Gun control advocates in this country know they are losing the hearts and minds of more and more Americans every day. Poll after poll has shown that support for gun control is at an all time low, repeatedly their agenda has been defeated in the courts, and pro-gun laws are still sweeping the country.
Ever since the "assault weapons ban" (AWB) sunset in 2004, they have been waiting for the right moment to try to get it restated. Now, five years later, some think they have that chance thanks to the Ft. Hood shooting. The fact that what have been arbitrarily defined as "assault weapons" by these activists were't even used in this shooting is immaterial, this incident is little more than a means to an end for them.
They've already seized on reports that a FN Five-Seven pistol was used by Nidal Hasan, the killer at Ft. Hood who is being called a domestic terrorist by some. The Five-Seven was targeted by gun control groups right around the time that the AWB sunset as the latest demon gun that needed to be banned because it had armor piercing ammunition. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claimed to have successfully penetrated a bulletproof vest using the gun. While it is true that armor piercing ammunition does exist for the pistol, it is only available to law enforcement or military personnel. Whether Hasan had that kind of ammunition has not been released. What Brady forgot to tell you was that they used the second thinnest vest on the market, one that can be penetrated by many common handguns.
But this isn't about truth, it is about agenda. Ever since they were invented there have been people who wanted to ban guns. Mass shootings in countries where guns have been banned tell us those bans don't accomplish much other than to ensure that if someone does go on a rampage there is nobody there to stop them. Most mass shooting have one thing in common, they are ended at the barrel of a gun when someone is able to fight fire with fire.
An article posted after the Ft. Hood attacks highlights the illogic being used by the gun grabbers. Louis Klarevas, a Professor in the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, wrote an article called It's the Guns, Stupid: Why Handguns Remain One of the Biggest Threats To Homeland Security. Part of his argument on why we are so stupid contains the following:
Think of this simple fact. According to the U.S. government's National Counter-Terrorism Center, over 50% of the 11,770 terrorist attacks that occurred worldwide last year involved armed attacks. Most prominent among these attacks was the siege in Mumbai, India, which claimed 173 lives (including six Americans).
I no longer wonder "if" a Mumbai-style attack will occur in the U.S. Absent the implementation of serious gun control measures, I now ask "when"?
Here's some facts for us stupid folks to consider. Permits for owning weapons are available to the citizens of India, but the licensing process is so complex that very few citizens make the effort to legally obtain guns. The result of this is that the Mumbai terrorists had the run of the streets with very little opposition.
Here's something else to think about. Klarevas lists 11,770 terrorists attacks worldwide. How many happened in the United States? Which country is decried for lax gun laws? It looks to me like there might be a connection! So, to answer Klarevas' question, "when" will there be a Mumbai-style attack in the U.S.? When they are finally able to ban guns here, stupid!
Cleveland Family Examiner Becky Roob made a good observation about my article Friday (see the comments section).
The media are talking about the type of weapon and have named the store where it was purchased! Who cares about the store where, oh my, they sell guns? If I have a dinner party and one of my guests gets drunk and kills someone on the way home - will the media tell the name of the wine store where I bought the alcohol? This is stupid. The guy was a nut! He would have killed any way - any how if that's what he wanted to really do.
Absolutely right. Taking it one step further, who is really to blame for the drunk driving accident, the person behind the wheel or the wine itself. Do we ban white zinfandel because of someone's lack of judgment? Do we sue the vineyard for pressing the wine? Do we sue the seed company for providing the means to grow the grapes that made the wine?
Gun control advocates have an agenda to get rid of guns by any means necessary. They will seize on any tragedy to further their cause and will deny all logic that gets in the way. It is up to the American people to see through the lies and spread the truth.
Comments
I've been following the "usual suspects'" responses to the Ft. Hood shooting, including the article by Dr. Klarevas cited above. One point the "anti's" have been leaving out of their articles is critical, so I will bring it up for discussion here.
What "reasonable gun control" law are they proposing, that would, on the one hand, not violate DC v Heller, yet on the other hand deny handgun posession by a US Army major?
The latest propaganda calling the FN Herstal 5.7 a "cop-killer" gun...
h t t p : //abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cop-killer-gun-thought-ft-hood-shooting/story?id=9019521
As always... they blame the gun. Give me a break. The gun was not the problem. Having a Muslim terrorist in your ranks trumps the gun in this case.
Perhaps if Fort Hood wasn't gun free (aside from training), those soldiers would have been able to defend themselves. That's an issue I'd like gun control advocates try to explain; all I've seen is information about the gun used, not the fact that the weapon was not allowed to be on base in the first place.
Ft hood is the perfect reason to require ALL citizens to carry a gun.......
I really wish these soldiers would've been breaking the law and had been carrying a gun, so they could've capped that guy much earlier.
Any terrorist with or without a gun on US soil poses a serious threat to our country and society which must be obliterated.
harleyrider1978: Right on brother!
As the saying goes, SSDD. The anti gun crowd has no shame and no hesitation to dance in the blood of helpless victims. Virginia Tech, Mumbai, Ft. Hood, all so called "gun free" zones.
And here's a thought, the accused shooter was a psychiatrist and therefore also a licensed medical doctor. Means he had access to all sorts of dangerous drugs and chemical compounds. If he'd been a bit more inventive he could easily have taken out many times the body count without ever firing a shot. Or I'm sure he could have found a way to access true military grade weapons out of secure base storage and again taken out many more victims.
Thus the falacy in the anti gun position, that preventing access to that one particular weapon would have made any difference at all to the final outcome. Idiots need to stop carping about the means and start focusing on intent.
Why do shooters select gun-free zones to commit their massacres rather than, say, gun shows?
Despite the law, Hasan was able to get a gun and able to kill innocent unarmed people until someone with a gun stopped him.
Murder is already against the law, what if stabbing people is on the rise? We then must regulate our knives.... LOL
Don't think of it as `gun control', think of it as `victim disarmament'. If we make enough laws, we can all be criminals & victims.....
It's hard to see how any gun law could have prevented this, what system of regulation would screen out a serving Army Major who was a psychiatrist to boot?
What kind of gun he used was largely immaterial, there's no indication he used armor-piercing ammo and even if he did, the victims weren't wearing vests anyway.
You write of the Brady group "But this isn't about truth, it is about agenda", right after highlighting their truthful statements. What's your point? I suspect it's like a lot of pro-gun argument, ie it's not what you say, but what I extrapolate from what you say, and I'll challenge you on that extrapolation, no matter how wild.
You later write "They (gun control advocates) will seize on any tragedy to further their cause." That's the point, "stupid"! There are tragedies involving guns in the US and they show no sign of abating. Should a group dedicated to strict gun control simply ignore mass shootings? Sounds like you prefer they would.
Pottering show his/her ignorance of the situation. Military bases are very tightly controled and this guy still did this. The learning from this? Rules can be broken!!!! The tragedy here is that political correctness let this terrorist stay in the military and free to bring his goal to fruition. Hey all you liberals, if you really believe that you can reason with these radicals please go try on your on dollar. I wait to see how many of you step up to make a difference. Daniel Berg knew to late that a gun takes second fiddle to a sword for terrorizing someone.
I have to completely agree with all of you that are showing common knowledge. Whether or not he was a terrorist is basicaly besides the point. military bases are known to be quite stringent with the regulations about personal carry of firearms, whether it is their own or issued. A law is a law, no carry means simply that, NO CARRY. If someone is intent on disobeying any type of law, they will carry through with it. No matter what. Those that cannot grasp this logic never will. Someone with intentions of driving after mass consumption of alcohol will definately get behind the wheel, UNLESS there is someone there to stop them. Same goes for the whole Gun Free zones. Military base, city park, school campus, office building. It doesn't matter. The fact that it was an army base should be a clear indication that gun free does not work. If one, just one of those in the line of fire would have been armed, the death toll and other injuries would have been far less. End of story.
It's both interesting and outrageous to me that the U.S. military, which began essentially as the organization of Minutemen that took up arms and stopped the British at Lexington and Concord to start the American Revolution, now unlawfully abrogates the constitutional right of Americans (bought and paid for by the lives of hundreds of thousands of military personnel)to keep and bear arms WHILE IN THE MILITARY, ON BASE, for self protection. Therefor our own military leaders now stand in the shoes of the British by denying it's OWN PEOPLE, trained to bear arms and wage warfare, the right to keep and bear those selfsame arms to protect themselves from their enemies--and this IN A TIME OF WAR!!!As Dr. Henry Lee testified in the O.J Simpson trial, "Something wrong here."
AH, always love to drop this one, and since you paraphrased it.
"Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?"
—Martin Luther
Mumbai...I had coworkers in that hotel a couple weeks earlier on a film shoot. Guess what it was...yep, essentially one big gun free zone, AND the "only ones" that were there didn't fire back.
It's NOT the object, it's the intent of the operator. For the anti-rights anti-gun forces to admit that would make them immediately as guilty as every murderous lunatic and thug that has ever taken a life. They simply refuse to acknowledge reality and admit that. Until they admit they have a problem they will never get the mental health treatments they so desperately need.
Klarevas is a intellectiual numbskull if he thinks more gun control is needed his brains must be pea sized or smaller
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!