Clinton's Gun Free Zones at Military Bases - 11/13/2009

I don't know the source for this, but as I mentioned in another post, Bill Clinton's policies make no sense to me.

Bruce

A week ago there was a terrorist attack on one of our military bases which was the worst act of terrorism since 911. Even though our government fails to call it what it was, terrorism plain and simple. It appears that it’s not enough for our government that America’s armed forces risk their lives overseas defending our freedom. These days, our soldiers aren't even safe here at home stationed on secure military bases.

On November 5th, a lone gunman murdered 13 fully-trained, ready to deploy soldiers, and wounded 29 more, in the most shocking terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Why was this shocking incident allowed to take place? On an army base with all the trained men and women, the best trained in the world, with all the weapons why was this allowed to happen? How was Nidal Hasan able to take down so many trained soldiers before he was stopped? The answer is simple: The base was a “gun-free safe zone.” Gun-free zones only help provide helpless targets for terrorist and mass murders.

It is because this government thinks it is better to keep its armed service members unarmed. That sounds silly, even stupid but the truth is the military men and woman of this country are prohibited and forbidden from carrying the weapons they are trained and trusted to use in the heat of battle on base. President Clinton was the person behind this thoughtless and foolish policy back in 1993 when he declared all military bases “Gun Free Zones.” We can trust theses men and women to fight our countries’ battles and to stop aggression, but we cannot trust them with guns on base. Now what is wrong with that picture? As a result of this thirteen people were killed and thirty more were wounded. The United States is in a war and we must take all the measures to protect our military and the civilian population that is possible. We must take measures like Israel. You do not see any gun-free zones in that tiny country. You see a country’s’ population ready for anything.

“Gun Free Zones” do nothing but reassure and guarantee criminals, and now terrorists, that they will find unarmed victims defenseless and helpless against their murderous and bloodthirsty rampage. It is easy to shoot at somebody that cannot shoot back. This must stop and people must wake up. If strict measures are not taken the same thing that happen at Fort Hood could happen in your home town and even on your door step. If guns are band, which by the way is right around the corner, how will the average citizen protect their self from people like Nidal Hasan. These people, with their ideology and beliefs are living in every small town and city in our country. With all due respect, how fast would your police department’s response time be? Will it be fast enough to save your life and the lives of your love ones, or would you end up like the soldiers at Fort Hood? Who knows where or how many sleeper cells are in this country. The government, actually, tells the American people very little about this. How can we count on a government that will not even call terrorist what they are: “TERRORIST”

Maybe I’m crazy, as some that read this might think, but I’d would have rather the soldiers delivered a barrage of bullets to end Hasan’s attack the second he opened fire. I’d rather Hasan was dead and the heroes he murdered were still alive. I rather for him to be dead instead of the thirty injured people that were shot by him and some critical. This is exactly what would have happen if they were allowed to carry their weapons. By the way soldiers go through more firearms training than the local police departments and yet it was the local police department that took this man down. They were allowed to carry guns on the base but the soldiers are not.

But because of Clinton’s ingenious policy of an unarmed armed force, this psychopathic terrorist, Nidal Hasan, systematically and methodically executed soldier after soldier before the local police could arrive on the scene. If we didn't have “Gun Free Zones” and our armed forces were armed, Nadir Hasan would have met bullets instead of bodies. He would have been dead instead of the brave soldiers that are.


Nov 13, 2009 @ 10:10 AM
An American, Delaware