​It’s no secret that you’re more likely to find anti-gun stories in the media than you will pro-gun, particularly if you look through the mainstream media. So whenever a story like the one I’m about to share with you comes up, it brings a smile to my face.
 
Early last week, Mark Robinson, a North Carolina citizen and gun-owner, spoke in front of a city council meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina about his and every other citizen’s right to bear arms as given to us by the 2nd Amendment.
 
Mr. Robinson begins: “… I’ve heard a whole lot of people on here talking tonight about this group and that group; domestic violence, and blacks; these minorities and that minority. What I want to know is: when are you all going to start standing up for the majority? And here’s who the majority is: I’M the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen who’s never shot anybody. Never committed a serious crime. Never committed a felony. I’ve never done anything like that. But it seems like every time we have one of these shootings, nobody wants to put the blame where it goes, which is at the shooter’s feet. You wanna put it at my feet.”
 
“You wanna turn around and restrict my right, CONSTITUTIONAL right, as spelled out in black and white. You wanna restrict my right to buy a firearm and protect myself from some of the very people you’re talking about in here tonight! It’s ridiculous. I don’t think Rod Sterling could come up with a better script. It doesn’t make any sense. The law-abiding citizens of this community and many communities around this country, we’re the first ones taxed and the last ones considered, and the first ones punched when things like this happen. Because OUR rights are the ones being taken away.”
 
“That’s the reason why I came out here today – gun show or no gun show; NRA or no NRA – I’m here to stand up for the law-abiding citizens of this community. ‘Cause I’m gonna tell you what’s gonna happen: you can take the guns away from us all you want. You wanna write a law, I’ll follow the law, I’ll bring my guns down here, I’ll turn them in. But here’s what’s gonna happen: the Crips and the Bloods on the other side of town? They’re not gonna turn their guns in. They’re gonna hold on to them. And what’s gonna happen when you have to send out the police down there to go take them? The police can barely enforce the law as it is… We demonize the police… vilify the police and we make the criminals into victims.”
 
“And we’re gonna talk about restricting guns? How are you gonna do that? How are you gonna do that when the police departments are already [restricted] (couldn’t quite catch what he said there). You ain’t gonna be able to come down here and take these guns and restrict them. So the criminals are going to hold on to their guns; they’re still going to have them. They’re still going to break into my house; and they’re still going to shoot me with them. And guess who’s going to be the one who solves this. It’s going to be me… I’m here to tell you tonight: it is not going to happen without a fight. And when I say ‘fight’, I do not mean ‘shots fired’, I don’t mean ‘fists thrown’. I mean I’m going to come down here… and raise hell just like these loonies from the Left do until you listen to the majority of the people in this city, and I am the majority.”
 
“The majority of the people of this city are law-abiding… and they want their constitutional right to bear arms. They want to be able to go to the gun show and buy a hunting rifle or a sport rifle. There ain’t no military-grade weapons sold at the gun show. And an AR-15 is not a military-grade weapon. Anybody that would go into combat with an AR-15 is a fool. It’s a semi-automatic, .22 rifle. You’d be killed in 15 minutes in combat with that thing. So we need to dispel all these myths and we need to drop all this division that we’ve got going on here. Because the bottom-line is the 2nd Amendment was written whether the Framers liked it or not. They wrote it for everybody… and we want our rights and we wanna keep our rights. And by God, we’re gonna keep them; come Hell or high water.”
 
I know that’s a lot, and I mean a LOT of things to cover here. Obviously, I can’t cover absolutely everything said here, lest I make this article way too long. But I didn’t want to cut much of this short, promptu speech by this gun owner. Everything he said made sense and everything he said was important.
 
From calling out the politicians for only listening to this minority and that minority and not listening to the majority of the people of this country, who are people like Mr. Robinson, to dispelling myths about the deadliness of an AR-15. And he’s exactly right.
 
A hunting rifle is far more powerful and deadly than an AR-15. A classic hunting rifle, like a Mossberg, uses .308 caliber rounds. Let me tell you, if you had to choose between getting shot by a .22 rifle or a .308 rifle, you’d be foolish to pick the .308. The reason the Left goes after AR-15s is not because they’re deadly, but because they look scary. An AR-15 looks like an M-16 or an M4 rifle. That’s really their biggest issue with them. Because an AR-15 looks like a weapon used by the military, they deem it a military-grade weapon when nothing could be further from being the case.
 
Here’s a visual representation:

Which one looks scarier? The one on the top, right? It looks scary, and it looks like it’s used by military snipers if you add a scope. Well, what if I told you that the one that looks scariest is the one that’s less powerful? Yep, the one that looks like your run-of-the-mill hunting rifle is more powerful than the scary, liberal’s-pants-filling “military-grade” rifle. The one at the top uses .223 caliber rounds and the one on the bottom uses .308.
 
The scary-looking rifle is about as powerful as an AR-15. And since both look like military-grade weapons, the Left wonders why they would be allowed to be sold to civilians.
 
But aside from dispelling the myth of the power of the AR-15, Mr. Robinson makes other fantastic points about the dangers of gun control and a full-on ban on weapons. He said that he’d be willing to obey the law and give up his weapons if such a law was passed (which I personally disagree with. I’d rather fight and die free than give up and live an eventual slave to the State, for if the government gets rid of the 2nd, they’ll go after the rest. Just look at Great Britain to find the proof of my words).
 
But he said he’d give up his weapons but knows full well that criminals won’t. Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. So no law passed will keep criminals from having guns. And the police will have an incredibly difficult time doing as much. Drugs are already illegal and police have enough problems dealing with that. Criminalizing the possession of all weapons will only make things harder for police and will likely cost them their lives.
 
Not that the Left cares one bit. They only care about the police if they’re on their side. And even then, they don’t really care about the individual officer. If the Left can make martyrs of police, they will. They already make martyrs of criminals; making martyrs of police should be easier.
 
But returning to Mr. Robinson, I’m elated to see this viral video (shown below) on the internet. I’m happy to see this man standing up for We the People’s right to bear arms. We the People’s right to purchase firearms and protect ourselves from all who would do us harm, whether it be a regular robber, a home invader, a potential murderer, or even a tyrannical government (as was the original intention of the 2nd Amendment).
 
In a media world where just about every source of “journalism” is nothing more than anti-gun propaganda, I’m happy to see this one man standing up for what he believes and that he stands up for what is right.
 
Galatians 5:1
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​It’s not a surprise at all that Leftists will automatically blame any shooting on the NRA, saying the NRA is either directly or indirectly responsible for it. But there are times in which it’s far easier to dispel the NRA’s association with a shooting.
 
Of course, no NRA member has ever participated in a shooting unless it was to stop one, but there are times such as this most recent shooting taking place at YouTube’s HQ in San Bruno, California, where it’s far easier to destroy any arguments made against the NRA.
 
But Alyssa Milano, likely not having sufficient information, seemingly blamed the NRA for this recent shooting.
 
Milano tweeted: “If NRA or NRAtv were run by brown or black people, it would be labeled a terrorist organization with hate propaganda programming that incites violence,” before sharing a video from NRAtv that responded to YouTube’s censorship against videos and content creators that share videos about guns and called for people to “rise up”.
 
So she’s both racist and dumb for tweeting that. First, the NRA does have brown and black board members in Allen West, Carl Rowan Jr., and Roy Innis.
 
Second, the NRA has as little to do with this shooting as it has for all previous shootings that have ever taken place.
 
The shooter was not an NRA member. Far from it. She was a Muslim woman (I won’t share her name or face because I don’t want to unwittingly glorify her) who was a vegan and belonged to PETA. She was clear-cut Leftist as you can get.
 
And her reasons for shooting up YouTube’s HQ were seemingly for censoring her and demonetizing her content. That’s likely where Milano wishes to draw a comparison, but as Breitbart News shares with us, “There is no evidence she belonged to the NRA and her anger at YouTube pre-dates YouTube’s decision to censor videos made by gun hobbyists.”
 
So the shooter didn’t “rise up” against YouTube because the NRA said she should (although no sane person believes the NRA called for people to shoot up YouTube, but rather take a stand against their censorship and demand change diplomatically and peacefully. We take up arms against a tyrannical government, not a jerkwad of a company).
 
The NRA didn’t encourage the shooter to take up arms against YouTube. She made that decision all on her own, and seemingly before YouTube’s censorship policy.
 
Now, this being Twitter, you absolutely knew that people would criticize and ridicule her ignorant and, frankly, racist tweet.
 
One person commented: “Wow, that sounded racist. Why do you leftys always put color labels on people? We’re all human beings no matter what flavor you are. Putting color labels on people is racist.”
 
Another said: “You’re dumber than Nancy Pelosi”. Now that one’s a zinger… and also true… possibly. Both have said incredibly stupid things in the past.
 
One last one I’ll share with you said: “Actually Alyssa, many black and brown folks (why must you always subdivide Americans?) have been saved by using their 2nd Amendment rights to protect themselves. #LearnYourHistory”.
 
And that last tweet reminds me of a comment made by someone in San Bruno mere moments after the shooting. One witness was interviewed by a Fox News reporter. The reporter asked: “What’s going through your mind?... people dropping, being shot multiple times, bullets whizzing, people bleeding. What’s going through your mind?”
 
The witness, who is a YouTube employee, answered: “… I knew I had to be smart. You gotta think fast, you gotta be fast. I didn’t have a gun on me, but wish I did.”
 
And that really says it all, doesn’t it? No doubt, YouTube’s HQ is a gun-free zone and look where that got them. Thankfully and by the Grace of God, no one died except the shooter. The Daily Mail reported that San Francisco General Hospital received three patients from the shooting. One who was “a 36-year-old man [who] was in critical condition, a 32-year-old woman was in serious condition and a 27-year-old woman was in fair condition”.
 
Hopefully, they will all be able to recover and return to their families after this.
 
But returning to Milano, you really have to be making a stretch to put the blame on this on the NRA. Again, NRA members have nothing to do with shootings in general, but even Leftists should be intelligent enough to not blame the NRA for this shooting. Emphasis on the word “should”, because at least this one certainly wasn’t intelligent enough. (And yes, I know Michael Ian Black, another Leftist, also blamed the NRA for this).
 
What we know is that the shooter was a Muslim, PETA-supporting woman who was angry at YouTube for demonetizing her videos. She perpetrated the act reportedly using a 9mm handgun and ended up harming at least three people, one of whom is in critical condition.
 
The Left can’t possibly blame this on the NRA, partly because a handgun was used, not a semi-automatic rifle (which is very different from an assault rifle and a military-grade weapon. The military doesn’t use AR-15s because they’re not powerful or reliable enough). But the Left can’t blame this on the NRA either because there’s no evidence of a relationship between her and the NRA (though no other shooters really have a relationship with the NRA either) and because she was clearly a Left-leaning woman herself.
 
Of course, this didn’t stop Milano from expressing her ignorance on Twitter (although I doubt she had these facts with her). But you also have to wonder, aside from blaming the NRA which could be attributed to simply being uninformed, why did she have to make it about race?
 
Granted, that’s a bit of a rhetorical question, seeing as to how she’s a Leftist herself and Leftists tend to be very much racist, and have been given their history, but still. Why bring race into this? The NRA has plenty of minority leaders and members, with even more supporters as well.
 
I don’t doubt that, in her mind, the NRA is just a bunch of white supremacists, despite the fact that I shared in the paragraph above and despite the fact that her political party has a horrendous history of white supremacy coursing through their veins.
 
Regardless, it’s entertaining to witness highly ignorant people making a fool out of themselves and further sharing their ignorance with you all.
 
Job 11:12
“But a stupid man will get understanding when a wild donkey’s colt is born a man!”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Unless you strictly adhere to watching and reading fake news sources, you probably are aware that homicide in London is now at higher rates than New York City. And you know they royally (pun intended) screwed up if homicide in London is now WORSE than in New York City, the home of the Knicks, Mets, Giants, Yankees, Jets… and high crime rates.
 
Breitbart News made sure to point out a certain history about Great Britain that may help shed some light as to why homicides are now worse in London than in New York City.
 
According to Breitbart News, the network, back in September of 2014, reported that “gun control had made Britain extremely violent. That gun control was put in place during the 20th century via a relentless, incremental push, which began with laws similar to firearm owner identification cards and background checks and ended with a virtual ban on all handguns.”
 
They then proceed to quote that September, 2014 article: “Britain began placing restrictions on gun ownership after World War I with the Firearms Act of 1920. The passage was emotionally driven, based in part on the public’s war-weariness and in part on the fear that an increased number of guns – guns from the battlefield – would increase crime.”
 
Emotionally driven, huh? Now what does that remind me of?
 
“The Firearms Act of 1920 did not ban guns. Rather, it required that citizens who wanted a gun had to first obtain a certificate from the government,” much akin to some laws in some states, where someone has to get a Fire Owner Identification Card (if you’re in Illinois) or has to be vetted by police (like someone in Massachusetts) or both.
 
“Thirteen years after the passage of the Firearms Act, British Parliament passed the Firearms and Imitation Firearms Bill, making the possession of a replica gun or a real one equally punishable unless the owner of either could show the lawful purpose for which he had it. This was followed by the Firearms Act of 1937, which author Frank Miniter says ‘extended restrictions to shotguns and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual private firearm certificates.’”
 
“…On July 25 [2014], Breitbart News reported that Massachusetts police were pressing for ‘sole discretion’ on who could own a long gun; they already had such discretion over who could own a handgun. On August 1, they received the power they sought.”
 
“Britain continued to issue firearm certificates as World War II set in. But by the time the war was over, the gun control mindset had permeated society to a point where self-defense was no longer a valid reason to secure a certificate for gun ownership. Guns were simply for sport or for hunting.”
 
The article then proceeds to detail some shootings that happened in England that prompted even stricter gun control laws. “In 1987, Michael Ryan shot and killed sixteen people in Hungerford, including his mother. He wounded fourteen others, then killed himself. According to the Library of Congress, Ryan used ‘lawfully owned’ rifles to carry out the attack. Nevertheless, his attack prompted the passage of more laws in the form of the Firearms Act of 1988. This act ‘banned the possession of high-powered self-loading rifles’ and ‘burst-firing weapons,’ and imposed ‘stricter standards for ownership’ to secure a government certificate to own a shotgun.”
 
“In 1996, Thomas Hamilton walked into an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and shot and killed ‘sixteen small children… and their teacher in the gym before killing himself.’ He brought two rifles and four handguns to carry out the attack. All six guns were legally owned: Hamilton had fully complied with gun control statutes.”
 
“The Firearm Act of 1997 was passed while emotions ran high. Gun control proponents push for an all-out ban on private gun ownership, in much the same way that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) reacted to the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary by trying to ban approximately 150 different guns.”
 
“Yet the Firearm Act did not ban all guns, ‘but served to essentially prohibit the ownership of handguns in Britain’ and to make the acquisition of certificate to possess a long gun an onerous and time-consuming one.”
 
Now, what did all of these firearm acts culminate to? In 2009, the Daily Mail reported that Britain was “the most violent country in Europe,” and that it had “a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S.”
 
On October 21, 2017, Breitbart News reported that “rapes in London were three times higher than in New York City”, and most recently, “homicides in London are higher than homicides in New York City, and the man with a knife is king.”
 
The multiple firearm acts across the 20th century has led England, and particularly its biggest city, London, to being highly dangerous places for everyone. Safety has gone out the window in England, largely due to the firearm acts. Sure, you could also blame the Muslims taking “refuge” (more like invading) England and bringing their horrible jihadist culture with them.
 
It’s the combination of those “refugees” and the insane gun control laws that will mark the destruction of Great Britain as we know it. The British government already has exercised more law enforcement muscle against its own citizens if they are deemed “offensive”. So the British government are effectively taking away people’s freedom of speech.
 
Thus, the people are left defenseless against an oppressive government dictating what they are allowed and not allowed to say or do, are left defenseless against other people who might wish to do them harm and are defenseless against an invading force taking the guise of refugees so that they may eventually turn Great Britain into another Muslim country, all the while the British government is more than happy to allow it so long as they are personally left alone.
 
I remember years ago, as a high school sophomore, having the opportunity to travel to England with my mother, accompanying her on her business trip. I remember saying to her that I didn’t want to go because “there’s no freedom there”. Honestly, I was simply feeling too lazy to pack a bag and make the trip and came up with that excuse before eventually agreeing to go with her (as well as getting the opportunity to miss a week of school). But I had a point then and that point has only become more significant since then.
 
The people of England have no freedom. They have no freedom to express themselves or even say a rather offensive joke, knowing that if they do, the government will convict and imprison them. They have no freedom to defend themselves from attackers who wish to simply harm their body at best or kill them at worst. Same goes for sexual attackers who wish to have some sense of “power”.
 
And they have no freedom to defend themselves from an invading force who wish to utterly destroy their culture and establish their own. Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying that they should outright kill the Muslim “refugees”. What I’m saying is that, once there’s enough Muslims to force a cultural change to that of the Muslim World’s, the people will have no real way to guard themselves against it. No real way to rebel against it. They’ll be forced to adhere by the Quran.
 
I find it odd that people point to England as an example of gun control that works. Clearly it doesn’t. Sure, there’s not very many gun crimes happening, if at all. But crimes, and violent crimes at that, are only becoming more and more common.
 
So the purpose, the true purpose, of gun control isn’t to make people safer. The people of Great Britain surely aren’t safer. The purpose of gun control is to highly regulate and make it extremely difficult for people to have guns. The purpose of gun control is to allow the government to have near unlimited power over the people they supposedly serve. The purpose of eliminating the 2nd Amendment is so that the government (specifically, Democrats) can go after the first.
 
If gun control worked, meaning that it did its supposed job of keeping people safe, then Great Britain wouldn’t be in the huge mess it’s in. They don’t have much gun crime. But in return, they have higher rates of other crimes.
 
Congratulations, Great Britain. You’re ensuring that the fall of your empire is permanent.
 
Luke 22:36
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​In reading up on the daily happenings of our world, particularly reading it from a non-Leftist source, I came upon a story on the Daily Wire about school safety and how children are feeling safer as of late than they were in the 90s.
 
Overall, the article talks about how the media makes it seem as though schools nowadays are essentially prisons where riots and murders take common place. But at one point, the article references a different article, one published on the Washington Post titled: “School shootings are extraordinarily rare. Why is fear of them driving policy?”
 
Frankly, I’m surprised at two things here. First, that an MSM source like this would dare publish this when it goes directly against the media narrative that children everywhere are in constant danger of guns and, two, that this article was written almost a month ago and I’ve just come around to reading it.
 
Mea culpa on that part.
 
But let’s see what the WP article actually says. “The Education Department reports that roughly 50 million children attend public schools for roughly 180 days per year. Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session, including the recent slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (and a shooting in Birmingham, Ala. On Wednesday that police called accidental that left one student dead). That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000. And since the 1990s, shootings at schools have been getting less common.”
 
I’m certain I’ll be referencing this bit of information every time someone argues that children are being slaughtered very frequently (or that 18 school shootings have happened since 2018 began).
 
Now, I’m not trying to take anything away from the tragedy at Stoneman Douglas. 17 people died when they shouldn’t have. What I’m trying to say here is that, much like with anything else, the MSM is wrong about the frequency with which these things happen and the ridiculousness of blaming guns for these things.
 
There are more guns in the country than there are people, but since roughly the turn of the millennium, there have only been 200 students who have been shot to death while in school? If guns were truly to be blamed, we’d all have died long ago.
 
Now, if you think this is a surprisingly pro-gun article by the Washington Post, let me stop you right there, because it’s not. Later in the article, the writer says “Having more guns in schools, as President Trump advocates – or more guns anywhere – increases the likelihood of gun violence… The Parkland tragedy itself teaches that more guns don’t automatically mean more safety: the school was patrolled by an armed guard.”
 
So the writer still sticks to the Leftist philosophy that more guns equals more danger. What I say to that is that you need only look at Chicago to see that gun control doesn’t work. Chicago ranks 16th in Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. according to World Atlas, having 1,105.48 violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.
 
Detroit is another good example, as it’s ranked most dangerous both by World Atlas and Forbes, with over 2,000 violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.
 
St. Louis, Missouri is another example, coming in at #2 in the World Atlas rankings. As well as Memphis, Tennessee, Baltimore, Maryland and Cleveland, Ohio. Would you be surprised if I told you that they have all been strictly Democrat cities for ages?
 
What this all tells us is that Democrat policies, very much including gun control simply don’t work. The reason no one ever attacks a prison is because there are heavily armed guards there. People don’t attack places where there will likely be armed guards. And yes, I recognize that Stoneman Douglas had armed guards. The article itself reminds us as much. But none of those people did a darn thing. They had the power to put an end to the shooter, but cowered in fear for their own lives. The armed guards there should’ve been promptly fired upon the world knowing of their cowardice.
 
If an armed guard actually has the guts to do something against a very clear threat to the public, they will do something about it, as in the case of the shooting that happened in Maryland back in late March.
 
In that case, the armed guard had the courage to engage the shooter (who seemingly only targeted one person, but there’s always the chance that he could’ve targeted more) and promptly killed him. Unfortunately, the shooter’s target died eventually after being taken off life support, but at least she was given a chance, unlike the people in Stoneman Douglas.
 
Regardless, the WaPo article does something that no other media source wants to do: report things realistically and fairly.
 
Sources like CNN, MSNBC, ABC and what have you are more than happy to pretend the world is far worse than it really is if it means their agenda is pushed through and their preferred candidates win elections. Everything from the apocalyptic urgency of climate change to the apocalyptic urgency of not passing tax cuts (or at this point, getting rid of them) is what goes on in the news pretty much 24/7.
 
They never report on the economy unless the Dow Jones goes down hundreds of points one day. In such a case, they blame Trump for it, while saying that Obama was responsible for the Dow Jones skyrocketing to record-highs. They only dare report on the economy when the Dow Jones goes down hard but are hard-pressed to report it going back up by hundreds of points.
 
They haven’t reported much (if at all) on the defeat of ISIS so far, choosing to focus either on the Mueller investigation, saying that it will be the end of Trump, or focusing on Stormy Daniels, saying that she will be the end of Trump.
 
They literally report that Climate Change will result in deaths equivalent to 25 Holocausts, without stopping to think that if Climate Change is a global event, it surely should affect more than 150 million people (the Holocaust killed 15 to 20 million people, so even their “25 Holocausts” estimate is wrong).
 
At least this particular person, though still within the erroneous belief that guns kill people, makes it known just how unlikely an event such as the one in Florida is to occur and how few people since the turn of the millennium have actually died within school grounds due to people with guns.
 
Now, I’m not surprised that this sort of article wasn’t more widely read by people. If even I took some time to read it, it goes to show how reporting of this kind – honest (if even with some opinion mixed in) and informative – is extremely rare in today’s media.
 
Proverbs 19:1
“Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​As the gun debate has been going on in recent time, a logical argument made against those calling for gun control is that they themselves are protected by people with guns. Bernie Sanders is protected by people with guns, Chuck Schumer is protected by people with guns, even the March for our Lives event had armed security.
 
Chelsea Handler also falls under the category of someone who is anti-gun while being under the protection of people with guns. And maybe if she owned a gun herself, she would be a bit more savvy about what a gun even is, because according to a recent tweet, such information is clearly lacking from her brain.
 
Replying to someone calling her out for being anti-gun while being protected by people with guns, Chelsea said something that may just be up there in terms of stupidest things she’s ever said, and that’s saying something: “My armed guards aren’t killing children and don’t have semi automatic weapons.”
 
Unless her armed guards are protecting her with bananas, I find that statement to be utterly false and ridiculous. But I think I can understand her line of thinking. In her warped mind, anything that is a semi-automatic weapon is, by default, an “assault rifle”, which is ridiculous because assault rifles are automatic rifles, not semi. AR-15’s are not military-grade weapons because the military doesn’t use AR-15’s. They use M4’s, which are automatic.
 
But I digress. Returning to Chelsea, her ignorance is ever so clear. Just to clear up any sort of confusion, a semi-automatic weapon is a weapon that automatically loads a new round into the chamber after a bullet leaves the gun, but won’t fire unless the trigger is released and pressed again. An automatic weapon is a weapon that automatically loads a new round into the chamber and fires that round if the trigger is still being pulled.
 
This knowledge doesn’t even have to come from owning a gun. Even playing any shooter video game will give you this knowledge.
 
But this is clearly knowledge that is lacking in Chelsea’s brain. And let me tell you, other Twitter users were quick to point out her stupidity.
 
“You obviously have no idea what a semi-automatic weapon is, and I can guarantee your armed guards carry a semi-automatic,” wrote one user.
 
“A pistol is a semi-automatic weapon. You obviously know nothing about guns. Automatic weapons have been banned in the U.S. for a long time now buddy. Hate to burst your bubble,” wrote another user.
 
“Unless they carry revolvers, they have semi-automatic weapons. Even with revolvers, guess what, they fire a shot with each trigger pull, just as a true semi-auto does. In case you aren’t aware, your ignorance is showing. But that’s nothing new, is it?” wrote another. And this person is mostly right. Not when it comes to the revolver. A revolver is not a semi-automatic weapon because you have to cock back the hammer to fire another shot. It doesn’t automatically load another bullet into the chamber because it technically has 6 chambers and cocking back the hammer makes the chambers revolve into the correct placement to fire the next shot, hence the name “revolver”.
 
But he is right that she tends to show her ignorance. Earlier in the year, during Martin Luther King Jr. day, she shared this tweet: “Happy Martin Luther King day to a true hero. This day means more today than it ever has. We all must honor the spirit of his fairness and equality and tireless search for justice. It is up to white people to honor Dr. King, and to think about what it must be like to not be white.”
 
I had even written an article surrounding the insanely stupid tweet and I said that Chelsea was in the lead for the “single stupidest tweet of 2018” award. I don’t know if this tweet trumps that other one. If anything, this tweet highlights her true racist nature and the other one simply highlights her insane ignorance towards… anything, really.
 
Now, I’ve addressed the stupidity portion of her tweet. But there’s another part of it that should also be addressed. The first portion, saying her armed guards don’t kill children.
 
As with everything, context is key. Chelsea wrote that tweet in reply to this one: “You truly are ignorant of our Constitution and what it stands for. Get rid of your armed guards then you can talk to the Middle Class about [feeling] safe. It’s children killing children there lies the problem. The home, the schools miss the signs not the Constitution.”
 
Let’s reread Chelsea’s tweet: “My armed guards aren’t killing children…” That’s the important bit that I want to focus on. What is she insinuating here? That Middle Class families do kill children? That those who respect and follow the Constitution kill children? That people who want to defend the 2nd Amendment kill children?
 
I know that’s what every other Leftist claims about Dana Loesch and other gun owners, so it would make sense for Chelsea to follow that line of thinking.
 
In her defense for not getting rid of her armed guards, she says that they aren’t the ones killing children. Which is also rather hypocritical because people gun owners defend their right to own guns by saying that they themselves aren’t the ones killing children. Her very reason to keep her armed security is the very reason WE WANT TO KEEP OUR GUNS!
 
And with her defense of her armed guards, she makes the insinuation that those who choose to keep their guns and defend their right to keep guns are responsible, if only in part, for the deaths of all children who are killed by people with guns.
 
Not only does she entirely miss the point that the other user was making, that guns aren’t the ones killing children but that children are the ones killing children (going by the argument that people kill people), which is something the Left automatically rejects anyway, but she also makes, even if subconsciously, the claim that those who want to keep their guns are the ones who are responsible for gun deaths in the country.
 
The ones responsible for children dying.
 
I believe that is the main reason she wrote that tweet. Both to defend her use of armed guards and blaming people who defend the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
 
I could be reading too much into that, but that’s what stuck out to me (aside from the sheer stupidity of the latter portion of the tweet) when rereading the tweet. What reason could she have for saying that her armed guards aren’t killing children? Of course they aren’t! Neither are LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS!
 
Now, I don’t expect her to even be able to recognize the stupid part of her tweet, much less the hypocritical and condemning part of it. But one can only hope and pray that these people wake up to their idiocy and evil.
 
That tweet contained both.
 
Luke 22:36
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.’”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

If you were to strictly watch cable or network news, you’d believe the world is on fire. You'd believe that Mueller was this close to busting Trump. That the world is literally on fire due to Global Warming. And you'd believe every kid in America supports gun control legislation
 
However, reality is an entirely different story. According to a USA Today poll, of over 600 middle and high school students surveyed, 47% said they believe tightening gun laws and background checks would prevent mass shootings, while 37% disagreed. Of over 500 18-24 year olds surveyed, 54% were confident that tightened gun control measures would prevent mass shootings, while 33% disagreed.
 
Obviously, the advantage still swings to the ridiculous Leftist notion that more gun control means safer schools and places. However, watching cable or network news featuring the borderline (or actual) communists David Hogg (who made a gesture similar to a Nazi salute) and Emma Gonzalez (who wore a Cuban flag patch on her jacket), and watching everyone else speaking at the ironic March for our Lives event (I’ll explain why it’s ironic momentarily), you’d think that they represent a vast majority of people around their age. And while most do agree with the overall message of more gun control, not nearly as many actually do.
 
And no doubt, that’s something that infuriates the Left.
 
But that’s not all. There’s something else, something a bit more important, to be discussed here.
 
According to USA Today: “Seven in 10 say schools should be required to have an armed police officer on site. Six in 10 say schools should be required to have metal detectors at the door; more than two-thirds of those under 18 felt that way.”
 
I’m sure you can tell why that infuriates the Left, perhaps even more than the previous statistic. First, this shows that 70% of the students surveyed AGREE with Trump and CONSERVATIVES about having armed security on campus. Second, this shows that 60% want “metal detectors at the door”. Do you know what one of the biggest arguments made by the Left against this proposal is? That the school would essentially be turned into a prison or it would at least feel like a prison.
 
To which I say: when was the last time someone went INTO a prison and shot it up? Besides, school already feels like prison anyway for students. What’s a little added security that would actually KEEP STUDENTS SAFE?
 
Third, and perhaps most importantly, this shows that most students want MORE guns on campus, so long as they’re in the hands of hired and trained security whose very living depends on protecting students from potential or actual danger. In other words, these students want a GOOD GUY WITH A GUN on campus!
 
And if the Left hasn’t exploded in rage like the Krakatoa, they surely should by this point. That very statistic demonstrates the support of the very OPPOSITE of what the Left wants. The Left doesn’t want good guys to have guns. They want to be the only ones with the guns. Because that means they’re the only ones with all the power.
 
The Left doesn’t honestly care about people; they only care about themselves. The thing about school shootings, or shootings in general, is that they bring about benefits to the Left. They get an opportunity to spout nonsense about how dangerous guns are and that we need more gun control at the expense of people they don’t really care about.
 
They get an opportunity to indoctrinate people (particularly young people) and lie to them about who’s responsible for this. They never blame the individual. No, they blame every other registered gun owner who hasn’t broken the law. They blame an organization that protects people’s rights to the 2nd Amendment when they had nothing to do with any shootings at all.
 
I didn’t care to watch the March for our Lives event. But I did see some things on Twitter. Some signs blaming the NRA and have heard chants asking the NRA how many people they killed that day. Zero would be the actual number, not that any of them care or, for some, believe.
 
Heck, some of them think the NRA actually SELLS guns, so it’s not far-fetched for some or most of them to believe the NRA is actually responsible for the deaths of people on a daily basis.
 
But while the NRA’s numbers are zero, let me tell you of an organization that kills 900 people every single day, according to an annual report from 2015-16.
 
That organization is Planned Parenthood. No surprise there, really. And that’s why I called the March for our Lives event “ironic”. These kids march against an organization that isn’t responsible for a single death, but utterly ignore or even support an organization that kills children on a daily basis.
 
For every child that these indoctrinated sheep believe were killed by the NRA, a million more were actually killed by PP. According to a website called numberofabortions.com, over 60 million children have been killed since 1973, the year abortion became legal. That’s roughly 60 million more children than the NRA has killed.
 
That’s roughly 10 times more people who have been killed via abortion than Jews were killed during the Holocaust. That’s 10 million more people than what historians estimate Joseph Stalin killed during his reign over the Soviet Union.
 
Now, Planned Parenthood isn’t responsible for every single one of those abortions. And abortions occurred even before Roe v. Wade, though they were illegal. But one interesting tid bit of information for you to know (if you don’t already know) is that Planned Parenthood is not a relatively new organization. Far from it. According to Wikipedia, the organization was formed in 1916. OVER 100 YEARS AGO!
 
Now, I doubt they would perform abortions (or at least, they wouldn’t report it, since it would’ve been illegal at the time) before 1973. But the organization has been around for a very long time, so it’s not a far-fetched idea that, while maybe not every single one of those 60 million plus abortions were their doing, that a good percentage of them are.
 
If you want to find a real child-killing organization, don’t look at the NRA, because they don’t kill people. Rather, look at Planned Parenthood. They will gleefully kill your (and their own) children and celebrate it in massive events.
 
Regardless, that’s really getting off topic. While I believe all of that was necessary to mention, I’ll return to the main point of the article. Given those statistics by USA Today of all places, we can see that the Left’s efforts to indoctrinate our children aren’t working as much as they would hope. If they could have their way, they would have the number of children who believe in gun control to be at 100%. And while the majority has been successfully brainwashed to not believe in facts, there’s a very surprising amount of middle and high school-aged people that refuse to believe the Left’s lies, even going as far as to believe that a good guy with a gun would be a good and safe option for them.
 
So that’s something to celebrate, if nothing else. It gives you some realistic hope that, while the future will likely be plagued by open-communists, there will be a decent amount of people who will fight back against that communism.
 
And yes, I know that that poll only talks about gun control measures and armed security on campus, but they’re indicative of potential conservatism for the future. If they’re unwilling to believe the Left when it comes to this, surely they’d be unwilling to believe the Left in other matters, even if at the moment, they are a bit liberal-leaning in those other matters.
 
Heck, even I used to be a good deal more liberal when I was in high school compared to now.
 
John 16:33
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Recently, another high school, this time in Maryland, was in lockdown due to a student shooter (whose name will be entirely omitted as to not unintentionally glorify him). But this particular shooting is quite different from the one in Parkland, Florida.
 
First, this doesn’t look like it was an intended killing spree. According to TownHall.com, “officials are telling the media that the male assailant targeted a specific female victim”. If this is the case, then one can assume this must’ve been some sort of vendetta shooting, perhaps. The specific reason as to why the shooting occurred isn’t very important, but the intention is noteworthy. The Parkland shooting was not a targeted killing. It was just a shooting spree by a mad man who could’ve been stopped had the sheriff’s county and other authority figures not been grossly incompetent or negligent at their jobs.
 
And that last little bit will be important in one moment.
 
Second, the shooting occurred with a handgun, not an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic rifle. This further cements the belief that this was a targeted shooting and not a killing spree.
 
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the shooter was stopped by a school resource officer who engaged the shooter before the shooter could do any more damage to anyone else.
 
One particular student called CNN during the lockdown, saying: “I’m still a little shaken up… I didn’t really expect for this to happen. I do always feel safe, though, because they always have police at the school.”
 
And that last part is truly important. This particular student, who could’ve been a potential victim had the shooter’s intentions been similar to the Parkland shooter’s, is confident that he would be safe because of the fact that A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN IS ALWAYS THERE!
 
Now, given that this was most likely a targeted shooting, other students in the school likely would not have been targets, but you never know. With different intentions, the shooter could’ve decided to go on a massive killing spree. And who knows if he only meant to kill one target? Who’s to say that he wouldn’t have gone somewhere else to kill someone else who might’ve wronged him or who simply ticked him off enough to kill them? Who’s to say that this could not have been a worse scenario?
 
Not to mention that, as of the time of writing this article, the female student target is in critical condition. A bad scenario, but far better than being dead. Who’s to say that the shooter, if he hadn’t been stopped (and killed) by the resource officer, wouldn’t have continued firing at the female student to ensure her death?
 
Again, this likely was a targeted shooting. Killers, when targeting a specific person, usually ensure that that person is dead. I don’t know the entire timeline of the situation. I don’t know exactly where everything took place. I don’t know where everyone was at any specific point in time. What I do know is that this had the potential to be a far worse case had the school not had a resource officer ready to engage the threat.
 
As of now, the only person known to be dead is the shooter. If the intentions had been different, it’s possible that things would’ve been far worse with far more people clinging on to life. But because this particular school always has someone on standby, more lives are almost guaranteed to be saved in such a horrific case as a school shooting.
 
The Left may believe that taking away the guns is an answer, but it’s far from it. Taking away people’s guns leaves them far more vulnerable. You can’t effectively take away every single person’s guns. Not to mention that criminals don’t usually abide by the law. A law that outlaws guns isn’t going to make a darn little difference to a criminal who intends to hurt people.
 
Bad people will always figure out how to get guns. There’s such a thing as the black market, you know? And with the gun-running happening at the southern border (which would be largely halted if we had a wall there), illegal guns will always be likely to be introduced into the country even if you were to take every single gun, legal or illegal, in the country and destroyed them (which is also impossible).
 
Not to mention that you may be able to take away the tool by which these criminals will commit crimes, but you can’t take away the evil in their hearts; certainly not with legislation.
 
It’s already illegal to kill another human being, but people still do it.
 
The next shooter is already out there, already with his weapon of choice and already has his target in sight. No gun control law will keep him from committing the evil acts he will commit. The only thing that will actually and EFFECTIVELY stop him will be a good guy with a gun wherever he intends to attack.
 
In a school, much like the one in Maryland, there could (and should) be a resource officer ready, WILLING and able to do the job he gets paid to do.
 
In a church, we’ve already seen a case where a nearby neighbor engaged the shooter with his own rifle. But the case can be made for someone inside the church being armed themselves and willing and able to engage the shooter themselves in order to protect their family or their fellow followers of Christ.
 
In a movie theater, the same case can be made for someone who is armed themselves and willing and able to protect themselves and those around him in the case of a shooter.
 
If you took every single mass shooting (perhaps with the exception of the one in Las Vegas, due to the shooter’s location), it’s entirely reasonable to believe that they could’ve all been stopped or at least far less deadly if there had been people there with guns of their own and who knew very well how to fire back effectively.
 
Taking away people’s guns and antagonizing guns doesn’t take away the bad people’s intentions or evil hearts. It takes away people’s ability to defend themselves and their loved ones. Gun control doesn’t make anyone safer, except the shooter. Bad people, killers, shooters are the only ones who benefit from gun control legislation. They likely already have their guns. And they’re not going to look for a challenge. They’ll be looking for easy targets.
 
How often do armed criminals attack police stations? Or gun ranges? Or gun stores? They’re not going to go where there are certainly going to be people who will effectively engage them and be difficult to kill. The reason we have as many school shootings, church shootings, mall shootings, etc. (which CNN claims there have been 17 school shootings according to their own research, so you know what the likelihood of that being fake news is) is because they are all typically easy targets.
 
Schools, aside from those like the one in Maryland, are typically gun-free zones where no one, even the security there, have weapons. This makes them easy targets, and thus, this results in the kind of tragedy we witnessed in Florida.
 
Malls are typically the same story. While they are a bit more likely to have armed security (at least police), malls are typically rather large and have a lot of people, depending on the day and the time of day. A shooter would be satisfied with killing as many people as he could, particularly if that number is decently high, even if they are eventually engaged by police and are shot to death.
 
And churches are usually without armed security as well. Although the likelihood of an armed worshipper being there is relatively high (since most Christians are conservatives), the focus will usually be in worshipping the Lord through prayer or listening to the pastor. And churches are usually not very large, so a shooter can go in and out rather quickly.
 
And it’s for that very reason that it’s absolutely imperative that people arm themselves and learn how to fire their weapon effectively. Churches don’t usually make enough money to hire armed guards. In fact, the very people working there usually do it for free out of service to the church. It’s for that reason that people should be able to have weapons and learn how to effectively engage and end any threat.
 
Regardless, returning to the Maryland high school, we should pray for the female student’s safety and recovery. And once the tension has been lowered, this should serve as a teachable moment as to how to effectively protect our schools and our children.
 
This should serve as an example of how a good guy with a gun (who has the guts to engage the threat, unlike the Broward Sheriff’s office) is the most effective way to defeat and maybe even discern any threats. A good guy with a gun likely saved the female student’s life. A good guy with a gun (and with guts) could’ve saved most, if not all of the victims in Parkland.
 
No legislation will ever take away the evil in bad people’s hearts. But legislation can take away the safety in innocent people’s hearts.
 
Nahum 1:7
“The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in Him.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It’s rather rare for any celebrity nowadays to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment or at least to not support gun control. Frankly, it’s often social and career suicide for a celebrity to not side with the collective mind of the Left. It’s dangerous for celebrities to stray from the same collective thoughts of the Left. Still, we occasionally see some celebrities come out against something the Left is pushing.
 
In this case, former NBA star Shaquille O’Neal is that celebrity. On an interview with WABC in New York City, Shaq weighed in on the gun rights debate and offered a solution that’s far closer to Trump’s than what Democrats propose.
 
“The government should give law enforcement more money. Give more money, you recruit more people, and the guys that are not ready to go on the streets, you put them in front of the schools.”
 
“You put ‘em in front of schools, you put ‘em behind the schools, you put ‘em inside the schools. And we need to pass information. I would like to see police officers in schools, inner cities, private schools.”
 
“There’s a lot of weapons already on the streets. So it’s not like, if you say, ‘Ok, these weapons are banned,’ people are gonna go, ‘Oh, man, let me turn it in.’ That’s definitely not going to happen.”
 
All of the things he said are nightmare fuel for the Left. Not just the content of the words but also who is saying those words. Shaq is considered one of the greatest Centers of all time and among the best players to play the game. He was the most dominant big man in the NBA for almost his entire career. He’s widely loved, admired and respected. So for him to be saying these things, the Left must feel hurt.
 
Shaq has dared go against their brainwashed think tanks. He’s dared challenge their policy and he’s dared to seemingly agree with Republicans on this issue. Even worse, he’s dared to seemingly agree with TRUMP on this issue. To the Left, for anyone, let alone a celebrity, to do that is bordering on a capital offense. At least, that’s what they would want it to be.
 
So let’s go into each particular point he raised. First, he mentioned that he wants the government to give more money to law enforcement. Right off the bat this is something that angers the Left. They’ve spent the last few years demonizing law enforcement. They’ve painted a horrible and demonic picture of police. The Left is adamantly against law enforcement… at least when it’s not under their direct control.
 
With Shaq saying that, it only angers them further. Of course, it’s important to know that Shaq is technically a cop since he completed an unofficial police academy program in 2016 and “has been named an honorary reserve officer by police departments around the country,” according to The Hill.
 
So his support for law enforcement should be expected, but that doesn’t mean it irks the Left any less. In fact, it should irk them even more considering he’s been an advocate for law enforcement for a long time now and his support has obviously not wavered even after all the Left’s attacks on law enforcement’s image.
 
Then, of course, he essentially is agreeing with Trump with his proposal to put trained and good people with guns inside and around the schools. This ties with the previous comments supporting law enforcement. Again, the Left has demonized police, so that’s part of the reason they disagree with this option. Of course, the other reasons are that this would mean siding with Trump on anything; this would mean there’d be more guns, not less guns, around; and that the “racist” police officers would be present in schools where they could “harass” the minority students.
 
And finally, he says that there are a lot of weapons on the streets already and that just declaring something to be illegal is not going to get people to give up their guns. First of all, the likelihood of a bill that would ban semiautomatic weapons passing Congress are slim to none. Under Republican control, there’s 0% chance that that would happen. Under conservative control of the Supreme Court, there’s 0% chance that it would be allowed, as it’d be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. And under President Trump, there’s 0% chance that a bill like that, if passed, would be signed by Trump.
 
And that’s just the legal side of things. Like Shaq said, people aren’t going to give up their weapons. If they do, they’ll have to be ripped from their cold, dead hands. We were willing to go to war over ridiculous taxes and over earning the rights of human beings. We’re certainly willing to go to war over keeping our guns. After all, the very REASON the 2nd Amendment exists is to protect the citizen from a government that has grown too big and tyrannical. The passage of such a bill would be the evidence the people need to see that our very own government has betrayed us and we have to rise and fight for our rights once again.
 
So realistically speaking, we’re never going to be without guns. And this is a concept that Shaq clearly understands. Rush Limbaugh has said this multiple times: the next shooter is already out there and he already has the weapon he’s going to use. No measure of gun control will prevent the next shooting, or the one after that, or the one after that.
 
I would also like to bring up an argument I’ve made in the past. And, to make things easier on you, I’ll even bring up the same statistic I used in the past. American Enterprise Institute (AEI) released an article not too long ago about the gun homicide rate in the U.S. from 1993 to 2013, a 20 year time span. It shows a 49% decrease in that rate during that time span. It also shows the number of owned guns in that same time span. The article says that “the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.”
 
All of those numbers are significant, but, at the moment, I’d like to specifically focus on that “357 million in 2013” number. Do you know what the population of the United States is currently (or at least what it was in 2017)? Roughly 325 million. Statistically speaking, everyone in the U.S. owns at least one gun. So I’d like to raise the same point here as I did the first time I shared that stat line: if guns were the problem, even I would know and admit it.
 
There are more guns OWNED in the U.S. than there are people. I capitalize own because, first, it’s not quite clear whether that counts unregistered guns (in theory, it shouldn’t). I say this because there, in theory, should be a lot more guns in the country today. Again, I don’t think this counts unregistered guns and that is a number from 5 years ago at this point. There’s a good chance that there are far more guns today than back then.
 
So I’ll repeat myself: if guns were the problem, even I would know and admit it. If guns were the problem, we’d all be dead. If guns kill people and there are more guns than people in the country, it only makes sense to assume that the people would all be dead, right?
 
Regardless, let’s return to Shaq, one of my new favorite NBA legends (he already sort of was since I’m a Miami Heat fan and he helped us win our first championship in 2006). I’m glad to see Shaq side with logic over emotions on this issue. He obviously shows far more insight and knowledge on the topic than all the highly emotional high school students, Hollywood celebrities and elected Democrats (who showed up for an anti-gun rally in D.C. with high school students, but it wasn’t political, supposedly) have.
 
Here’s hoping more people, whether celebrity or not, actually think logically and realistically about this issue without holding on to Nazi-like pipe dreams of taking guns away from people.
 
Proverbs 20:15
“Gold there is, and rubies in abundance, but lips that speak knowledge are a rare jewel.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Over the past couple of weeks, the gun debate has been quite heated. But I don’t think I’ve heard of a more stupid argument as to why teachers shouldn’t carry guns. It really shouldn’t come as a surprise that it was someone from the Crappiest Name in News that delivered the idiotic argument.
 
Tom Fuentes, CNN’s senior law enforcement analyst, said: “A lot of these schools – Sandy Hook had an all-female faculty, from principals to teachers. For a woman, where are you going to hide that gun during the day? You can’t put it in your desk drawer; somebody might steal it, and you can’t get to it. You’re not going to have it in a safe in the principal’s office; you can’t get to it.”
 
So far, these arguments aren’t invalid. Those are good points. Putting a gun in your desk drawer is dangerous because someone might steal it. Putting it in a safe in the principal’s office is ineffective because you can’t get to it and defeats the entire purpose of having it.
 
Then we get to the dumb, and frankly sexist comment: “If you wear a dress; if you wear a skirt, are you going to have to wear a jacket every day with a belt and a holster, the way a detective on duty would do? It’s not a real practical solution for a variety of reasons.” How so? If a detective on duty does it, why is it not a practical solution?
 
Not to mention that not every single female teacher wears a dress or a skirt. When I went to high school, almost all of the female teachers would wear pants. Granted, this was in Portland, Oregon, but even during the spring and summer time during school they would wear pants. And at that, I went to high school in Oregon for my last three years. When I was a freshman, I attended a school in Miami and the female teachers there also largely wore pants.
 
So this “argument” operates under the assumption that all female teachers exclusively wear a dress or a skirt. So that’s where the sexist part comes in. It’s not too sexist, for sure, but considering this is someone on CNN, you’d think they would go bananas over such a comment. But since it helps (not really) to push back against Trump’s proposal to arm teachers, they’ll let it be. It’s not like this is the first time they’ve been hypocrites and it certainly won’t be the last.
 
But returning to the argument, a large part of the reason it’s stupid is not just because plenty of female teachers wear pants, but also because even if a female teacher wears a skirt or a dress, they can still conceal it on their body.
 
Gun accessory manufacturers have made it very easy for women to protect themselves with their products. A simple Google search on “gun holsters for women” (which is one of the top search results) will direct you to such products. Just searching the first site, GunGoddess.com, it shows me tons of options for women who want to protect themselves.
 
Options include: Inside and Outside-the-waistband holsters, ankle holsters, conceal-carry jackets, concealment carry corsets, conceal-carry waist pack, concealment leggings, concealment shorts, concealment tank-tops, concealed bra holsters, garter belt holsters and thigh holsters.
 
That’s eleven different types of holsters and I didn’t even mention every single one the site offers. So there’re a lot of options for female teachers to carry concealed weapons. Wearing a dress or a skirt doesn’t matter.
 
So that only makes his comment all the more dumb. I truly don’t understand the Left’s obsession with keeping women from protecting themselves. If more women armed themselves, we’d have a lot less “#MeToo” victims. Why? Because as it’s been established in the past, rape and sexual assault is usually never about sex. It’s usually about power. The power of a man over a woman. Any power the man has (though women can be sexual assaulters and rapists too) immediately goes away when the woman has a gun. She immediately takes away any of the power he thought he had.
 
If the Left truly wanted an end to “#MeToo” stories, why discourage women from arming themselves? Just arming oneself gives one a greater sense of power. But also knowing how to wield one and being very adept at it gives you even more power.
 
But aside from sexual assault, a gun protects women in other factors. It protects them from abusers (either a spouse or someone else), it protects them from muggers (though unless your life is threatened, it’s just better to hand over whatever it is the mugger wants. No need to risk your life if the mugger doesn’t immediately want to take it), it protects them from home invaders and, in this particular case, can protect them from an evil sicko shooting up a school.
 
Guns can protect female teachers just as well as it can protect male teachers. It can protect women as well as it can protect men. Guns are the great equalizer. The Left might disagree that men are naturally stronger than women, but it’s a fact of life. And a gun is just as effective in the hands of a woman as it is in the hands of a man (with the same level of skill, that is).
 
It doesn’t take more strength to wield a handgun, and any gun is effective at doing its job: protecting the wielder. A 5’5”, 110 lbs. woman with a gun can be just as powerful as a 6’9”, 200 lbs. man with a gun. And that’s why a gun is the great equalizer.
 
So for this guy to say something like that honestly shows just how inept he is in his field and how inept CNN is for hiring this guy.
 
2 Thessalonians 3:3
“But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen you and protect you from the evil one.”
 
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.

After the most recent school shooting to strike at the heart of the country, Democrats and the Left as a whole have made sure to go after the people who are NOT responsible for this: the NRA and gun-owners/second amendment supporters.
 
They are very efficient in turning a national tragedy into a political game. And it’s sickening.
 
Recently, the Crappiest Name in News held a town hall meeting that was purely used as a means to attack anyone who defends the second amendment and was not meant to be a discussion of ideas.
 
But another event that occurred recently is the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC for short.
 
This event hosted a lot of conservatives from the President and Vice President to the leader of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre. He’s the person I’ll be focusing on most in this article.
 
LaPierre made the excellent point that we tend to secure a lot of things in this country, but children are not among the things we secure.
 
“It’s a bizarre fact that in this country our jewelry stores, all over this country, are more important than our children. Our banks, our airports, our NBA games, our NFL games, our office buildings, our movie stars, our politicians, they’re all more protected than our children in school.”
 
He continued with: “Does that make any sense to anybody? Do we really love our money and our celebrities more than we love our children?”
 
Again, this is a very good point. Why is it that every other government building is better protected than our SCHOOLS?!
 
Now, I know the Left’s position on this. “How dare you even suggest arming our teachers? How dare you suggest placing people with GUNS near our children? How dare you suggest we have metal detectors in our schools? That would turn schools into prison!”
 
All of these things are easily challenged. Why arm our teachers? Because they’ll be able to protect the children faster than the police. They’ll be able to shut down the attacker faster. If there even is an attacker in the first place. When was the last time someone attacked a police station? Or a prison?
 
Sickos like Nikolas Cruz, who hardly seems to even get any of the hatred from the Left, would be more hesitant to attack any place that likely has armed security. The reason shooters target theaters, churches and schools is because they tend not to be too heavily guarded by weapons, if at all.
 
If we trust teachers to teach our children, why wouldn’t we trust them to protect them as well? Why wouldn’t we trust them to protect them with their own weapons? But even then, we don’t have to arm the teachers. We could just have armed security as well who are payed by the school district to protect the people there, just as armed security in any other government building is tasked with protecting the people there.
 
But the Left has a problem with this solution, one: because it’s an actual solution and the last thing the Left needs is a solution to shootings. So long as there are shootings, they are able to shove their agenda down people’s throats. And two: because their issue is not the children’s lives, their issue is guns. They can’t begin to comprehend the concept of a good guy with a gun. To them, anyone who has a gun is a bad guy or potential bad guy.
 
When it comes to metal detectors, I’m admittedly more conflicted on this one. I don’t think it would be necessary to have metal detectors. Having armed security should ideally be enough. Considering most shootings happen with rifles, they’d be pretty difficult to conceal when walking into a school. Any posted security guard at any entrance would be able to see someone coming with a gun when they shouldn’t.
 
So metal detectors, I don’t think are necessary, but I’d still like to contend with the Left on this. I try to view things from multiple perspectives, so I’ll try to do that with this proposition as well.
 
Metal detectors would be an added security feature, for sure. What the Left says about it is that it would make schools look and feel like prisons. Aside from the fact that schools are already pretty similar to prisons in many ways (authoritarian structure, dress code, emphasis on silence and order, loss of individual autonomy, set times enforced for walking, eating, etc.), why would the way a school looks and feels take precedent over the safety of the children? With this argument, is the Left signifying that they care more about how things look and feel than they care about the safety and lives of children?

I wish it didn't have to come to these sort of proposals. I wish no one would dare attack a school. But we must face reality. These things happen, but we can take measures against them. We should act accordingly with things that will actually work, not gun control measures that won't help a single person.
 
Returning to LaPierre, he also points out that the Democrats “hate the NRA. They hate the Second Amendment. They hate individual freedom.”
 
“For them it’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue. Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms, so they can eradicate all individual freedoms. Their solution is to make you, all of you, less free. They want to sweep right under the carpet the failure of school security, the failure of family, the failure of America’s mental health system and even the unbelievable failure of the FBI.”
 
All good points which are all correct. The Left doesn’t want a solution to this problem unless it comes as part of a nationwide guns confiscation and Second Amendment repeal, which, if you’ve read my article telling you about such a goal, would not be effective whatsoever.
 
They push for gun control as often as they possibly can, pointing to places like the U.K. and Australia which have implemented it and gun crime is not very high. I would like to counter that by pointing out places like Chicago, Jamaica and Honduras. All places with very strict gun control laws and all places with very high murder rates and gun crime rates.
 
My point is that gun control hasn’t affected the crime rates in any of the countries in any positive way. That is another piece of evidence that should convince people (though it likely won’t) that what counts is the culture in a nation, not the gun laws.
 
Not to mention that the U.S. has the most guns per 100 residents out of any country. And it’s not even close. According to the Small Arms Survey, the amount of guns owned per 100 residents is 88.8. Serbia comes at #2 with 58.21 and Yemen at #3 with 54.8.
 
Yet, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the U.S. murder rate sits at just 4.88%. There are over 90 other countries with worse rates and less guns (as we can see from the previous stat). Not to mention that there are severe population differences between the U.S., the U.K. and Australia (and the other countries).
 
We have the most guns out of all of these countries, the most people out of these countries, but are still among the safest in the world, particularly when accounting for our massive population.
 
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: if guns were the issue, everyone would know it.
 
But guns aren’t the issue. Not that the Left would ever admit that. They hate guns and hate the fact that people can own them. Wayne LaPierre has it exactly right when he says they hate individual freedom.
 
Guns provide the people with freedom from the government. A concept that sounds like blasphemy in the ears of the Left.
 
As a side note, I find it rich that the very people that have called Trump “Hitler” are also the ones demanding he take away people’s guns.
 
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
 
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.