Senator Accuses Anti-Gun Group of Exploiting Fort Hood Massacre
An anti-gun group is using the shooting rampage Thursday at Fort Hood as an example in its campaign against pending gun rights legislation, drawing accusations of exploitation from a Republican senator.Helmke, in his latest Huffpo rant, goes on about depriving veterans of their firearm rights. What he neglects to mention is that the shooter wasn't declared mentally incompetent in any way and that the law the Brady Bunch opposes wouldn't have effected him at all. Never mind the fact that Paul blatantly lies:
language to automatically restore access to guns to veterans designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department as "mentally incapacitated" or "mentally incompetent."Sorry, no. It restores the rights of individuals who have successfully completed mental health treatment. A subtlety that would destroy Helmke's premise. But honesty has never been a strong suit w/ them.
Then we go to the Joyce Foundation.
Tragic Fort Hood Shooting Shows Threat From Easy Access To Powerful Handguns, Even For Members Of Military
Such a restrictive policy against carrying guns, even for soldiers who are prepared for combat, should give guidance to lawmakers about the need to better control access to firearms for civilians.
Do these people cheer like an election celebration when they hear tragedies like this on the news? They really do seem to revel in the deaths of innocents.
14 comments:
Crap on a crutch...
So this mass-murder took place in the anti-rights advocate's mecca - a federally-enforced victim disarmament zone, complete with armed guards at the entrances, federal felonies if you disobey, and fances around the perimeter... and they have the unmitigated gall to lie about other policies failing?
Seems to me that it was a failure of a "gun free zone"... but that would be acknowledging reality and truth, two things anti-rights advocates can never admit to the existence of.
*sigh* I alternate between disappointed, resigned depression that people like the class acts you call out actually exist; and descriptive expressions not fit for print. Unfortunately, frakwitted morons like them do exist, and I still have not quite come to terms with it yet...
The anti-gun groups hope no one realizes that their dream community has always been the military bases in America, only the people with firearms have the most effective controls in their use, constantly, and I am sure the Major had his pistols completely registered to allow him to bring them on Ft. Hood.
I'm glad I have one decent Senator here in North Carolina. Burr does a good job and has always been good on the Second Amendment.
Hagan is an Obama tool.
The brady bunch uses the BOR as toilet paper???
Wow, I'm shocked.
One of the reasons this is such big news, besides the high number of victims, is because it's extremely rare. Shootings on military bases are rare because, unlike college campuses, they are fairly controlled no-gun zones. The rarity proves disarming people works in minimizing this kind of thing.
If you guys had your way, the way you increasingly do in America at large, there'd be frequent tragedies like this on military bases just like there are in our cities.
The failure was on the part of the military police and guards for not responding in a proper and timely manner. The fact that nothing as bad as this has ever happened before is proof that gun control works.
As far as Helmke being an insensitive liar for even talking about it is just ridiculous. That's just your usual tactic of personally attacking your opponent.
You've never taken a logic class, have you MikeB?
If it's proof that 'gun control works', why is it that crime decreased while ownership increased by the millions? Why is it that tragedies like this occurred more often during the heyday of 'gun control' bans?
Why is it that you ignore the points of the article in that nothing they're pushing by using this tragedy would have effected the shooter at all.
Go dance MikeB. You're just the same as they are.
Thirdpower asked, "If it's proof that 'gun control works', why is it that crime decreased while ownership increased by the millions? Why is it that tragedies like this occurred more often during the heyday of 'gun control' bans?"
But I had said this: "Shootings on military bases are rare because, unlike college campuses, they are fairly controlled no-gun zones."
"Fairly controlled no-gun zones" means the bases are not as affected by the various other factors which exist in the off-base world. This gives us a truer picture of whether gun control works or not.
As far as the increasing gun ownership and decreasing crime, it's those other factors that explain it. If guns had decreased, crime would have decreased even more.
Starting from the bottom:
If guns had decreased, crime would have decreased even more.
You have absolutely no proof of that, whatsoever.
This gives us a truer picture of whether gun control works or not.
On that count, you are absolutely correct - and the picture is that "gun control" does not work. Otherwise, why is it that criminals specifically look for "gun-free zones" in order to perpetrate their crimes? Because they know they will be facing unarmed, defenseless victims.
Furthemore, remind us again what ended this incident? An armed person, engaging the criminal. This firefight was ended by someone shooting back, so why should the people on the scene immediately when the shooting started (i.e. the victims) be unarmed and unable to return fire?
As far as Helmke being an insensitive liar for even talking about it is just ridiculous.
False. Helmke has been proven a liar time and time again. But, then again, he has the balls to actually make statements, unlike pissants like you who just offer up insinuating, spineless questions.
The fact that nothing as bad as this has ever happened before is proof that gun control works.
False. One failure means the system failed. Period.
The failure was on the part of the military police and guards for not responding in a proper and timely manner.
Alright, MikeB302000, you spineless little twat - tell is exactly what you consider to be an "appropriate and timely" response to an active shooter situation? Where do you get this information? What training on the topic have you received? What schools have you gone to? What police or security forces have you served with? What makes you able to make a statement like that with any authority, whatsoever?
...there'd be frequent tragedies like this on military bases just like there are in our cities.
False. Firearm-related accident rates are decreasing, as are firearm-related crime rates. Or, at least, that is true for any cities that are not "gun-free zones" - in those cities, on average, the firearm-related crime rate is increasing. But you already knew all of that, because you read our weblogs, and we have posted about that repeatedly... which just makes you as bad a liar as Helmke.
Shootings on military bases are rare because, unlike college campuses, they are fairly controlled no-gun zones.
You know, you saying this here is just all manner of amusing, given that you blame the guards for this incident at other webpages. Hypocritical, much?
As usual, MikeB302000 has nothing new to bring to the table - the same tired script, the same talking points, the same blaming of everyone except the perpetrator, the same "shared responsibility" fallacy, the same general-purpose stupidity. This incident was a prime example of two very salient points:
1. "Gun-free zones" are a malicious fallacy perpetuated by the fearful and controlling anti-rights advocates of America, and those zones will fail - it is just a matter of when.
2. One of the best ways, if not the best way, to end an active shooter scenario is to engage and incapacitate him as quickly as possible, as Sergeant Munley knew and executed.
If it's proof that 'gun control works', why is it that crime decreased while ownership increased by the millions? Why is it that tragedies like this occurred more often during the heyday of 'gun control' bans?
Exactly, Third--violent crime has plummeted, while ownership of liberty preservers has steadily climbed. A win-win situation--except for violent criminals and would-be tyrants.
I, for one, will shed no tears for them.
Mikeb's sympathies, of course, differ from mine--and from those of anyone else worth listening to.
Damn, mikey can't seem to put up a single comment without stepping on his dick halfway through. He is reality-impaired, all his so-called arguments are repetitive and faulty, and hasn't got the logical reasoning abilities of a stump. And though he doesn't live here, he acts like he knows something about conditions in this country. I'm not sure why you people even try to reason with that half-wit.
So MikeB, for 'gun control to work', you need to live in a military police state? Which is what a base really is. You need to control and regulate every aspect of society down to what the people eat, when they sleep and what they wear?
That's your ideal world.
Also I like how when a story shows up that proves gun control is bullshit, he comments about it being a rare event.
Meanwhile he dismisses the dozens of defensive gun stories we drop at his feet every week, as "Not all that common" oh and many of those defensive gun users are killers bribing the cops to cover up their crime!
I think it should be clear to all of us that MikeB302000 as well as most non-paid anti-gun shills are mentally ill.
Weer'd, When does exaggerating become lying?
"Meanwhile he dismisses the dozens of defensive gun stories we drop at his feet every week,"
Dozens every week?
Thirdpower, No, I don't want to regulate every aspect of our lives nor do I want to live in a police state. I would like to see guns regulated though.
They are 'regulated' MikeB. You want them 'restricted'.
Post a Comment