comments_image -

Right-Wing Pundits Now Lecturing the Military: Bases Need More Guns

Logically more guns would mean less shootings, right? Wait ...
November 11, 2009  |  
 
Advertisement
 

Interesting to watch, to say the least. It's sort of like watching right-wing pundits lecture police chiefs about guns when they're not sufficiently radical in their pro-guns views. But watching the same commentators now target the U.S. military is really a bit much.

In the wake of the Ft. Hood handgun massacre, more and more conservative commentators, adopting an at-times openly hostile tone towards the military, are explaining exactly what went wrong on the Army base. Mostly, conservatives are calling out the U.S. military as a bastion of liberalism where political correctness runs amok, which I'm guessing comes as a surprise to those who actually serve in the military, especially Muslim American soldiers.

Now the latest emerging talking point is that U.S. Army bases need more guns and that, according to today's WashTimes editorial, basically everyone at Ft. Hood should be walking around with a loaded pistol, if they want.

The argument is to be expected, since following the gun massacre at Virginia Tech, conservatives immediately began lobbying in hopes of passing a law which would allow college students to carry loaded weapons and turn campuses into gun meccas. And now the rhetorical push is on to do the same at military bases, as conservative commentators lecture the military about how to deal with guns.

As General (Ret.) Barry McCaffrey noted on MSNBC, immediately following  the Ft. Hood shooting, "There is ferocious gun control measures on soldiers and families on a military installation." Who do you think has a better handle on how to deal with firearms in the real world, military commanders or editorial writers for the Washington Times?

UPDATED: And just so you know, according to the WashTimes, the Ft. Hood shooting was all Bill Clinton's fault. That's how the Times couches its rhetoric, which allows the editorial to directly attack Clinton (instead of the Pentagon) for allegedly instituting gun control measure on military bases. But the larger premise is unmistakable: the WashTimes know better how guns should be handled on bases than do military commanders.  

UPDATED: And no, of course the WashTimes doesn't spend one sentencing contemplating where and how the Ft. Hood shooter was able to purchase his guns and bags full of ammunition.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: shooting, guns, ft hood
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

 
 
Republicans Block NY Minimum Wage Increase That Would Give 880,000 Workers a Raise

By Laura Clawson | Daily Kos

 
 
Why Don't TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change?

By Katherine Bagley, | Inside Climate News

 
 
New Book Says Teenage Obama Was a Huge Pot Head -- So Why Won't He Legalize It for the Rest of Us?!

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Pew Poll Finds Clean Energy Is A Political Wedge Issue for Republicans

By Stephen Lacey | Climate Progress

 
 
Mitt 'Not Concerned with the Very Poor' Romney Visits West Philly, Gets Lesson in Keeping it Real

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Corporate Media Stokes Racial Angst in Election Coverage

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
5 Things to Know About the Paycheck Fairness Act (The Next Big Legislative Battle for Women)

By Annie-Rose Strasser | Think Progress

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]