Why isn't Fort Hood shooting brough into to the gun control debate?

[mikedubs]

To bring the Ft. Hood shooting back into the limelight would require recognizing the shooter is a professed Muslim who committed his violent act of terrorism on U.S. soil and DHS was unable to do anything to stop it.

The American Muslim extremist is something our .gov continues to deny exists in this case or in the potentiality of any others. Muslims are peaceful people; remember?

To show that DHS, with it's over-reaching Patriot Act authority, etc. couldn't predict/stop this act of terrorism would be admitting their growing militarization is ineffective against true terrorists and people would start to wonder what their true purpose is.

How's that for a tin-foil conspiracy theory.

Jesus...

Or is it Allah?

Anyway, DHS seems more like a gov't police force answering to the White House

[theGinsue]

Anyway, DHS seems more like a gov't police force answering to the White House

Ah, what light through yonder window breaks!

[roberth]

Jesus...

Or is it Allah?

Anyway, DHS seems more like a gov't police force answering to the White House

Ah, what light through yonder window breaks!

The picture is coming together.

[motohooligan]

The whole "gun free" military base thing baffles me. Where else in the world is 90%+ of people trained and proficient in the use of small arms? (Israel, I guess) But no, no guns allowed on the base except in the armory and the MPs. Barricade yourself in the office conference room and wait for the calvary, meanwhile the active shooter is shooting fish (who are all trained to kill) in a barrel. Drives me nuts that my wife (who qualified expert w/ the M9) can't legally carry on the base. I think every military member qualified on the M9 should be required to carry it while in uniform on base.

[mindfold]

This is what I needed to know. This is a great example of why gun free zones don't work. Even if you are trained to throw a stapler and lock a door. Crazy man with a gun always beats that. Only reason more people were not killed, on base or in any of these crimes, was because someone WITH A GUN stopped them.

[Ronin13]

The whole "gun free" military base thing baffles me. Where else in the world is 90%+ of people trained and proficient in the use of small arms? (Israel, I guess) But no, no guns allowed on the base except in the armory and the MPs. Barricade yourself in the office conference room and wait for the calvary, meanwhile the active shooter is shooting fish (who are all trained to kill) in a barrel. Drives me nuts that my wife (who qualified expert w/ the M9) can't legally carry on the base. I think every military member qualified on the M9 should be required to carry it while in uniform on base.

I agree. .mil bases are essentially "gun free zones." I can't vouch for how it works on all of them, but even if you're carrying a firearm (like range days) you don't get access to the ammo until you get to the range, and only the range detail has the ammo and only at the ranges. And like anywhere in the civilian world, the Police cannot possibly be everywhere at once, so you're on your own, and forcibly unarmed.

[Madeinhb]

Also didn't he only use handguns? Right now they aren't going after handguns so it doesn't fit their propaganda.

[Ronin13]

Also didn't he only use handguns? Right now they aren't going after handguns so it doesn't fit their propaganda.

Virginia Tech only involved handguns too... and he used 10-round magazines... Excuse me, I'm stepping outside what fits their agenda, sorry.

[roberth]

Why isn't Fort Hood shooting brough into to the gun control debate?

Because Muslims are a protected class. The mainstream, liberal media sucks up to these bastards in the false hope that the jihadi won't kill them first.

[Ronin13]

Because Muslims are a protected class. The mainstream, liberal media sucks up to these bastards in the false hope that the jihadi won't kill them first.

Yep! They'll just go from being slaves to the Democratic party to being slaves to the Islamic Radical Regime...