NRA TV has made a lot of great, logical videos in support of the 2nd Amendment and in the dissection and destruction of Leftist arguments pushing for gun control. One of their latest videos, made by NRA TV host Colion Noir, talks about one of the potential reasons for the frequency of mass shootings taking place in America being the willing or unwilling glorification of mass shooters by the mainstream media.
 
Noir begins by saying: “Can anyone tell me the last time a mass school shooter left a manifesto, a comment on social media, or a video where they said they were inspired to commit their atrocity because of a firearm? Name one. I’m sure you can’t, and neither can I. Because as much as the media love to pivot the conversation after a mass school shooting to gun control, the pen is still mightier than the sword.”
 
“These kids aren’t being inspired by inert junk of plastic and metal lying on a table. They’re inspired by the infamous glory of past shooters, who they relate to. And no entity on the planet does a better job, whether directly or indirectly, of glorifying these killers and thereby providing the inspiration for the next one than our mainstream media.”
 
The video then cuts to clips of mainstream media sources covering the Parkland shooting.
 
Noir then continues: “You may hate guns and wanna ban every single one of them. But even you know what I just said is true. Attention-seeking in this country is at an all-time high. And if social media has proven one thing, it’s that there are people out there willing to do anything for attention, even if it means slaughtering classmates they hate, but letting the ones they like live so they can tell their story to every mainstream media news outlet who are itching like fiends to be the first to do a deep-sea dive into the killer’s background.”
 
The video again cuts to MSM sources talking about the perpetrators of shootings, and their motives behind the shootings.
 
After a while, Noir then gets to his apparent point: “It’s time to put an end to this glorification of carnage in pursuit of ratings, because it is killing our kids. It’s time for Congress to step up and pass legislation putting common sense limitations on our mainstream media’s ability to report on these school shootings.”
 
“There’s no need to cover these shootings for two weeks straight plastering the kids’ face over and over and over again. Pass a law stopping the media from reporting the killer’s name or showing his face. You can still report on the shootings… We just need reasonable laws that place limitations on the glory and fame you give to these killers and their twisted motivations.”
 
He says all of this with a completely straight face. He seems to mean every word he is uttering. For anyone who appreciates their 1st Amendment rights, which includes just about everyone, even liberals, they might be angered at seeing Noir pushing for government regulation on the media’s 1st amendment rights to report on something how they see fit.
 
If that were the end of the video, one would reasonably think that Noir abandoned his conservative principles and switched to Leftism and believing that it is up to the government to dictate what a news organization can and cannot say or report regarding something.
 
What Noir says next is precisely what makes this video so brilliant: “You know that feeling of anxiety that shot through your body when I said the government should pass laws to limit the media’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right? That’s the same feeling gun owners get when they hear people say the same thing about the Second Amendment.”
 
“Hearing me advocate for the government’s ability to limit ANYONE’S 1st Amendment rights, including the media, should anger ALL of you watching this video – the same way it should anger you when anyone tries to use the same limitations on the 2nd Amendment.”
 
He knew precisely what kind of reaction he was going to get upon seemingly advocating for increased government power over the media. He knew that no one, either from the Left or the Right, would advocate for the government’s ability to suppress what the media can report. That feigning advocacy for government obstruction of the media’s 1st Amendment rights would anger even liberals, and would let them know precisely what gun owners feel when their side calls for government obstruction of people’s 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Noir then proceeds to explain that he does believe that news organizations should be mindful about how much glory, either willingly or unwillingly, they are giving to people who have committed unspeakable horror against innocent people. And he’s right.
 
With the Parkland shooter (whose name I will no longer share so as to not be part of the problem), his face would be plastered in every media outlet, and his name has become infamous, which is another way for someone to become legendary. Not to mention that he also received love letters from crazy girls who “loved” what he did and “loved” him for it.
 
Do you have any idea what a guy would do to receive such attention from girls? He would do precisely what the Parkland shooter did and try to one-up him and do even more damage. So anyone who is not of the right mind and of the right heart would look at the Parkland shooter’s situation and be envious of the attention he was receiving. So, he would decide to make a name for himself and receive that much attention or perhaps even more, if he can cause more damage.
 
So the media does have a hand in school shootings, if only in the kind of attention that they give to people who have committed tremendous evil.
 
But Noir, being the conservative that he is, knows full well that the answer does not lie in government intervention and legislation. Such legislation would only do more harm than good in the long-run. That is the case for both legislation limiting the media’s 1st Amendment rights and limiting people’s 2nd Amendment rights.
 
What makes this video so brilliant is that it turns the tables on the Left and makes them feel precisely what we feel whenever they advocate for gun control, using language and talking points that are precisely like the Left’s. Calling for “common sense media control” is something that angers the Left (as it should), but calling for “common sense gun control” delights them. Calling for “common sense media control” is something that angers conservatives (as it should) and calling for “common sense gun control” is precisely the same.
 
It gives people a different perspective and allows liberals who advocate for gun control to walk a little in our shoes. Hearing someone advocating for the government to come in and restrict the media is not something any liberal would want to hear. It’s something that is very obviously fascistic and tyrannical. It’s what socialist countries do (which is why I find liberals’ advocacy for socialism so ironic and tragic at the same time). It’s the same thing gun owners and conservatives feel when they hear someone advocating for the government to come in and further restrict people’s 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Taking away anyone’s 1st Amendment rights is just as tyrannical as taking away anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights. The ironic thing is that the Left loves the 1st Amendment when it protects THEIR right to free speech but not when it protects anyone who has a different opinion. However, part of what makes this video so great is that the mainstream media is largely Leftist. To say that the government should limit the MSM’s free speech is something abhorrent for anyone regardless of political leaning. So it can successfully give liberals some perspective, when someone advocates for the regulation and suppression of something they love.
 
Kudos to the people who came up with such a great idea. While I highly doubt this will change very many people’s minds, since Leftists are mostly stubborn, it is possible that the more reasonable of liberals will be willing to reconsider some things.

And if even one person can be successfully reached in deep thought regarding this issue, then the video has done its job perfectly.
 
Psalm 119:130
“The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It is rare to see a member of the MSM acting not so much like a propagandist and more like an actual journalist, pressing the interviewee with tough, but fair questioning, regardless of the political party the interviewee belongs to.
 
CNN held a town hall meeting on Wednesday, in which survivors of the most recent school shooting got the chance to ask House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi questions regarding gun control and what her party, as well as the government in general, can and/or will do regarding making schools safer.
 
Particularly, a female student named Alexis Wilson asked the following: “Where does the government stand on arming and training our teachers, much in the way we use air marshals on airplanes?”
 
A good and logical question to ask a member of Congress. Pelosi, being the Leftist that she is, simply dismissed the idea, saying that she and her peers “do not think that is the solution”, adding that she does not “support arming teachers and the rest.”
 
Upon this reply, Chris Cuomo did the unthinkable: he actually CHALLENGED Pelosi’s response and supported the student’s question. “There’s a little bit of an either-or problem with how we’re trying to approach solutions,” said Cuomo.
 
“The building we’re in now, the building you work in, the point of entry there is secure. You don’t walk in with a trench coat with a shotgun underneath your jacket, and get in. It doesn’t happen, you know this… Why can’t that be part of the equation? Talk about universal background checks, fine. Talk about mental health, how to identify them, money for treatment. But why either-or? Why not make schools safer?”
 
Pelosi is visibly shaken by the line of questioning and struggles to find a coherent or relevant answer, repeating that she does not believe it is a solution.
 
While it is always likely Nancy Pelosi will say something dumb, particularly if given the chance to speak for a long time, as the town hall provides, it is rare to see the interviewer issue such a good question that challenges the interviewee, regardless of whether the interviewee is a Democrat or Republican.
 
We don’t usually see the MSM be tough but fair with Democrats. They usually allow for Democrats to get away with a lot of things (not necessarily always, to their credit) and will usually side with Democrats.
 
Here, Chris Cuomo seemed more like a real journalist than a propagandist. I will give him credit for that, at least, since pretty much every other time he talks, it’s Leftist propaganda. But in this instance, he did a good job. So much so, in fact, that even NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch praised Cuomo for his job.
 
“This was a good line of questioning from Chris Cuomo here and he makes a good point about CNN’s security and controlled access points – which I’ve walked through many times.”
 
It also overall makes a good argument against people who do not believe we should install more security and metal detectors in schools, out of fear of making schools look like prisons.
 
Regarding this argument, I’ve talked about this before, but I will reiterate my points.
 
First of all, a school already feels like prison for any student that walks through those doors. Even I, who used to like going to school as a kid, hated going to school once I hit puberty and once I entered high school. It’s something in our hormones that makes us think school is a massive waste of time and we would rather be anywhere else but there. The only reason I was willing to go to school was because of my friends. Aside from that, school felt like prison… except you will likely find far less problems to solve in prison. (Math joke).
 
So adding security to our schools might make our schools look like prison, but they essentially already are for the students.
 
Second, because of the type of security at prisons, people don’t just walk in and shoot up the place. It’s a sad realization to see that prisons are hundreds of times more secure than our schools. Not that prisons shouldn’t be secure. Given the criminal element residing in prisons, security is a top priority. But our children should be able to feel just as safe, at least from those who would wish to shoot up the place.
 
Third, it’s not just our prisons that have high security and metal detectors. Airports also have a lot of security. Government buildings also have a lot of security. The only reason people use prisons to argue against metal detectors and added security is because that has more of an impact than saying “but then schools will feel like airports or government buildings!”
 
Nevermind the fact that schools ARE government buildings and are somehow less secure than the office of your Congressman or woman.
 
The argument of “don’t make schools like prisons” is entirely a psychological weapon. One can make the same comparisons to other government buildings, but that would not be anywhere near as impactful. So, those who do not wish to create any real change and solutions that will work use this argument.
 
Finally, the reason Pelosi and other Democrats don’t want to use this solution is because it is something that will actually help. Part of the reason the Santa Fe high school shooting isn’t made to be a big a deal as Parkland is because the perpetrator didn’t use an AR-15. In fact, there’s nothing remotely legal about what the shooter (whose name I refuse to share so as to not give him the satisfaction) did. He used an illegal gun, which he possessed illegally, and most of all, he committed the illegal action of KILLING people.
 
Not one single gun control measure or law proposed by any Democrat would’ve prevented the Santa Fe shooting. To be fair, not a single one would’ve also prevented Parkland, but they at least have somewhat of an argument to sell to people there.
 
In this case, the shooting doesn’t help the Left further their anti-gun agenda, so it’s almost entirely ignored.
 
And since added security can actually help, it means a reduction in the likelihood of a school shooting happening or being lethal for anyone other than the shooter. Such a result is detrimental to the Left’s anti-gun agenda, so they dismiss it as something that “wouldn’t work”.
 
It’s not that it wouldn’t work. It’s that it would put Democrats OUT of work. The Left’s ultimate goal, as we already know, is to establish Communism in the United States. That will not be possible if the American people still have their guns. Lenin made sure that people could not revolt against his rule once he established Communism in Russia and became its leader. Hitler took away people’s guns so that they couldn’t fight back against the Nazi’s Socialist rule.
 
And in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez issued an all-out ban of private gun ownership back in 2012. According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Venezuela’s intentional homicide rate in 2015 stood at 57.15. Contrast that to the United States’ intentional homicide rate in the same year of 4.88, and you can see precisely how little help the ban in Venezuela was. And, by the way, Venezuela’s intentional homicide rate is only the second highest in the Americas, with El Salvador, which also has some tight gun control laws, being first.
 
But those numbers are entirely irrelevant to the Left. They don’t honestly care if the world around them is in chaos, so long as they are safe and protected and they still are the ones with all the power. This is the case for the Left wherever you go. In Venezuela, people are starving and dying while Maduro celebrates his “victory” and issues probes into opposing news organizations. In North Korea, the situation is even more dire, with people being forced to clean and organize pictures of North Korea’s former leaders in order to avoid them and their families being sentenced to life in prison.
 
These are the rules that the Left wants to imitate here in America. What they all have in common, aside from being dictatorial rules of injustice, is that their people cannot rise up against the regimes in revolution. Sure, people are standing up in defiance over the sham elections in Venezuela, but I have little hope that much will come of it. Maduro, unless ousted by the military in a coup, will not leave office any time soon. Even then, the military could simply invoke an even harsher rule, so there is little hope for Venezuela’s rule change.
 
And that is precisely what the Left in Venezuela wants… and what the Left here wants. Unending rule and power, regardless of how many people will suffer.
 
To seek any solution other than gun control (which as I’ve said multiple times is not a solution) is a non-starter. Cuomo correctly points out the either-or hypocrisy of the Democrats. They don’t want to make schools safer. They just want to guarantee their own power becomes eternal.
 
Yet another case of humans trying to be like God.

Isaiah 10:1
“Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Earlier this week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson had a discussion with Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) regarding gun control. Swalwell wanted to push for “assault weapons buybacks” which would prosecute those who would not comply. Of course, to anyone with half a brain, that is clearly a gun confiscation. But Swalwell knows quite well that calling for such a thing might not be best, particularly for their chances in November.
 
Swalwell, when Carlson correctly pointed out that he was pushing for confiscation, replied: “I’m not calling for confiscation. What I’m saying is we should invest in the buyback, that we should restrict any weapons that aren’t bought back to gun clubs, hunting clubs, shooting ranges. Keep them there, where it is safe, not on our streets. And if you are caught, just like if you were caught with drugs or anything else, they have probable cause to go into your home and you have one of these weapons, yes, you’d be prosecuted.”
 
No, your Honor, I didn’t rob the guy, I simply purchased his belongings at gunpoint with payment pending.
 
Carlson, like the professional he is, read from a USA Today opinion piece written by Swalwell, which says: “We should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”
 
Again, that is clearly gun confiscation, not a buyback. Swalwell, of course, exempts law enforcement and people who guard members of Congress from the buyback. Because, of course the government is the only entity allowed to have guns. That is only ever a good thing, just look at the Soviet U…, or how about Nazi Germa… Or, wait, what about Communist China, North Korea, Venezuela and other remaining socialist/communist nations? They definitely don’t have any sort of murder rates.
 
Wait, let’s also look at France, which has one of the most strict gun control laws in the world! Wait, you’re telling me that a large group of masked men opened fire on a crowd of people in France? Impossible! It’s extremely difficult to get guns in France! Tougher gun control laws means safer places, don’t they?
 
Well, let’s ignore that and instead focus on England. They also have severe gun control laws. Sure, murder rates are still really high and people are using knives instead of guns to kill people, but that’s better!... somehow.
 
We keep going in circles in this debate, never really making any sort of progress. Not that the Left wants any. The only acceptable response to shootings is more gun control to the point of eliminating the 2nd Amendment, or at least rendering it ineffective, in the Left’s mind. When a shooting happens, people blame the gun rather than the gunman. Even more so, they blame an organization meant to protect people’s rights, calling them terrorists despite the fact that they had nothing to do with it.
 
People accuse the NRA of paying off Republicans, despite the fact that Planned Parenthood pays FAR more money to Democrats. They accuse the NRA of being a terrorist organization, despite the fact that the perpetrators of these shootings are Left-leaning evil people 100% of the time.
 
Even worse, they accuse gun owners of being part of the shootings, despite that being a ridiculous claim. It’s really no surprise that ignorant people like Scalwell, who’s from California, no less, want to take people’s guns away by force.
 
In their effort to paint Trump as Hitlerian, it is they who wind up being the actual Nazis. But that really shouldn’t be a surprise either.
 
Communism, socialism, fascism and Nazism all have one common root: Marxism. They all derive from Marx’s ridiculous notion that people are oppressed under capitalism and that communism liberates people. It’s utter stupidity. Which is precisely why this fits the Left and Democrats so well.
 
A stupid notion based on unrealistic non-facts is bound to attract those who cannot see the errors of the philosophy.
 
Taking guns away from good people only leaves them more vulnerable and susceptible to attack. Criminals, by definition, don’t care about laws. If you pass a law that forces people to turn in their guns, that is like Christmas to bad guys. They get to assault, kill or rob people all they want without fear of pushback or a firefight breaking out.
 
Democrats are a criminal’s best friend. They continuously push for laws that will only affect those who obey the law, continuously push for the innocence of those who commit basic immigration crimes and defend the worst of the bunch. In their defense of MS-13 from Trump, they have shown that even rapists, killers and anarchists are preferable over the typical American family, over blue-collar workers, over law-abiding citizens.
 
While doing some research, I had come across an article written on The Hill. The title read: “We can change the trend of fatal shootings by voting in November.”
 
As one can guess from a mainstream media source, this is an article asking people to vote Democrat. The author pretends this issue of shootings is a relatively new issue, particularly an issue specific to the Trump administration.
 
Let me remind you of something: there were more shootings during Obama’s term than the four previous Presidents combined. According to TruthStreamMedia, who collected this information from information given by Mother Jones’ Investigation: US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015, as well as the Wikipedia page for Mass Shootings and a Wikipedia page for Postal Shootings, President Ronald Reagan had 11 mass shootings in his 8 years in office, with 5 incidents involving the deaths of 8 or more people.
 
President George H.W. Bush had 12 mass shootings in his 4 years (not a good look for him), with 3 incidents involving the deaths of 8 or more people.
 
President Bill Clinton had 23 mass shootings in his 8 years, with 4 incidents involving the deaths of 8 or more people.
 
President George W. Bush had 20 mass shootings in his 8 years, with 5 incidents involving the deaths of 8 or more people.
 
President Obama, in stark contrast, had 162 mass shootings in 6 years (2009-2015) with 18 incidents with 8 or more deaths.
 
That wasn’t even his complete term and he had far more mass shootings than his four predecessors combined.
 
The author of the Hill article insinuates that people are safer with Democrats in control. The evidence proves otherwise. People are never safer with Democrats at the helm. Children in schools are not safer with Democrats in control. Frankly, they are lucky to even survive the womb, nowadays.
 
Democrats are the worst enemy of the People. The fact that the author of the Hill article thinks Democrats will change the trend of mass shootings would be laughable if the subject wasn’t so tragic.
 
What is laughable is Scalwell’s attempt at b.s.ing you into believing he’s even remotely honest about what he’s trying to do. It’s a flat-out gun confiscation that he’s pushing. One which would blatantly violate people’s 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Let me tell you something, Rep. Scalwell. The American people are smart enough to see the bull you are trying to pull. That feeble attempt at justifying and redefining an unconstitutional gun grab, combined with other Leftists’ efforts to prioritize animalistic illegal immigrant gang members, prioritizing the death of children in the womb over the care of our Nation’s veterans, and the constant push for destroying the economic stability we see with the Trump administration will utterly doom the Democrats in November.
 
I’ve often said this, but this is a prime opportunity to repeat myself: there is zero reason for anyone to vote Democrat at any point. The mask has come off and the beast reveals itself. And it is ugly. The Democrats are among the scum of the Earth and darn proud of it. So much so, in fact, that they want to force the rest of the country to join them in their filth.
 
From ramming LGBT “rights” down our throat in every movie, including Disney movies, to promoting the deaths and violence against prominent right-wing people like Anne Coulter, to wishing for the gruesome end of Donald Trump, these people are the deplorable ones. Their hearts are filled with evil, and their mouths are thirsty for blood.
 
Like a vampire, the Democrats will suck the blood (money) out of you and enslave you. But at least vampires offer cool powers. All the Democrats offer is misery.
 
Proverbs 8:13
“The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​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.