Another “gun free zone” mass killing what a surprise

DefenseFreeZone

There is one thing in common that radical Islamists have with the gun control proponents – that is a devoted (even radical) fervor in their beliefs.

The left gun control zealots are no less religious in their commitment to the cause of gun control than the radical Muslims who commit heinous crimes in the name of Allah.

Both are dangers to peaceful, law-abiding citizens of our United States. We all know about the radical Islamists and their goal to reduce our country and its citizens to life as they believe it should be under Sharia Law. We will all convert to Islam and accept Sharia Law – or else.

The Gun Control forces also believe strongly that their definition of our society should include the total absence of guns in the hands of civilians. They will (quickly) disavow that statement by saying that they’re not trying to take away our guns, only make them more difficult for criminals and off-kilter individuals to acquire. But, that’s only a feint, they’ve been trying to nibble away at the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee for ages and they won’t be satisfied until we (the innocent law-abiding citizens) are disarmed. Of course, criminals won’t abide by those laws so they’ll still be armed.

None of the thousands of state and federal laws on the books have stopped committed individual perpetrators from murdering innocent civilians. It’s as if those laws don’t exist when an abnormal mind decides to commit multiple murders of random people. In the misguided mind of such an individual, justification for a mass shooting might be reasonable to them, but complete nonsense to reasonable peaceful people. Does it matter to the dead and injured?

We already have laws in place which, if honored, would have prevented ALL of our mass killings. So, what makes the Gun Control cabal think that adding additional laws will prevent more of the same?

We already have laws against murder or attempted murder of innocents. We have all sorts of laws that are supposed to prevent bringing firearms into selected venues. By definition, laws only control law-abiding individuals, so exactly what logic concludes that someone with an insane determination to murder a number of innocent citizens will accept the existence of a law as a deterrent? Isn’t it logical to conclude that anyone who is bent on mass murders won’t let words on paper stop them?

Yet, here we are again. In the aftermath of a heinous mass murder spree, our Gun Control proponents once again are calling for more laws. Isn’t it obvious by now that they don’t know what to do to stop the killings and calling for more gun control is a knee-jerk reaction, designed to make it appear that they’re doing something. It’s complete and total bullshit. It results in talking points in elections – supposedly proving that he or she is serious about stopping senseless violence.

Their rhetoric is absolutely worthless. Hillary calls for the reinstatement of the “assault weapons ban.” That argument is so specious that I won’t even offer any reasons for why it was useless when it was in force and why it will be useless if it’s reinstated – any gun rights person knows them.

One thing that the left’s call for more gun laws reflects is a differentiator between bleeding-heart liberals who hate those evil devices and those of us who are Constitutional patriots who believe that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to defend ourselves and our families against those who would do us harm.

Any of us could write a treatise expounding on the other issues that are important to those who support Gun Control. They would all be anti-American and anti-Constitution as well. Oh, they’ll deny it, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The liberal left simply doesn’t see the world as we do – they like a “shades of gray” view and they hate to label anything as “good” or “evil.” We do accept that some people are just plain evil and if murdering 49 innocents doesn’t prove that, I don’t know what will.

The left maintains that we shouldn’t profile, we shouldn’t “stop and frisk,” we should be more sensitive to the needs of our ex-felons, we should require our police to be more sensitive to the perpetrators of crime and we should always give the benefit of the doubt to protestors and rioters – “they’re people too.”

In short, they’re soft on crime. They believe that coddling criminals will cause the criminal to reflect on their errors and commit to do better. Some (few) will, most will return to that which they know best, criminal activity.

I believe that anyone who is FOR gun control will also embrace those few accusations I just related (for starters).

I think that I should make a bit of a disclaimer here. I don’t lump every citizen who believes that there are too many guns in civilian hands and that there should be some controls on them. Most of them are just misguided and don’t really know much about guns. I’m singling out the rabid gun control nuts, like the Brady bunch and Bloomberg for example. They are the engine driving the control movement even while they know that they can do precious little to restrict gun ownership in a country that was founded on the belief that our 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms.

They are, though they’ll argue the point, attacking the 2nd Amendment itself and if they could find a way to rescind it, they would. We need to remain vigilant and rebuke any attempt to water down the amendment that guarantees our right to defend ourselves and our families from evil-doers – and against a government who would enslave us.

Garnet92.



Categories: General

Tags: ,

16 replies

  1. The right to keep and bear arms has been debated for decades, and when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution the framers were adamant that the people should have the means, as individuals, to defend their lives, property, families, neighbors and State with weapons — particularly with guns.

    The second amendment did not bestow a right, human beings are born with it and no man-made law can abridge that right. In the Declaration of Independence, it was made clear that we can not be alienated from the rights we are born with by ANY act of government, and that any government which attempts to alienate those rights from us, is illegitimate. Our rights do not come from public servants nor from the gubmint. Our rights, came from our Creator who made the right to self-preservation an instinctive and integral part of human nature.

    Much has been said about changing the law in Florida and across the nation, to allow Citizens to “carry” by permit or license in such places as the PULSE, or anywhere else where there are state legislated prohibitions. There is no need for such laws of permission. The right trumps such law. The Declaration and the Constitution either represent the supreme law of the land, or they don’t. You either have the unfettered — NOT alienable — right to carry the means to defend your person, property. loved-ones and neighbors as you see fit or you don’t… and if you don’t have that right because the gubmint says so, then you don’t have any rights — NONE! It’s that simple.

    Like

    • While no one (least of all me) will argue that we don’t have a God-given right to defend ourselves and our family from harm – we do. And that includes carrying a weapon if one is so inclined. The problem is that we are (supposedly) a nation of laws, and our Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right and duty to interpret those laws according to the Constitutionality of the laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that the states may implement some constraints on the 2nd Amendment rights and they have done so. While anyone may “Constitutionally” carry a firearm, they will still be subject to the state’s laws limiting that right and be subject to the state’s prosecution of them if found to be in violation.

      Like

      • Garnet92, we are a nation of Constitutionally restrained laws. A law that infringes a natural right especially two so clearly singled out for protection via the 1st and 2nd amendments, that usurps powers not given government via the constitution, is no law at all. It is not “we” in such a case that are lawless, it is the lawmakers and regulators behaving unconstitutionally and thereby lawlessly. Your statement gives carte blanche to the lawmaker to super-cede the Constitution by statutes and regulations endorsed by a Supreme Ct that no longer functioning within it’s constitutionally limited parameters. Their role is to uphold and defend our Constitution, not distort and pervert it to an unconstitutional agenda. Hence, by your rationale, the Constitution is reduced to a tattered decaying old parchment with faded words and no relevance whatsoever.

        “Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” (Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88.)

        “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

        “…the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent power, in which their laws are supreme.” (Alexander Hamilton, Elliot, 2:362.)

        “This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land.… It is not the supreme law in the exercise of a power not granted.” (William Davie, Pennsylvania, p. 277.)

        “There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #78.)

        Like

      • And just to clarify Garnet92 “…anyone may “Constitutionally” carry a firearm…” NO!!! NOT ONE PERSON ONE “CONSTITUTIONALLY” carries a firearm! Owning and bearing firearms is a right, regardless of the constitution, regardless of governments and their the laws, The constitution does not grant a single right. Period! It protects our God-given natural rights from the whimsical laws and caprice of men. Period, end of story, the fat lady has sung and Elvis has left the planet! I have strived for thirty years to educate others so they might understand who we are as a people and what the government is in that relationship. The founding fathers weren’t sure we’d always retain that knowledge which is why they wrote so extensively on the subject. They were right, we have not retained it and we have been suffering losses of status and liberty year after year which has brought us to the mess we have today. The State isn’t omnipotent, the courts aren’t omnipotent… they serve at our pleasure. At least that’s how it was intended to be. Sometimes the only answer to usurpation of power is to say NO! HELL NO!

        Like

  2. What I haven’t heard anything about in Orlando is whether there were any security guards or bouncers. Their specious group of oppressed minorities often profiled as always subject to assault instead gather together and depends on the police to show up when there’s a threat of violence.
    O.K., and what happened following that logic?
    How long before the cops showed up?
    How much damage was accomplished before the cops showed up?
    How much more damage occured even after when the cops did arrive, and they had to begin to assess the situation before even plan an evasive effort?
    What if there had been gun control to prevent that terror attack – isn’t the question.
    What if there had been at least one armed security personnel who could have intervened at the moment of that attack?
    Gun control advocates aren’t making any convincing plan to rely on should an attack take place. And whether the attack is towards any group event or individual assaults – to the assailant, it only matters that there’s enough non-resistance until they get away with whatever they sought out to accomplish.
    It isn’t a long leap to reach that gun control advocates are condoning non-resistant surrender.

    Like

    • I’ve read a bunch of articles about the Pulse club shooting and there is precious little solid information available yet. I read a couple of reports that there was one uniformed (armed) police officer employed as security – no mention of other security personnel – but we can assume that there were other bouncers on hand, even though not armed.

      The police officer was outside the club when he confronted Mateen (the shooter) and they exchanged gunfire. Mateen wasn’t deterred and entered the club and proceeded to murder 49 and injure another 53 people. There were about 300 people in the club at the time. I haven’t seen a timeline that established when the police arrived (in force). Mateen himself called 911 and sometime shortly after that the police arrived. One article noted that it was almost 3 hours after it started until SWAT stormed the back of the building, breaching it and taking out Mateen.

      Florida law prohibits folks with concealed carry permits to carry in establishment serving alcohol – thus, Pulse was a gun-free zone.

      Like

      • That’s a good reply g92.
        Yet, at which point (at the event) would any gun control measure already on the books let alone any additional measures added to them would have had any limiting effects on what did occur, what has occured beforehand, or will occur again some how some time some where for some other occasion?
        Questions?
        Yeah, I got questions.
        And I want answers.
        I want OUR COUNTRY back into the hands of OUR FREEDOMS.

        Like

  3. Absolutely correct, Garnet – they’re both equally zealous for their cause. According to the libs’ way of thinking, if we all give up our guns, the radical muslims will stop trying to kill us. Here’s a question for them – if this POS terrorist doesn’t represent all muslims, then how is it that he represents all gun owners?? What they seem to leave out is that we didn’t go to their countries, and start flying planes into their buildings or bomb their marathons. We did nothing to provoke this.

    Came across this one today that’s also spot on. “You cannot legislate evil out of this world. In the end you’re going to have to give good men guns and set them loose.

    Like

    • Yep Kathy, that’s a real conundrum, he doesn’t represent radical Muslims, but he does represent all gun owners – wow, that takes some real irrational logic to arrive at that conclusion, but when has the left ever displayed logical thinking?

      Our way of life is their motive. They believe that we should live our lives the way they want us to – that is, to become Muslim and follow Sharia Law. They’ve made it plain that they want to destroy us, why shouldn’t we take them at their word?

      We’ve done nothing to antagonize Muslims, we’ve tried to live in peace – they’re the ones who refuse to follow our rules. It’s time that we fight back, using every weapon at our disposal, else they will feel emboldened and push even harder. Taking some out before they can cause murder and mayhem, as was done in Garland, is still the best solution.

      Like

  4. Liberals and conservatives alike have taken to social media in force, decrying the hatred of exhibited by the Orlando assassin, and rightly so. However, there is also a great push by liberals. predominately, for greater restrictions, if not outright bans, on the ability for citizens to have a firearm.

    All this while liberals, and even some in the LGBT community, thrash about in efforts to deny the very root of that mutant’s hatred. Many have gone so far as to proclaim responsibly armed Americans as ‘guilty’ by complicity because they are not rushing to surrender their weapons after this latest attack, instead of preparing to survive and persevere on the next.

    To liberals, choosing not to participate in suicide-by-Jihad makes us war-mongers, craving an opportunity to send young men and women off to suffer and die, just to fill the coffers of gun manufacturers and the NRA. I cannot help but wonder how many must suffer and die before they will acknowledge that we are already at war. Want it or not, admit it or not, adherents to the very ideology behind this latest massacre have declared they are at war with us.

    Evil has never willingly halted its march of destruction on its own accord. Only armed refusal by its intended victims to be subjugated has ever thwarted such advances.

    Like

    • Amen Saltwater. The gun control issue is one of the left’s sacred cows. It’s an issue that, given the circumstances, makes no sense at all. By definition, law-abiding citizens don’t commit gun crimes, criminals do, yet more feel-good, if-it-saves-one-life rhetoric is all the left can offer. I’ll bet that most supporters of gun control can’t state good reasons (beyond the usual platitudes they’ve been taught) that more gun control laws will make a dent in gun-related crime. Limiting the capacity of magazines and banning weapons based on superficial appearances is downright idiotic and does nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, yet Hillary wants to reestablish the “Assault Weapons” ban. It’s a democrat talking point, nothing more and has as much value in inhibiting gun crime as flatulence has of diverting a hurricane.

      Like

  5. Well said, Garnet. It’s funny that the leftists are so virulently protective of “rights” when it comes to common sense preventative safety measures like profiling, yet the Second Amendment right to bear arms means zilch to them.

    The only way to effectively deal with this problem without violating the constitutional rights of all Americans is for more citizens to arm themselves and to allow people to use their God-given instincts for self-protection by vigilantly profiling. Being stuck on stupid liberalism is the last thing we need in these dangerous times.

    Islamic terrorists who “martyr” themselves after taking innocent lives should be stuffed with pig dung and disposed of in whatever fashion offers them the least chance of getting to meet Allah.

    Like

    • Profiling is a sore subject with me. If there is a better way to prevent an attack, I can’t think of it. We profile every day in hundreds of ways. When choosing a fruit or veggie at the supermarket, you look for characteristics and perhaps fondle the item to determine whether it meets your criteria – that’s profiling. When we buy a new auto, we sort through all of the brands and models to filter them by those most likely to fit our needs – that’s profiling. Maybe it’s over 30 years of programming and wrestling computers that trained my mind to be logical, but the political correctness and lobbying by the groups most likely to be targeted has tainted the term and turned profiling into something to be avoided. That’s just plain crap.

      We should be applying filters to groups and individuals who are most likely to fit the profile of a likely shooter/bomber and if it shows radical Muslims to be most likely to do us harm, they should be under more stringent surveillance than white American grandmothers. But the left won’t have it – they don’t want to “offend” the group being profiled. That is more crap. A group being profiled is being profiled precisely because its members have shown that they commit the offense more often than others – what is wrong with that?

      Like

      • When security personnel for the Democratic National Convention are trained to look out for certain types of suspicious-looking people, they are profiling.

        When Hillary Clinton avoids people in the crowds wearing Trump t-shirts, she’s profiling.

        When a liberal sees a group of young, black males wearing hoodies and flashing gang signs and crosses to the other side of the street (which she will), she’s profiling.

        The hypocrisy ALWAYS exposes the lie, and the lie is that liberals are superior to the rest of us because they’re too pure of heart to profile. A liberal, simply defined, is someone who believes his own poop doesn’t stink.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: