The only people who can carry guns around a military base—concealed or otherwise—are on-duty military police, who handle routine security.

I would imagine that it wouldn't matter what the NRA's opinion is of the rules and regulations on a military base. Why would it?

actually, a civilian contracted securty team was handling most of the security at Hood.

...have the right to carry a gun anywhere they choose and use the argument that if they did, things like this would not result in as much carnage OR would not happen at all.

This is the argument they used after the Virginia Tech shootings.

<link>

The military police soldiers assigned to the brigade have the unique opportunity to perform the full spectrum of military police jobs which are available at Fort Hood. During peacetime operations, the brigade provides daily law enforcement support and community assistance to the soldiers, civilian workforce, families and visitors to III Corps and Fort Hood. This support is a combined effort of the two division military police companies, the 720th Military Police Battalion, the 178th Military Police Company and the military and civilian workforce assigned to the office of the III Corps and Fort Hood provost marshal. This support includes criminal investigations, traffic enforcement and accident investigation, community education, crime prevention, physical security, support to U.S. Customs, Special Reaction Team, confinement and prisoner escort, police patrols, police reports and records and military working dogs operations.

-----

Still I knew that private security and local police responded.

What does that have to do with my original question? The NRA used the Virginia Tech shootings to argue that if students had been allowed to carry arms on campus, the tragedy could have been avoided or with less damage done.