Deadly shooting @ Ft. Hood TX

[gravyboy77]

Another one from Chicago. This is sad.

 

Link:

 

Pregnant soldier 2nd area victim at Ft. Hood

November 6, 2009 12:25 PM | No Comments | BREAKING STORY

A 21-year-old pregnant soldier who was due to come home within weeks is the second Chicago-area victim from the shooting at Fort Hood.

 

Francheska Velez had just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq and was due to be temporarily released from the military on maternity leave, according to her family and friends.

 

A representative of the Army arrived at the family's home in the 4300 block of West Kamerling in the West Humboldt Park neighborhood last night to deliver the news.

 

Earlier today, Pfc. Michael Pearson was identified by his family as one of the 13 killed on the Army base. Thirty others were wounded.

 

Friends said Velez had attended Kelvyn High School and joined the Army to travel while serving her country.

 

 

"She was a great girl," said Judy Cielocha, who had known Velez for the last five years. "She loved the military, she loved to serve."

 

Velez returned from Iraq last week and was due to be released from Fort Hood in December because she was three months pregnant. But she planned to return to the Army, Velez said.

 

"I last saw her two months ago, and she was so excited about the Army," Cielocha said. "She was so happy, I thought she should be a good inspiration for my sister. She was supposed to talk to my sister when she came back out."

 

Velez loved music and loved hanging out with her friends, Cielocha said. "She was just your average person who liked being around her friends and family. Her family meant a lot."

 

Cielocha said she will always remember Velez's smile. "It was so bright, you could tell she was happy. She was really looking forward to staying in the military.

 

"This is horrible."

[Bill Matio]

Anyone else happen to see this? http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2009...-fort-hood.html

 

Friday, November 06, 2009

 

Jerusalem Arabs Praise Fort Hood Shooter

 

China Confidential sources in East Jerusalem say many residents of the predominantly Arab section are expressing strong support for the Muslim U.S. Army major who mowed down his fellow soldiers at the huge Fort Hood, Texas base and processing center for troops bound for Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

The word on the so-called Arab street is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan should be admired because he stood up for fellow Muslims overseas, against U.S. "aggression," and that his anger, disappointment, and presumed sense of betrayal over U.S. President Barack Obama's failure to end the Afghan and Iraq conflicts is understandable, especially in light of Obama's own Muslim heritage.

 

In Hamas-ruled Gaza, sources say, the reaction is overwhelmingly in support of the shooter. He would clearly be given a hero's welcome there.

[Ashrak]

Anyone else happen to see this? http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2009...-fort-hood.html

 

Friday, November 06, 2009

 

Jerusalem Arabs Praise Fort Hood Shooter

 

China Confidential sources in East Jerusalem say many residents of the predominantly Arab section are expressing strong support for the Muslim U.S. Army major who mowed down his fellow soldiers at the huge Fort Hood, Texas base and processing center for troops bound for Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

The word on the so-called Arab street is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan should be admired because he stood up for fellow Muslims overseas, against U.S. "aggression," and that his anger, disappointment, and presumed sense of betrayal over U.S. President Barack Obama's failure to end the Afghan and Iraq conflicts is understandable, especially in light of Obama's own Muslim heritage.

 

In Hamas-ruled Gaza, sources say, the reaction is overwhelmingly in support of the shooter. He would clearly be given a hero's welcome there.

 

 

And Obama wants to give money to Hamas.

At what point will a "journalist" have the courage to ask Obama a question with something like this in hand?

[mikew]

White, christian middle class people are now the only class of people that are NOT protected by law. We have been completely excluded by the letter of the law!!

Well, we should find and read the law in question to see whether or not the described crime could be against Christians, whites, or heteros.

I bet you'll find that they are.

 

Whether or not you'll find a prosecutor would be a different story.

[mikew]

And Obama wants to give money to Hamas.

Really? Cite that, please.

[pyre400]

Man - this story will be unfolding for a long time.

 

4 shots to take out the BG - he's in a coma right now- I guess its probable that he'll spend the last few months of his life paralyzed.

 

Now, more freakish happenings in orlando... What the hey!!!..?

 

...All of the "solutions" are now coming out of the wood work. I wonder if they will repeal the "gun free zone" status of the base now, or are they going to make mass murder really really illegal, and then open up psychologist psychiatric care units?

 

Crazy times...

[pyre400]

And Obama wants to give money to Hamas.

Really? Cite that, please.

 

 

Maybe Ashrak meant the taliban. Obama did want to pay them off... a funny quote:

 

 

"Did you hear this? President Obama has approved a new plan to pay members of the Taliban to switch sides and support the United States. Yeah, in a related story, 10 million unemployed Americans just joined the Taliban." –Conan O'Brien

 

 

Sorry, not a thread to be joking on - obama would call it gallows humor.

[moparcardave]

Finally someone on Fox said it. No, Fox is not gospel but he is right on.

 

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.."this is the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, he was a protected species because of political correctness in the military"

[Don Gwinn]

In a sense, we probably do give money and other aid to Hamas--but it's the same money and aid we gave the Palestinians under their last government. Israel gives them all kinds of aid . . . not because they support Hamas, but because they've made the choice to help support the Palestinian area, and Hamas is the political entity in charge there.

 

It was controversial in Israel for awhile after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, but I believe in the end they decided that they had to show good faith.

[Buzzard]

A More Likely Scenario

 

By Andie Brownlow

November 06, 2009

American Thinker.com

 

The shooting on November 5th at Fort Hood Army post in Texas may be indicative of similar attacks to come. The shooter carried out an attack on specifically outbound soldiers for deployment at the Soldier Readiness Center. Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan was raised as a Muslim and was opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact that he chose to kill or maim over 40 U.S. soldiers rather than go to war against Muslim jihadists is indicative of another motive. Explaining away this massacre as a conflict of conscience seems to be an oxymoron. Looking past the incident as a singular event you'll find a very different, possible reason for the attack.

 

According to a November 4th Stratfor report, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader, Nasir al-Wahayshi, wrote an article last week in an online magazine, Sada al-Malahim (The Echo of the Battle). In it he called for jihadists to conduct easy attacks on targets in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, as well as in Western Nations "at war with Islam". They were to use easily accessible weapons and explosives and to not "waste a lot of time finding the materials..." The way in which this information was disseminated is just as telling as the article itself. According to the global intelligence source, Stratfor:

 

That al-Wahayshi gave these instructions in an internet magazine distributed via jihadist chat rooms, not in some secret meeting with his operational staff, demonstrates that they are clearly intended to reach grassroots jihadists -- and are not intended as some guidance for AQAP members.

 

In another Stratfor report from June of 2006 called, "Al Qaeda: The Next Phase of Evolution" it was suggested that the rise of local, unaffiliated terror cells are becoming the most effective form of guerilla warfare. Al Qaeda is morphing into something similar to a "pre-9/11 Operation Model". It relies on grassroots elements that "think globally and act locally". Stratfor calls this the "4.0 Operation Model" in which it can:

 

...Entail more sophisticated levels of coordination -- and the possibility of simultaneous strikes against geographically diverse targets (for instance London, Toronto and New York). Previously, such a feat could only have been accomplished by the core al Qaeda organization. For a grassroots network to accomplish that feat, without direct involvement from the central leadership, would represent a generational leap forward in jihadist operations.

 

Terror cells aren't the only form of recent jihadist activity and roadside IEDs aren't the only form of explosives for these new attacks. In Nasir al-Wahayshi's article last week, he cited an incident a few weeks ago where an assassin wore a small IED in his anal cavity in an attack on Saudi Deputy Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. This was a new, unsuspected form of suicide bombing. It was unsuccessful in killing the target, only slightly injuring him; but this method proved to be effective against detection.

 

Also in the article, al-Wahayshi mentioned a specific amount of explosives that could be made from household items, suggesting similar IEDs could be improvised. Grassroots jihadists may also be interpreting attacks to be suicide bombings on individual targets as well as in geographical locations.

 

Whether Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan acted out of insanity or some bizarre moral dilemma, he conducted an attack on U.S. soil of a terrorist nature. Americans need to become more vigilant since we are more vulnerable to attack from jihadists now than ever.

 

Terror cells will be even harder to prevent as new grassroots jihadists do not need to communicate directly with a central authority. They now get their information from websites and take cues from leadership messages published on them. There will be less chatter to monitor because these groups will find each other locally and keep their operations small and low-key.

 

Now is the time for our current government to become pro-active in thwarting terrorist plots. Being reactionary just won't cut it anymore. The fact that the Obama Administration renamed the "War on Terror" to the "Overseas Contingency Plan" highlights just how off base they are on the threat our country now faces.

 

Our intelligence agencies also need to be allowed to do their job without fear of persecution. Nancy Pelosi's shameful display of classic CYA against the CIA doesn't give the FBI much incentive to help conduct domestic surveillance on these new groups.

 

My prediction on the matter is that the issue will be resolved only as "a U.S. soldier carried out the Fort Hood attack" and let the assumptions about a violent soldier fall where they may. For this Administration and their cronies, it's a lot more convenient than fulfilling one of the only stated responsibilities of our federal government.

[SirMatthew]

And Obama wants to give money to Hamas.

Really? Cite that, please.

 

Interjecting here, but I suspect he was referring to this situation:

 

http://matzav.com/obamas-stance-to-fund-hamas-worries-israel

 

Honestly, I haven't kept up on it enough to know what happened with all that.

[SirMatthew]

I don't want to include a link which generates traffic, but the Brady's are already expressing their thoughts.

 

In a statement issued Thursday, the group's president, Paul Helmke, said "America has seen an epidemic of horrific gun violence at churches and synagogues, workplaces, health clubs, high schools, universities, police stations and now Army bases. 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."

 

Sounds to me like he wants to disarm the army?! lol

[pyre400]

Finally someone on Fox said it. No, Fox is not gospel but he is right on.

 

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.."this is the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, he was a protected species because of political correctness in the military"

 

I'll agree with you but only if you'll agree with you but only to the extent that timothy mcvey was a terrorist. I don't have enough data on this guy to condemn anyone but him.

 

If Don Rickles flipped out, and gunned down a bunch of innocent citizens at a shopping mall while screaming allah is great, would that make him a terrorist? Would that make his act a terrorist act? How about if he was yelling shalom you mother f'rs - would that make him an Israeli terrorist?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bunking with the lefties here - those morons are trying to rationalize this freak's behavior. Also, people who know me will tell you that I'm not very politically correct. I'm just trying to keep things on a plane - the media has no integrity any more and will try to exploit anything, fact or fiction, that will keep us glued to the tube.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the term "terrorist attack" just does not fit... I did not hear them describe VT killings as a terrorist attack - that happened after 911.

 

I just does not fit for me, at this time.

[pyre400]

I don't want to include a link which generates traffic, but the Brady's are already expressing their thoughts.

 

In a statement issued Thursday, the group's president, Paul Helmke, said "America has seen an epidemic of horrific gun violence at churches and synagogues, workplaces, health clubs, high schools, universities, police stations and now Army bases. 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."

 

Sounds to me like he wants to disarm the army?! lol

 

Never miss a beat, do they? How about the fact that nobody on the site was able to defend them selves? Why dont they just find a commune to live in, somewhere in the deserts of CA?

[Murf]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the term "terrorist attack" just does not fit... I did not hear them describe VT killings as a terrorist attack - that happened after 911.

 

I just does not fit for me, at this time.

I'm not convinced that I'd call this guy a terrorist either. However, the double standard of the media has surfaced once again and it disgusts me. If he had held any kind of conservative views, the media would have absolutely labeled him a terrorist. Remember this stuff from less than six months ago?

[Buzzard]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the term "terrorist attack" just does not fit... I did not hear them describe VT killings as a terrorist attack - that happened after 911.

 

I just does not fit for me, at this time.

I'm not convinced that I'd call this guy a terrorist either. However, the double standard of the media has surfaced once again and it disgusts me. If he had held any kind of conservative views, the media would have absolutely labeled him a terrorist. Remember this stuff from less than six months ago?

 

Actually, Major Nidal Malik Hasan could more accurately be described as a jihadist, if that helps. Islamic jihadists routinely call U.S. anti-terror efforts a "war on Islam." which a classmate of Hasan said he often professed.

 

On the day before his attack, Hasan handed out copies of the Quran. This was obviously not necessary to carry out his attack - but it cetainly could be described as promoting Islam.

 

He was also praising suicide bombers, denouncing the continuing U.S. military actions in Iraq and the war in Afganistan and dressing in Islamic fundamentalist clothing.

 

It just seems to me - If it walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, dresses like a terrorist, and carries out a jihadist attack like a terrorist....

 

well, you have a right to your own opinion.

[pyre400]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the term "terrorist attack" just does not fit... I did not hear them describe VT killings as a terrorist attack - that happened after 911.

 

I just does not fit for me, at this time.

I'm not convinced that I'd call this guy a terrorist either. However, the double standard of the media has surfaced once again and it disgusts me. If he had held any kind of conservative views, the media would have absolutely labeled him a terrorist. Remember this stuff from less than six months ago?

 

Yes, you are right. There is a political reason for the anti Iraq/Afghanistan lefties to support the shooter - I dont even know his name, nasim or something (dont care either). Fox exposed it best when they showed how the headlines are almost empathizing with the freak

 

They are nearly rationalizing what he's done by saying "He was scared" - "See the army is finally having to deal with the repercussions of Iraq/Afghanistan"

 

It does make you want to vomit... Zero integrity my friends.. This media has been destroying this country lately - I hope they start realizing it soon.

[Murf]

Actually, Major Nidal Malik Hasan could more accurately be described as a jihadist, if that helps. Islamic jihadists routinely call U.S. anti-terror efforts a "war on Islam." which a classmate of Hasan said he often professed.

 

On the day before his attack, Hasan handed out copies of the Quran. This was obviously not necessary to carry out his attack - but it cetainly could be described as promoting Islam.

 

He was also praising suicide bombers, denouncing the continuing U.S. military actions in Iraq and the war in Afganistan and dressing in Islamic fundamentalist clothing.

 

It just seems to me - If it walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, dresses like a terrorist, and carries out a jihadist attack like a terrorist....

 

well, you have a right to your own opinion.

There are many definitions of terrorism. His actions fit some of those definitions but not others. I personally don't have a problem with calling him a terrorist. The intent of my post wasn't really to argue that point, but rather to call attention to the blatant double standard of the media's use of the term.

[gravyboy77]

The antis are already dancing in the blood of those soldiers. :Angry!:

 

Link:

 

Senator Accuses Anti-Gun Group of Exploiting Fort Hood Massacre

Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina is lashing out against the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, accusing the group of exploiting the deadly rampage to oppose his gun lobby backed bill -- which seeks to protect veterans' rights to gun ownership.

 

November 06, 2009

 

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.

 

Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina is lashing out against the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, accusing the group of exploiting the deadly rampage to oppose his gun lobby backed bill -- which seeks to protect veterans' rights to gun ownership.

 

In a statement issued Thursday, the group's president, Paul Helmke, said in light of what happened yesterday - a violent attack by an emotionally unstable soldier - it is even clearer that the proposal being pushed by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina should be rejected."

 

"America has seen an epidemic of horrific gun violence at churches and synagogues, workplaces, health clubs, high schools, universities, police stations and now Army bases. 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," said Helmke.

 

Burr was quick to blast Helmke's remarks, saying, "In this time of personal and national tragedy when most people’s prayers and thoughts are rightfully with the families and friends affected by the tragedy at Fort Hood, one can only be amazed that Mr. Helmke would use such an event to try to advance his personal agenda.

 

"It is a shame that this process has gotten to a point where some feel that they can exploit the senseless murder of American soldiers in the quest to secure personal triumph," Burr said.

 

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was founded by former White House press secretary James Brady, who was shot and permanently paralyzed during a 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

 

Burr, the ranking Republican on the veterans committee, has been a staunch supporter of Second Amendment rights.

[SirMatthew]

The Obama administration doesn't want him labeled as a terrorist because that would mean they have failed to keep the country safe. Obviously, they dropped the ball 6 months ago when they started watching his online activity. Terrorist or not, they dropped the ball on this guy and the blame rests on the Obama administration.

[GarandFan]

Unlike 20 years ago, when such a shooting would have ONLY brought calls for more gun control, nowadays shootings like this spur justification for the right to defense and the bearing of arms. Think about it ... with each school shooting, the voices arguing for campus carry grow stronger and gain more traction.

 

Even though this article gives Helmke the last word ... his words are fast loosing traction.

 

 

http://www.bnd.com/news/state/story/998514.html

 

 

 

Army to review gun policies for all bases

By ANNA M.TINSLEY AND AMAN BATHEJA - McClatchy Newspapers

Saturday, Nov. 07, 2009

 

FORT WORTH, Texas -- One day after a shooter opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey Jr. ordered a review of all force protection policies at Army bases worldwide.

 

Thursday's shooting, he said during a briefing at Fort Hood, was a "kick in the gut."

 

Casey's announcement comes after questions were raised about base security and why soldiers couldn't protect themselves where they live and work.

 

"There will be an investigation, a look at the whole policy, but Congress should not step in and try to change the policy," said U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.

 

Each branch of the military sets a policy on whether guns may be carried on bases. Private guns are not allowed on Army bases or at facilities such as the Naval Air Station Fort Worth.

 

Soldiers generally carry weapons on base only when there is a reason, such as a training exercise or a trip to the firing range. Personal weapons are registered with authorities on the base and stored until they are signed out.

 

"This base, and other bases, these are people's homes," Granger said. "So there are people who are armed on base - military police, security guards - but not in their homes, their schools or, in this case, the deployment area."

 

U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, is among those wondering whether that is the right policy."The investigation at Fort Hood is still ongoing, and Congressman Burgess believes that answers are needed before conclusions can be drawn and action can be taken on related issues," said Lauren Bean, a Burgess spokeswoman.

 

Thursday's shooting revived the debate about gun rules for military bases. Currently, concealed-handgun laws such as the one in Texas do not apply on military bases.

 

Suzanna Hupp, a former state representative whose parents were among the Killeen, Texas, Luby's massacre victims in 1991, said allowing soldiers on base to carry arms would not prevent attacks like Thursday's but would likely reduce the damage.

 

"Of course the element of surprise was a probably valuable tool for a creep like this," Hupp said. "You're not going to prevent somebody from killing those first couple of people ... but after that ... it could have ended much, much, much sooner."

 

Hupp said the issue wouldn't be addressed while the Obama administration is in power.

 

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, a gun rights advocate, said that the policies at military bases should be up to military officials but that a review makes sense.

 

"I'm not saying the policy should change ... but again we have an example of a shooter going to a target-rich environment where he knew that no one was there who could resist," he said.

 

Gun control groups quickly pointed to the Fort Hood shooting as a reason to stiffen gun control laws.

 

"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," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

[Buzzard]

Actually, Major Nidal Malik Hasan could more accurately be described as a jihadist, if that helps. Islamic jihadists routinely call U.S. anti-terror efforts a "war on Islam." which a classmate of Hasan said he often professed.

 

On the day before his attack, Hasan handed out copies of the Quran. This was obviously not necessary to carry out his attack - but it cetainly could be described as promoting Islam.

 

He was also praising suicide bombers, denouncing the continuing U.S. military actions in Iraq and the war in Afganistan and dressing in Islamic fundamentalist clothing.

 

It just seems to me - If it walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, dresses like a terrorist, and carries out a jihadist attack like a terrorist....

 

well, you have a right to your own opinion.

There are many definitions of terrorism. His actions fit some of those definitions but not others. I personally don't have a problem with calling him a terrorist. The intent of my post wasn't really to argue that point, but rather to call attention to the blatant double standard of the media's use of the term.

 

Well then....

 

Welcome to the "Main Stream Media Hater's Club", friend!!

 

We hold meetings right here every day, grab a cup of coffee and sit down!!

[moparcardave]

Heard it best described as "lame stream media" I like that better msm.

 

Our soldiers can carry grenades, M4's SAW's and operated million dollar plus pieces of equiptment but here they are relegated to civilian police and even in their on post housing weapons are limited. All a bad idea in my opinion. I remember at FT Dix guarding a building and told just leave the bears be they will come and rummage in the garbage. Ok, can have have a few rounds? No, imagine that soldiers on guard duty unarmed.

 

You can die for your country but you can't have a weapon in a state where ccw is legal...

[moparcardave]

Heard it best described as "lame stream media" I like that better msm.

 

Our soldiers can carry grenades, M4's SAW's and operated million dollar plus pieces of equiptment but here they are relegated to civilian police and even in their on post housing weapons are limited. All a bad idea in my opinion. I remember at FT Dix guarding a building and told just leave the bears be they will come and rummage in the garbage. Ok, can have have a few rounds? No, imagine that soldiers on guard duty unarmed.

 

You can die for your country but you can't have a weapon in a state where ccw is legal...

[Murf]

Well then....

 

Welcome to the "Main Stream Media Hater's Club", friend!!

 

We hold meetings right here every day, grab a cup of coffee and sit down!!

I'm not a new member...just renewing my membership with the local chapter!

[sirflyguy]

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/...e-of-fort-hood/

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5113.guest.html

 

Some great articles.

[Howard Roark]

Washington Times article on the Ft. Hood - A Gun Free Zone.

Some of my favorite quotes:

 

"...It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an Army base..."

 

".Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division."

 

Oh, the sad irony! It really is astounding.

 

 

Washington Times Link

 

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

 

Time after time, public murder sprees occur in "gun-free zones" - public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week's slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.

 

Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

 

Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That's why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage.

 

Everyone wants to keep people safe - and no one denies Mr. Clinton's good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal - or in this case, the terrorist.

 

The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?"

 

It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton's deadly rules even disarmed officers, the most trusted members of the military charged with leading enlisted soldiers in combat. Six of the dead and wounded had commissions.

 

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Research also shows that the presence of more guns limits the damage mass murderers can unleash. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone - soldier, civilian or law enforcement - arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack. All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

 

Thirteen dead bodies in a Texas morgue are the ultimate fruit of gun-control illogic - in which guns are so feared that government regulation even tries to keep them out of the hands of trained soldiers. With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can end Mr. Clinton's folly and allow U.S. soldiers to protect themselves. Because we clearly cannot protect our soldiers from harm, the least we owe them is the right to protect themselves.

[Howard Roark]

Here is the "money quote" from the Washington Times article. I've memorized it. It would make a good media loop, like on CNN or whatever.

 

All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

 

This one is a "money quote" too:

 

With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can end Mr. Clinton's folly and allow U.S. soldiers to protect themselves.

[moparcardave]

It's Veteran's day, 6 days after the Ft Hood shooting. A salute to all veterans and those of here. Yesterdays the president appeared at Ft Hood and I had the time to watch. The demeaner and candor of the 15 thousand troops there was awe inspiring. You didn't see the standard crowd scenes. You saw basically dress right dress, hardly any usage of cell phones except for occasional photo's I did't see texting or high fives. I saw soldiers honoring soldiers, soldiers that know the sacrafice os serving and ultimate costs. I wondered what response they would give their Commander in Chief. There was a few shouts and some applause but not like I expected. Gen Cone gave a great introduction, obamas speech though well writtian I felt lacked personal compassion along with the lacking that reassuace that justice would be administered. (me I believe this is not only an act of terrorism, but an act of treason, a military officer with a secrect security clearance contacts on his own leadership in Al Queda, that is treason and a terrorist, forget any relegious connectioin and that alone is enough.)

 

As a veteran and an America and one that has lost friends the hardest part was seeing frednds family walking by offering their respects and salutes along with tears. The SFC that sang Amazing grace was greaet and her applause far outshined thost of the Commander in Chiefs. The picture that sticks in my mind of this service was not the president but the honorable respect these men and women gave to those that paid the price for all of us.