Latest Fort Hood Shooting is a Microcosm of the Gun Control Movement

Yet another shooting situation at Fort Hood on Wednesday, April 2, 2014 has understandably caused a lot of interest in the previous massacre there and just how or why something like this could happen again.  While there are many theories out there regarding Fort Hood, this article wants to focus on a different way of looking at what has now happened twice at a United States military installation.

It could be said that what is happening at Fort Hood is a microcosm of what gun control lobbyists want to take to mainstream America.  One of the first things that most people think when they hear about a shooting like this on a military base is how could this have gone on for as long as it did in a place where one would expect that there were plenty of armed people that were well-trained in the use of their weapons?  Nidal Hasan’s rampage was only in one particular location, but the fatalities was remarkable as well as disturbing.  This latest incident actually took place in multiple buildings.  The suspect actually had to commute to his next shooting site.  So, Common Sense Conspiracy looked into the rumors and now we have the facts.

In response to the 2009 massacre and also because of an upswing in suicides by soldiers, Fort Hood decided to ban all private weapons on the base.  This means that the average soldier walking around Fort Hood is completely unarmed.  They made this rule to protect the general public of the base.  Basically, they believe that soldiers with guns is more of a liability than soldiers without guns.  For the record, this only includes private weapons.  Soldiers assigned to security details are armed.  So are law enforcement officers.  However, just like in civilian life, there are only a certain number of these and they can’t be everywhere at once.

The bottom line:  when someone wanted to walk onto the base with a gun and start shooting, none of these rules mattered.  The suspect did bring a private gun in, despite plenty of warnings posted everywhere that he was breaking the law by doing so.  He did not register his weapon as is required by the rules.  This shows on a small stage what gun control means to America.  The “good guys” will follow the law, but the “bad guys” will go right on with their program.  So, therefore, gun control will not stop the violence, and in fact, it may even make it worse.  The government isn’t stupid.  They know this.  It’s not that hard to figure out, especially with such an in-your-face example as what has now happened at Fort Hood not once but twice.  So, think about what it really means.  They are trying to push gun control, but they know for sure that it’s not going to stop the supposed reason for pushing it.  So why are they pushing it?  What is the real reason?

That’s the question, isn’t it?