Posted on 11/11/2009 5:29:47 AM PST by Leisler
At Fort Hood “more guns” assuredly were “the solution to gun violence.”
Pfc. Marquest Smith dove under a desk. A.P. reports that “he lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.”
Neither Smith nor the other victims of Hasan’s assault had guns because soldiers on military bases within the United States generally are not
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
The man with the razor blade takes over the plane and flies it into a bulding....
Disarming our US Soldiers by the PC crowd started evidently with BlowJob Clinton and continued under CommCon Bush. If this can be overturned, that would be 1 good thing from this Terror Attack.
Generals have military security.
Government officials have security.
Only the serf/peasant class is dis allowed.
In England (which is totally disarmed)the stabbing and beating attacks and murders are numerous. The British people are totally unable to defend themselves against such predators.
It started with the arbitrary denial of 2nd Amendment rights to all convicted of a crime, even where a gun played no part in the crime.
FReepers generally love this rule, but it remains the wedge by which all the other loss of their 2nd Amendment liberties stems, and that includes background checks, waiting times, restricted purchases, ammo registration and all the rest. Ownership restrictions are like being just a little bit pregnant -- sooner or later you have to face the full facts about what you've done.
I do not hold that the state can no more take away your ability to self defend than it can your first amendment right to speak.
Radical Islam is an insane murder cult; moderate Islam is its Trojan Horse in the West.
BTTT
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.