"At least he's safe there"--in Afghanistan--"and he can fire back, right?"

[TPaine7]

So says the wife of a soldier shot at Fort Hood:

ROBERTS: And, Mandy, how are you feeling about that?

M. FOSTER: At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?

ROBERTS: At least he'll be able to do that if somebody comes after him.

Private Foster, Mandy Foster, it's so good to talk to you this morning. Again, our condolences. We're glad to hear that you're on the mend and take care of yourselves.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/09/ltm.02.html

That military wife has a point. In civilian America--with the exceptions of certain unconstitutional enclaves, of course--her husband can bear arms to defend himself and innocent people. In war zones, soldiers carry weapons around innocent civilians of other countries. Why are they considered untrustworthy on military bases?

Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That's why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/?feat=home_editorials

Lest anyone doubt the Washington Times' editorial, here is are some relevant quotes from the regulation, along with a link:

SUMMARY of CHANGE
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).

...

2–4. Authorization documentation
...

d. DA Personnel not regularly assigned to law enforcement or
security duties may carry firearms only for the duration of specific
assignments....

...

2–6. Restrictions on carrying firearms
...

b . Only Government-owned, and Government-issued weapons
and ammunition are authorized to be carried by DA personnel while
performing official duties. The Secretary of the Army may authorize
a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t f o r A r m y i n v e s t i g a t i v e
organizations.

Source: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_14.pdf

What do you think? Should Clinton's anti-gun regulation be overturned? Is Mandy Foster right, or should military personnel be ordered to be sitting ducks for any terrorist who can get onto a base (which is not that difficult)?