Skip to comments.Harry Reid: Fort Hood Shooting Should Revive Gun Control Push
Posted on 04/03/2014 7:19:37 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Speaking to reporters on April 3rd, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said the shooting at Fort Hood should revive the gun control push.
According to The Washington Post, Reid said, "As I was told today, [Army Spc. Ivan Lopez] bought his gun a day or two before he killed these people. Couldn't we at least have background checks so that people who are ill mentally, or who are felons, shouldn't be able to buy guns?"
This is somewhat misleading because "law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the pistol used by Lopez... was purchased legally last month... at Guns Galore." This means Lopez went through a background check to get the gun, which also means the failed Senate gun bill would not have stopped Lopez from getting it.
It is important to remember the failed Senate gun bill would have expanded the number of background checks, but they would essentially be the very same checks we have right now. That is because the structures and mechanisms for the kind of information sharing required to do the background checks that Democrats promote doesn't even exist.....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Democrats are ghouls...
Yes it is, and we will be hard pressed to bring it back, and like we had no idea any left wing, liberal, socialist, pinko commie geek would try to use this to further his own communist agenda.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Dream on, you old idiot. Hopefully, it will change the crazy ban on letting our military carry weapons for their protection on our bases. It is obscene to have soldiers who have survived multiple tours of combat duty die on US soil at a military base.
I hate harry Reid, yes, HATE.
Sorry Harry, but the worm has turned. The public is not buying and has rejected your liberal gun control argument. Just keep making a fool of yourself on every issue.
Doesn’t sound like gun control worked out so well at Fort Hood.
I think it points to a horde lynching you. Let’s make that a law.
Yes, it is. I am thankful, though, that I was able to enjoy America in its finest years. Great memories.
Did the Koch brothers buy it for him, Harry?
With non-taxed money converted to bit coins?
No all should carry legally like I do so we can shoot moslem terrorists and looons.
No. But there are too many nuts running around loose. Mostly in DC, in congress.
So he is going to disarm the military? I still cannot believe the NRA supported this bag of shit for his last senatorial run.
Not enough gun control in the gun-free zone.
Jewelry control, so senile old Congressional criminals can’t shoot their mouths off on full automatic.
For now, but November, 2014 is coming.
But November 2014 is coming, send a message.
Fort Hood should be proof that military bases SHOULD NOT BE gun free zones. How many must give their lives before they “learn?” (Where have all the flowers gone...)
Every chance they get!
This is a good lesson for all of us, although the liberals are unteachable.
1) The gun was purchased legally, with background check, so more gun laws or restrictions (even a total ban on guns) would not have made any difference.
2) The gun was carried onto the Base where it was already illegal to have or carry a gun without special permission, so more gun laws or restrictions would have made any difference.
3) Because others on the Base were not carrying guns (in accordance with Base rules), other than the MPs, the shooter was able to do considerable damage before he was confronted by someone who was carrying.
4) Although there may have been extenuating circumstances in this instance (an altercation?), it is interesting that shooters don’t choose to go to a gun range, gun shop, or police station to do their evil.
Bottom line: people kill people - guns don’t. This is a concept that is beyond the intelligence of most of the low-information crowd (read liberals).
One thought I have had though: allowing concealed carry on a military base could put the MPs in a precarious and potentially dangerous situation because, (my assumption) a larger percentage would carry and the MPs would not who was or wasn’t and mistake certain actions as going for a weapon (it’s different in public, where I presume a smaller percentage of people actually carry). Maybe a better answer on military bases is to allow open carry?
Harry, Fort Hood had 100% gun control you freaking moron!
It is it’s called Obama&Co.
I can’t wait to take a piss on a tiny plot of land in Searchlight Nevada.