As has become obvious
from my posts in the last few days about the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting,
gun violence in the U.S. and the impending gun control legislation, if you read
between the lines there can be no mistake that the anti-gunners are coming for
any type of gun they can get their hands on.
Unfortunately the
anti-gun lobby has reached the tipping point where they feel they now have
enough high-profile cases to stand on, especially after the shooting in
Newtown, Connecticut involving young children. The most recent shooting at
Sandy Hook Elementary has inflamed the anti-gun lobby beyond the point where
they can contain themselves and they’re now licking their lips in the hopes of
sliding through various gun laws even though the proposed “solutions” will have
no effect on crime before the public can understand that these new legislative
proposals will have no effect on mass shootings or gun crime.
While the tone of
their language after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut
started with the popularly palatable idea that all measures would be looked at
to reduce senseless violence, it quickly turned to an acute focus on guns and
gun restrictions alone.
It’s become painfully
obvious listening to the ineffective proposals tossed about by the current
administration and being reported in the media that their true objective is not
the safety of our children but rather a long-held effort to reduce gun
owners’ rights to a mere fraction of what was intended by the founders of the
United States. If at no other time or in no other statement, we were undeniably
tipped off to this underlying mission when Senator Diane Feinstein mentioned
the new legislation that will be pushed in Congress was the result of gun
legislation that had been worked on for over a year—long before the Newtown,
Connecticut tragedy.
Another clear
indication that the actual safety of our schools and children is not the goal,
is that the new gun proposals being put forth by the Obama administration will
have little to no effect on the type of gun crime that occurred at Sandy Hook
Elementary in Connecticut, the Aurora Colorado shooting, or the Columbine
massacre. All of the proposals being pushed at this time are simply a whitewash
to hide the ugly reality.
At the beginning of
his first term President Obama said he wanted to, “Fundamentally transform
America.” When he said those words he intentionally left the details vague
knowing the populace would tend to go along with that thought, at least since
the uninformed had no idea how heavy his true socialist agenda was at the time.
Now we’re starting to
see that one solid example of one of President Obama’s ways he would like to
“fundamentally transform” the United States, is to rid the United States of the
guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens. (Remember, criminals are exempt
because they will always have that which is illegal).
As part of his push
toward this fundamental change, his administration created a massive
gun-running scheme to get guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. What
the anti-gun lobby doesn’t mention, and doesn’t want you to know, is that it
was the Obama administration that ‘walked’ these guns across the border into the
hands of the Mexican drug cartels. When these guns were used in crimes the idea
was to be able to track them back to the United States to try and prove a
point—hoping to show a correlation between our guns ending up in the hands of
the criminals, and being able to blame the U.S. for being responsible for other
countries’ gun problems.
Even though the facts
of this operation-gone-bad are coming out, the anti-gun lobby still tries to
site “…[U.S. guns] have made their way across the border to Mexico.” What they
didn’t count on were the ramifications of that operation. One of the guns the
Obama administration gave the Mexicans was used to kill our own border patrol
agent, Brian Terry. This exposed the Obama administration’s “Operation Fast and
Furious” gun running scheme resulting in the Obama administration’s Attorney
General Eric Holder being found in contempt of Congress after refusing to hand
over required documents about the failed operation. The inquiries into this
fiasco have also seen President Obama claim executive privilege in order to
keep documents regarding this operation-gone-bad from ever becoming known to
the American public.
It isn’t much of a
stretch now to see that absolute gun control is one of this administration’s
ways he’s trying to make the United States a “fundamentally different” country
than what we have always been. Of course those with this intent will state
otherwise, but what choice do they really have if they are going to succeed in
their mission?
Using gun tragedies
like Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut, Columbine, and the Aurora, Colorado
movie theatre shootings as a way to play on Americans’ emotions during a time
of weakness is nothing more than an unethical way for the anti-gun lobby and
the politicians to dupe the public into believing what they are saying has at
least a modicum of truth. Then they have the audacity to “warn” the American
public that those in favor of the full and unfettered preservation of the
Second Amendment will be trying to "trick" them into believing just
the opposite of what the anti-gun lobby is saying.
What I’ve noticed
after the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook is that those against the weakening of
the Second Amendment remained silent in the beginning, waiting for the
President to follow through on his promise to look at all possible reasons for
the recent violence. It was only after the real issues were ignored and the
onslaught of jabs were targeted at the guns and law-abiding gun owners that
those in support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution came forward
to defend what they know to be so valuable for all citizens of the
United States. The only other option the Second Amendment supporters have is
unattractive—to stand idly by as the anti-gunners push there agenda through
unopposed.
Gradualism is one of
the most potent tools of the enemy. They have slowly been duping the masses
about the true intent of our Second Amendment by gradually desensitizing them
into more of the thinking of the world. There is no mistaking that the world
government would love nothing more than ridding the U.S. of it’s Second
Amendment rights. Just take a look at the sculpture that looms large at the
U.N. Building. http://newyorkdailyphoto.com/nydppress/?p=542
The principles that
once made this country great have become fodder for the anti-gun activists in
the hope that the public is so uneducated that they will blindly go along.
The unfortunate
picture of how the country will look without the full force of our Second
Amendment is not pleasant. We’ve caught a glimpse of what we will become
without the ability to defend ourselves during times of recent natural
disasters such as Hurricane Sandy on the East Coast and the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
In New York, anti-gun
king Mayor Michael Bloomberg got a picture of his utopian world of no guns as
looters and criminals ran wild in Brooklyn and other areas. The homeowners had
no ability to meaningfully defend themselves during the chaos after Hurricane
Sandy. Anyone trying to find water, or food better get home before dark or they
may never make it home. Bloomberg wouldn’t even allow the National Guard to
come into the city to protect he people—because, of course, the National Guard
have guns!
In New Orleans the
authorities unthinkably decided to confiscate guns from the law abiding
citizens, leaving them victims to the merciless criminals roaming the streets
and neighborhoods all day and all night.
Those against
concealed carry at colleges love to point out the alarms or phones placed
around the campus as reason not to have concealed carry. Ask the latest college
campus rape victim if the attacker asked if she’d like him to get off of her
for a minute so she could use the phone.
Even if the attackers
are kind enough to let you call the police, the police do not prevent
crime. The police show up after the crime to take notes and hopefully
care enough to look for the bad guy, with no guarantee of finding or convicting
the criminal. In some jurisdictions (Detroit and Oakland for example) it takes
police as long as 24 to 30 minutes to respond to priority calls. There
are cases where victims of crimes in progress never got a response from the
police and were told an hour after the violator had fled that if the victim
wanted to file a report she’d have to go to the police station to do so because
the police were “too busy to send anyone.”
In Chicago, already
ripe ground for criminals to create victims due to their practically no-gun
laws, the police are no longer responding to robberies or car theft. As soon as
the criminals figure this out what direction do you think the crime rate in
these categories will go?
Are you willing to
accept that type of protection? If you support the slow erosion of the Second Amendment
that’s what you’ll end up with. This is why you’re not being told the high rate
of violent crimes in the countries with the most strict gun control (multiples
of the per capita crime rates in the United States). It would be hard for the
anti-gun lobby to sell you their tall tales if you knew how violent our country
will be should they succeed in disarming our law-abiding populace.
Even in the U.S. the
reason for the high rates of violent crime in cities like Chicago, Washington
D.C., etc, are because the most strict gun laws are already in effect. In these
cities the criminals know they are the only ones bringing a gun to the party
and the citizens going along with strict gun control have become their
voluntary victims. As an opposite example, in cities such as Kennesaw, Georgia
where gun ownership is mandatory, crime rates are negligible.
Remember, even if
guns are outlawed, the outlaws will still have guns. If the police have guns
they will be stolen by the criminals, or sold by corrupt cops to the criminals.
The criminals will always have them, leaving the law-abiding citizens
sitting ducks for those who are intent on doing harm.
You also need to get
serious when someone suggests to you that all you need to do is spray the
intruder in the eyes with oven spray, or to use some similar ludicrous method
of self defense. That would be like hitting a Grizzly Bear with a pebble from a
slingshot. All you’ll do is make him mad.
The “oven spray”
information, like the anti-gun information, comes from the grossly uniformed or
those who really aren’t concerned about your own safety. These people also have
no idea about the mindset of a dedicated violent attacker. A dedicated attacker
who has no regard for his own life will have much less regard for yours or anyone
else’s. When someone is prepared to die for their cause there isn’t much you
can do to prevent that person from acting and causing all sorts of collateral
damage in his wake. All you can do is whatever it takes to defend yourself and
your loved ones. Sometimes that means having, and knowing how to safely operate
a firearm—not a can of oven spray.
I know it’s possible
that the only way to change some people’s mind would be if God sent an armed
intruder to your house in the middle of the night. You would perhaps realize at
this point how much of a schmuck you have been for being duped by the anti-gun
agenda as the criminal rapes your wife, abducts and molests your children—or
worse. Unless you’re faster than a bullet from a criminal’s gun that is what
you’ll be experiencing if you help the gun-grabbers dismantle the Second
Amendment.
Thinking that “Just
this one type of gun”, or “Just this one type of ammunition” should be banned
is exactly what the anti-gun lobby wants you to think. It allows them to
unravel the Second Amendment one thread at a time. Unfortunately it doesn’t end
until there are no more “types.”
Make no mistake about
it, those opposed to gun rights in the United States are coming for all the
guns. If you don’t believe me, ask the citizens of the countries who had the
rulers who convinced their citizens that gun control works—Stalin, Gaddafi,
Castro, Mussolini, Hitler...
They know the only
way to dismantle firearm ownership is in gradual increments, since trying to
outright ban all guns would be political suicide. It’s starting this time with
the exploitation of the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown
Connecticut. Don’t be fooled. Anyone armed with sensible information can see
the “solutions” being proposed are not about the children or saving lives, it’s
about coming for all the guns the best way they know how. The ideas for saving
the lives of more innocent children were quickly scrapped in order to take on a
much easier sell—stripping the American citizens of their God-given right to
self defense.
My hope is that our
great nation wakes up to the depth of the subtlety of the anti-gun proponents
before we’re swallowed by violence with no way to defend ourselves in a
meaningful way. The politicians who are always able to have armed body guards
can’t possibly be thinking clearly about unarmed citizens’ safety. You need to
think for yourself. Those who have blindly gone along with the rest of the
uninformed will soon find themselves in the position when (not if) they need
someone to come to their rescue. At that point they will have no choice when
asking who is to blame but to walk straight to the nearest mirror, look that
person squarely in the eyes, point directly at the culprit, and say in no
uncertain terms, “Me.”
For those who still
refuse to even consider what I’ve written in the previous articles there is
apparently no convincing you otherwise at this point. And for those same
people, I acknowledge and respect your decision to be a victim instead of the
victor should you ever encounter that masked man in the middle of the night, in
an alley, in your home, or in your car.
There is still one thing I will ask of those who
choose to be the victims. I request of the anti-gun individuals that you please
don’t make the decision for others who choose to be able to fight and live.
Please stay out of the conversations when you are uninformed. If you’ve never
shot a firearm, if you dislike firearms only because of what you hear from the
media or from others who regurgitate what they hear on the media, please stay
out of the decision-making process. The greatest harm to this country comes
from within—from the uninformed trying to make decisions that effect everyone
else’s life.
