Posted on Jul 20, 2015
Did President Clinton really "disarm" the military?
7.31K
24
11
2
2
0
There is a meme floating around claiming that military member can't defend themselves because of President Clinton. I served under President Reagan and don't remember anyone but law enforcement, security, and some aircrew members under arms. I vaguely remember a riffle rack in the chow hall at a Marine base once that Marines used to secured their weapons while eating. What was the policy for other services and did it really change under President Clinton?
Politics
MA: Master-at-Arms
Terrorism
Bill Clinton
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
6
6
0
He did not. We were never allowed to carry personal weapons as a general policy and the bill in reference was actually under GHWB, not Clinton.
(6)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
Thanks for the clarification. I saw that the initial bill was signed by GHWB and an Army regulation was issued a few months into President Clinton's first term. But it appeared to me that the policy was already in place on any military installation that I was on, well before the regulation. But, I never visited an Army post.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Doesn't mater if you like the Blaze or not, there reporting is accurate...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/
This Is Why Most Military Personnel Aren’t Armed on Military Bases — and It’s Not Clinton’s Fault...
Monday's deadly shooting at the Washington Navy Yard has renewed interest in why most military personnel are forbidden from carrying firearms on military bases. In the aftermath, some have pointed fingers at former President Bill Clinton, but is he really to blame? Not according to what we found.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
LTC (Join to see), thanks for the information. I like the Blaze. This is the information that I found also. But, as stated before, it seemed to me that this was already the policy in the 1980s. I was wondering what other members experienced. Many times a directive slightly modifies a previous directive and the media reports it as a new policy. It seems to me that this is what happened, in addition to messing up other aspects of the who and when.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google