Gun control advocates using Ft. Hood as smoking gun

November 9, 6:58 AMCleveland Gun Rights ExaminerDaniel White

Previous Next

14 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

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.