CNN’s Chris Cuomo Uses Fort Hood Shooting To Push Gun Control Agenda

[KNB]

Why aren't Republicans praising the shooter for standing his ground?

 

[idb]

this would of happened regardless if people were armed or not. But neat you found someone who wants to control guns somewhat....zzzzzzz

Dipshit, guns are already controlled there. And yet again it only encouraged a criminal because he knew no one would fire back. Got it, yet?

He would not have been able to go around for 20 minutes shooting people if the military were allowed to carry arms. It wasn't until an armed police officer showed up that things stopped. Could have been stopped a lot sooner.

so what? even IF people had guns you can't prove it would have stopped him from acting out still.

he still would have killed people, it might have just been a little harder.

Do we have evidence he was a criminal before this shooting?

Evidence?
Hilarious...when has that ever been a requirement to come to a conclusion?!

Large numbers of posters here were convinced it was a Muslim terrorist that was doing the shooting.
Aided and abetted by the librul-commie-American hating-gun grabbers of course.




Haha...."evidence"!

 

[Vigilante]

Why aren't Republicans praising the shooter for standing his ground?

Why aren't the FAGERALS out protesting at Ft. Hood with signs saying "BAN ALL GUNS, FUCK THE SECOND AMENDMENT?"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

it's about time we arm the army....

They are well-armed when government needs them to be. However, all our military troops seem to considered expendable by this regime. They can't even defend themselves on bases, which is just incredible. Those gun control laws have disarmed the good people, but doesn't seem to have affected criminals one bit. And the left still doesn't get it.

The Military since before WW2 has not allowed troops on duty to carry firearms unless it was specifically part of their current duty to do so. And they have not allowed troops on duty to carry private firearms on base in uniform for just as long unless it was specifically part of their duties.

This claim that Clinton changed some rule to disarm troops is a lie. I joined in 79 and even then we could not carry weapons on or off duty on base unless it was directly related to a duty assignment.

In CONUS and overseas in non combat areas a military member is restricted from carrying a firearm unless specifically required by the duty assignment. And Clinton did not make that rule.

 

[blackhawk]

In a free society bad people will find a way to bad things the question is how much freedom is one willing to give up in the pursuit of security.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Benjamin Franklin.

 

[jon_berzerk]

it's about time we arm the army....

They are well-armed when government needs them to be. However, all our military troops seem to considered expendable by this regime. They can't even defend themselves on bases, which is just incredible. Those gun control laws have disarmed the good people, but doesn't seem to have affected criminals one bit. And the left still doesn't get it.

The Military since before WW2 has not allowed troops on duty to carry firearms unless it was specifically part of their current duty to do so. And they have not allowed troops on duty to carry private firearms on base in uniform for just as long unless it was specifically part of their duties.

This claim that Clinton changed some rule to disarm troops is a lie. I joined in 79 and even then we could not carry weapons on or off duty on base unless it was directly related to a duty assignment.

In CONUS and overseas in non combat areas a military member is restricted from carrying a firearm unless specifically required by the duty assignment. And Clinton did not make that rule.

1969 Nixon DOD directive 5210.56

it has been updated from time to time

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They are well-armed when government needs them to be. However, all our military troops seem to considered expendable by this regime. They can't even defend themselves on bases, which is just incredible. Those gun control laws have disarmed the good people, but doesn't seem to have affected criminals one bit. And the left still doesn't get it.

The Military since before WW2 has not allowed troops on duty to carry firearms unless it was specifically part of their current duty to do so. And they have not allowed troops on duty to carry private firearms on base in uniform for just as long unless it was specifically part of their duties.

This claim that Clinton changed some rule to disarm troops is a lie. I joined in 79 and even then we could not carry weapons on or off duty on base unless it was directly related to a duty assignment.

In CONUS and overseas in non combat areas a military member is restricted from carrying a firearm unless specifically required by the duty assignment. And Clinton did not make that rule.

1969 Nixon DOD directive 5210.56

it has been updated from time to time

Long before Clinton or Obama. Don't get me wrong I do not like Obama and did not support Clinton, BUT blaming them for something they did not do is not something I support either.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The Military since before WW2 has not allowed troops on duty to carry firearms unless it was specifically part of their current duty to do so. And they have not allowed troops on duty to carry private firearms on base in uniform for just as long unless it was specifically part of their duties.

This claim that Clinton changed some rule to disarm troops is a lie. I joined in 79 and even then we could not carry weapons on or off duty on base unless it was directly related to a duty assignment.

In CONUS and overseas in non combat areas a military member is restricted from carrying a firearm unless specifically required by the duty assignment. And Clinton did not make that rule.

1969 Nixon DOD directive 5210.56

it has been updated from time to time

Long before Clinton or Obama. Don't get me wrong I do not like Obama and did not support Clinton, BUT blaming them for something they did not do is not something I support either.

yup

 

[idb]

it's about time we arm the army....

They are well-armed when government needs them to be. However, all our military troops seem to considered expendable by this regime. They can't even defend themselves on bases, which is just incredible. Those gun control laws have disarmed the good people, but doesn't seem to have affected criminals one bit. And the left still doesn't get it.

The Military since before WW2 has not allowed troops on duty to carry firearms unless it was specifically part of their current duty to do so. And they have not allowed troops on duty to carry private firearms on base in uniform for just as long unless it was specifically part of their duties.

This claim that Clinton changed some rule to disarm troops is a lie. I joined in 79 and even then we could not carry weapons on or off duty on base unless it was directly related to a duty assignment.

In CONUS and overseas in non combat areas a military member is restricted from carrying a firearm unless specifically required by the duty assignment. And Clinton did not make that rule.

Pffft!
Facts!!!

 

[Clementine]

Dipshit, guns are already controlled there. And yet again it only encouraged a criminal because he knew no one would fire back. Got it, yet?

He would not have been able to go around for 20 minutes shooting people if the military were allowed to carry arms. It wasn't until an armed police officer showed up that things stopped. Could have been stopped a lot sooner.

​

Illinois liberals passed a law not too too long ago that requires all businesses to post that gun free zone sign on their front doors prominently. They did so at my work and I'm thinking I could end up dead in this place

Forcing people to post those signs is incredibly stupid. Even the gun control freaks wouldn't put those signs up at their homes, according to a poll a while back. It's because they know it's nothing but a tip off for criminals. I am waiting for some criminal to enter a place with a gun-free sign and sue because someone had a gun and fought back. I can just see the rogue lawyers claiming it would be unfair to "invite" a criminal in like that, then shoot them.

 

[Clementine]

The Military since before WW2 has not allowed troops on duty to carry firearms unless it was specifically part of their current duty to do so. And they have not allowed troops on duty to carry private firearms on base in uniform for just as long unless it was specifically part of their duties.

This claim that Clinton changed some rule to disarm troops is a lie. I joined in 79 and even then we could not carry weapons on or off duty on base unless it was directly related to a duty assignment.

In CONUS and overseas in non combat areas a military member is restricted from carrying a firearm unless specifically required by the duty assignment. And Clinton did not make that rule.

1969 Nixon DOD directive 5210.56

it has been updated from time to time

Long before Clinton or Obama. Don't get me wrong I do not like Obama and did not support Clinton, BUT blaming them for something they did not do is not something I support either.

Point is that known gun-free zones are hot zones for deranged killers. They gravitate towards places where they know people can't fight back. And some libs think putting up gun-free signs is the answer. If anyone has a permit for concealed carry, they should be able to carry one anywhere. Of course, the honest people get caught and severely punished. The killers get away with killing when they ignore the law.

 

[jon_berzerk]

1969 Nixon DOD directive 5210.56

it has been updated from time to time

Long before Clinton or Obama. Don't get me wrong I do not like Obama and did not support Clinton, BUT blaming them for something they did not do is not something I support either.

Point is that known gun-free zones are hot zones for deranged killers. They gravitate towards places where they know people can't fight back. And some libs think putting up gun-free signs is the answer. If anyone has a permit for concealed carry, they should be able to carry one anywhere. Of course, the honest people get caught and severely punished. The killers get away with killing when they ignore the law.

Point is that known gun-free zones are hot zones for deranged killers.

yes check this out

the newest twist on the gun free zone

A Safe passage worker is to walk children through gang turf on their way to school



Woman Robbed At Gunpoint By Man Posing As Safe Passage Worker

Neighbors say this is the third robbery on this block in the past three weeks.

CHICAGO (FOX 32 News) -
A prominent pastor's wife is still shaken up after she was robbed at gunpoint in front of their West Side home Wednesday.

Pricilla Hatch says the man who robbed her was wearing a fluorescent vest, similar to the kind worn by Safe Passage workers or even a utility worker.

The family lives just a few short blocks from a Safe Passage in the Austin neighborhood. Hatch was walking out of her home around 6:40 Wednesday morning when she was approached by the man.

She didn't think much about him walking in between the homes because of the vest he was wearing. That's when he walked up to her and pointed a gun in her face.

Woman robbed at gunpoint by man posing as Safe Passage worker - Chicago News and Weather | FOX 32 News

 

[Gracie]

I wonder...do military bases in other countries lock up arms from soldiers?

I'm just amazed this is the case here. We have people who want us DEAD. Remember 9/11? We are infidels...not worth air, to extremists. So our military...whom we rely on to protect us in the event of an invasion from our shores along with inside jobs of smaller jihad actions, are POWERLESS. Police departments, chp and sheriffs are being cut due to budgets, are not trained to take on a mass attack, and have to protect our military.

I just doesn't make sense!!

 

[Crystalclear]

The gun was probably illegal, so had nothing to do with gun laws.

 

[Politico]

No it was perfectly legal. And it had nothing to do with gun laws.

 

[Indofred]

Does this idiot realize that Fort Hood already has gun control, just like nearly every other place where mass shootings occurred? That is why the shooter was able to spend 20 minutes shooting and killing people before a cop showed up. Military people are well-trained and risk their lives defending their country. How about we let them defend themselves?

CNN’s Chris Cuomo Uses Fort Hood Shooting To Push Gun Control Agenda

Read more: CNN?s Chris Cuomo Uses Fort Hood Shooting To Push Gun Control Agenda | NewsBusters

Absolutely, yes.
An idiot with a legal gun goes man and kills people, so you lot need more legal guns on the streets.
Of course you do.

 

[ScienceRocks]

-Military bases need weapons, nut cases don't!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

-Military bases need weapons, nut cases don't!!!

Nutcases like weapons. It's part of why you know they're nuts...

 

[Geaux4it]

I like Archie's position on gun control.

-Geaux

[youtube]-lDb0Dn8OXE[/youtube]

 

[Geaux4it]

Does this idiot realize that Fort Hood already has gun control, just like nearly every other place where mass shootings occurred? That is why the shooter was able to spend 20 minutes shooting and killing people before a cop showed up. Military people are well-trained and risk their lives defending their country. How about we let them defend themselves?

CNN’s Chris Cuomo Uses Fort Hood Shooting To Push Gun Control Agenda

Read more: CNN?s Chris Cuomo Uses Fort Hood Shooting To Push Gun Control Agenda | NewsBusters

Absolutely, yes.
An idiot with a legal gun goes man and kills people, so you lot need more legal guns on the streets.
Of course you do.