TexasCHLforum.com

Houston Chronicle, 12/18/09, p. B2

"FORT HOOD - Fort Hood is ramping up its gun-registration policy in the wake of last month's deadly mass shooting.

Soldiers and their families living on the Army post and anyone staying there temporarily must register any personal weapon that's kept there.

Now, the policy also applies to soldiers living off post and civilian hunters if they plan to use a gun at Fort Hood. Those who enter the post must tell guards if they have a weapon with them." [emphasis added]

This was a very brief blurb this morning. Perhaps someone has the precise language for us? I was particularly interested in the details of the portion I emphasized. That is, does it require the registration of personal weapons kept off post?

Jim

Subscribed for more answers on this.

. . . as if that's going to prevent a repeat incident . . .

just another example of "security theater"

I must have missed it. Did the shooter have his guns registered with the post?

Dang. If the Post Commander had only instituted this policy earlier Maj. Hassan wouldn't have been able to carry out his jihadi attack.

bdickens wrote:Dang. If the Post Commander had only instituted this policy earlier Maj. Hassan wouldn't have been able to carry out his jihadi attack.

That's for sure. Any guy willing to shoot over thirty people wouldn't dare fail to register his guns or to tell the guard at the gate he was bringing them on post. Why, that would be breaking the rules!

If only they'd had a "Gun Free Zone" sign at the guard shack.........

Yeah, that's really going to work.

stroo wrote:Yeah, that's really going to work.

It's telling to note that the response emphasis remains on doing useless administrative stuff for show while anyone with any sense knows these actions will have absolutely zero deterrent or mitigating effect on future similar incidents.

This could lead a reasonable man to conclude that the leadership of those responsible for defending our country is incredibly incompetent and absolutely clueless about how to do so.

Another way to look at it is that the tactic here is to appear to be doing something while deliberately doing nothing in order to keep the opportunity for repeat incidents wide open. This would make sense if the true underlying objective is to create additional windows to use critical events and crises to frighten the sheep and advance an agenda that would otherwise be hard to move forward when folks are thinking clearly.

I don't find any comfort in either interpretation, but I'm having a hard time finding a credible third option.

What's sadder about this whole thing is that the sheeple of the world will read it and say "Wow. That will fix the problem. I feel safe again".

Again, these are the same people that think gunbuster signs and stuff like that will ACTUALLY keep bad guys away. I laugh when I watch that fox presentation (it is youtube'able btw) for gun free zones. I laugh and cry at the same time, because while it is funny and absurd, this is the way people think.....

57Coastie wrote:Perhaps someone has the precise language for us? I was particularly interested in the details of the portion I emphasized. That is, does it require the registration of personal weapons kept off post?

Jim

If you reside off post you do not need to register your weapons unless you intend to take them on post and utilize the range.

jnew wrote:

57Coastie wrote:Perhaps someone has the precise language for us? I was particularly interested in the details of the portion I emphasized. That is, does it require the registration of personal weapons kept off post?

Jim

If you reside off post you do not need to register your weapons unless you intend to take them on post and utilize the range.

Tks, jnew. I figured I would eventually shake out someone over there who either has seen, or could see, the source reg. So much for my fear of extending the authority of a federal agency (the Army) over POF outside the gate.

Jim

bdickens wrote:Dang. If the Post Commander had only instituted this policy earlier Maj. Hassan wouldn't have been able to carry out his jihadi attack.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we, the members of txchlforum.com have won the war. All we have to do is print up a stack of signs that read:
(drum roll..............."

"JIHADI FREE ZONE"

Simply post one every block or so (of the entire planet) - problem solved!


Now we take on global warming...(more signs?)

copy of my email I sent to Cornyn and Hutchinson:


Well, whoever decided that the answer to prevent mass murders from happening is to make all soldiers register all their guns is not fit for command. This is about the stupidest decision ever made. Does anybody thing that an Islamic terrorist bent on murder cares a whit about military post rules. And the military wonders why it doesn't get any respect. It's because the people in charge are morons.

android wrote:And the military wonders why it doesn't get any respect. It's because the people in charge are morons.

Is that right? Interesting. Might I inquire just who it is that doesn't respect our military?
Jim

57Coastie wrote:

android wrote:And the military wonders why it doesn't get any respect. It's because the people in charge are morons.

Is that right? Interesting. Might I inquire just who it is that doesn't respect our military?
Jim

Pretty much anyone under the age of 30. Maybe you don't mingle with them much... and liberals, but those mostly the same thing.