by Dustin Hoyt (guest writer)

The United States has seen two horrific shootings on military bases in recent years that have left civilians and soldiers dead, shot and killed inside of U.S. military installations at the hands of psychopaths possessing firearms.


The question has been asked: What can be done to stop these attacks?

Many people will jump to conclusions, as they do with every mass shooting, and say that guns are the problem. They will claim that as long as guns are easily accessible there will always be mass shootings and gun culture that propagate violence.

Another group of people will claim that every living person should have a gun in their hand so they can defend themselves and that should be the end of it.


So far as actions go, the U.S. has seen politicians say “they are looking into it” and “Gun Control is needed”.

In the interest of actually saving lives at these military installations, here are two solutions that can be agreed upon by the majority of the American people:

1. Repealing Department of Defense (D.O.D.) directive 5210.56 which states:

“The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel [on military bases] when there is a reasonable expectation that life and D.O.D. assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried.”

and replace it with something more like:

“The authorization to carry semi-automatic sidearms shall be issued to military personnel above the grade of E-5 at all U.S. military installations and properties, exempting those areas where firearms can be hazardous such as ordinance storage, weapons facilities, and nuclear facilities.”

With this policy change, the number of firearms to trusted military personnel would go up and therefore there would be no “hunting ground” for an armed psychopath at U.S. military installations. Since the firearms would only go to enlisted men who have been in the military for, on average, four or five years, and officers, there would be little to no concern of the quality of men carrying the firearms.

This change would be the end of mass murders on U.S. military installations by firearms as any threat of such violence would be met with an overwhelming presence of violence, thus discouraging such action or at the very least ending it much quicker with less casualties.

This solution would also receive bipartisan support in the legislature, if they should take it up, because who better qualified to defend themselves than the people who defend this country?

About Dustin Hoyt

Dustin Hoyt is the host of the America Our Way Radio Show and is the administrator of America Our Way (facebook page) He has a B.A. in Broadcasting from Stephen F. Austin State University (SFASU) where he minored in Political Science.




  1. I like that idea but what about us civilians that are licensed to carry concealed? I have to leave my weapon at home while I travel to and from the base. I also was honorably discharged from the US Marine corps after 4 years service would you trust me to carry

    • I certainly would trust you to carry and I think you should be armed to protect yourself. .Everyone on base should be armed. If you aren’t trustworthy what would you be doing on base in the first place?

  2. When you say “exempting those area where firearms can be hazardous such as ordinance storage, weapon storage and nuclear facilities” are you saying guns should not be carried in those locations??

  3. I think that this is a great idea but there is one problem that I see with this recommendation: the wacko at Fort Hood was a Major and would have been authorized to carry a weapon.

    • JayB, that Wacko south of Waco had absolutely no concern for the law and was already carrying in a gun-free-post. The point being that Criminals take great pride and accomplishment in breaking the law! The point is that with others carrying arms legally, it poses a risk to Criminals and ruining their dream event.

      • No, Officers shall follow the same regulation on post as all military and guests–no firearms allowed! But regardless, he was intent on murdering as many as possible before killing himself–his Islamic guaranteed path to heaven! Murder has been illegal since Cain stoned Abel, but the Wacko had absolutely no regard for Army Regulations, only his law mattered along with the promises made by his misguided Imam.

      • Matt, in his mind–yes! His law was all that mattered along with the promises made by his Imam. Any Muslim who dies fighting to further Islam’s struggle is a martyr and hero! Their Imams teach that martyrs are guaranteed the path to heaven and spending eternity with 72 virgins, while 99% of Muslims are destined before birth for an eternity in Hell.

    • That’s true he would have been authorized, but he might not have done it if he knew that there would be plenty of people there that also would have weapons. His goal was to kill as many as possible, not to have as many as possible kill him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s