Blood runs on US Military Bases Because Bill Clinton Made It So

(Update/Edit at the bottom)

I get sick and tired of gun controllers who give a smirk when they stick their nose in the air and pontificate about how they think “more guns less crime” is “proven wrong” when a shooting occurs on a military installation.

The latest two examples, Ft. Hood and the DC Naval Yard, found these snooty civilian deep-thinkers practically clucking about the amount of guns located on a military installation not being enough to stop a mass shooter.

I get upset not because they are right, but because they are so sickeningly wrong and their asinine assumptions are easily gobbled up by the uneducated.

You see, thanks to President Bill Clinton, in 1993 one of Clinton’s first moves against the 2nd Amendment was to disarm military personnel while on base.  Setting aside the irony that a draft dodger was issuing commands to the military, this action heralded the truth that gun controllers wanted a nation disarmed.

Think about it, while they have backtracked immensely over the past 2 decades, (with gun controllers now harping on “training”), back then they couldn’t even fathom trusting their OWN MILITARY with any firearms while off duty.

Unfortunately, while the ban on sporting rifles was allowed to sunset after 10 years, the stripping of constitutional rights of America’s fighting men and women has been left in place.  The result?  Over two dozen personnel left unable to defend themselves and thus murdered by mass shooters, thanks to Bill Clinton.

So yes, the people who most likely have the most amount of training in the country are denied the ability to carry a personal firearm while on military installations and as is true with any “Gun Free” Zone, are just easy pickings for any maniac who wants to go on jihad or a secular rampage.

This bit of logic does nothing to stymie the ghouls who will try and use this disarmament fueled tragedy to further their gun control agenda.

While Obama laments “yet another mass shooting” (as if they are common everywhere and not just criminal entitlement zones) his spokesmen Jay Carney spouts off the usual company line BS:

The president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common sense measures to reduce gun violence

Oh does he?  I wonder.  Because I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the majority of Americans believe that letting our military be armed on their OWN installations is some of that common sense Carney refers too.  Yet I doubt his boss would agree.

Then you have the West Coast Crone, Dianne Feinstein, who seems to slink out of her crypt whenever their is a gun death to spew here ghoulish rhetoric about the “litany of massacres” (really…a litany of massacres?):

Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country.  We must do more to stop this endless loss of life

When it comes to congress and governance in general, less is more.  Less gun restrictions and the elimination of “gun free” zones would see the bottom fall out of anyone’s plans who thought to go on a shooting spree.

But I doubt that Feinstein wants a debate like that.  I mean, we’ve been having the debate for years and liberty is winning.  Yet to her  and other gun controllers, the only debate is whether to move quickly or slowly in disarming the American people.

I hope it doesn’t take any more tragedy for those in Washington to extract their heads from their fourth point of contact and right the Clinton era wrong.  Allow the men and women of our military to defend themselves at home the way they defend us abroad…with a gun.

UPDATE/EDIT: While not discounting the Clinton’s administrations outright attack on the 2nd Amendment, it appears that the banning of firearms was merely RENEWED by President Clinton but initiated in 1992 by the first President Bush.

Just goes to show that infringing on constitutional rights knows no party.  Gun control causes enough blood to find its way onto many hands.

Send this to friend