Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Will Hasan's Rampage Mean Yet Another Assault on the 2nd Amendment?

It seems every time there is a senseless shooting (and even times when they are not so senseless) there is no shortage of gun-grabbers waiting in the wings, gearing up to use the latest tragedy to try and push through a new wrinkle intended to further interfere in our constitutional right to "keep and bear arms."

Never mind that no gun law ever written has kept a gun out of the hands of a criminal who sought one, but that doesn't matter to the anti-freedom crowd, and make no mistake, that is exactly what they are.

You see, it has never been so much that we 2nd Amendment supporters love guns so much as it is that we love freedom, and if you have even been paying any attention at all to the history of the last 300 years or so, those who surrender their firearms soon after forfeit their freedom, and some their very lives.

What happened at Ft. Hood was indeed a tragedy, and could have been stopped much sooner than it was, but not because of the availability of firearms, but due to the lack of them.

Via (emphasis mine):

When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan started shooting up the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Pfc. Marquest Smith dove under a desk. A.P. reports that “he lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.”

Neither Smith nor the other victims of Hasan’s assault had guns because soldiers on military bases within the United States generally are not allowed to carry them. Last week’s shootings, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30, demonstrated once again the folly of “gun-free zones,” which attract and assist people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.

Judging from the comments of those who support this policy of victim disarmament, Smith’s desire for a gun was irrational. According to Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, “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.”

Note how the reference to “a heavily fortified army base” obscures the crucial point that the people attacked by Hasan were unarmed as a matter of policy. Also note the breathtaking inanity of Helmke’s assurance that “more guns” are not “the solution to gun violence.” In this case, they assuredly were.

You will find the entire article here.

To me, the one glaring irony in this tragic occurrence is that, on one of America's largest military installations, and eight years into a war, it took a civilian police officer to drop the rampaging goon, but not until he had caused the deaths of fourteen human beings, and the wounding of nearly forty others.

If someone chooses not to own a firearm, that is just fine with me, but I don't want anyone else, especially the government, making that decision for me.

I have a sneaking suspicion that along the way, several of the gun-grabbers out there are going to find themselves cowering under their bed one night, frantically dialing 911 and praying the government is going to arrive in time to save their ass, along with those of their loved ones.

I bet more than a few of them will be wishing, just as Pfc. Smith did, that they had a gun.

No comments:

When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered. -Dorothy Thompson