Monday, November 16, 2009

Another "Gun Free Zone" Tragedy.

The following open letter is from Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Association for Gun Rights.

Apparently it’s not enough for our government that the heroes in America’s armed forces risk their lives overseas defending our freedom. These days, our soldiers aren't even safe here at home stationed on secure military bases. On November 5th, a lone gunman murdered 13 fully-trained, ready to deploy soldiers, and wounded 29 more, in the most shocking terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. How was Nidal Hasan, a psychologist, able to take down so many trained soldiers? Because the government thinks its better to keep it’s armed service members unarmed . . . That’s right. Our military men and woman are banned from carrying the weapons they are trained and trusted to use in the heat of combat. President Clinton authored this asinine policy back in 1993 when he declared all military bases “Gun Free Zones.” As you know, “Gun Free Zones” do nothing but assure criminals, and now terrorists, that they will find unarmed victims defenseless against a homicidal rampage. Maybe I’m crazy, but I’d rather the soldiers delivered a barrage of bullets to end Hasan’s attack the second he opened fire. I’d rather Hasan was dead and the heroes he murdered were still alive. But because of Clinton’s ingenious policy of an unarmed armed forces, this psychopath methodically executed soldier after soldier before a local traffic cop could arrive on the scene. If we didn't have “Gun Free Zones” and our armed forces were . . . I don't know . . . ARMED, Nadir Hasan would have met bullets instead of bodies. On this Veteran’s Day, remember that the safety of our armed forces is of paramount importance whether it’s on the battlefield or here at home. Please join the National Association of Gun Rights in our battle against "Gun Free Zones."

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

View letter as a web page


This past weekend I had a discussion with the wife of a friend, who I had just met. She seemed nice enough, but had some pretty typical viewpoints on guns. She was anti-gun, and when I asked her why, she said they made her nervous and thought we'd be better off without them. I asked her what logical thought process she used to arrive at this conclusion. She didn't have one. I explained to her that there is a faction of our society who has absolutely no access to firearms, but who has the highest rate of violent personal crime, per capita, including murder, rape, assault and terroristic threats. That group is the population of the U.S. penal system. Following her logic, or lack there-of, the people who have a total ban on firearms, should be as peaceful as lambs. Wishing people to be law-abiding citizens doesn't usually work very well. Depriving law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves only enables the criminal. That is the logic behind the argument. The difference between these anti-gunners and those who believe in their right to keep and bear arms? The former's logic is based on feelings, whereas the latter's is based on facts. Wake up America.

Ben Franklin


  1. The issue is of course that you are using logic. As we all agreed upon when starting this blog, Conservatism is the politics of reason and logic. Liberalism is the politics of feeling.

    Until Americans wake up to the cold hard logic of the world we live in today, we will see the liberal agenda continue it's march to dominating our national agenda.



Free Hit Counter

Copyright © 2009 - 2012 The Audacity of Logic