Daley Speaks about Ft. Hood Shootings

[ryr8828]

Chicago Mayor Daley Blames Fort Hood On America’s Love Of Guns! (http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-hood-on-americas-love-of-guns/)

by Andrew Marcus (http://biggovernment.com/author/amarcus) On Monday, Chicago Mayor Daley blamed the Ft. Hood Jihad Massacre on America’s love of guns!
“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.”
http://biggovernment.com/files/2009/11/daley.jpg
The Mayor is using a straw-man argument that conveniently provides him with an opportunity to politicize the terrorist attack as part and parcel with America’s love of guns.
Mayor Daley, and other politicians, like to blame gun violence on the guns themselves because that is so much easier than admitting any inconvenient (politically incorrect) truths which might be revealed if they were to place blame where it belongs.
Kids murdering each other in the inner city? That’s because of guns, not the War On Drugs which turns poor children into black market drug distributing gang members.

Islamists murdering people while shouting Allah Akbar? That’s because of guns, not the Jihad being perpetrated globally against all so called “infidels”.
They blame guns because guns don’t vote.
Taking Mayor Daley at face value for a moment, is he seriously arguing for increased gun control on a military base? If there had been more guns around, this ticking Jihad bomb could have been put down a lot faster than he was.
http://biggovernment.com/files/2009/11/daley_still.jpg
Click image to view video (http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/11/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-hood-on-americas-love-of-guns/)
With no pogrom backlash after 9/11, no pogrom backlash after Bali, no pogrom backlash after Madrid, no pogrom backlash after London, no pogrom backlash after Mumbai, no backlash after countless other Jihad attacks, why would there be any reason to believe the reaction would be any different in this case? As we have written before, (http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/11/dont-worry-about-the-anti-muslim-backlash/) the West has already passed this particular civility test.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-hood-on-americas-love-of-guns/

[KinjaKahn]

LOL what a self serving moron. The US Army shouldn't have guns now... Liberals, like this bloody plug enable the enemy.

[becherr]

LOL what a self serving moron. The US Army shouldn't have guns now... Liberals, like this bloody plug enable the enemy.

He wasn't the enemy. He was a confused Army Officer with a Muslim back ground/faith screaming "God is good" in his native tongue. If we call it as it is we may have to realized that our Military has been infaltrated, but then they would have to admit that gangs have already infiltrated.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

LOL what a self serving moron. The US Army shouldn't have guns now... Liberals, like this bloody plug enable the enemy. Many liberals' view of the military is that it should be yet another welfare program but with ships and tanks and stuff you used to play with as a kid.

It shouldn't, however, involve actual 'guns' or bullets.

[ryr8828]

Time after time, public murder sprees occur in "gun-free zones" - public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week's slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.
Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.
Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That's why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage.
Everyone wants to keep people safe - and no one denies Mr. Clinton's good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal - or in this case, the terrorist.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?"
It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton's deadly rules even disarmed officers, the most trusted members of the military charged with leading enlisted soldiers in combat. Six of the dead and wounded had commissions.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Research also shows that the presence of more guns limits the damage mass murderers can unleash. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone - soldier, civilian or law enforcement - arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack. All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.
Thirteen dead bodies in a Texas morgue are the ultimate fruit of gun-control illogic - in which guns are so feared that government regulation even tries to keep them out of the hands of trained soldiers. With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can end Mr. Clinton's folly and allow U.S. soldiers to protect themselves. Because we clearly cannot protect our soldiers from harm, the least we owe them is the right to protect themselves.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/?feat=home_editorials

[domenick2x]

It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not that every soldier should be required to be armed at all times, but I'd think it'd be optional in most cases, mandatory in certain cases.

[Iron Jaw]

Daley is very ignorant - and just as crooked as his father.

Typical Chicago politician.

[hannitykillspuppies]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/?feat=home_editorials

everyone should carry a gun at all times wherever they go. that will solve the problem of batshit crazy people. no one ever got killed in the wild west.

[Iron Jaw]

everyone should carry a gun at all times wherever they go. that will solve the problem of batshit crazy people. no one ever got killed in the wild west.

At least in the wild west when murderers were caught, justice was swift (whether by a judge or prairie justice). Today, guys like Richard "Nightstalker" Ramirez (murdered 13 and wounded 29) remain on death row for over 20 years in California. And a portion of the gang-bang murders are often not solved (especially when it is one gang-banger taking out another - I guess that is modern "prairie justice.").

I carry much of the time. On duty, of course, it's a given. Off-duty it's my option - I can carry concealed everywhere in the U.S. including on conveyances. When I travel, about the only time I do not transport my weapon and credentials is when I'm leaving the country.

Anyway, Daley's Chicago has strict gun laws.

And a high gun-murder rate..............which shows that people who plan on committing felonies could care less about a gun law. To them, a gun law is about the least of charges that could be thrown in their direction.

[ryr8828]

everyone should carry a gun at all times wherever they go. that will solve the problem of batshit crazy people. no one ever got killed in the wild west.
No matter which way you turn this it's still almost too ignorant to respond to.

Law abiding people are the only ones who can't defend themselves. Soldiers fight in foreign countries but are denied the ability to defend themselves in our own country on a military base. What if 15 terrorists attacked a military base?

[MTVike]

Not that every soldier should be required to be armed at all times, but I'd think it'd be optional in most cases, mandatory in certain cases.

The military bases I've been on are just like small cities/towns. They are probably more free from crime because they restrict who can be there.

I'm sure IJ and Becherr can weigh in here.

[hannitykillspuppies]

At least in the wild west when murderers were caught, justice was swift (whether by a judge or prairie justice). Today, guys like Richard "Nightstalker" Ramirez (murdered 13 and wounded 29) remain on death row for over 20 years in California. And a portion of the gang-bang murders are often not solved (especially when it is one gang-banger taking out another - I guess that is modern "prairie justice.").

I carry much of the time. On duty, of course, it's a given. Off-duty it's my option - I can carry concealed everywhere in the U.S. including on conveyances. When I travel, about the only time I do not transport my weapon and credentials is when I'm leaving the country.

Anyway, Daley's Chicago has strict gun laws.

And a high gun-murder rate..............which shows that people who plan on committing felonies could care less about a gun law. To them, a gun law is about the least of charges that could be thrown in their direction.
right. so when they see the person who is the victim of their felony crime reaching for their gun, they're just going to let the victim draw on them and take them down.

[hannitykillspuppies]

No matter which way you turn this it's still almost too ignorant to respond to.

Law abiding people are the only ones who can't defend themselves. Soldiers fight in foreign countries but are denied the ability to defend themselves in our own country on a military base. What if 15 terrorists attacked a military base?

what if you could carry guns on a military base and none of the victims were last thursday? would we then have to make it mandatory that everyone must carry a weapon?

how are they getting on to the base?

[ryr8828]

what if you could carry guns on a military base and none of the victims were last thursday? would we then have to make it mandatory that everyone must carry a weapon?

how are they getting on to the base?

Then they would have had their right to self defense and refused it. It wouldn't be because Big Brother didn't allow it.

Don't make it sound like such a burden, when people join the service it seems inherent that they will need to fire a weapon.

[Iron Jaw]

The military bases I've been on are just like small cities/towns. They are probably more free from crime because they restrict who can be there.

I'm sure IJ and Becherr can weigh in here.

I haven't lived full time on an active duty base since I was at Camp Lejeune in the 70's. At that time we had access to our M-16 (in a rifle rack right near our bed rack - about 6 M-16's were on the rack - one cable which we all had a combo to wend through each rifle, and each rifle had an individul combo). Now even though we were really only supposed to get ammo from the armory, about 99.9 percent of us kept a few mags in our wall locker (each wall locker had a civilian side and a military uniform side - during inspections they looked at the military side). So, we had access to the weapons. Likewise, a good portion of us kept a pistol or other weapon in our POV. Most of us had firearms or access to our miliatry firearms. But, most of us were also decent people.

Bases are generally safe because of the order, discipline and they are run like a police state to be completely honest. And 99 percent of the guys and gals are respectable citizens. Yes, we had crime on the base - and off, but the penalties for getting into trouble on base were considerably more severe than in the civilian world. Fines and work details for not wearing a clean uniform (variety of issues - shoes/boots not shined, uniform not pressed, utility cover not starched....really dating myself.....talking back to a superior....well, the latter could get a Marine office hours (non-judicial punishment) or the brig and a court martial.

Oh, there were fights. So long as they were fair, between enlisted men and it was a one-on-one thing, the senior NCO's monitored it and broke it up if it got out of hand (giving the guys the option to take it to the gym with gloves and rules).

Living in an open-bay squadbay was a unique experience - something everyone should experience. One that I will always remember (and cherish to some degree), but not a preferred lifestyle.

I doubt that many civilians (especially veterans) would want to live with that type of order again.

The second time I went in the Marines was in a reserve unit and I was a commissioned officer. The reserve centers are considerably different though training does often take place on an active duty base. I was active duty for almost a year while I was training to become an officer (12 week OCS, 6 month basic school, 3-month officer occupational school and a short assignment as a Series Exec at MCRD San Diego, before I reported back to MACS-23 in Denver).

[Iron Jaw]

what if you could carry guns on a military base and none of the victims were last thursday? would we then have to make it mandatory that everyone must carry a weapon?

how are they getting on to the base?


What do you mean by that? Do you mean, how would the Marines (soldiers, airmen, seamen) bring them onto the base - for those who live off base? Most live on base, but those who live off base would transport their own in a vehicle I guess (like many do anyway). Any military issued weapon would remain on base and picked up when they arrived to work.

Or - do you mean how did the terrorist bring a weapon on base? If that's the case, as I mentioned, it is not hard to access an M-16 on base to be completely honest - especially for a major. It is also not difficult to bring your own weapons on base. The MP's at the gate (and you won't always find MP's any more - many have gone to private security to work the gates.....which I think is stupid, but many bases do it) do not stop and inspect every single vehicle that comes on base.

When my younger brother was serving, everyone had access to the M-16's but not the ammo (as I said, that was also a rule when I served, but it was ignored for the most part). However, it would be relatively easy to snatch a few rounds from the combat ranges - or buy your own. The .223 (5.56mm) caliber is a common round that can be purchased at any sporting goods store that sells rifles and pistols.

[hannitykillspuppies]

What do you mean by that? Do you mean, how would the Marines (soldiers, airmen, seamen) bring them onto the base - for those who live off base? Most live on base, but those who live off base would transport their own in a vehicle I guess (like many do anyway). Any military issued weapon would remain on base and picked up when they arrived to work.

Or - do you mean how did the terrorist bring a weapon on base? If that's the case, as I mentioned, it is not hard to access an M-16 on base to be completely honest - especially for a major. It is also not difficult to bring your own weapons on base. The MP's at the gate (and you won't always find MP's any more - many have gone to private security to work the gates.....which I think is stupid, but many bases do it) do not stop and inspect every single vehicle that comes on base.

When my younger brother was serving, everyone had access to the M-16's but not the ammo (as I said, that was also a rule when I served, but it was ignored for the most part). However, it would be relatively easy to snatch a few rounds from the combat ranges - or buy your own. The .223 (5.56mm) caliber is a common round that can be purchased at any sporting goods store that sells rifles and pistols.

i was referring to the last sentence of his post.

[becherr]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/?feat=home_editorials

Time after time, public murder sprees occur in "gun-free zones" - public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week's slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.
Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.
Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That's why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage.
Everyone wants to keep people safe - and no one denies Mr. Clinton's good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal - or in this case, the terrorist.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?"
It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton's deadly rules even disarmed officers, the most trusted members of the military charged with leading enlisted soldiers in combat. Six of the dead and wounded had commissions.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Research also shows that the presence of more guns limits the damage mass murderers can unleash. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone - soldier, civilian or law enforcement - arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack. All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.
Thirteen dead bodies in a Texas morgue are the ultimate fruit of gun-control illogic - in which guns are so feared that government regulation even tries to keep them out of the hands of trained soldiers. With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can end Mr. Clinton's folly and allow U.S. soldiers to protect themselves. Because we clearly cannot protect our soldiers from harm, the least we owe them is the right to protect themselves.

I didn't serve in the time of Iron Jaw, I started my time in service in 83. During my time weapons were ALWAYS accounted for and, as an MP, if not on lawenforcement duty (Colt 45 or Baretta 9MM, I did work at a place that issued an M-60 machine gun and an M203 grenade launcher and all had rounds in a sealed container) or on a field problem all weapons were in an arms room with restricted access. To get your weapon you had to have a reason (Going on duty or on a field problem) and then the weapon had to be signed for with date, wpn serial number and signature. For Law enforcement, there was a contingency of rounds that were issued and they had some back up to rotate actively issued rounds. To get 5.56 or 7.62 you had to have a reason (Qualification range or deployment) and those rounds were retrieved from an Ammo supply point by a designated person from the unit.

I do remember Sergeants carrying weopons on post as it was allowed. When I was a Corporal, I hung out with a few Sergeants that would carry on and off duty. I payed little attention in 93 when this "Clinton thing" was passed as I was over seas and it didn't effect me or anyone around me.

Secure bases (Before 9-11) were a show your ID card and get in...if you have visitors sign them in and get in.

As far as MPs being stretched thin, they have been since Bosnia...96. Police actions require police I guess and when they tried to train infantry to do that job things went south...as they should. Most bases now a days have Department of the Army Cops (Most are retired MPs as many of those that retired around when I did got jobs, I have friends in high places in charge of security at many installations throughout the US, Not Hood) who carry and quailify with weapons and provide law enforcement. I find it odd that outside agencies would be called in when they had the DA cops available....I suspect the lady that took him down was just that since it is so hard to coordinate with outside agencies...but I haven't done that much reading about the attack.

Military installations are basically safe but they are accupied by a cross section of society. In the the time I spent as an MP, I saw maybe three soldier on soldier murders on base. Most revolved around women and were booze related. Hammer to the head, beet bottle to the head and one found another soldier sleeping with his wife and shot him with a cross bow. Bow shot didn't kill him so he chopped him up with his entrenching tool. Other murders on post were spousal or random acts of violence used for individual gain.

And a high gun-murder rate..............which shows that people who plan on committing felonies could care less about a gun law. To them, a gun law is about the least of charges that could be thrown in their direction.

right. so when they see the person who is the victim of their felony crime reaching for their gun, they're just going to let the victim draw on them and take them down.

To answer the underlined part....imagine being a dog tied to a tree and your owner is coming out. Your happy, wagging your tail and then you discover he is going to beat you. Wouldn't you want freedom from your restrictions to use your teeth and legs to defend yourself instead of being beat like a dog tied to a tree?

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

everyone should carry a gun at all times wherever they go. that will solve the problem of batshit crazy people. no one ever got killed in the wild west. We also never worried about any sort of 'terrorism' in the so-called 'Wild' West.

AZ has conceal carry permits. How many people there have been shot by these batshit crazy types you tout??

what if you could carry guns on a military base and none of the victims were last thursday? would we then have to make it mandatory that everyone must carry a weapon?

how are they getting on to the base? Same way illegals drive across the border with drugs. You can't catch 'em all.

[Roy Munson]

Many liberals' view of the military is that it should be yet another welfare program but with ships and tanks and stuff you used to play with as a kid.

It shouldn't, however, involve actual 'guns' or bullets.
False.

[Roy Munson]

No matter which way you turn this it's still almost too ignorant to respond to.

Law abiding people are the only ones who can't defend themselves. Soldiers fight in foreign countries but are denied the ability to defend themselves in our own country on a military base. What if 15 terrorists attacked a military base?
Nobody is carrying a weapon on base? Don't they have armed guards at the entrace?

[Roy Munson]

Same way illegals drive across the border with drugs. You can't catch 'em all.

A military base is as secure as our border?

[hannitykillspuppies]

We also never worried about any sort of 'terrorism' in the so-called 'Wild' West.

AZ has conceal carry permits. How many people there have been shot by these batshit crazy types you tout??

Same way illegals drive across the border with drugs. You can't catch 'em all.

yeah, they had to worry about people shooting each other over card games.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30912283/

no.

[Iron Jaw]

We also never worried about any sort of 'terrorism' in the so-called 'Wild' West.

AZ has conceal carry permits. How many people there have been shot by these batshit crazy types you tout??

Same way illegals drive across the border with drugs. You can't catch 'em all.

Actually, the border fence has almost shut down the drive-thru smuggling in Arizona. We used to deal with 42 drive-thru vehicles every week. Currently, about 3 each month. It takes a while to cut the fences and barrier posts, and by the time they complete their mission, Agents working in the area have detected it and stage for the entry. Of the 8 we had in Yuma sector in the last three months, all have been apprehended.

Yes, Arizona has conceal carry permits. In addition, if you an adult citizen without a felonious record, you can carry in most places unconcealed, without any type of permit required for rifles or pistols - and that includes in your vehicle.

[becherr]

A military base is as secure as our border?

I would say that a Military base is MORE secure then our borders.

Before 9-11 most bases were open posts....the public could come and go but couldn't use facilities (PX/Commissary/Gyms) without a Military ID Card. After 9-11 most went to closed posts were IDs have to be shown to gain entrance.

The only contact I have had with a military installation is Ft. Knox. They mailed out questionaires to find out how many and who would be attending BT/AIT graduations and then mailed out the appropriate passes. Dispite the passes, visitors still had to check in, register thier personal information and thier vehicle information before being given a temp car pass. Once that was issued with an expiration date all my parents had to do was show thier MI drivers license. In addition to that, they do randum vehicle inspections. In my three seperate visits there (I attended my sons BT, AIT and Stryker graduation) I was "Randumly checked each visit.

[becherr]

Nobody is carrying a weapon on base? Don't they have armed guards at the entrace?

If the base is closed, they probably have DA guards that are armed along with a public safety department that does mobile partols and they are armed.

However, they aren't like a country police force. I won't explain for security reasons.

[domenick2x]

I would say that a Military base is MORE secure then our borders.

Before 9-11 most bases were open posts....the public could come and go but couldn't use facilities (PX/Commissary/Gyms) without a Military ID Card. After 9-11 most went to closed posts were IDs have to be shown to gain entrance.

The only contact I have had with a military installation is Ft. Knox. They mailed out questionaires to find out how many and who would be attending BT/AIT graduations and then mailed out the appropriate passes. Dispite the passes, visitors still had to check in, register thier personal information and thier vehicle information before being given a temp car pass. Once that was issued with an expiration date all my parents had to do was show thier MI drivers license. In addition to that, they do randum vehicle inspections. In my three seperate visits there (I attended my sons BT, AIT and Stryker graduation) I was "Randumly checked each visit.
YOM took me in to the naval yard in Norfolk once. He drove his car, I was a passenger - all I had to do was show ID. If YOM was this lunatic and I was a terrorist partner, we could have gotten all sorts of crazy.

This was well after 9/11, by the way.

[becherr]

YOM took me in to the naval yard in Norfolk once. He drove his car, I was a passenger - all I had to do was show ID. If YOM was this lunatic and I was a terrorist partner, we could have gotten all sorts of crazy.

This was well after 9/11, by the way.

The meal ticket IS the Military ID Card. I can come and go from any Army installation and I would assume any other services installation. Basically, I can't speak for Naval security as I I have only experienced it once.

Back in 92 I tried to take my wife and son onto the naval yard in Charleston. We were turned around at the gate dispite ALL of us having Military IDs.

Security at Knox might be high as well because the depository is right outside the gate.

I know the army installations are required to do a "Threat assessment" and can only assume that the Navy is required to do one to. It is a Commanders perogative to raise of lower security measures. Of course, he takes responsibility for an actions from that point on.

[ryr8828]

yeah, they had to worry about people shooting each other over card games.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30912283/

no.

How long did you have to search for that?

Was he legal to have a firearm?

Do a search and tell us how many innocent people are killed or beaten or raped because the government denies them the right to defend themselves. You should get a lot of hits. Gangbangers, criminals, and those like them pay no attention to your sacred laws.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

False. True.

Maybe you're not that far gone as a lib to believe that the military should be a welfare program with uniforms, but that's how many libs see the Armed Forces.

Sh1t, even the refrains that, "they care more about our troops than conservatives do because they want them *home*," loans itself that that belief.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Actually, the border fence has almost shut down the drive-thru smuggling in Arizona. We used to deal with 42 drive-thru vehicles every week. Currently, about 3 each month. It takes a while to cut the fences and barrier posts, and by the time they complete their mission, Agents working in the area have detected it and stage for the entry. Of the 8 we had in Yuma sector in the last three months, all have been apprehended.

Yes, Arizona has conceal carry permits. In addition, if you an adult citizen without a felonious record, you can carry in most places unconcealed, without any type of permit required for rifles or pistols - and that includes in your vehicle. Oh i'm very familiar with that.

Ya might remember that one guy that the leftist media pointed to who had that 'assault' rifle on his shoulder outside of an Obama speech???

You remember the one....the one where MSNBC only showed the rifle and made it seem as though it was a *white* guy when it happened to be a *black* man there in Phoenix practicing his 2nd Amendment Rights..???

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

yeah, they had to worry about people shooting each other over card games.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30912283/

no. There's an old saying....

'It ain't a *real* Mexican party unless somebody gets shot'.

Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp have nothing on Mexicans.

[pnkpanther]

How long did you have to search for that?

Was he legal to have a firearm?

Do a search and tell us how many innocent people are killed or beaten or raped because the government denies them the right to defend themselves. You should get a lot of hits. Gangbangers, criminals, and those like them pay no attention to your sacred laws.

They do? A hand gun is the ONLY way to defend yourself? No other way?

Personally, I'm not against gun ownership. I just think they need to be registered and the owner is held responsible for them.

[hannitykillspuppies]

How long did you have to search for that?

Was he legal to have a firearm?

Do a search and tell us how many innocent people are killed or beaten or raped because the government denies them the right to defend themselves. You should get a lot of hits. Gangbangers, criminals, and those like them pay no attention to your sacred laws.took me less than a minute. 2nd hit for google search 'arizona shooting.'

was he not legal to have the firearm?

do a search and tell me how many people carrying a concealed weapon stop the crimes of these criminals.