search
top

What Are They Supposed to Use? Harsh Language?

The Freedom States Alliance, a gun control organization based in Chicago, hints that they think even the military probably ought not have guns, and can’t be trusted with them:

Such a definitive statement from the commanding general of the largest American base demonstrates the military’s own concern about the easy access to handguns and other weapons, even from its own highly trained and disciplined military personnel. 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.

Yes, because we can see how well that all worked out.

9 Responses to “What Are They Supposed to Use? Harsh Language?”

  1. Boat Guy says:

    F’ing DRIVEL.
    ‘Course considering the source I shouldn’t be surprised – and I’m not – merely nauseated. I figured the hoplophobes would try to milk this for their own purposes.
    ‘Course given that the shooter was a shrink in uniform, I doubt he’da diagnosed himself as somebody who shouldn’t have access to these death-dealing instruments.
    No mention of the pistol-wielding gal who stopped him, perhaps SHE just used harsh language

  2. BobG says:

    The blood dance is starting already.

  3. mikeb302000 says:

    But it does work, Sebastian. It works as far as it goes. Limiting availability to firearms leaves violent offenders with less lethal alternatives. The fact that this may inconvenience you or infringe on your rights, as you see them, is another problem. But, disarming bad guys by denying availability should not be in dispute.

  4. RAH says:

    Heroin is banned yet users get it easily. Laws against an item, if the demand is there, will not reduce the bad guys getting an item.

    Besides banning is no longer an alternative. Heller decided that. If any fool tries they are asking for a revolt.

    Since bad guys will get guns anyway, we have that risk. At least decent folk having a gun can level the field.

    Police officer Munley had a gun and stopped the shooter. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy or girl with gun. That was shown at Ft Hood.

  5. Thirdpower says:

    Sorry MikeB, You’re FOS as usual. The only ones ‘denied availability’ were the victims. And all your buddies at the Brady Bunch and Joyce Foundation groups are cheering that they can use this to promote more restrictions.

  6. AntiCitizenOne says:

    MikeB, Hasan could have had access to the base’s armory, grabbed a bunch of grenades, and rigged up his own suicide vest. Hell the guy went on and on about them before he carried out this treasonous act.

    Then the casualty levels would be much higher – and your little disarmament policy would not have saved anyone.

    It’s not about availability, it’s about presence. Isn’t it funny, you trust these men and women in uniform to slay an insurgent with an M16, blast a bunker with a tank, or drop bombs from a plane, yet you can’t trust them with their own personal sidearm.

    Wake up and smell the hypocrisy, criminal.

  7. AntiCitizenOne says:

    I again bring up the UK’s rising gun crime problem, let’s see how you deal with that one.

  8. Ronnie says:

    I have been hearing since yesterday that that this wannabe Islamic jihadist/army shrink doctor used an FN Five-Seven as one of his murder weapons. I’m sure it’s now only a matter of time before the anti-gun-tards out there start talking about how this pistol needs to be banned like they already tried to do back in 2005 but failed. If not that, they’ll likely just make a fuss over high-capacity magazines like they did with the federal AWB of 1994.

  9. Sebastian says:

    Previous commenter who’s comment was deleted:

    If you want to come back and have a reasonable discussion, you are welcome. If you want to hurl profanities, I’m going to keep deleting your comments.

top