Anti-Gun Nuts Going,, Well,, Nuts!

by lewwaters

Occupant Gun WarningOnce again tragedy has struck in yet another ‘Gun-Free Zone,’ this time in the small community of Roseburg, Oregon. Another unhinged person shot and killed people on the campus of Umpqua Community College.

For those that claim the campus was not ‘Gun-Free’ due to Oregon law, please recheck your sources as the laws on guns on campuses in Oregon is much more complicated than believed.

Be that as it may, tragedy struck and 10 people are dead, 9 innocents and the shooter with more wounded, hopefully to survive and regain their lives.

And as we see all too often, gun-haters come out of the woodwork before any corpses are cold to blame guns, the NRA, the Second Amendment, Conservatives, everybody except the actual shooter.

Cries go out to disarm the public with comparisons to Australia and the UK as banning guns and not having any gun violence now, a claim as naïve as any ever heard as both countries still have gun violence in spite of such claims. Also ignored by gun-grabbers citing that claim is the incidence of ‘knife violence’ that has had the country of Great Britain actually considering more bans on knives and certain sharp objects and campaign launched, ‘Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife,’ even trotting out the Doctors calling for knife bans years ago.

While gun-grabbers might technically be correct in their “less gun violence” claims, to me there is no consolation in someone murdered with a knife instead of a gun. The violence did not ebb is the point.

And of course, Liberal gun-grabbers with their knee jerk reactions and emotions over logic state the most inane things, as seen under another of Lazy C’s Greg Jayne editorial.

Col, Gun Comment

If he weren’t serious it would be comical. But he is serious, sad to say.

Let’s deconstruct this ridiculous comment.

A “so-called right” that is clearly expressed in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights? If that right so clearly stated is but “so-called,” what of the rest of rights enumerated in our Bill Rights? Say, like his freedom of speech and assembly?

And what of the 13th Amendment freeing slaves and banning future enslavement of one human being owning another? Does he see that as just “so-called” as well?

How can they argue just one is “so-called” and not include all?

And of course, the ever present hate spewed against those with a differing view of matters as Liberals so often do. Blame everything on conservatives.

But what this commenter fails to recognize in his rant, the Second Amendment was not written in order to put down any slave rebellion. What was being passed after the Civil War was gun control measure designed to disarm freed slaves.

Yes, true history reveals just the opposite of what is claimed, early gun control was meant to disarm a minority race and oppress them, much like happened in the 1930’s when Germany disarmed the Jews prior to the Holocaust.

Knee jerk hyperbole and emotional outbursts is what they have to rely on, far from Jayne’s call of “acknowledging the problem.”

One cannot acknowledge something when they have no clue what it is.

Another fallacy being spouted elsewhere is “294 mass shootings (four or more people killed or wounded) in the United States” so far in 2015.

Even politically Liberal Politifact states of that number, “The statistic came from Mass Shooting Tracker, a crowdsourced site, which defines mass shooting as any in which four or more people are shot at, regardless of whether they die or are injured.”

In other words, as I read it, redefine what a “mass shooting” is to suit the agenda and whip up anti-gun hysteria.

Politifact then quotes a more reliable source as “approximately 18 mass killings by firearms so far in 2015.”

And let’s face it, that is 18 too many.

But, is the gun really to blame? We hear there are far more guns in American society than citizens, so if true that the gun is at fault, shouldn’t we hear of millions of shootings? I would think so.

We don’t, so apparently the gun isn’t the real problem anymore than Ford, Chevrolet or Chrysler are fault for DUI’s or traffic accidents.

No, the driver is at fault and it is the same with a gun, the person pulling the trigger is at fault.

So what good will banning guns do?

Liberals seem to think a simple ban will take guns away from shooters and that is a fallacy as well. Murderers already ignore written laws, so why would they follow a new one?

And what of murder rates where guns were banned and murderers just substitute a knife, hammer or even baseball bat?

Do we ban those as well?

To wrap this up, let’s look at another common claim from Liberals after a school shooting, banning guns on school grounds and heavy opposition when we call for trained, licensed and qualified staff and teachers to be allowed to carry concealed.

As we know, the most deaths in these tragedies occur where the shooter knows he will face the least opposition, a “gun-free zone.”

Never acknowledged by the left gun-grabbers is the times such a shooting was stopped early on before much more carnage was allowed to happen by someone armed with a gun, that I covered back in 2006 on my previous blog, The School Shooting They Never Mention.

In closing I will say to Mr. John M. Kowalski, the Second Amendment was not written in order to put down any slave rebellion, acknowledged by honest gun restriction advocates, but to keep us from becoming enslaved to a tyrannical regime.

MOLON LABE

5 Comments to “Anti-Gun Nuts Going,, Well,, Nuts!”

  1. Good morning Lew, Why does the 2nd Amendment say “well-regulated Militia” if it’s intent was to keep us from becoming enslaved by a tyrannical regime. Who was doing the regulating? Wasn’t it the “government?” Regulating to me means they wanted the “militia” members to have similar weapons and armor. Am I wrong? Thanks for your insight.

    Like

  2. Steve, those three words have been the subject of much discussion for many years.

    To me “well regulated” also can mean “organized, standardized or managed,” as in a military style hierarchy. In other words, a hastily assembled citizen Army.

    Yes, I would agree they wanted all to have equal access to weaponry back then, and today we no longer have that equal access on a day to day basis.

    But, I am also sure that if our country were to go into a melt-down, some with access currently would undoubtedly bring some with them to the “rebels” (for lack of a better word) or some weaponry would be captured as we saw with ISIS, even the North Vietnamese when they overran South Vietnam.

    Like

  3. Thanks Lew. Good explanation.

    Like

  4. “Liberals seem to think a simple ban will take guns away from shooters”. They know from the experience of Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and other nations that is not the case, yet still persist. Why would the left maintain that belief despite all the evidence to the contrary? The only conclusion I can reach is that they really do think the average citizen is the problem. If you can control (i.e. disarm) the average citizen you can control violence? Not on this planet.

    Like

  5. craigsayre2014 – I’m not sure about Canada and Great Britain, I thought their gun laws have stayed the same for quite a while. However, your note about Australia is wrong. When they changed their gun laws in 1996, their murders and suicides went down and have stayed down. Suicides went down 80%. They aren’t under the same Constitution we are under, obviously, so they could implement it easier.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: