November 12, 2009, 11:44 AM   #22
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Buck
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."
Article 134, the General Article:
“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”
Anything that was not listed as an offense in Articles 77 thru 133, fall into Article 134.

Which is why, if you are wearing your uniform and/or identify yourself as a member of the Armed Forces, your rights are very limited. Everything you do is subject to military discipline.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 12, 2009, 11:59 AM   #23
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Thanks Antipitas, very clear now.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12812 seconds with 9 queries