Thursday, November 19, 2009

GUN CONTROL LAWS - And The Paper They Are Written on


Since the carnage at fort Hood last week, To hear some people tell it, radical Muslim and Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan did not kill people – his guns alone did. It was not his radical religion the guns are to blame. The gun control nuts are having a ball with this tragedy and loss of life. This happens every time when people like Hasan kills and spreads terror with a fire arm. Honest gun owners pay the price every time. According to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley – who is now arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court for the power to disarm law-abiding people in Chicago –  it was not Maj. Hasan's radical Muslim beliefs that drove him to murder innocent colleagues; it was the fact that "America loves guns." Daley explained, "We love guns to a point that we see the devastation on a daily basis."
What turnip truck did this man fall off? Put him back in the turnip patch. Was it Hasan's love for guns or his love for a radical religion that caused him to kill. Anyone that has just the smallest amount of sense will tell you that it was not his love for guns, but his belief in radical Islam that caused him to commit these murders.



The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence also jumped at the chance to blame guns first, this is what they said two days after the shootings, " This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.  Enough is enough."  By their twisted reasoning, America's love of airplanes led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The solution to stopping the 9/11 Islamic terrorists, you see, was fewer people in fewer airplanes in fewer places. As for Fort Hood, the Brady Campaign got it one hundred per cent backwards. Thanks to a 1993 Clinton imposed presidential order, Army posts are an anti-gun supporter's dream, a miniature copy of a "gun-free" society: Only the police are allowed to carry weapons, service weapons are signed out only for training or maintenance, and any personal weapons must be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal. Strangely, the same soldiers whom we trust with automatic weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq are not allowed to carry weapons on an American post or base. Some of the soldiers just came back from those places, carried guns everyday while over there. And yet all such "gun-control," which the Brady Campaign-types support, did nothing to stop Hasan from sneaking in two personal handguns. Killers with no regard for other people's lives are hardly going to obey at anti-gun rules. Gun control only controls and limits the law-abiding not the people who want to kill, maim, and slaughter. Gun control laws are worthless as the paper that they are written on!



Despite being "heavily fortified," Fort Hood had an unarmed population living under a deadly mixture of a false sense of security and no means of self-defense. They were sitting ducks. We as Americans also live under a false sense of security and for the most part we are sitting ducks also. While soldiers should never have to worry about attacks from one of their own, forcing them to be unarmed makes them more vulnerable to traitors and saboteurs than the embattled enemy that they fight. Maj. Hasan knew this, and to maximize his evil plot he did not attack the armed MPs or the civilian police department, This cowardly man attacked dozens of soldiers and officers at the Soldier Readiness Center whom he knew would be unarmed. And they were unarmed precisely because of the "gun-control" measures at Ft. Hood. So where is the logic for gun control here?



Our college campuses has to put up and deal with the same deadly "gun-control" policies. On April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho, armed with a pair of handguns, massacred 32 students and faculty and injured another 25. Even then, the anti-gun fanatics rose up and condemned the guns. But Virginia Tech's campus, like most colleges, was a so-called "gun-free zone" where students and faculty were not permitted to carry weapons. This made people on Virginia Tech's campus, like those at Fort Hood, an easy target for a lone, suicidal, jihad juiced, gun-wielding murderer. What the Brady Campaign failed to mention is that it took "gun violence" to stop the gun violence at Fort Hood and Virginia Tech. It was police officers, with guns, that brought down Hasan last week; and it took armed police breaking into the building where Cho had barricaded himself before he took his own life. But that means that until the armed police arrived, Hasan shot 42 people and Cho shot 57. Remember the church, in the mid west last year when a lone gunman shot someone outside and then went inside where he was meet by a off duty female security guard, who took her handgun out of her handbag and shot him. If she was not there, with her handgun, how many people would have been killed or wounded before the gunman was stopped? Would it have been as many as the 42 people that Hasan shot or the 57 people that Cho shoot, or would it have been worse? The Bradys and Daleys, of this country, need to answer that question, but they never will.



The question must be asked: "How much sooner would either spree have ended had any one of the hundreds of other soldiers or students (or even faculty) been armed?" How many more unarmed victims in "gun-free" zones or cities must die before some of these foolish gun laws are changed? Thomas Paine explained that the erroneous belief of the peace loving Quakers was their failure to account for the fallen nature of man:  He Said this : "Could the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and the art of war would be wholly removed: But we live not in a world of angels. … I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation: but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven He has put it in my power. "The problem is not weapons, be they firearms, knives, or fists, the problem is that man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Well spoken Thomas Paine!



With each news report about Maj. Hasan, it becomes more evident and unmistakable that political correctness handicapped the resolve of the

Army and federal agencies to sufficiently and adequately investigate him and for them to respond to the many indicators of his increasingly radical Muslim beliefs. Radical Islamic terrorists belong in front sights of our troops, not among them. Hopefully, America and her armed forces have finally learned that radical Muslims ought to be purged, not promoted. Nor should we be led to believe the politically correct lie that taking guns out of law-abiding hands is the solution and the answer to stop the use of guns by the wrong people. A "gun-control" law stops bullets as effectively as the paper it's printed upon. Until the homicidal psychopaths and the radical juiced up jihadists of the world "lay aside the use of fire arms" (or airplanes, or IEDs, etc.), the right of the people, students and soldiers to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon.



Post a Comment