advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

WE KNEW THIS WAS COMING. I'M SURPRISED IT TOOK THIS LONG

By
Neal Boortz
@ November 11, 2009 8:38 AM Permalink | Comments (67) | TrackBacks (0)

I really am surprised it took this long.  Usually after a tragedy involving a firearm, the anti-gun nuts are quicker on the trigger.  Stepping up to the moonbat microphone in the aftermath of the Ft. Hood shooting we have Chicago's Thug Mayor, Richard Daley.   Daley opines that this happened because of America's love of guns!  He says, "Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don't blame a group."

 

Americans don't love guns, you fool.  Americans love freedom; and American's cherish their right to own and to use firearms, if necessary, to defend those freedoms.  This truth is so basic that even Daley should understand it:  Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  There's another little saying that I like more.  "If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns."  Actually, that's not quite correct.  Only the government and the criminals will have guns.  And another little reminder: Blaming guns is the easy way out.  If you blame guns for violence in the inner city, you don't have to address the black culture of violence.  If you blame guns for Ft. Hood, you don't have to address the Islamic culture of violence.  You focus on objects, not people, and objects don't vote.  You're safe in your demagoguery. 

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: WE KNEW THIS WAS COMING. I'M SURPRISED IT TOOK THIS LONG.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/50568

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • rerex
    You said
    ----------
    Perhaps those incidents would have happened however, the extent of the carnage would likely been mitigated or reduced by an armed victim.
    -------

    By what measure are you arriving at that? This particular incident was a surprise attack with multiple weapons in the hands of a soldier. I don't consider myself an expert but, in a crowded room with two guns and the element of surprise, killing a dozen people seems highly probably, regardless of the number of guns they may be carrying.

    And what about schools - we can't arm kids. Are you proposing we arm all teachers? OK, fine. Given the circumstances of say, Columbine - how would that have effected the outcome? as I measure it based on the facts - not much, if at all.

    You said
    -----
    “knowing they might get shot” would in fact be a deterrent...this is a statistically proven fact.
    -----

    You also cited some studies at the end of your comment. Please provide links if you have them. I dont see how you can purport that a person who is intent on killing others as a prelude to their own death is deterred by knowledge that there may be others who are armed. It would seem to A)have the opposite effect if that is the desired outcome and B)absent schools, who thinks there is ZERO chance they would not get shot by entering into an action such as this?

    You said
    ------
    “I don't care how many people have guns. We dont walk around thinking we're going to be shot." Actually, that is not necessarily so.
    -----

    OK, let me rephrase by using the word "MOST". You would be a rare exception to 90+ percent of the general public.

    I'm not against guns. But incidents like this bring out the crazy in everyone, left and right. I think, on balance, we have fair gun laws that allow people to protect themselves. And it's impossible either with looser or stricter gun laws to prevent incidents like this from happening.

    The problems that led to this were a product of people not doing their jobs and allowing a problem to continue unabated out of the typical organizational response to problem people - let someone else deal with it.

    Not a problem of more or less guns.
    By snarkybird @ 11/17/09 03:03:24 PMreport abuse
  • @Snarkybird
    I have to agree with Snarky in context, however, Snarks: Perhaps those incidents would have happened however, the extent of the carnage would likely been mitigated or reduced by an armed victim.

    “I don't care how many people have guns. We dont walk around thinking we're going to be shot." Actually, that is not necessarily so. Most who have CCW undergo or have undergone training; most of which involves anticipating problems. I still cannot sit with my back to a door without some measure of discomfort (23 years of training is hard to undo). To answer the second part of your statement, armed patrons will diminish or at least reduce the likelihood of the nutcases’ success. They might kill some people, but if someone if firing back, their focus usually changes. Because we cannot have armed guards in schools or anywhere else, and because the LEO can't be everywhere at once, is the exact justification for having more trained, available CCW users.

    “and most of the people in those stories killed themselves immediately after their rampage.” This is irrelevant. The intent is to prevent, or at least modify the circumstances of the nutjob’s desired outcome. Personally, I would rather punch his ticket after he first starts his rampage than have himself commit suicide after killing five or ten innocents. Better to have and not need than need and not have.

    “knowing they might get shot” would in fact be a deterrent...this is a statistically proven fact. The problem is that so many opportunities exist to do harm, since so many places where potential victims gather are “Gun Free” or CCW hostile.

    Shit does happen, and the more proactive measures we take to prevent or alleviate it, the better off we are. Giving yourself to fate is not a very constructive course of action when you have the tools available. And numerous studies show that having more guns in legal CCW hands does, indeed, serve as a preventative measure.
    By Rex Machina @ 11/12/09 03:57:23 PMreport abuse
  • abusus non tollit usum
    nuff said
    By Shaun @ 11/12/09 12:47:34 AMreport abuse
  • Optimus secondary and others like
    True gun control is hitting your target. Any law that seeks to restrict firearms to people in the name of SAFFFETY is at best pablum and the guncontrol freaks love it.

    If guns make you uncomfortable then maybe you need to quit thinking it's all about you. Your insecurity is showing, feel a draft?

    Mayor Daily has more violence without guns than most other cities with guns, hows that for tolerance. They like high taxes, and high crime, two hallmarks of a corrupt government that has abrogated it true mission.
    By longun45 @ 11/11/09 11:56:26 PMreport abuse
  • Optimus secondary and others like
    True gun control is hitting your target. Any law that seeks to restrict firearms to people in the name of SAFFFETY is at best pablum and the guncontrol freaks love it.

    If guns make you uncomfortable then maybe you need to quit thinking it's all about you. Your insecurity is showing, feel a draft?

    Mayor Daily has more violence without guns than most other cities with guns, hows that for tolerance. They like high taxes, and high crime, two hallmarks of a corrupt government that has abrogated it true mission.
    By longun45 @ 11/11/09 11:55:19 PMreport abuse
  • WHO HAD THE GUN?????
    All soldiers were unarmed, except the "murderer". Good thing there was an armed policewoman there or they all would have been dead.
    By powerofone @ 11/11/09 11:39:11 PMreport abuse
  • TO off the reservation
    "On a post in our country, a soldier on guard duty should carry an M16, side arm, or night stick. That is when they are under direct control of officers/senior NCOs. Officers and NCOs are held to a very high standard of professionalism."

    Only if they can throw that night stick 340 meters per second, and it automatically reloads each time they do it.
    By Walt @ 11/11/09 09:00:46 PMreport abuse
  • reaceotrmefein
    I am not for more gun control.

    I am also not so naive to think more people having guns will prevent things like this from happening.

    but leave it to you clowns to take something like this and make it a pet for your cause.
    By snarkybird @ 11/11/09 04:29:56 PMreport abuse
  • Guns don't kill people..
    I kill people.
    By THUG @ 11/11/09 04:27:41 PMreport abuse
  • Ummm... yeah. A few tings
    First, mayor dude is quoted as saying: "America loves Guns" and "You don't blame a group"

    Do those two statements strike anyone else as self-contradictory? Isn't "America" a group? Extending further, aren't "gun owners," "inner city gangs," "whitey," "blackie," "muslims," etc all groups? Does he believe what he's saying or is he just pontificating to hear himself talk? All generalizations are bad, m'kay. 83.6% of statistics are made up on the spot. And all extremists should be shot. And people should get beat up for stating their beliefs (I want a shoehorn, with teeth!)

    And number next: technology only makes things "easier" or "faster" but doesn't necessarily change a person automatically or by default of technology existing. The intent or desire to harm/kill another human being comes first, then a means to that end is found: examples could be gun, knife, stick, grenade, poison, car, boiling water, hands, feet, bodily fluids... whatever's handy. Banning the means to the end is useless because so long as there's a will, there will be a way. I guess that means we have to remove all desires from humanity. Good luck with that. Hard enough to police myself, I don't have the time or energy to police anyone else. But I'm sure there's someone who feels they know how each of us should think, feel, and act better than anyone else. *shrug* What are they gonna do if I disagree? Shoot me?
    By A. Nony Mouse @ 11/11/09 03:57:08 PMreport abuse
  • By snarkybird @ 11/11/09 02:51:44 PM
    Snarkybird,

    The discussion really needs to be more broad than the specific instances you cite. The defensive use or presence of a handgun or rifle has prevented many other crimes.

    In the extreme instances you cite, those are sick people determined to cause violence and die doing so.

    Hypothetically, if one of them were to show up in our presence then I would gladly respect your right to not carry as I would hope you would respect mine to carry. Understanding that at this point we are dealing with probabilities, if that sick person shot and dropped you first it would give me an opportunity to DRT him and stop further bloodshed.

    Generally, when I am faced with a life threatening situation I try to survive. I mean, I try. It is just a thought.
    By off the reservation @ 11/11/09 03:24:26 PMreport abuse
  • snarkybird is a good example of the party of Projection – formerly the progressive (or Socialist) party.
    Snarkybird: “man, you just have really fallen off the quality curve here chief. “
    Snarkybird: “ask yourself - If only were armed the would NEVER HAVE HAPPENED...?”
    I'm not really sure what you're asking there – but maybe you're asking if only they were armed that would never have happened?

    Nobody is saying that it would stop them completely, but the only was this sort of thing can be stopped is by another gun.
    Terrorists like the one at Ft Hood chose a place with unarmed victims.
    Snarkybird: like?
    “http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512480,00.html “
    What was you point on that – it doesn't say whether they were gun free zones or not – was you point that the Associated press is biased against guns?

    Well you've got me there all right. Touche
    By ACE @ 11/11/09 03:23:30 PMreport abuse
  • Bill Clinton helped create the on-base gun ban
    I read an article from the NRA that sited this one about how Clinton started and Bush II continued the idiocy of keeping firearms out of the hands of -- soldiers!

    http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2009/11/clinton-bush-gun-control-enabled-fort-hood-massacre/
    By Bill Ritch @ 11/11/09 03:22:28 PMreport abuse
  • Armed victims
    Snark, trust me, your aim goes all to hell the second your victims start to return fire. So armed victims CAN reduce fatalities.

    And what part of "shall not be infringed: don't you understand?
    By MeFein @ 11/11/09 03:17:54 PMreport abuse
  • @Gavin Voliare
    Gavin: While you think that your intentions are noble, history has proven you wrong. Every time governments take arms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, crime goes up. Also, remember the saying, when guns are outlawed, only the government and outlaws will have guns.

    Furthermore even the Founding Fathers put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution because without the 2nd, there can't in effect be any of the others.
    By Libertarian Voter @ 11/11/09 03:02:04 PMreport abuse
  • reace
    man, you just have really fallen off the quality curve here chief.

    You said "why do most of these kinds of attacks take place where the assailants know that their victims will be unarmed?"

    like?

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512480,00.html

    ask yourself - If only were armed the would NEVER HAVE HAPPENED...?

    I don't care how many people have guns. We dont walk around thinking we're going to be shot. Someone comes into a place like a cafeteria or a school or place of business and opens fire - they're gonna kill people. Many people. Even if some of them are armed. So, what, we arm school children?

    even with armed guards in schools or anywhere else, they can't be everywhere at once.

    and most of the people in those stories killed themselves immediately after their rampage.

    which leads me to believe, knowing they might get shot wouldnt really be a deterrent.

    sh*t happens. we do what we can to prevent it. end of story. more or less guns wont change it. EVER.
    By snarkybird @ 11/11/09 02:51:44 PMreport abuse
  • Gun Control
    Don't have time to write anything, I'm off to the gun range (thank you vets for the freedom to do this and everything else).

    Remember, gun control is have a tight grouping.
    By Jim @ 11/11/09 02:43:06 PMreport abuse
  • New strategy for Afghanistan
    Mayor Daley has it right. We should take all the guns away from the Afghanistan citizens. Then we can walk away knowing they will live in peace for all eternity.
    By fargo @ 11/11/09 02:14:17 PMreport abuse
  • further clarification of remarks to butt neckid
    If I was still in the US Army, I believe that my concerns would come down to this.

    If I am in command of unit where all soldiers have drawn their primary weapons I had better be occupying another country or heading to a training range. There is something chilling about a well-armed and highly-trained army in my country with the capacity to inflict severe lethal destruction. It grinds against any notion of liberty, freedom, and the rights of man in a country founded on these basic principles.

    On a post, for the purposes of training, then we do what we need to do to prepare our soldiers to fight to win. On the other hand, the appearance of martial law in my own country is a very serious matter.

    It is my opinion, that officers and very high ranking NCOs carrying side arms on a DoD installation do not portray the same chilling image of having our own army occupying our country with soldiers brandishing M16s. I believe that we could accomplish the mission of being vigilant against another MAG Hasan at this level.

    From the email that I received from the people that I know in that area, nobody had a chance. It was a killing field. Everybody was stranded in a field of fire and not one person could neutralize the threat.
    By off the reservation @ 11/11/09 01:43:52 PMreport abuse
  • Guns don't kill people, people kill people
    If you were to take a historical view of gun control or, more precisely weapon control, you will find that indeed guns don't kill people, people kill people.

    In feudal Japan, weapons were outlawed. Only the Samurai were allowed weapons and armor. The result was the transformation of Karate (empty hand)from an exercise into a combat system.

    People who had their weapons taken from them, developed a fighting system that trained and turned a empty handed human into a weapon. The next logical step was to develop a means to turn everyday ordinary tools into lethal weapons. Most of the todays Martial Arts weapons were once run of the mill farm tools.

    So if we learn from the lessons of history, we will find that if you take a weapon away from the people, they will find another way (weapon) to kill/protect themselves. Thus:
    Guns (Weapons) don't kill people, people kill people. They always have, they always will!
    By Rob Wagoner @ 11/11/09 01:25:48 PMreport abuse
  • Freedom
    Unlike this other being going around claiming to be me, I believe freedom is the right of all sentient beings. This includes the freedom to protect yourself and the freedom to exercise what you humans call your second amendment rights.
    By G1 Optimus Prime @ 11/11/09 12:50:33 PMreport abuse
  • they should ban.........................
    many years ago while consumin' mass quantities of adult malted beverages.....a friend of mine.....yea I had A frien' once'st.....who was a member of our special warfare guys... tol' me he knew 37 ways to kill with a wooden toothpick.......

    resturants put those weapons right next to the cash register!!!!! holy crap we gotta ban those damn things.......sumbuddy could put an eye out.......

    oh yeah......later that night we 'xchanged our toothpicks for muscle cars......nobuddy died cuz of us that night.......couldn't find no stinkin' muslims........
    By butt neckid @ 11/11/09 12:48:09 PMreport abuse
  • By butt neckid @ 11/11/09 10:58:26 AM
    Understand your concern.

    If I had my CSM back today he would gladly carry the side arm and I would not worry about anything else. Frankly, he was the meanest SOB on the planet and proud of it. The best example of a STRAC military man I have ever witnessed.

    In a barracks situation in our country, I become concerned about a fully armed standing army. I have witnessed oppression in a foreign land. Soldiers with truncheons, AK47's, clubs, is how a population is suppressed and disgusting dictators stay in power. The power to use those soldiers is in the hands of the officers and senior NCOs. The fact that our country is still one of the few places left where our army does not walk around carrying M16s, bayonets, clubs on our streets is something to be proud of.

    On a post in our country, a soldier on guard duty should carry an M16, side arm, or night stick. That is when they are under direct control of officers/senior NCOs. Officers and NCOs are held to a very high standard of professionalism.

    MAJ Hasan was a fluke. Frankly, with the OERs he is alleged to have had, he should never have been promoted. In general, an officer/senior NCO holds their oath above everything else.

    If the officers/senior NCOs in proximity to that Islamic terrorist were carrying side arms then I seriously doubt that MAJ Hasan would have done the damage that he did. If I was still serving and called upon, I would gladly wear my side arm and lawfully use it as called upon by the US Constitution, our laws, and the lawful direction of my chain of command.

    From my day in the service, a general officer could carry a side arm on his post anytime and anywhere that he chose. So there is some precedent for it. It now becomes a matter of how far to extend that.

    This is my opinion and I would hope that someone in the Pentagon is having this discussion.
    By off the reservation @ 11/11/09 12:36:39 PMreport abuse
  • Optimus Prime
    your fists? hahahahahahahahahahaha
    hahahahahahahahaha
    maybe you should use your purse too.
    hahahahahaha
    By Jeff @ 11/11/09 12:32:00 PMreport abuse
  • Dont mind it at all
    I dont mind being a pansy. Im a lover, not a fighter.

    Make Love not war. (but cleaning guns sounds more fun than making love hahahaha)
    By Optimus Prime @ 11/11/09 12:28:22 PMreport abuse
  • Here's an analogy
    Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming the cross for killing Christ.
    By Martin McFly @ 11/11/09 12:12:34 PMreport abuse
  • @ By Will @ 11/11/09 11:36:02 AM
    You said: "we should ban ALL guns. The military will just have to use harsh language" Don't be ridiculous. That is an asinine statement. But I like the train of thought. What if we gave them tazers instead of guns? We could then capture the "so called" enemy and put them in jail until the unjust war is over. That would save lives and no won would have to worry about dying from some strey bullet.
    By Gavin Voliare @ 11/11/09 12:12:15 PMreport abuse
  • The real reason
    And another little reminder: Blaming guns is the easy way out. If you blame guns for violence in the inner city, you don't have to address the black culture of violence. If you blame guns for Ft. Hood, you don't have to address the Islamic culture of violence. You focus on objects, not people, and objects don't vote. You're safe in your demagoguery.

    This statement from Neal is the absolute truth. The anti-gun croud is also the same group that will never find any reason to criticize the inner-city "culture". Blaming "whitey" worked for a while, but guns can't complain of reverse racism.
    By Carlos @ 11/11/09 12:11:11 PMreport abuse
  • Snarky
    WTF??? I agree with you????
    Well said.
    By Jeff @ 11/11/09 12:09:08 PMreport abuse
  • snarkybird “more gun control wont stop it.” That's the first intelligent and logical thing sb has said in a long time.
    That strawman of “idiocy of the idea of everyone on base carrying a firearm.”,really isn't the point – the point is to let the people who protect our nation protect themselves.

    At least let them carry concealed – concealed carry has been proven by logic and time to reduce crime – Hey that rhythms!

    Ahem.... you were wrong on the part about 'more guns will make incidents like this less common',
    again that isn't evident in the statistics and by logic, why do most of these kinds of attacks take place where the assailants know that their victims will be unarmed?
    By ACE @ 11/11/09 11:59:05 AMreport abuse
  • For once I agree with Snarky
    ...well your first post anyway.

    As for the second post... all could have been avoided if he bothered to learn the language of the country before going!

    Congrats Gavin you definately lived up to your "Gayvin" nickname today.
    By Rullivan @ 11/11/09 11:55:16 AMreport abuse
  • if we...............................
    what do you think would happen if we shot a few hunnert of them scumsuckin'politicians and anti gun folks.......

    I bet they would blame it on wacko nutjobs.......

    I would say practice...... practice.....practice.....

    deep breath....let it out slowly.......squeeeeeeze.......

    oh crap did I just write that???? it must be the "new" meds....or "THEY" made me do it.......
    By butt neckid @ 11/11/09 11:46:09 AMreport abuse
  • guns kill people just like
    heroin kills people. Oh wait...that one is true. In all seriousness I own a gun and respect everyone else's right to own one but there are literally millions of people who the thought of them owning one scares the stew out of me. We can start with 20 year olds who play first shooter video games all day and think it's "cool" to own a glock or desert eagle. We can move on to guys who get in bar fights. Skip right on to people so emotionally out of control that they want a piece of someone who cuts them off in traffic. Give it enough time and we can all come up with a lot of people who have no business owning a gun even though they have the right to do so.
    By Todd @ 11/11/09 11:41:12 AMreport abuse
  • Gavins Comments
    How can we give them guns as they leave the country? Then they would be in danger again! No sir, we should ban ALL guns. The military will just have to use harsh language and be able to run really fast.
    By Will @ 11/11/09 11:36:02 AMreport abuse
  • @Optimus Prime and Gavin
    Please turn in your testicles. It is clear that you are getting no use out of them, whatsoever.

    If you're really zealous in your ridiculous convictions and have the stones to do so, I implore you to have a sign printed to put in your front-yard which says,

    "Gun-Free Zone"

    Let's see how long it takes for your candy-asses to become a victim of some predator who couldn't give two flips about your enlightened position.

    Wise up. Man up.
    By Recondaddy @ 11/11/09 11:32:57 AMreport abuse
  • COWARD jimmyfantanabriandolan optimus
    Hey you stonless COWARD, Why don't you put up a sign in front of your section 8 housing "This is a gun free trailer" Didn't think so you gutless puke. What's it like being such a pansy?
    By Fred @ 11/11/09 11:26:57 AMreport abuse
  • No guns on me
    There are no guns on me, I use my fists. Other Transformers have guns on them.

    If anything, conservatives should use the argument: "Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my guns"
    By Optimus Prime @ 11/11/09 11:22:12 AMreport abuse
  • Derrion Alberts
    Tell Mayor Daily he needs to ban 2x4s so senseless killings of people like Derrion Alberts do not get perpitrated. Tell you what Mayor, get your house in order, then you can tell the rest of us how to live our lives. On second thought...just keep your ideas and thoughts to yourself until they are based on logic and reason.
    By Marty @ 11/11/09 11:13:41 AMreport abuse
  • another take
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/peas-in-a-jihadinspired-pod.html

    this is the other side of your "moonbat" reaction to things like this.
    By snarkybird @ 11/11/09 11:04:42 AMreport abuse
  • jist a minit there.....................
    OFF THE RESERVATION.........your want officers and senior ncos to be allowed to carry........

    ok.......butt wasn't the stinkin' muslim murderer a major??????

    and didn't you used to be an officer???? with that kind of thought process.........E-6/W-1 thru E-9/W-4 should carry......no 0's....
    By butt neckid @ 11/11/09 10:58:26 AMreport abuse
  • not my.............................
    once they (who the hell is they) get our guns.........will they (damn it who is they) come after our pitch forks and feathers........they (ok who the hell is they) ain't gittin' my tar......
    By butt neckid @ 11/11/09 10:41:58 AMreport abuse
  • magic
    If you believe more guns will make incidents like this less common, you might as well also believe that the govt can protect you from all bad things.

    there is no law or cure or magic policy that will prevent things like this from happening.

    more gun control wont stop it. more guns wont stop it.

    we'd all be better off if we just accepted that sometimes, people will do horrible things and that reasonable, law abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves with firearms.

    and anyone who has been in the military knows full well the idiocy of the idea of everyone on base carrying a firearm.

    let's all get a grip here. this is why terrorism is effective. because it shocks the senses and makes people feel like things need to be done to change/react/fix our world so it never happens again. and that inevitably leads to overreaction and ridiculous ideas.
    By snarkybird @ 11/11/09 10:39:04 AMreport abuse
  • HR-45
    the liberal plan to confiscate all of your weapons....
    By Jeff` @ 11/11/09 10:37:46 AMreport abuse
  • Daley
    Only Daley and the rest of the THUG government officials should be disarmed.
    It ain't the guns in the hands of the citizens. It's the power hungry communists in government positions that is dangerous.
    By Laughing @ 11/11/09 10:33:44 AMreport abuse
  • Gavin and OP
    Gavin...maybe it will come to it one day when this country is on the brink of ruination at the hands of your liberal/socialist/communist masters.
    Hey optimus prime...your name shows just how stupid you are when bad mouthing gun ownership...yours are built in you dumbass. better use one of your other screenames.
    By Jeff @ 11/11/09 10:29:06 AMreport abuse
  • Military guns
    It seems to me this incident would have been over much sooner if the members of the Army, who are highly trained in the use of their weapons, were actually allowed to carry and use them on their own base. That Muslim terrorist scum would have been DRT before he could fire the first shot, and 13 lives would have been spared. As it turns out, due to idiotic gun laws, the criminal was the only one there who had a gun until the police officer showed up. How does this in any way support the gun control argument? The bad guy had a gun in a gun-controlled area, and he was the only one who did. Morons.
    By Jason @ 11/11/09 10:15:37 AMreport abuse
  • The National Socialist Democrat Party had better come to grips how utterly stupid your little commenter elves have become. They are rapidly becoming the face of the NSDP.
    They don't have anything meaningful to add to the discussion, they just throw out moronic statements like ' We should ban all guns. '

    Yeah, just like in England and Australia where gun crime skyrocketed after the people who obeyed the law registered and then had to gave up their guns.

    And after they promised everyone that they wouldn't confiscate them, just register them.
    By Leaving this blank for privacy reasons @ 11/11/09 10:14:33 AMreport abuse
  • Fort Hood Shooting and Guns Rights
    All military bases have very strict gun regulations. Most people living on base feel safe because strict regulations and security/law enforcement carried on base. That's the reason the victims didn't have the means to defend themselves. The fact the the shooter was the only one with a gun, other than the MPs, attest to that. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they gave us the right to own and bear arms.
    By Tony @ 11/11/09 09:58:10 AMreport abuse
  • Maybe some of you people from the National Socialist Democrat Party should explain why to a lot of these shootings occur in place that are posted as 'Gun-free'.
    - Y'all should be able to do that – you like to promote yourselves as experts on pretty much everything, Including Guns.

    - How did that terrorist get that gun into a Gun-free zone in the first place?

    -Didn't he KNOW that he was breaking the law, and that he could go to Jail for it?
    By anonymous @ 11/11/09 09:51:37 AMreport abuse
  • Weren't these murders done with an ILLEGAL gun?
    Because military bases require all personal firearms to be registered and kept under lock and key at a central location, these murders were committed with an ILLEGAL gun. Possession and use of this firearms was ALREADY illegal.
    By David Granger @ 11/11/09 09:48:14 AMreport abuse
  • Chicago stiff
    People like Daly will continue to refuse to acknowledge the true root causes of crimes associated with our hand guns. Look at his town torn up by sub scum criminals. Not law abiding hand gun owners. Real leaders would address the true root causes of the violence and take proactive steps to minimize or eliminate them. This country is basically running out of true leaders with respect for our rights and we’re left with the pitiful likes of Daly and company. It’s scary to think that people will continue to elect total stiffs like him.
    By Steve Boston @ 11/11/09 09:42:22 AMreport abuse
  • Daley
    You have to understand Daley is talking about you and me not having guns. It's perfectly acceptable for his politicians and his permanent squad of bodyguards to be armed at all times. By law in Chicago politicians are deputies and thus are allowed to carry, but it's illegal for a citizen of Chicago to be armed.
    By Capt. Jack @ 11/11/09 09:38:16 AMreport abuse
  • Seen on a bumper sticker.....
    Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    By Cheryl @ 11/11/09 09:36:45 AMreport abuse
  • Another good saying in case you haven't heard it
    If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words.
    By FreeToChoose @ 11/11/09 09:34:42 AMreport abuse
  • Another Golden Rule
    He who has the guns rules!

    And Mayor Daley would like to assure that American Citizens don't have guns so that he and his ilk may be amongst those who have the guns and rule.
    By Bill @ 11/11/09 09:30:33 AMreport abuse
  • gun control on DoD installations
    As many people know, or do not know, gun ownership is regulated on DoD installations. No concealed carry. Maybe after this incident someone in the Pentagon might look at having all officers, warrant officers, and sergeant majors (E-9 level) carry side arms.

    As long as those whack job liberals want to allow Islamic terrorists to roam freely in our country it seems only "fair" (all you filthy piss-ant liberals should understand the word fair) that we allow for members of our armed forces to do what they sign up do to, DEFEND US!
    By off the reservation @ 11/11/09 09:28:20 AMreport abuse
  • Daley should have to follow the Saul Lewinsky dictate of living by his own Rules – If he wants everyone else unarmed and defenseless, he should be unarmed and defenseless.
    Lead by example Dufis and tell you security detail to get rid of their guns.
    By Seattle Sid @ 11/11/09 09:22:59 AMreport abuse
  • Correct me if I'm wrong
    but a gun ended the massacre at Ft. Hood, didn't it? Doesn't that gun get any credit?
    By John Galt @ 11/11/09 09:22:38 AMreport abuse
  • Guns are for creeps
    What do gun owners and child pedophiles have in common? They are both CREEPS. I dont even know which one is dumber

    Gunowners are too stupid to find the grocery store, are scared in their fallout shelter of aliens, or are complete dorkos who think it is a cool collection.

    My favorite is the excuse when their kids blow their brains out. "well it was in a secure location". You had a gun in the house you moron.

    I also love this government argument. So you dont want the military or policemen to have guns??? My gosh conservatives are crazy. What are you afraid of?
    By Optimus Prime @ 11/11/09 09:14:46 AMreport abuse
  • Guns killing people
    Guns kill people just like cameras cause pornography and performance vehicles cause speeding.
    By Wayne @ 11/11/09 09:13:50 AMreport abuse
  • This makes me think of my favorite bumpersticker...
    "My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car".
    By Jennifer @ 11/11/09 09:04:34 AMreport abuse
  • I've Said It Before
    I wish this jerk in Texas had done the MUSLIM thing and used a bomb vest. It would be a real treat then, watching media lackeys and fools like Dick Daley try to steer the talk away from Islamist terrorism, which is exactly what occured at Fort Hood, and everyone damn well knows it.
    By Randy W @ 11/11/09 09:04:16 AMreport abuse
  • Diseased
    If ever you had any doubts that liberalism is a mental disorder, this should confirm it. So, what does this ignorant dolt propose? that we strip our military and their bases of guns???
    By Club-a-Liberal @ 11/11/09 09:02:17 AMreport abuse
  • Mayor Daley
    You sir, are an idiot.
    This happened because this Muslim was conflicted and couldn't keep it together.
    GUNS, sir, had nothing to do with the WHY.
    Had it not been guns, it would have been a bomb, car, AIRPANE !!
    He was going to commit these acts regardless of the weapon.
    Can you anti-gun people at least provide a cogent argument?
    By Kevin @ 11/11/09 08:56:52 AMreport abuse
  • Guns don't kill people
    Bullets do
    By Norm814 @ 11/11/09 08:54:08 AMreport abuse
  • Guns?
    That was a military base. They are supposed to have guns.
    By Humbug @ 11/11/09 08:49:40 AMreport abuse
  • If they...
    If those who were trained to use guns couldn't defend themselves, what makes you think anyone can. We should ban all guns. Those Army people couldn't even take the man down. What has our military become? We should ban all guns and only give them to troops as they leave this country. What is to prevent them from taking over our government with all these guns?
    By Gavin Voliare @ 11/11/09 08:47:58 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement