cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

That profound statement

Quote--" The answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!"

 

As we speak, there are two bad guys with guns at the Foot Hood army base in Texas. I suggest there is probably hundreds of good guys with guns on the same base. Yet as of now they are reporting 8 people injured in spite of hundreds of good guys with guns to oppose the bad guys.

 

See how ridiculous a profound statement is in the real world. If you are insistant of unrestricted firearm possession, it is your responsibility to to tell us how to sort the bad guys out before they shoot the innocents, not after!

 

So Much for the defense department protecting us when they cannot even protect their own on a military base.

43 Replies
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: That profound statement

 

"See how ridiculous a profound statement is in the real world. If you are insistant of unrestricted firearm possession, it is your responsibility to to tell us how to sort the bad guys out before they shoot the innocents, not after!"

 


First "unrestricted" firearm possession is obviously not in anyone's interest.  It's the level of restriction, and how decided.

 

As for the second part of your statement, the point is that the "sorting" is not necessariy possible, reasonable, nor fair.  While I don't know if the Fort Hood shooter(s) are military, in the past they were military, which suggests that even the military cannot determine who should be able to carry a gun.  So, other than the obvious, who should decide?

 

I would probably accept a majority-decision determination made by a group with a majority being law-abiding, gun-owning farmers who also enjoy hunting.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: That profound statement


@kraft-t wrote:

Quote--" The answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!"

 

As we speak, there are two bad guys with guns at the Foot Hood army base in Texas. I suggest there is probably hundreds of good guys with guns on the same base. Yet as of now they are reporting 8 people injured in spite of hundreds of good guys with guns to oppose the bad guys.

 

See how ridiculous a profound statement is in the real world. If you are insistant of unrestricted firearm possession, it is your responsibility to to tell us how to sort the bad guys out before they shoot the innocents, not after!

 

So Much for the defense department protecting us when they cannot even protect their own on a military base.


How many would be hurt or killed if they had no guns? Are the good guys allowed to carry their guns or do they keep them under lock and key?

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

The problem with your theory..

The problem with your theory, is that Ft. Hood, is for the most part, a 'gun free zone'.  Except for a few small designated areas, such as the firing range, the 'good guys' are not allowed to carry loaded firearms on their person, except for a few armed guards, at specific locations.  Your statement about 'unrestricted firearm possession, is false, because US military bases are about as restrictive as you can get, as far as personal firearms possession goes.

However, I commend you on at least trying not to let a good tragedy go to waste.

 

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

 

Military policy on bases

The Army prohibits soldiers from carrying personal firearms inside Fort Hood and other bases. Military weapons are used only for training or by base security, and personal weapons were kept locked away by the provost marshal.[31] Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, said he felt this policy left the soldiers vulnerable to violent assaults: "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."[163] Jacob Sullum, an opponent of gun control, described the base as a "gun-free zone."[164]

 

 

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: The problem with your theory..

It is unbelievable the level that liberals will stoop to get more gun control, but to try to make something of a tragedy like this makes me sick.  Liberals say that "only cops and soliders should have guns" well I shutter to think what kind of police state that this country would be if that was the case.

 

Actually the shooter, Ivan Lopez went to Iraq in 2011, came back with PTSD and took (or didn`t take) medication.  Well, Obama was president in 2011...what were we still doing in Iraq???  Obama said when he wanted his dictater job, back in 2008 that he`d get us out of Iraq.  These "incidents" are all a cost of a stupid war that went on too goll danged long.

 

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Active-Shooter-Reported-at-Fort-Hood-253636461.html

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: The problem with your theory..

And it was you and yours who kept saying "if we pull out of Iraq now, it will be a bloodbath. We can't leave yet!"
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: The problem with your theory..

Not all private guns in the military are locked up by the Provost Marshall. MANY soldiers live off base and can keep any gun except their official military weapon at their home. They don't search cars coming on base unless something has happened so it is no problem to bring one on base,especially if you are in uniform.
Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: The problem with your theory..

If soldiers and cops can go off in the head, even with the psychological screening they go through and they are "the only one`s that should have guns", who`s gonna protect us from them??   This nut solider could`ve just as easily kicked in a family`s door and shot them as they were sitting down to supper.

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: The problem with your theory..

I never was for the Iraq war, I`ve said many times that we shouldn`t have gotten sucked in.  Do like Reagan did with Gadafy, blow up a couple of his tents for a cost of $2 million and NO American lives call it "mission accomplished" get everyone`s taste for blood revenge out of the way and call it a day.

 

If there was one good thing about Obama, as a senator he was against war...albetit for purely political reasons.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: The problem with your theory..


@BA Deere wrote:

If soldiers and cops can go off in the head, even with the psychological screening they go through and they are "the only one`s that should have guns", who`s gonna protect us from them??   This nut solider could`ve just as easily kicked in a family`s door and shot them as they were sitting down to supper.


That is what some did in Iraq and Afghanistan so maybe that is where they learned that.