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.

Trending Today

Related Articles

4

Obama Moves To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo In An Attempt To Suppress Ownership Of Rifles

Could Congress possibly get any more irrelevant? Obama is going to do all he can over the next two years

0

Showdown: 5,500 Washington State Gun Owners Intend to Engage in Civil Disobedience Over I-594

First Connecticut, and then New York passed gun control laws this year – that many people believe are unconstitutional –

4

California Uses Environmentalist Pretext to Go After Bullets

When moonbats aren’t attacking our essential liberties in the name of the children, they are doing it in the name