While most of America sadly awaited the tragic details out of the second shooting at Fort Hood, some eagerly licked their chops at the opportunity to use the occasion to push for new gun restrictions. One such person is Shannon Watts, founder of “Moms Demand Action,” a gun control group.

In case anyone was unclear about Watts’ intentions, she retweeted this:

Some on Twitter reminded Watts of an inconvenient fact about military base shootings:

https://twitter.com/johneastborough/status/451501817181274112

Others had general words of disapproval for Watts’ denigration of our constitutional rights:

Shannon responded to the criticism:

We’re more than happy to pray for the Fort Hood victims, but we’ll pass on the “#momsdemand #gunsense” stuff, thanks.

 

 

  • http://www.jabootu.com/acolytes/bnotes/ Apostic

    Couldn’t she have at least waited until the bloody shirt she’s waving was cold? (That’s rhetorical. We know better.)

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      And she wonders why people hate her…

      both for her cause,… and the fact she uses coffins to stand on to reach a microphone.

  • Ray Haight

    Someday even the most addled and ignorant among us, like this Shannon dingbat, will realize Gun Free Zone = Massacre Zone.

  • Juan Pablo

    liberalism: Turns your brain into a logic free zone

  • WhoDat

    So, a policy on the books since the 80s, and put there during a GOP presidency, and not changed since, is Bloomberg’s fault? Okay, then.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/

    • john lecorchick

      blaming a policy that may have been put into place by someone you may or may not agree with is silly, the policy is silly…we don’t trust our warriors to carry on their own base??? rendering them defensless?? logic is a good thing, give it a chance, along with our soldiers, a chance to defend themselves

      • WhoDat

        When has anyone in Congress brought up changing it?

        • alanstorm

          The question is why haven’t they? Along with “Why the bloody #%^& was it in place in the first place?”

        • john lecorchick

          I can only hope, that out of the sea of idiots in DC, one of them rises above and is putting pen to paper now, to start the process

        • Michael Rice

          Again, can you ever stay on point?

          The vast majority of gun supporters do not give a dam# who enacted it. It is a bad policy. Get rid of it.

          You on the other hand…

        • Ron

          They are safe so why would they care?

    • alanstorm

      Reading comprehension issues again?

      Nobody (except you) was blaming it on Bloomberg.

      • WhoDat

        From a tweet:

        You @shannonrwatts, @MikeBloomberg and other #gungrabbers are to blame for these ppl being defenseless! #FortHood #WiseUp

        Seems to me they are blaming Bloomberg.

        • carmenta

          and other gungrabbers….finish the thought Who, finish the thought.

        • alanstorm

          I’m sorry you’re slow. Let me re-phrase for the nit-picking asshats (i.e. YOU):

          Nobody (except you and a statistically meaningless group of individuals) was blaming it on Bloomberg.

          Are you happy now, moron? I wasn’t aware that you were unable to parse sentences successfully and needed every possible exception and qualification spelled out for you.

          • WhoDat

            Ugh, totally uncalled for.

          • Michael Rice

            Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and an asshat an asshat.

          • WhoDat

            Ugh, totally uncalled for.

          • Jay Stevens

            Disagree.

            You quoted:
            “You @shannonrwatts, @MikeBloomberg and other #gungrabbers are to blame . . . “,
            yet also said:
            “Seems to me they are blaming” (only) “Bloomberg.”

          • WhoDat

            And the others, Bloomberg is just the one I noticed and was pointing out.

          • Michael Rice

            In other words, your reading comprehension does suck…

          • alanstorm

            No, it was totally called for. Every time someone says something like I did, INTELLIGENT people will interpret that to means nobody except a few wackos. There are always outliers to any particular grouping, and one must make general statements unless you wish every utterance to read like a legal paper where every why, who and wherefore has to be spelled out in detail.

            When a conservative says that racism is dead, for example, what he means is that it’s not an issue (on the right, anyway – lefties are OBSESSED with race) except for a few irredeemable nutcases. Same thing here.

            This is not a scientific exercise, where one counter-example is sufficient to sink a theory.

            Get a clue, or stop posting. If you need elaboration, or think you spot an error, ask or point out RESPECTFULLY and you might get a reasoned debate. Trying to say “Nu-uh! I found ONE example so you’re WRONG!” (which is what you did, BTW) isn’t going to work.

          • WhoDat

            Look, take it however you want.

            I meant no disrespect, that’s just how I saw it. You came right out the box with the disrespect.

            Good day.

          • alanstorm

            You didn’t read what I said, did you? Has nothing to do with disrespect, it has to do with not clogging the communication channel with meaningless BS.

        • Steve Rogers

          I was under the impression that Bloomberg not only supported that position, but wanted to expand it everywhere else. And now you’re claiming he doesnt?

        • mike_in_kosovo

          Seems to me they are blaming Bloomberg

          Probably due to the millions he’s pumped into the Brady bunch via donations, and his work with MAIG.

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      No… it changed little, Carter was president when I enlisted, you couldn’t carry a gun on base then either. All this blaming one president or another doesn’t address the basic point, why are the troops own issue weapons locked up so tight they cannot get to them in an emergency?…

      Think about it, even during Pearl Harbour the troops had to use axes to break into weapons lockers, to break into bunkers for ammo…

      you would think in a century, the military would have a more common sense policy.

    • mike_in_kosovo

      Did you actually *read* it?
      Hint:
      Subject: Use of Deadly Force and the Carrying of Firearms by DoD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement and Security Duties
      DoD military and civilian personnel performing LE/Security duty.
      *NOT* personal firearms allowed on base.
      Try again.

    • H50 ✓RAT

      Clinton did it by EO. When did he become GOP?

      • WhoDat

        Browse the link.

        • mike_in_kosovo

          The link to the inapplicable reg?

        • H50 ✓RAT

          Not a fan of the Blaze thanks. Google Clintons EO prohibiting the carrying of privately owned firearms on military instillation’s.
          Personally, I will never forgive Bush for not nullifying the EO. It is utterly asinine to believe that our military does not have the self control to reassess in a domestic situation, because they are combat trained and dont have to (which IMHO is totally untrue).

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Can you provide a link to said EO? I’ve looked and can’t find it.

          • H50 ✓RAT

            There used to be a handy registry site of all the EO from #1 to now, but it got shut down a few years ago. Let me look for one.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            I looked through the EO library here:

            http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php

            Scanned year by year from 93-00, didn’t find anything that matched the topic

          • H50 ✓RAT

            Ok, Ive found a lot of articles referencing it, like this one…

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/

            And Judge Andrew Napalitanto has referred to it specifically time in his articles, but I dont see any E.O. number cited, which he usually does.

            In fact, he was talking about the process for nullifying said executive order by the next successive president, etc.

            I wasnt really listening closely because Ive head this so many times before. Now that its becoming an issue, I really wish I had.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Thanks for the link, Hana – I think the author is mistakenly thinking that the Army reg previously mentioned disarms troops, which isn’t the case.
            “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.”

            That ties directly back to the referenced reg and mis-states it.

          • H50 ✓RAT

            Help me out here Mike, is there another way that the POTUS (as CiC) can dictate to the military other than EO? Can he just write a memo to the heads of military that is not an EO but has the force of law?
            I even went to the National Archives looking for the buggar, I really would like to know the correct answer.

            Edited to add; Reading the DoD and Army regs, it looks to me like overall it is so restive and cumbersome for non designated investigative/law enforcement personnel to get special and specific permission to be armed while on base that it naturally prohibits the ability of self defense with a f/a. Is that correct?
            Who dictates these policies to the DoD?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            There’s none that immediately spring to mind. DADT became a policy without any overt action other than a policy statement by Clinton, that I’m aware of.
            I checked DoD issuances for any mention of firearms and can’t find reference to personal weapon ownership or storage.

          • H50 ✓RAT

            Is it likely that its an issue of improper use of terminology? EO vs Policy Statement?

            I didnt find anything relating to CCW either, but when you have existing regs that are so specific to the training requirements, situations and personnel that may carry, you dont really need them do you.

            You can request the training, but you wont get it if you dont work the right assignment, etc.

            Looking at the Army regs chapter 2, seems pretty clear that if you arent authorized personnel, you better not have one even tho that is not explicitly stated in the regs. Your thoughts?

            http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r190_14/head.asp

          • mike_in_kosovo

            That only speaks to Law Enforcement and security guards during the performance of their duty, right there in section 1-1:

            “This regulation prescribes policies and procedures for authorizing, carrying, and using firearms in connection with law enforcement and security duties.”

            The reference to personal protection in Ch. 2 regards *issuance* of a weapon for personal protection dependent upon the circumstance.

            From the reg, section 2.4(f): “Personnel assigned firearms for personal protection under the provisions of paragraph 2-2d, will be authorized to carry firearms on a case-by-case basis and written authorization issued only for the duration of specific assignment or threat.”

            As an example – I was in Bosnia when the strikes into Kosovo started. At one point, the base commander was considering providing arms to civilian contractors for personal defense, as we were in and out of base without any military escort.

            The reg *ONLY* speaks to LE/Security on duty, and self-defense by certain other individuals (like the example above) on a very limited, case-by-case basis. It doesn’t speak to troops keeping their personal weapons on base (allowed in housing, not barracks).
            As stated before – historically, troops have *NOT* been armed on base *except* for LE/security at least back to WWII times (training days/range days excepted). There *may* have been a time when *no* personal weapons were allowed on post in any manner, but I haven’t been able to find reference to it.

          • H50 ✓RAT

            Yea, I see your point about policy only applying to on-duty positions allowed to carry and those circumstances, but my point was that if the regs are specific enough about who shall you dont need additional regs of who may.
            Im not sure Im expressing my self very well here.
            Ran into this in the PD. Where we had policy so specific about what you shall do, youd better not deviate regardless of the circumstances of the moment. If you did, you opened yourself up to being found out of policy (discipline) and being held criminally/civilly liable. Does that make sense?
            I cant find a source for Presidential Policy Statements, is that something that is not published? Or am I just not looking in the right place?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            I see your point, in re: “What is not explicitly allowed is forbidden”, but that doesn’t really hold water in regards to what the reg covers. Given the age of the general policy regarding troops under arms, I doubt that there’s going to be any sort of ‘bombshell’ reg that’s going to be accessible on the internet – you’re looking at something in existence at least back to WWII, if not before.
            More recently, regarding personal arms, the only references I’ve seen in searches refer back to individual base regulations.

          • H50 ✓RAT

            OK, thanks.
            Gotta go plant some trees now. TTYL.

    • Porty1119

      Doesn’t matter who put it in place. Mrs. Watts is lying by omission here.

  • Super Marsupial

    Don’t have enough followers to trend this to piss of the #guncontrol nuts but: #GunSenseIsArmedDefense or #ArmedDefenseIsGunSense

  • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    The example of wishful thinking is that declaring someplace a gun-free zone makes it so.

    All a “gun-free zone” was ever meant to do, by the way, was to heighten penalties on criminals who used firearms to commit a crime in one of those areas, or allow the carrying of the gun unlawfully into that area to be used as evidence against someone in a criminal or civil trial, as to state of mind (i.e., deliberate vs inadvertent). It’s similar in kind to a restraining order against a stalker– won’t stop them if they’re really intent on doing something, but violating it can be used to infer the criminal’s intent from his having committed the act of disregarding the warning.

    Gun-free zones, then, are like so-called “hate crimes”– only meant to add even more “Boo! Hiss!” to something the Proggie mindset doesn’t like.

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      Pretty much..

      The guy had to break a half dozens regs. To get that gun on base, in a gun free zone. Seems to me the only thing this proves is, bad people ignore and break laws.. but congratulations on making damn sure he could do it without any fear of retribution from his victims..

      The liberal answer is even more insane, make everywhere gun free, but it proves that they never gaves any thought to what actually would lower these spree killings, just what makes them feel morally superior to actual thinking human beings.

      They can’t stop these killers with laws, the evil and insane don’t care if they break one.

      what works is what they refuse to consider, a good man or woman with a gun.

      so they do nothing but ensure it will keep happening, the result of feeling, instead of thinking.

      • Ken Alan Draper

        Progressives have no real empathy, they can’t take a position apart & look at it from different angles. To the progressive mind any idea they have is perfect, they cannot conceive that there could possibly any way it could go wrong. They have a blind spot when it comes to human nature.

    • CHHR

      Unfortunately, the majority of those that violate gun free zones also commit suicide after they’ve rendered they’re planned mayhem…
      I also think the elephant in the room is how far we’ve backed away from real solutions for dealing with psychological disorders.
      When it comes to the military, the country’s full on social experiment, we use them to push social agendas that have nothing to do with defense, in the name of defense, we refuse to name the enemy, then cause extreme duress and despondency for those serving because they can’t perform as a military, then, once we’re done using them for political footballs, we consciously refuse to implement a real set of solutions for treating the consequences…all in the name of “social norms.”

      • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        I’d still like for someone to find that 60 Minutes piece from a few years ago on how wounded soldiers sent to Darnall Army Hospital at Ft Hood are doped up during their recuperation to keep them from becoming too stressed and overanxious, and that there are not enough shrinks to treat them adequately, so few in fact that the Army was loath to kick out Hasan, screwy as he was known to be, because they needed warm bodies. PS, the story was about the soldiers– Hasan was mentioned only in passing.

        • CHHR

          I tried, but cannot find it… if you do, please post because I’d like to see it.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I can’t find the 60 Minutes story per se, but there are many articles in print saying the same thing, which a cursory (no pun) glance on a few search engines showed. Too many to list, and I can’t do ALL the heavy lifting around here. Different of the articles addressed different aspects, but the totality of the coverage allows one to come away thinking 60 Minutes wasn’t far off the mark.

          • CHHR

            That’s the point, they aren’t off the mark. Unfortunately though, we live in a pill form society that encourages the drugging of symptoms without facing the uncomfortable truths that underlie the actual issues of those symptoms. Then once the patient gets hooked on the meds, walla, it’s the patient’s fault. In the end, a disheartened military is totally demoralized.

    • Darticus

      The “wishful thinking” you bring up reminds me of a point that author Jim Powell makes in his book “FDR’s Folly.” He says that “progressives” of the New Deal era compared real capitalism to ideal government. New Dealers pointed out real shortcomings of the private sector in real world situations in arguing for massive government intervention, yet their backing of government solutions was rooted solely in their stated intentions rather than some kind of logical reasoning.

      The same kind of thing holds true with today’s leftists. They ignore real world results and consequences of government action because their utopian ideology demands that government be the great moral/ethical/economic/etc. equalizer. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed, or identified as an example of government not going far enough.

      That sentiment not only applies to their twisted reasoning behind “gun-free zones,” but also, by and large, to the entire leftist ideological point of view.

      • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
        For those who disbelieve, no explanation is possible.
        To those who neither believe nor disbelieve, no explanation is given that can convince any fair-minded person.
        To those who believe, the matter is settled.
        To those who look for impartial evidence, i.e., the truth of the matter and why believers believe as they do, there IS no explanation.

  • SteveP

    She was certainly eager to bathe in the blood of the victims.

  • alanstorm

    Another triumph for the “Liberal Logic” of “gun-free” zones.

    Ms. Watts (of Moms Demand Attention) must be very proud.

  • Evin

    Here is some F*$#ing gun sense. Let our MILITARY carry weapons on the base. Liberals always piss and moan about licensing and training for all who carry guns. Well HELLO!!!!, these are the people who defend us and they are defenseless on their own base.

  • Evin

    Liberal gun policy – Background checks and training for carry permits

    Do we not perform background checks and training for our military anymore? Why can’t they carry?

    • Ken Alan Draper

      My nephew is a marine now on inactive reserve, he qualified expert with the M 16, & is more qualified then any police officer to wield one but he was still unable to carry one on base. This is utterly retarded. Ever notice that just about anyone who uses the word “commonsense” in conjunction with gun laws doesn’t have any?

      • Evin

        Have you every noticed how most gun control people don’t even know how to properly hold a firearm?

        It is hilarious…sort of.

        • Ken Alan Draper

          yes how many times have we seen video of a gungrabber holding a firearm with finger on the trigger & sweeping the muzzle across a crowd of reporters or other spectators. makes me wince everytime they do that. how many times has there been a police official in the background who just stood there & let it happen?

  • Richbert88

    Oh Utopia! The problem with being on your honor is that there is so little of it. People will speed thru a speed restricted construction zone and yet somehow some people will believe a ‘gun free zone’ or even a ‘drug free zone’ will be honored. These same people probably believe that govt officials, like Obama but not limited to him, are benevolent.

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Two Tuesdays from now, all the “honorable” people in this country who believe that gun-free zones are effective and useful will obviously not try to “chisel” the Government when those people engage in that “voluntary self-assessment and compliance” the IRS relies on, either: “But the 1% do it, so why can’t a little punk like me try to catch a break here?” will be the usual response.

  • Brad Vacek

    The REAL outrage: the fact that civilian police have to be called for a shooter at a military base.

    • Determined

      I believe it WAS the Military Police that confronted and stopped the shooter. I believe the civilian police were on stand by – but not called in at all.

      • Jay Stevens

        This time.

      • Brad Vacek

        Yes, it was a female MP that confronted the shooter, and he then shot himself. My point remains valid..

        • Determined

          No, your point of ‘it is an outrage “that civilian police have to be called for a shooter at a military base”‘ is NOT valid – you just admitted it was not even true here – you just admitted that a MP was the one that handled the shooting!! NOT Civilian Police.

          • Brad Vacek

            Who put the civilian police “on standby”? And why?
            In the 2009 Ft. Hood “workplace violence”, Hasan was shot by Sgt. Kimberly D. Munley of the Ft Hood Police (a civilian police force). Was THIS civilian police force also “on standby?

          • Determined

            I don’t know. But just like several fire departments respond to major fires – ABSOLUTELY appropriate to have alerted the local police. Shooter was in a car – what if he sped past a check point out of the base??
            This ain’t a big conspiracy!

          • Brad Vacek

            No, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s a shame that our trained military personnel are not allowed to defend themselves.

          • Determined

            They are. Armed Military Police responded to the 2009 and the 2014 Fort Hood Shooters.
            Your point that the military should be able to carry arms is a point to discuss – but has nothing to do with civilian police being involved in stopping the 2009 shooter. And absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2014 shooter as they were not involved.

          • Determined

            An active shooter – with over a dozen killed – and you want to criticize the military for being open to assistance from civilian police?? REALLY? Dude.

          • Darticus

            You’re missing Brad’s point. He’s not objecting to asking the civilian police for help when they’re needed. He’s saying that if military personnel other than MPs were permitted to carry, situations would most likely be resolved before there was time or a need to notify civilian police or ask for their help.

        • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

          The only reason they called civilians for bsck up, was the extreme amount of ground they had to cover, Hood is huge, gigantic… any MP contingent wouldn’t come close to having enough man power.

          In the 80’s, what our AFB did was during an alert, arm troops and put them on stand by, maybe 6 to 10 LE suddenly had 200 light infantry armed airman, all fully trained for combat security troops.

          amaybe they need to borrow a page from the cold war, and keep a rotation of fully armed patrols, reserve fire teams as we did during an ORI.

          • Ken Alan Draper

            In this age of al Qaeda sleeper cells & nonexistant border security it is amazing to me that all conus military bases do not have heightened security.

  • Determined

    Are people as outraged at people immediately tweeting that gun rights should be loosened on military bases?

    • mike_in_kosovo

      Why should we be? Letting them defend themselves is a *logical* thought.

      • Determined

        as is restricting access to some weapons.

        BUT some people get upset at talking about gun control on the day of a shooting or soon after. same logic should apply to talking about increasing gun rights on the day of a shooting or soon after.

        • mike_in_kosovo

          same logic should apply to talking about increasing gun rights on the day of a shooting or soon after.

          Make sure to let Piers Morgan and MomsDemandNonsense know that.

          Edit: Oh, and Preezy Stompfoot, too.

          • BeeKaaay

            And Illegal Mayors Against Guns too

        • Ken Alan Draper

          logical? really? restrictions only keep weapons out of the hands of law abiding people, the criminal gets his guns from other criminals like that Democrat state senator from San Fran who was selling machine guns & rocket launchers that he was getting from his fillipino muslim terrorist buddies. why are Dems on the gun control bandwagon? why to corner the market on firearms, wonder how many of them are involved with drug smuggling?

    • acb4values

      What tweets I saw about gun rights was in response to the tweets about stricter gun control!!

  • LegalizeShemp

    Liberals have so far failed to outline how passing stricter laws prevents free willed individuals from committing crimes. Stricter laws increase punishments for lawbreakers, they do not prevent prospective crime, nor can they.

  • LegalizeShemp

    We’re still being hypnotized by the false premise that more laws and bigger government prevents individuals from committing crimes or engaging in reckless, irresponsible behavior. Laws affect people who obey the law, they do not change the behavior of sociopaths. Laws allow certain behaviors to be punished, they do not prevent those behaviors from occurring in maladjusted people.

  • tom thumb

    LMAO…Cops fatally shoot man who allegedly pointed gun at them

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-crime-police-shooting-20140329,0,5437171.story

    After observing the alleged transaction, police approached the man, who
    fled on foot. During the chase, police observed the man running while
    “clutching an unknown object in his wasteband.”

    “My baby didn’t do nothing”

    Really?

    http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2014/04/my-child-never-had-no-gun.html

    Obama will get to the bottom of this lolzzzzzzzz

  • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

    She’s messing with the heads of her followers when she has the gall to “pray” for gunsense in an already gun free zone… she accomplishes nothing except confusing the issue for low information types..

    that,.. and she is shamelessly exploiting the dead for a cause they can’t exactly say no, you can’t use my name for… can they?..

    She is a shameless ghoul dancing on graves… were I family member of one one these patriots, I’d make her life miserable in court, in the press everytime she evoked their name… she has no presumption of good intentions when she exploits tragedy to take away a civil right.

  • Hank_Scorpio

    Another dolt that blames inanimate objects for the actions of criminals and the mentally disturbed. That’s right out of 10th century thinking. I wonder if she knows the Earth isn’t flat?
    She should be ashamed of herself, were she capable of shame….

  • Acethepug

    You know one of the Leftist creeds — Never let a crisis go to waste.

    But remember, Obamacare is the law and cannot be repealed (despite being less than a decade old).

    Yet the Second Amendment is STILL under assault from the Left after over two-hundred years.

    Makes lots of sense, right?

    As I have said before, Leftist dogma and reality never intersect …

  • AT

    “#momsdemand” really kinda creeps me out. Who exactly do they purport to be speaking for, and why? And to what purpose? What are they playing at? It’s weird. Creepy and weird.

    Stick to making PB&J and dropping the kids off at soccer practice please. Keep ignorant comments about gun rights to yourself.

  • RedSoloCup

    Shannon is a mental midget of epic proportions.

  • AT

    QUICK!!! BAN AMBIEN!!!! IT CAUSES MUUUURDER!!!

  • Mary Mommy Happy 2016!

    There seems to be no end of the lefts desire to politicize tragedy and create ever more restrictions for law abiding citizens.

  • bbwh

    She does not even comprehend what she wrote.
    There is no help for her.

  • interestedobserver2

    And yet another example of the complete lack of any sense of irony on the part of leftie trolls like Shannon. Really the explanation is simple though: it’s not about the actual situation, it’s always about them.

  • Michael Rice

    They don’t want military or police being the only ones with guns. T Hey want guns gone, period.

    I can’t wait to hear their logic when a terrorist strolls into one of these bases and blows it sky high..

    • BeeKaaay

      To leftwingwackos, there are no terrorists, unless one disagrees with them, then that person is the terrorist :)

  • http://www.theretiredbabyboomer.net/ Dave

    Never let a good….well, you know the rest of the liberal story there.

  • Ken Alan Draper

    I live in a state where you can open carry or conceal carry almost anywhere, we passed legislation to arm teachers & allow parents to carry on school grounds. Now with all these guns around there have been no mass shootings, & crime has decreased. We didn’t become a wild west town where cowboys shoot each other in the streets at high noon.

    • Ken Alan Draper

      In fact the only school shooting I can remember happened at Purdue University a few weeks ago, the shooter shot & killed one person. Purdue University is a “Gun Free zone” by the way. with a major university & a Japanese owned car plant we have a large population of foreign nationals living in the area. a sizable percentage can be found at the local range on saturday afternoon with AR-15’s practicing. they make me appreciate the rights I have as an American. so the next time some ivory tower type claims that europe has gun control, just remember that the majority of people in those countries weren’t in favor of it, they had it forced upon them by their governments.

  • H50 ✓RAT

    Gun free zone. Took the MPs 15 minutes to respond. How many people were shot during that time period? All of them. When an MP with a gun showed up, the coward killed himself, you forgot that little factoid in your little coffin dancing diatribe too Shannon.
    Another little factoid ignored, mental illness. How many of these mass shooters were or are being treated for mental issues that are not reported by the mental health industry so that these shooters cant buy a gun like this one did? All of them.

  • LegalizeShemp

    Gun Free Zones = No defense against criminals

  • NRPax

    What’s wrong, Shannon? Sandy Hook just not getting you off any more so you’re ecstatic to have fresh material from Fort Hood?

    • BeeKaaay

      Well, leftwingwackos are bloodthirsty. They smell fresh blood and the answer is “MORE MARXISM!”

  • articpara85

    I remember
    the warning signs posted along All American Drive at Ft. Bragg that were
    installed during the Clinton administration. They explicitly stated Personally
    Owned Weapons (P.O.W) were not authorized on Post unless registered with the
    Provost Marshall. Once registered P.O.W. were allowed inside post housing only
    and prohibited in the barracks. Single soldiers living in the barracks were
    required to store weapons and ammo in the Unit Arms Room. As a Unit supply
    Sergeant Part of my duties was to supervise the unit armorer or run the Arms
    Room; if a unit armorer was not appointed by the Commander. P.O.W s could only
    be signed out from the arms room with written permission of the Company
    Commander and were required to be returned by the time out lined in the written
    permission. The rule for P.O.W was out to the Post Rod and Gun Club Range and
    straight back to the Arms Room when the individual had finished or first thing
    in the morning on the next duty day if taken out for a long weekend to be used
    off post. If a service member was caught with an unauthorized P.O.W then
    charges were brought through the PM office. I have seen more than a few
    soldiers in hand cuffs during Military Police check points following a long
    four day weekend. Quiet often it was for DUI or having an unauthorized weapon
    in the vehicle. Most single soldiers I knew kept their P.O.Ws at an off post
    location with friends or family if they happened to be nearby. These are the
    facts and only the facts on P.O.Ws on military installations.

  • heymoe55 .

    Do you think I could get her to “hold” a target for me?

  • 191145

    moms and watts demand more victims to strip rights from law abiding citizens (Stop) watts waves bloody shirt (Stop) watts jumps to gun control before facts are in (Stop) watts makes no mention that gunman @ Ft. hood passes background check month before shooting (Stop) watts makes no mention of unarmed soldiers forced to work in gun free zone (Stop) watts puts forth no suggestions on how to disarm criminals (Stop) watts puts forth no suggestions on how to disarm gangs and gangbangers (Stop) watts is not a problem solver (Stop) ……………………

  • Tumbleweed

    Shannon, move to China! The people are not allowed to have guns! Make youeself happy!