George Bush apparently thought it was fine since he didn't reverse Clinton's law.
11/11/2009, "Editorial: End Clinton-era military base gun ban," Washington Times Editorial
"Time after time, public murder sprees occur in "gun free zones" - public
places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is
long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School
along with many less deadly attacks. Last week’s slaughter at Fort Hood
Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears
responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with
defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist
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.
Everyone wants to keep people safe - and no one denies Mr. Clinton’s
good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not
criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming
potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for
victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal - or in this
case, the terrorist.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too
well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked
Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband’s upcoming deployment to
Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: “At least he’s safe there and he can
fire back, right?”
It is hard to believe that we don’t trust soldiers with guns on an Army
base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr.
Clinton’s deadly rules even disarmed officers, the most trusted members
of the military charged with leading enlisted soldiers in combat. Six of
the dead and wounded had commissions.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Research also shows
that the presence of more guns limits the damage mass murderers can
unleash. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by
these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack
and when someone - soldier, civilian or law enforcement - arrives on the
scene with a gun to end the attack. All the public shootings in the
United States in which more than three people have been killed have
occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.
Thirteen dead bodies in a Texas morgue are the ultimate fruit of
gun-control illogic - in which guns are so feared that government
regulation even tries to keep them out of the hands of trained soldiers.
With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can end Mr. Clinton’s folly
and allow U.S. soldiers to protect themselves. Because we clearly cannot
protect our soldiers from harm, the least we owe them is the right to
protect themselves." via MichaelSavage.com