The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of each American to own firearms. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment restricting citizens to only have firearms within the confines of their home. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment restricts citizens from carrying firearms on their person. Yet there are certain politicians scared to death at the thought of law abiding citizens possessing firearms.
Every time some madman, mad Muslim, or neighborhood hood shoots up some place, these politicians want to place further restrictions on good citizens. Why are they so afraid of good citizens possessing weapons? News flash! Criminals possess firearms.
Many of these politicians have armed security or concealed carry permits themselves! Yet they want us unarmed, outgunned and probably working in gun free zones. All of which makes us more vulnerable to the madman, mad Muslim or neighborhood hood.
Unfortunately, many naïve but well-meaning citizens use the same distorted logic of the politicians. After the San Bernardino massacre, I posted a question on a bullet. Below are a few responses to my question. After giving those responses much though, I decided to provide my replies in this blog.
The absurity of fighting fire with fire…instead use water. They will always have a badder guns.
Too bad Mr. Smith wasn’t there to throw water on the situation. Maybe he could have cooled off the terrorist and defused everything. Maybe he was inferring that talking would have been a better way to greet the intruders. I am fairly certain that any number of the thirty-one people shot would have gladly talked to the murders if given the opportunity.
Talking does not necessarily change the opinions of people bent on our destruction. Our Nobel Peace Prize winning president went around the world apologizing for the behavior of America. Those who hated us, still hate us. The only difference now, is they no longer fear or respect us.
As for them always getting “badder” guns, if Mr. Smith were president during the Cold War, he would have dismantled and destroyed our nuclear weapons in the hope that the Russians and Chinese would follow suit. I believe it is safe to say, that if Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy listened to Mr. Smith, English would no longer be the primary language of the United States.
Marcia Schreiber What I don’t understand is how many innocent people will be shot and killed because the gun holders have terrible aim? Do these people really think it wouldn’t turn into a chaotic bloodbath?
Ms. Schreiber, hello! Is anyone in there? It was a chaotic bloodbath!
The liberal mind fails to understand that responsible law abiding gun owners are trained in the use and maintenance of firearms. Guns are tools that we hope to never need, but are prepared to use if necessary. We would never shoot wildly into a crowd. We would carefully and deliberately find our target and attempt to take it out before it took us out.
I believe Mr. Smith is a martial artist; therefore, his body is a deadly weapon. Shall we ban him? Of course not. He is trained in his art and is a responsible citizen; however, he wouldn’t hesitate to use his body as a lethal weapon in order to save his love ones. Responsible owners of firearms, are no different.
Annie is another person that seems to think that people willing to buy firearms are not willing to learn how to use them properly. She along with Mr. Smith and Ms. Schreiber may have died if they were among the San Bernardino 31. Even Mr. Smith’s martial art skills would have been no match against bullets. The only match against bullets are more bullets traveling in the opposite direction.
Their unreasoned opinions remind me of countless unrealistic characters in movies and TV shows. The bad guy grabs the hero’s love one. The hero points a gun at the bad guy. Then this ridiculous scene unfolds:
“Drop the gun or I will kill her” said the bad guy.
“Don’t kill her, I will put the gun down” said the good guy as he carefully lays the gun on the ground”
Now the bad guy has both of them at his mercy. Why would any clear thinking person give up the only edge they have against an imminent threat? A clear thinking person wouldn’t do it. I would never drop my weapon nor would I expect my love one to drop theirs if our positions were reversed.
There was a television show which seems to explain some of the irrationality of liberals. During the series, Star Trek the Next Generation, the crew encounter an almost undefeatable enemy called the Borg. The Borg was a combination of man/creature and machine. Everyone or everything was assimilated into the Borg collective. Once the assimilation was completed, each formally independent entity operated in conjunction with the collective. They were unable to exercise independent thought.
I believe that the liberal mindset operates like the Borg. They do not think for themselves and are incapable of doing so as long as they are part of the collective.
However; I have good news! Resistance is not futile. They can detach from the collective and start making their own well informed decisions. Once detached from the collective, a brand new world of independent thinking exists. Freed liberals can decide if they want a firearm or not. No one will fault them for having one or having none. No one except maybe those still trapped in the collective.