Some good points on both sides of this argument
Military bases are like schools in that they are both gun free zones. This means that a terrorist or a lunatic could do a lot of damage before security forces arrive on scene. I work in a secure office building on a military base and sometimes worry that if an armed attacker gained access to the building he or she could kill a lot of persons before armed security personnel arrived to eliminate the threat.
At a personal level, the DOD policy means that I cannot exercise my concealed carry privileges when I am going to and from my workplace. At this current point in time I carry a concealed weapon whenever I can but the DOD restriction limits these periods to evenings and weekends.
I agree that unrestricted carry by everyone on base is probably a bad idea but I think that the limitations mentioned by some posters as to who could carry make sense. I would go a little further and suggest restricting carry privileges to E-6 and above in the enlisted ranks, and O-4 and above in the officer ranks.
I'm not sure either Clinton or the NRA have much to do with it.
IMO it's a true statement. Are their more people in both professions who don't act that way? Sure. Most do not -- but there are some that do. I think he was merely expressing puzzlement, I know it puzzles me. The West Coast Cop son says it's mostly the upper echelon Cops who are opposed and it's political. The East Coast guy says it's more complex than that and he believes that it's environmental. I think it's in part both of those things plus a genetic tendency. Dunno. Some are smug in their own ability to have or handle weapons but most aren't so it's complex. Regardless, the attitude existed long before Bill Clinton went to High School and when the NRA had well less than a million members. I was briefly a Cop in 1955 and in the Army in 56 and that negative attitude was around both jobs then, never went away completely and in fact, in the Army, is probably a bit better now than it was 15-20 years ago.
Academic in any event because it's not going to happen on a broad basis -- there are already some duty and not LE related exceptions -- and as long as the Army maintains its focus on Mass, it should not for the many reasons cited above.
The fact that it won't happen is pretty much a given. That some in the services and LE do not think any civilian should have a weapon and some who disapprove of CCW is also a fact. Unlike the first fact, it isn't terribly relevant. It's just a comment on human factors.