Unfortunate headline from the AP today, which for some reason they found appropriate to lead an article about the President's visit with the families of the victims of last week's massacre at Fort Hood:
"Obama remembers what Fort Hood victims left behind"
What, besides their guns?
So while the AP does its best to congratulate itself for turning these brave service men and women into just another set of victims to be mollified by the sweet nothings percolating from Obama's presidential pie hole, let's take a moment to realize something that their families sure as hell can't forget--that Fort Hood is a gun-free zone.
Nidal Hasan's mission to murder innocent people there last week was helped along in significant part by laws preventing those people from carrying weapons to defend themselves.
So while the victims did sadly leave behind loved ones whose lives are now forever damaged by the acts of Mr. Hasan, the most tragic things of all left behind were the guns that would have prevented it all from happening.






Comments (10)
So where are the Reds bleat... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Jay Guevara | November 10, 2009 5:13 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
So where are the Reds bleating about the murder of "our children?" Or are they only children when they're fighting Muslims overseas, but they're adults here?
1. Posted by Jay Guevara | November 10, 2009 5:13 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2009 17:13
2. Posted by JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [reitred] | November 10, 2009 5:44 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Here Fricking Here!!! I work on a college campus now and we should be allowed to conceal and carry as well. Hell, if everyone on the airplane had a gun the hijackers wouldn't have much of a shot at hijacking it would they?
Guns don't kill people, People kill people, a gun is just a tool. The Gun control people are of the belief that a hammer left on a table will somehow bludgeon someone to death. Just as a gun on tha table will of its own accord shoot people. When you keep people from carrying a gun the only people with a gun are the criminals and the insane jihadi bastards.
2. Posted by JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [reitred] | November 10, 2009 5:44 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2009 17:44
3. Posted by mantis | November 10, 2009 5:48 PM | Score: -7 (9 votes cast)
Nidal Hasan's mission to murder innocent people there last week was helped along in significant part by laws preventing those people from carrying weapons to defend themselves.
Knowing what you're talking about can be helpful. Oh wait, I'm talking to a wingnut. Not knowing what the hell you're talking about is a prerequisite.
The military branches set their own policy for guns on bases. No law prevented this. Army policy did. You may want to take a moment to think about why the Army has such a policy.
3. Posted by mantis | November 10, 2009 5:48 PM |
Score: -7 (9 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2009 17:48
4. Posted by Marc | November 10, 2009 6:07 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I hate to do this, REALLY HATE it, but mantis is correct, whatever local civil laws require have zero bearing on what is allowed on a military base.
Meanwhile, obama's mayor of record Chicago's Mayor Daley, thinks this tragedy was because of America's love of guns.
"Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don't blame a group."
Typical lefturd.
4. Posted by Marc | November 10, 2009 6:07 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2009 18:07
5. Posted by Steve "Now THAT's Ironic" Green | November 10, 2009 6:10 PM | Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
A wingnut that knows what he's talking about?
Wrong, by definition.
5. Posted by Steve "Now THAT's Ironic" Green | November 10, 2009 6:10 PM |
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2009 18:10
6. Posted by Marc | November 10, 2009 6:47 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
That's all you have "Steve "Now THAT's Ironic" Green"?
Another typical lefturd, all pomp and no circumstance.
6. Posted by Marc | November 10, 2009 6:47 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2009 18:47
7. Posted by hyperbolist | November 10, 2009 7:08 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Now that you have been shown to be either ignorant or lying with regards to how the law applies to soldiers carrying firearms on Army bases, Albert, are you going to correct your post?
You could just add a correction and say "Well I still think the *POLICY* is stupid." And that way your argument would be as strong as if your original contention had been correct, and you would demonstrate an understanding of what you're talking about. Win, win--right?
7. Posted by hyperbolist | November 10, 2009 7:08 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2009 19:08
8. Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2009 7:13 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
From a personal point of view, and having no problem with people exercising 2nd Amendment Rights; I really don't think it would be appropriate for soldiers to be "carrying" on base 24/7.
They should have been safe. But their SAFETY was sacrificed on the alter of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Certain superior officers did not HAVE THE FUCKING BALLS to call that asshole on his bullshit and kick him out of the service. The FBI and the CIA fucked up AGAIN. Anyone getting fired there? HA!
The Army's Criminal Investigative Service also 'investigated'. "Nothing there". Yep, wonder if this dirt clod will also manage to keep his job.
13 good people are dead because others in this country in leadership positions decided to 'play it safe', after all, they 'didn't want to offend anyone (Muslims)'.
Well some of those "leaders" had better read the freaking Constitution. NO WHERE does it say that you have the right not to be offended.
Any investigation that comes out of Washington will be a WHITEWASH!
8. Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2009 7:13 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2009 19:13
9. Posted by JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [reitred] | November 10, 2009 7:33 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Having been in the Navy I have egg on my face for not pointing out the difference. Thank you for pointing out that it was policy not law.
But the premise of my post still stands. Guns don't kill people, people do. Idiots argue otherwise, if he hadn't had access to guns he might have taken a butter knife and begun shanking people. Who knows, the point being that anything is a weapon in the wrong hands. A gun does more good than harm in the hands of 90% of the population.
Personally I always found it stupid that you couldn't carry on base unless it was part of your Uniform of the Day such as for those on guard duty. Not that you should need a weapon while on base, that should be the safest place available anywhere. But as this story proves, perhaps in a time of war a sidearm should be standard issue just as those in theatre carry gas masks in case of BCR attack.
9. Posted by JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [reitred] | November 10, 2009 7:33 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2009 19:33
10. Posted by BPG | November 10, 2009 9:00 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Albert,
Although I concur with mantis that the absence of firearms on most military posts is policy, not law, I did appreciate this little nugget:
"...sweet nothings percolating from Obama's presidential pie hole"
Now that's quality.
10. Posted by BPG | November 10, 2009 9:00 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2009 21:00