Criticism of former President Bill Clinton’s gun control legacy is intensifying after another violent attack on a U.S. military base left troops defenseless. The shooting at Fort Stewart has renewed scrutiny over the gun-free policies enacted during Clinton’s administration—rules that many say have left America’s soldiers vulnerable to armed attackers.
One of Clinton’s early executive actions disarmed troops on U.S. military installations, effectively banning service members from carrying personal firearms. Army regulations issued under his administration made it nearly impossible for commanders to issue firearms for self-defense purposes, even to those extensively trained in their use.
Following the 2009 massacre at Fort Hood, a Washington Times editorial noted that “because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood.” This stark comparison highlights the risk posed by preventing trained soldiers from carrying even basic sidearms.
Second Amendment advocate and Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott Jr. echoed those concerns after the Fort Stewart attack, calling it “appalling” that troops cannot carry a 9mm pistol for personal protection on U.S. soil. Lott argued that the gun-free policy effectively turns American military bases into soft targets.
President Donald Trump previously promised to reverse this policy. In 2015, he told Ammoland, “President Clinton never should have passed a ban on soldiers being able to protect themselves on bases. America’s Armed Forces will be armed.” While efforts to change the policy were stalled by political distractions during Trump’s first term, the renewed threat may re-ignite reform efforts.
The Fort Stewart shooting has sparked fresh calls to arm military personnel on stateside bases. Critics argue that it is unreasonable to expect soldiers trained in advanced weaponry to be unarmed while potential threats face no such restrictions.
Military bases should not be places where America’s finest are left helpless. The policy needs urgent revision to allow self-defense against threats—foreign or domestic.
