Another comment from the article about the military banning establishments, which can be found here.

True, there is a lot of training for new military members at the base. This isn't a fact that supports your argument however.

The restrictions for doing business at selected establishments pertains to all personnel, and it is for their supposed benefit. Students have no reason to shop for cars anywhere, because they are prohibited from having any kind of vehicle while in training anyway. The rationale for this being lack of space, the time it takes to register them, the cost of administration this would incur, and others. These have more basis in objective reasoning.

So, the point that the restriction targets students is simply not true, and still doesn't address the discrepancy that military members are not afforded the same freedoms other citizens are privileged with. No credence can be allowed for the simple fact that there would be outrage if the government, the same entity imposing restrictions on the troops at the base, were to attempt to dictate such restrictions to the general public.

My whole point is military personnel are not afforded the same rights as the populace at large, but of course there is nobody addressing this aspect of the so called 'argument'. Then there is this comment, made by another...

They aren't restricting freedom as much as targeting the offending establishments.

So, for this person, the end justifies the means. Then there is the fact that we have a military establishment practicing coercive tactics on the general public. Is this a directed purpose of our military?

On a similar note, but really off topic, some sense in the sea of confusion

http://www.spinozaslens.com/libet/articles/hitchens_beliefinbelief.htm
http://www.spinozaslens.com/libet/articles/jacoby_talkingtoourselves.htm