co-Islamo-shrinks, and those who attended the beheading
lectures cheering Hasan on, ALL GO FREE?
Apparently. It was the gun that made him do it.
Just like it was the airplane that made the 911 Atrocities happen.
Posted on 01/02/2010 5:40:01 AM PST by marktwain
In the last three installments of the Chicago Gun Rights Examiner, we've examined new, more onerous restrictions on military personnel who own "privately-owned firearms" while serving at Fort Hood in Texas. Today, in the final installment of the series, it's time to answer the most relevant question that the criticisms of Fort Hood's restrictive new firearm policies leave unanswered:
So registration and regulations won't work? Fine--what measures would stop "the next Hassan"?
As many reader comments seem to suggest, targeting specific weapons a terrorist might use is guaranteed to fail over time. Major Hassan's terrorist attack was not made possible by his ability to purchase the pistol he used; he took advantage of an opportunity to use that weapon, but if it had been unavailable, or if he had preferred something more effective, the pistol would never have been involved. The element that would have remained in any case is Major Hassan himself--and the only effective measures would have dealt with Major Hassan and his victims. This column has already repeated calls for American troops to be armed at all times and trained with that expectation in mind. There is no need to repeat that message in detail again, but the ridiculousness of having thousands of trained military personnel running around unarmed as our nation prepares to enter its ninth year of warfare against an asymmetrical enemy speaks for itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
So registration and regulations won’t work? Fine—what measures would stop “the next Hassan”?
________________________________________________________
Everybody knows the answer to this——More registration and regulations.
Sarcasm/? only to we who know the truth.
Yes, that’s crazy policy. Too many heads in leadership positions aren’t screwed on right.
Liberals want to ban dangerous things instead of dangerous people.
Profiling is a sign of clear thinking sanity.
Of course the answer is to get rid of that stupid gun ban that is in force on US military bases. But also consider the following:
Who was the person or people in the Army who were told about this terrorist’s emails to and from a known terrorist cleric and did nothing about them? Why do they still have jobs?
Liberals are such morons. Now they want to grab the guns of soldiers?
What will stop the next Hassan?
Gee...I don’t know...maybe booting a major out of the U.S. Army when his business card has, “Soldier of Allah” printed on it?
Maybe when a U.S. Army major cheers the killing of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he should be kicked out with a dishonorable discharge?
Maybe when a U.S. Army major is trying to recruit enlisted men and officers to join him in jihad, someone higher up should take action?
We don’t need “gun control” on the private firearms owned by members of our military. Hassan had more red flags than a May Day celebration in the former Soviet Union. End political correctness and fire that pathetic general Casey.
Just like it was the airplane that made the 911 Atrocities happen.
I wonder when the DoD will be announcing that all military weapons will be recalled and replaced with pillows and "nerf" guns. This will not just be stateside, but will actually commence in combat zones. It seems that the ROE simply aren't strict enough, and some of the jihadis are accidentally being killed before they can murder our service men and women, as well as innocent civilians. Next on the agenda will be the banning of pointed sticks.
Mark
What’s wrong with this plan: Make military bases safer by outlawing guns on them?
This goes entirely to one individual, the post commander. This is Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, III Corps and Fort Hood Commander.
Post commanders usually have very wide latitude in their policies, and can be compared to ships’ Captains in the navy. Their primary duty is to protect and defend their post, which they can and do get extreme about.
That being said, Fort Hood is not easy to defend. It covers a vast area, about 248 square miles. That is about the size of either of the cities of El Paso or Austin. But there are only about 90,000 military personnel on post.
In the civilian world, Americans are usually free to have both open carry and concealed weapons. But when in uniform, personally owned weapons are not permitted anywhere in the military, below the rank of flag officers. And this creates a peculiar problem.
Arms rooms are usually at battalion level, and company duty safes are too small to be used for personal storage.
If soldiers have personally owned weapons, during the usual day they have to leave them in their on-post quarters. However, this typically means in an easy to access room in their bedside table, or an easy to open wall locker. Though deeply discouraged, barracks thievery happens all too often.
So, although it is easy to criticize Lt. General Cone, he has to make some very difficult, judgment call decisions about the security of his post. And as long as they remain within DoD regulations, it is pretty much his call.
Back in ‘73 or so, when I wore the Army’s funky green suit, an officer shot a motor pool guard with his .45.
The troop came through our dispensary, bad arm wound but not life threatening.
His buddy didn’t fire back, but I don’t know if they had issue ammo. (With .223 available, I always supplied my own, when none was issued, but even then I was a wise ass...)
I’d have emptied my weapon...
The net result was that ammunition issue was suspended over the entire post, except for officers, I guess.
The result of that was that the guards were jumped, and the weapons stolen along with the wallets of the personnel
involved.
After that, we were told to leave our wallets in our barracks. We still, of course, were required to “stand guard”, although unwilling victims would have been closer to the truth.
I didn’t trust or believe “our” officers then, and I still don’t now. I’ll select, supply, and carry my own arms, and select my own targets.
Or stop the next “Undie Bomber” at a military base>? PC again. Geez!
Profiling is a sign of clear thinking sanity.
Part of the leftist's crazed opposition to "profiling" is their love of and belief in "identity politics." They believe that all genuine people of any given race MUST behave a certain way. If they don't, they're "race traitors" (yes, I'm using the phrase used by white supremacists here, because there's no difference between their reaction to, say, a Justice Clarence Thomas or Governor Sara Palin - while not a traitor to her race, she's certainly a traitor to her gender, and the most virulent white supremacists.) Seriously, the reactions of leftists to just these two individuals is no different than the most virulent hate group like the aryan nations or kkk to Black people. Of course, if they're feeling guilt and try to punish themselves and others for the crimes committed by other people who look like them, they're superior to the rest of us, and "better qualified" to tell us how to lead out lives. Sorry for getting off-topic there... Anyway...
Because leftist believe that the way someone acts is simply a part of their racial identity, if you profile someone by their ACTIONS, you're committing "racial profiling." For instance, if a bouncer at a club stops a young Black man for entering, because he's got an open shirt with the words "Thug Life" tattooed on his chest, that's "racial profiling." No, that's stopping someone who's probably a gang banger from entering the club! How about if the same bouncer stopped a young white man with red laces in his Doc Martin boots, and a big tattoo of a swastika on his bicep from going in, that would be "racial profiling" as well. Again, no!
In both cases, it's stopping someone who has made some (bad) decisions and committed certain actions that make these people "persona non grata" in this hypothetical club.
When an army psychiatrist openly talks about jihad, when he has SOA (Soldier Of allah) on his business cards, when he is seen to have visited jihadi web sites, the leftists say that you can't take action based on his activities, because that would be "racial profiling" (note how they won't even try to explain how race has even the slightest thing to do with it) since these are the normal actions of a muslim.
Liberalism really is a mental disease. Unfortunately it's been directly responsible for getting hundreds of millions of people killed in the last century, and it's going to kill uncountable more in the decades to come.
Mark
This action is further evidence that we have morons running our country. The action is the opposite of permitting our military personnel to carry their weapons on the base at Ft. Hood. The massacre would have ended more quickly or not even happened if the terrorist knew that his victims might be armed, IMO.
True, true, and well said.
The PC USA is stuck on stupid.
No guns at Fort Hood is an oxymoron.
The Israel has the right answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.