On any military installation I've ever been on, the possession and/or carry of personal firearms is strictly verboten. One may bring firearms on the base according to the base commanders discretion for certain events at certain locations under certain very strict conditions, but the 2nd Amendment is for all intents and purposes non-existent onboard any military installation.
This applies to most of the other Amendments as well, for what it's worth. A base commander's authority over his/her installation is almost God-like, subject only to the whims of those in positions of authority over his own, but most higher authorities choose to leave a lot of personal discretion to the base commander.
This tickles me somewhat because the military is an organization formed and dedicated to the preservation and defense of one Constitution of the United States, which as one of it's attachments expressly forbids the .gov from prohibiting the firearms ownership and carry of the citizens thereof (not that this has stopped them, of course).
Furthermore, this military installation is staffed by the various military members who have all taken an oath to support and defend this same aforementioned Constitution Of against all who threaten it, domestically or otherwise. Presumably this also means the Amendments, since they are part and parcel of the entire document as a whole.
Lastly, such servicepersons are lengthily lectured and trained to recognize their duties with regards to the carrying out of certain orders, to include the recognition of lawful and unlawful ones. First and foremost, for an order to be lawful, IT MUST NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Given the above points, tell me how the prohibition of carry on military installations is not an unlawful order?
This is merely a theoretical exercise of course. That camel's nose is not only under the tent, the entire camel is sleeping on your cot and making babies in your socks.