Unassigned

VIDEO: Unarmed Soldiers Had to TACKLE the Ft. Stewart Gunman. It Is Time to END Military ‘Gun Free Zones’

Aaron Walker
Aaron Walker  |  5:20 PM on August 07, 2025

Yesterday, there was a mass shooting at Fort Stewart that left five soldiers wounded. And today, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll spoke about the heroism of soldiers at the base in a way that made this author furious. You can watch his remarks here:

Advertisement

He says, by this author’s transcription:

One of the soldiers tackled the person. So just think about this: They were unarmed and ran at and tackled an armed person that they knew was actively shooting their buddies, their colleagues, their fellow soldiers. Another soldier jumped on top of the person to subdue them until federal law enforcement was able to arrive.

He goes on to praise other soldiers who administered aid to those who had been wounded but honestly, this author wanted to throw something at the screen seeing this—and we saw it on our iPhone! Naturally, we are proud of every soldier who stepped up but read that again:

One of the soldiers tackled the person so just think about this: They were unarmed and ran at and tackled an armed person that they knew was actively shooting their buddies, their colleagues, their fellow soldiers. Another soldier jumped on top of the person to subdue them until federal law enforcement was able to arrive.

(Emphasis added.) Yes, incredibly, these soldiers, men and women who are trained to apply lethal force to America’s enemies were disarmed because military bases are still ‘gun free zones.’ 

First off, they are currently gun free zones, in the sense that while there are guards on duty, the vast majority of soldiers are not allowed to carry guns, as reported here:

From the article:

Soldiers in the area who witnessed the shooting at Fort Stewart in Georgia ‘immediately and without hesitation’ tackled the shooter to subdue him before law enforcement arrived, Brigadier Gen. John Lubas said at a news conference Wednesday.

But they didn’t have firearms to shoot back because of a policy first enacted decades ago to ensure safety by limiting armed members on army bases to military police. …

Department of Defense policy prohibits military personnel from carrying personal weapons on base without permission from a senior commander, and there is a strict protocol for how the firearm must be stored.

Typically, military personnel must officially check their guns out of secure storage to go to on-base hunting areas or shooting ranges, and then check all firearms back in promptly after its sanctioned use. Military police are often the only armed personnel on base, outside of shooting ranges, hunting areas or in training, where soldiers can wield their service weapons without ammunition.

The federal policy leaves little room for local commanders to use discretion about how the policy is enforced. That means the regulation applies even in Georgia, a state with some of the most lax gun regulations in the country, where Fort Stewart is located.

Recommended

When Jake Tapper Said the J6 Pipe Bomber Was a ‘White Man’ and Then This Happened
justmindy
Advertisement

And we say ‘still’ because the idiocy of this policy was laid bare more than fifteen years ago during the Ft. Hood massacre. One news source (link defunct) described testimony from the trial arising out of it as follows:

Amid the carnage described Friday were moments of heroism. Spc. Logan Burnett said he saw Capt. John Gaffaney try to attack Hasan with a chair before he was shot and killed. Burnett said he also tried to throw a folding table at Hasan, but was shot in the hip before he could throw it. Burnett was shot another two times as he crawled to safety.

Although we can’t locate our writings on Ft. Hood, we remember learning about that and making pretty much the exact same argument at the time: Why on Earth are military bases ‘gun free zones?’ We are absolutely stunned that military bases are still ‘gun free zones,’ after Ft. Hood and other massacres on military bases. Any service member who attacks a gunman with something other than a gun because they cannot legally carry a gun is certainly brave and we have nothing but praise for them, but we also have nothing but anger that more than fifteen years later, we are still hearing about mass shootings on military bases and service personnel who have no ability to shoot back. We not only think our military should be allowed to at least carry a handgun, we tend to think it should be made their duty—but we are more flexible and the latter point. And if someone cannot be trusted with a gun, they should not be in the military at all—unless some very unusual exemption applies.

And apparently having people in the military who shouldn’t be in the military is a very real problem. From the KRPC Houston/AP article:

There is also scant legal ground for leadership to confiscate a gun when a service member is exhibiting signs of a mental health crisis or post-traumatic stress disorder, potentially posing a threat to themselves or others. In recent years, those gaps have come under more scrutiny because of mass shootings, [former military prosecutor and defense counsel Eric Carpenter] said.

Advertisement

Thus, it may be the case that we first need to work harder to throw people who can’t be trusted with guns out of the military, before we allow our military to carry guns. But we don’t think its too much to ask that 1) all military personnel should be the kind of people who can be trusted with guns, and 2) all military personnel should be trusted with guns. Simply put, the next time someone tries to commit a mass shooting on a military base, that person should be greeted with a hail of return fire. Then this will stop happening.

The cut off text:

The attached picture is the POS who shot 5 soldiers at Fort Stewart yesterday. Military bases are gun free zones other than MPs for the most part.

Expanding this discussion to gun free zones in general, it is true that the vast majority of gun massacres occur in so-called ‘gun free zones.’ We put the quotes around the term because ‘gun free zones’ are rarely actually gun free. Most often the person making a place ‘gun free’ does little more than put up a sign saying they are gun free, which will stop most law-abiding people, but not any criminals. Criminals are, by definition, people who do not respect the law or other rules. Duh.

But we have also long said in the context of school shootings that we know how to keep a building secure. As a lawyer, this author often goes into a class of buildings that manage to be gun free and be still secure: Courthouses. It’s just about the only ‘gun free zone’ where we feel safe disarming, because aside from the guards (and any cops there to testify), and probably most of the judges, these building are truly gun free. Seriously, when is the last time you heard of a gun massacre in a courthouse? If there were any in American history it is a very rare event. Which is pretty remarkable because a courthouse is where citizens go to settle disputes that might be incredibly heated. Furthermore, criminals are there on a regular basis, too, and not just as defendants. A criminal defendant might be shackled, but his or her fellow gang member who is there to testify against him or her typically are not. And yet, courthouses are one of the few ‘gun free zones’ that are successfully kept actually gun free and kept pretty safe.

Advertisement

Accordingly, we have long favored a policy that said that ‘gun free zones’ are a public safety menace and no location open to the public should be allowed to declare themselves a gun free zone unless:

1)         They have controlled entrances and exits,

2)         with metal detectors used to prevent anyone from sneaking weapons in, and

3)         a significant presence of armed guards.

These are the policies and practices we have seen at every courthouse we have ever been to, and we think that nothing less than that is necessary to have a truly safe ‘gun free zone.’ If the people who run a location are not willing to do that, they shouldn’t be able to prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying guns even if it is privately owned.

One can certainly hope.

The cut off text:

Thankfully no one is killed and all are expected to survive, forced to stop the lunatic without guns and get shot in the process.

More security and more guns are needed. Anytime a ‘gun free’ zone is adopted, security need to be insanely tight with screening and tons of armed guards. Laws and regulations don’t stop criminals. Good guys with guns do.

Advertisement

Also: GOOOOOOD MORNING VIETNAM!!!

And we miss you, Robin Williams.

We detect sarcasm.

And of course, people who are ignorant about military bases being 'gun free zones' then say stupid stuff like this:

But while it is normal to point and laugh at such people—and fun!—we will also find a silver lining, here. The fact this talking point is repeated so often speaks to how absurd these military ‘gun free zones’ really are. Many on the left assume that everyone on a military base is armed because it doesn’t even dawn on them that a military base would be a ‘gun free zone’—it is so self-evidently stupid. But unfortunately, life has taught us that just because something is stupid to do, doesn’t mean that the government won’t do it.

But we will end more positively with some praise for the soldiers who put a stop to that mass shooting…

Advertisement

…and also end with our brave soldiers talking about what they saw and heard:

Their bravery makes this patriot’s heart swell. 

The fact they had to face these dangers unarmed makes this patriot furious.

RELATED: Piers Morgan Makes a Stunningly Stupid Argument Regarding Hamass’ Hostage Videos

Neera Tanden Claims She had Biden’s Signed Authorization to Use the Autopen (LAWSPLAINING)

A Deal in the Works? Ghislaine Maxwell Reportedly Moved to Minimum Security Prison (LAWSPLAINING)

WATCH As the Company That Employed the ‘Coldplay Cheaters’ Runs an Absolute Clinic on Damage Control

BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard Blows Open Russiagate With Document Dump

BREAKING: An NYT Interview With Biden Just Undermined Thousands of His Late Pardons (A Deep Dive)

‘First Do No Harm:’ Fisking John Oliver on the Transgender/Sports Issue