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.

gun-free-zone_fish-barrel

On tips from Ummah Gummah. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Related Articles

23

Michael Bloomberg Takes Nanny State Authoritarianism on the Road

New York City’s Mayor for Life Michael Bloomberg was not chastised when he shot himself in the foot with his

12

Neighbors are Furious After a Man Builds His Own Gun Range in His Front Yard. The Police? They Say He Isn’t Breaking the Law. [Video]

Yep, he has a Constitutional right to fire his gun on his property. But if there is a Homeowner’s Association,

35

Gun Control Laws Not Likely

Why? Well, most Americans are against gun control laws (via Jazz Shaw) (Ocala) By 2004, when the assault weapon ban

comments

Share This

Share this post with your friends!