Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President John F. Kennedy - U.S. Marine Corps
Charles Whitman the Texas Tower sniper killed 14 - U.S. Marine Corps
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 in the Oklahoma City bombing - U.S. Army
John Allen Muhammad killed 10 in the D.C. sniper attacks - U.S. Army
Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly killed 13 in the Ft. Hood shootings - U.S. Army
In the aftermath of any large scale killing grief is soon overcome by the need for understanding. How could any individual commit such a monstrous act and how can it be prevented in the future? Some point to group identification and seek to place restrictions on members of the killer’s group.
U.S. service members are willing to die in service of their country. They are also willing to kill in that same service. But what if the ‘kill-switch’ cannot be turned off after leaving the battlefield? If men and women trained to kill and oftentimes traumatized by the combat experience return home are they a threat? Is it worth limiting the freedoms of all for the acts of the few in the name of domestic security? In short, is it time to take the right to bear arms away from those who serve?
Gun industry rights activists point to the futility of legislating against criminal behavior; pointing out that laws only impact the lawful putting them at even more risk at the hands of the lawless. Some on the Right wish to limit the rights of some groups they consider a threat to domestic security or at the very least consider them enemies who need to be watched carefully. Some on the Left consider hate speech laws a reasonable limitation on freedoms in the name of domestic security.
Those who serve and are trained to kill are not like the rest of us. They take enormous risks in the name of duty and face a difficult reintegration into society after leaving the battlefield. They deserve respect in the form of better treatment for PTSD and the aftereffects of the combat experience. They deserve respect as individuals and to enjoy the rights they fight to protect. That some in the group have used their training to commit heinous acts is no reason to limit all who received the same deadly training. Restricting individual Americans based on group identity is un-American and should not be tolerated because at the end of the day we all belong to one group: the American People.
Comments
And ALL writers like YOU should have their right to a free speech denied as well.
lol - methinks Locked and Loaded didn't make it to the end of the article.
Well-trolled headline, sir.
The man in the pic is a terrorist You ass! Why did you not mention his ties to the 9/11 pricks, or the ties to the 9/11 muslim priest that spreads his hate, or the fact that the man was rambling american hate in our own military two years before this happened and because of politacal correctness he was ignored. How bout the fact that he was screaming "alla ac bar" while he was killing our soldiers on our base. Be asshamed of yourself writer, be very ashamed! P.s. he was also in a strip club before the killings, same MO as as all the other F**ks waiting for his 72 virgins. When will you all grow up and realize! These are the facts, report them or leave your post as an examiner!
The man in the picture did not want to fight his coreligionist in Iraq. I personally would have had no problem fighting Al Quaeda or the shiite mafia that want to run that country. I personally would have had no problem fighting the Taliban who want to subject the modern people of Pakistan to their rule. (Control of Pakistan is what the Afghan war is now about. Imagine the Taliban with the natural and human resources of that country at their command. It would be Armageddon.)
That said J...
DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU EVER MOMENTARILY CONSIDER THAT PART OF THE REASON THIS HAPPENED IS BECUASE HASAN WAS NOT TREATED AS AN AMERICAN?
You heard me. I am a multiracial american with deeper roots, more of a blood and soil connection to this continent than 99% of Americans. Yet because I am Muslim I have faced the dirtiest of looks. (Mostly from white people.)
Major Hasan, the murderer, was one of us. HE WAS AND IS AN AMERICAN WHO KILLED HIS OWN. We need to dig deep and answer why.
I think it's more appropriate to blame the person...not the gun.
Why did you write this article?
Phil Amylon - Providence Single Men Examiner says: methinks Locked and Loaded didn't make it to the end of the article.
It is usually to difficult when the headline starts the story like that.
Hontas Farmer says: CONSIDER THAT PART OF THE REASON THIS HAPPENED IS BECUASE HASAN WAS NOT TREATED AS AN AMERICAN?
Should he have been when he said himself he was a Muslim BEFORE he is an American? Until we do away with the hyphenated labels, you are treated the way you label yourself.
The premise revealed in the headline is wrong-headed and the article sounds like the idea for depriving servicemen of a constitutional right was held long before aything happened at Ft. Hood. The Ft. Hood shooter had obvious mental problems and merely because he was a Muslim Army psychiatrist does not make him a terrorist. A terrorist would have gone to Afghanastan or Iraq and shot up the unit there. He is mentally ill. This guy's actions were really not much different than the guys who go and shoot up their respective workplaces. Same damn thing. The fearful right wing blowhards see a terrorist in every woodpile and in this case are full of manure. This left wing bozo who has a thing for gun ownership is also full of it for making such a crazy and untenable argument. Folks, where is the sanity? It ain't on the right and it ain't on the left. Heck with all y'all extremists who want the whole country to conform to your own narrow definitions of freedom. I am a Veteran of the US Navy.
Sig Goldfanger says: This guy's actions were really not much different than the guys who go and shoot up their respective workplaces. Same damn thing.
I cannot remember the last time a workplace shooter emailed radical Imam's in Yemen or screamed Alu Akbar (sp) as they killed infidels or wrote We love death more than you love life.
How does the world look to you since your head is so far up your ass you see out your nostrils?
What is it about "well regulated" don't the gun nuts understand?
Well regulated means the federal, state AND local governments can indeed regulate who is qualified to own and/or operate any firearms. There is also legal precedent going back to the founding of this country to support the legality of regulating the use and ownership of firearms.
Those so called Christians who are trying to demonize the Muslim faith better reconsider their actions.
There have been more people murdered, and tortured in the name of Christianity than all other religions combined! So if you want to point your finger at a bloody religion, start pointing at Christianity, the religion that was founded on blood!
Those so called Christians who are trying to demonize the Muslim faith better reconsider their actions.
There have been more people murdered, and tortured in the name of Christianity than all other religions combined! So if you want to point your finger at a bloody religion, start pointing at Christianity, the religion that was founded on blood!
Sig Goldfanger - Did you read what I wrote? read it again, those are facts, not politicaly correct mishmash like you wrote! pathetic!
Kevin Schmidt - your full of it dood! Period, what a waste of space. Do you really think people are that stupid enough to believe such ignorence! If they were, guns would have been gone a long time ago. We are the well regulated for one, we the people! It was writen that way so when we get Commy Obahma's for president we can take our country back.
For two, I have the right to defend my family when Mr. goverment is to damn sensitive and politicaly correct to profile and stop them before they hurt someone. Muslims are terrorist's, they are the enemy, you are the enemy, you don't be friends with the enemy!
Also at Kevin Schmidt - All religion has taken more than its share of lives. Grow up and loose your religion altogether so we can all respect "life" instead of make believe gods that obviously tell people to kill others who don't agree!
The writer of this article should consider that the alleged shooter in the tragedy was trained as a doctor, not as a field combatant. Banning guns from former military is not the answer. To the contrary, soldiers are trained in weaponry and had the soldiers at Ft Hood been armed, the shooting could have been stopped much earlier. The army should rethink it's policy and require ALL soldiers to carry weapons while in uniform and on base.
Kevin Schmidt says: What is it about "well regulated" don't the gun nuts understand?
Has anyone ever used the term "speech nuts" for people who support freedom of speech?
Go live in SF with Pelosi you damn pinko. No, the solution is to keep nut jobs out of the military. If they become nut jobs in the service of our country, compensate them well and then limit their access to guns with the appropriate court order if they are a danger to themselves or others.
To understand the right to bare arms you must understand that the federalist papers were to be clairafied. They go together.
Muslims and terrorists are not the same word but finatics are dangerous and must be watched. I do not believe that Christians killed and tortured more people than all other religions together. That sounds like a political rewrite of history. In the muslim world killing and torture is still commin practice like inslaving Africans. The world is and always will be full of injustices. Because of thispeople are easily lead into the dark side.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!