moonbattery logo

Jan 17 2013

Fort Hood Laid the Gun-Grabbers’ Arguments to Rest

We don’t need to debate whether disarming the law-abiding makes people safer. That issue has been settled repeatedly. Fort Hood alone was definitive:

Shouldn’t an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that “a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region” before military personnel “may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.”

Actually, many did know that there was a specific threat against personnel — namely the killer, who had publicly stated that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. But it would have been politically incorrect to acknowledge this threat. So,

The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan’s attack.

It took 10 minutes to get a gun to the scene. Otherwise Hasan never would have racked up such a high body count. This is why Jared Loughner’s psycho spree was the only mass shooting to occur in the US since 1950 that did not take place in a gun-free zone.

Anyone who promotes gun-free zones as a means to avoid violence is either a fool, or a liar pursuing a covert agenda.

gun-free-zone_fish-barrel

On tips from Ummah Gummah.

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on Facebook


  • Bo-Jangles

    TODAY’S QUESTION
    “Are we under any less a threat of tyranny from Washington today than we were in 1787?”

  • StanInTexas

    It is a well-known fact that these crazed killers seek out “Gun Free Zones” for their murder sprees. These places negate automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, as the killer can use any weapon, and shoot and re-load at his leisure with little to no possibility of interference.

  • http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm Wilberforce

    I believe the order to disarm our own military on bases came from Clinton.

  • Bo-Jangles

    Food for thought:

    “Why is it the progressive liberal that steals guns then goes and kills movie goers and children in school has never been a NRA member?”

    Fort Hood – Registered Democrat – Muslim

    Columbine – Too young to vote – both families were registered democrats and progressive liberals

    VA Tech – Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff. Registered Democrat

    Colorado Theater – Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, occupy wall street participant, progressive liberal

    Connecticut School Shooter – Registered Democrat, hated Christians

    Common thread is that all of these shooters were “progressive liberal democrats.”

    Interesting…isn’t it

  • Alphamail

    If liberals had their way, all military bases would also be gun-free zones.

    And our troops in Afghanistan would need more rubber-band guns.

    Of course, no more than ten rubber bands at a time.

  • Spider

    Thought For The Day
    If Mullah Obama could do for the general economy what he’s done for the firearms industry, we’d all be rich, fat and happy.

  • cowboy chris

    Clinton may have enacted the law, but George Bush had 8 years to un-do it.
    Both parties have strayed far beyond the boundaries of what the responsibilities of government are.

  • Sam Adams

    Bo-Jangles says:
    January 17, 2013 at 9:15 am

    Food for thought:

    “Why is it the progressive liberal that steals guns then goes and kills movie goers and children in school has never been a NRA member?”

    Fort Hood – Registered Democrat – Muslim

    Columbine – Too young to vote – both families were registered democrats and progressive liberals

    VA Tech – Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff. Registered Democrat

    Colorado Theater – Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, occupy wall street participant, progressive liberal

    Connecticut School Shooter – Registered Democrat, hated Christians

    Common thread is that all of these shooters were “progressive liberal democrats.”

    Interesting…isn’t it
    _____________

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  • M.Wilson

    It also lays to rest the internet tough guys who say “You wouldn’t need guns if you could kung fu the bad guy’s ass like me.” Every single one of those soldiers had received at least some level of Combatives training, and I guarantee some of them were highly advanced. But you can’t bring your fists to a gun fight and expect to win. If they had been armed, the whole tragedy would have been averted or reduced to two or less casualties.

  • Bee

    Cowboy Chris is right–GW had two terms; more than enough time to undo this bit of stupidity.

    (Just as GOP had both houses of CONgress from 2002–2006 wherein they COULD have made the so-called “Bush Tax Cuts” permanent.)

    We need a REAL opposition party like never before.

  • Sam Adams

    We need a party that actually believes in a smaller, less intrusive, less expensive federal government. We need a party that supports individual freedom, as embraced by the limited responsibilities outlined for the federal government by the constitution.

    We do not need a party that is simply a democrat-lite party. We do not need a party that is a “we can manage it better party.”

    And more than half of republicans will continue to vote for their republican representatives because they don’t want to give up the clout and influence that the representatives claim to have.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    Gun free zones are self fulfilling prophecies for the left.
    The higher the body counts rack up in them, the wider libs expand them

  • dan

    ‘It’s a real puzzler..’ _ Ron Paul

  • Clingtomyguns

    Doesn’t surprise me that Clinton’s administration did this to disarm and handcuff our military. No sane person who loves their country would ever even dream of doing that, but then again we’re not talking about being ruled by sane patriotic people, as opposed to the blame America first crowd. This falls into the same camp for Clinton’s people, for example, when Jamie Gorelick, who, despite being personally responsible for instituting the “Wall,” a key obstacle to cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence operations that led directly to a breakdown in intelligence gathering before the 9/11 attacks, was appointed to the 9/11 commission. There is no other explanation than these people have a systematic disdain for the military and intelligence community and could care a less about putting them, and thereby all of us, in harms way, in order to achieve their “feel good” social objectives such as abolishing the 2nd Amendment. I only hope that if the fed’s gun grab and civil war eventually comes, the vast majority of the military and intelligence communities will rebel from Washington and join with local law enforcement on the side of the American people.

  • Nangleator

    I’ve got a great idea for cutting way down on crime, and therefore taxes.

    More guns = more safety, right? Well, how about all the guns that cops and soldiers confiscate become part of a program to ensure safety and cut down on crime?

    All those confiscated guns go to the people who can’t afford guns, yet live in the most violent areas. The demographic of young, blacks in urban areas is hardest hit by violence, so if these guys get guns… we’ll be able to cut police forces down to the bone, and still see a sharp drop in crime. Then, the unused police weapons can go to even more citizens!

    Right?

    Arm the poor in cities, and we’ll be living in a paradise in no time!

    That is… unless the principle behind unrestricted gun ownership is somehow flawed…

  • Sam Adams

    Nangleator says:
    January 17, 2013 at 11:51 am

    I’ve got a great idea for cutting way down on crime, and therefore taxes.

    More guns = more safety, right?…
    That is… unless the principle behind unrestricted gun ownership is somehow flawed…
    _______________

    If laws restricting gun ownership to only law abiding citizens worked, no criminals would own guns. If laws banning all guns worked to prevent gun deaths, the UK would have zero gun deaths. If laws banning all guns would result in an end to violence and violent acts, the UK would have zero criminal violence today.

    No one suggests that universal gun ownership will lead to a paradise on earth. Only the left believes in such a paradise…(if they could just pass another dozen laws). Laws do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals…that’s why they are criminals. Laws only disarm law-abiding citizens.

  • Nangleator

    Sam Adams: “f laws restricting gun ownership to only law abiding citizens worked, no criminals would own guns.”

    Great logic there! The laws against terrorism don’t seem to work perfectly. We should make terrorism legal then, right? Drug laws gone too? Only makes sense (to you.)

    In fact, laws themselves don’t seem to work… therefore we should stop fussing with them. Then, NO ONE will be a criminal!

  • M.Wilson

    To put it more simply, we are not saying that everyone having guns will make it so nobody ever gets shot.

    What it will change is who gets shot. When the law abiding have guns, more criminals get shot when attempting crimes. This not only prevents the crime that got them shot, but if the shot is fatal it also prevents any future crimes that criminal may have committed and immediately removes the expense of caring for him from the prison system.

    If the law abiding are disarmed, then it is the citizen who gets shot. We lose a taxpayer and productive worker, if the criminal is caught we have to feed, shelter, and cater to him for the rest of his life, and if he isn’t caught or is released from prison, he goes on to commit more crimes and kill more people.

    Which do you prefer? Do you want the citizen to die, or the criminal?

  • Nangleator

    M.Wilson, I agree with you completely! That’s why my proposal makes so much sense. Access to guns–and therefore safety–shouldn’t only belong to people who can afford guns.

    I was overstating with “paradise” before, but a huge jump in violent criminal deaths wouldn’t be a bad thing, at all.

  • M.Wilson

    The best way to do that, however, is not through handouts. The best way to make guns available to the poor is to make cheap guns, which the gun industry already does.

    Simply respecting the 2nd amendment and avoiding excessive or unnecessary administrative costs would be sufficient to extend the right of self defense to everyone equally. There are plenty of handguns, rifles, and shotguns available for less than the cost of a cell phone, and since I see the “poor” walking around with those all the time this should be well within their price range. You don’t have to pay a subscription for a gun either.

    In this, as in many other things, simple liberty will perform far better than any government program you can come up with.

  • Nangleator

    The conditions you say exist do exit, and yet there’s still poor people without guns. Still violent crime in the poor areas. Your reasoning falls short.

    Perhaps your idea of ‘cheap’ isn’t accurate from every perspective.

    And I’m not talking about a lot of overhead for giving away guns and making sure it’s only one to a customer.

  • Ummah Gummah

    Wilberforce says:
    January 17, 2013 at 9:09 am
    I believe the order to disarm our own military on bases came from Clinton.

    That is correct. Bubba should be hung by his cigar for the lives his immediate actions have caused.

    .

  • Nangleator

    “Bubba should be hung by his cigar for the lives his immediate actions have caused.”

    13 died at Ft. Hood. If being hung by his cigar is proportional, what would Bush have to undergo?

  • Ummah Gummah

    Alphamail says:
    January 17, 2013 at 9:17 am
    If liberals had their way, all military bases would also be gun-free zones.

    And our troops in Afghanistan would need more rubber-band guns.

    Of course, no more than ten rubber bands at a time.

    You forgot they’ll have to turn in their rubber bands at sundown so they won’t engage the enemy at night because to do so would disturb the neighbors.

    .

  • Ummah Gummah

    Nangleator says:
    January 17, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    “Bubba should be hung by his cigar for the lives his immediate actions have caused.”

    13 died at Ft. Hood. If being hung by his cigar is proportional, what would Bush have to undergo?

    Go F*CK, yourself, nambypambyator. You’re the original BUTT Monkey: But Boooosh!!

    Not that I mean to say that hanging Bubba by his cigar would be adequate punishment for what he has done, which also includes stealing the Heartland from the Serbs on behalf of bosnian mooozeleeembehs, but then we Conservatives aren’t nearly as vindictive as you RATS.

    Love all the noise u libs make about Bush, when his liberalsism is LEGENDARY: Spending like a lib on crack, soft-pedaling on islam, aiding the process of court martialing our brave soldiers in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

    Bush is the ultimate straw man for u libs. He got an awful lot down for u by way of bringing down America and you get to use him against Patriotic Americans.

    Something that will never ever with with the wonderbama.

    .

  • Ummah Gummah

    .

    In the eyes of a lib one Bubba hung by his cigar is “unproportional” when he is responsible for 13 US Marines murdered in cold blood by a jihadist who was able to be in his position only because of LIBERAL policies, which allow moslem access to all manner of sensitive positions not just inside our military.

    As Fort Hood demonstrates, they will use those positions.

    I can’t wait to find out how Huma and Valerie Jarrett are using theirs.

    .

  • QuietMan

    In a saner time (1988), we had a Soldier go AWOL and threaten to kill the officers and senior NCOs. The battalion commander ordered the arms room opened and we were issued Army sidearms and Army ammunition. No problems. AWOL was later apprehended by unit members when the MP refused.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    Nangleator
    Will those guns placed in the hands of law abiding citizens somehow turn them into criminals ?
    I don’t know if we can ever trust this administration to insure those firearms don’t wind up in the hands of felons, what with F&F on their resume.
    But otherwise, yes.
    Guns in law abiding citizens hands are a deterrent
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/chicago-homicide-rate-500_n_2375697.html
    ______

    13 died at Ft. Hood. If being hung by his cigar is proportional, what would Bush have to undergo?

    If you are trying to recover some foreign policy credos for the left, sorry…. After Obama’s “Arab spring” nation building blunder plus the embassy fiasco’s that dog won’t hunt anymore.
    Rep Dem…. same difference.

  • IslandLifer

    People like Nangle pretend to have the interest of ‘the poor and helpless’ at heart. They are phony and more than often are very miserable people who truly hate their lives. The only thing that brings them satisfaction is by making those around them just as miserable as themselves. Ring a bell?

  • M.Wilson

    I find it amusing that he says “crime still exists”, as if I’m claiming that letting people protect themselves will bring about peace on Earth. As I stated before, I claim nothing of the sort. Only that crime will happen at a reduced rate and its impact will be mitigated by more frequent intervention and natural selection. You will note of course, that these “poor areas” where crime is the highest are in the middle of cities such as Chicago, New York, and Detroit. What do these have in common? Don’t worry, you have time to think about it.

    As for the definition of “cheap”, Hi-Point sells semi-automatic handguns chambered for many popular rounds (including .45 and 9mm, whichever side of the caliber war you’re on) for under $200. Less than the cost of a Nintendo Wii. Mosin-Nagant rifles can be bought for less than $100, which adds up to two or three trips to the gas station depending on the size of your tank. If you prefer a semi-automatic rifle, the SKS is often available in the $250 range.

    As long as you have a legitimate source of income, you can easily afford to arm yourself. As far as I know, firearms and ammunition do not qualify for purchase with EBT, but that’s a good thing. Guns do require a certain level of responsibility after all. It would help if gun safety was taught in schools, but in today’s schools they’d do it wrong, teaching kids to simply hate guns rather than respect and properly handle them.

  • Ummah Gummah

    Bo-Jangles says:
    January 17, 2013 at 9:15 am
    Food for thought:

    But Bush!

    .

  • Sam Adams

    Nangleator says:
    January 17, 2013 at 12:04 pm

    Sam Adams: “f laws restricting gun ownership to only law abiding citizens worked, no criminals would own guns.”

    Great logic there! The laws against terrorism don’t seem to work perfectly. We should make terrorism legal then, right? Drug laws gone too? Only makes sense (to you.)
    ___________

    Gun ownership by citizens is legal. Terrorism is not legal whether by citizens or criminals. There is no justifiable use for terrorism.

    __________

    In fact, laws themselves don’t seem to work… therefore we should stop fussing with them. Then, NO ONE will be a criminal!
    __________

    Here’s the interesting thing….liberals believe that if enough laws are passed, then we will be living in a paradise. They also believe that, without laws, everyone would be killing and raping each other. Liberals believe that people are basically evil, and they don’t trust them.

    Conservatives believe that the main thing that keeps people doing the right thing is not laws but the moral structure that comes through religious beliefs. Conservatives usually do “the right thing” because of the ideas and beliefs that motivate them. They believe in their fellow man, and believe in the goodness of their fellow man.

    That is why conservatives welcome neighbors who are armed, while liberals want all their neighbors to be disarmed.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    The nations top gun trafficker begs for clemency by the court…………………………………
    Oh, and who is this criminal ?
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/17/Holder-begs-court-to-indefinitely-delay-group-s-lawsuit-fighting-for-release-of-Obama-s-executive-privilege-Fast-and-Furious-documents

  • Pingback: Fort Hood Laid the Gun-Grabbers’ Arguments to Rest | Socialism is not the Answer

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy