Earlier this week, the city of Boulder, Colorado was struck by a heinous shooting which left 10 people dead, with the suspect being shot in the leg and arrested at the scene.
 
Practically as soon as reports of the shooting came out, Leftists dove headfirst into blaming white people and specifically “white supremacy”, even though hardly anything about the shooting had been known. This is likely because just last week, there was a shooting in Atlanta, Georgia which was perpetrated by a sex-addicted white male against Asian people (though the shooter claims he was not setting out to specifically kill Asians). The Left picked up that story and ran with “white supremacy” claims in a desperate and fruitless effort to divorce themselves from their own history of being white supremacists.
 
Similarly, they began making all sorts of assumptions relating to this shooting in Colorado.
 
They especially pushed those assumptions when reports were released that the suspect had been apprehended at the scene, which the Left took to mean was a practical confirmation of the shooter being white because in Leftist looney world, white people get preferential treatment even when committing heinous crimes and that only white people get arrested after performing a shooting, while members of other races get shot at and killed at the scene.
 
But as it turned out, the shooter wasn’t white; he was actually Muslim and born in Syria, though has lived in the United States for most of his life.
 
Law enforcement reportedly told Laura Loomer that the guy had sworn allegiance to ISIS and that the Biden administration reportedly gave “orders to keep it under wraps to avoid conversation in the media about Islamic terrorism and reversal of Trump’s travel ban, which the terrorist was opposed to,” Loomer revealed on her Telegram channel.
 
She is so far the only source to claim this, so it is unknown if it is true, but going by Leftist rules of assigning motive when motive is unknown, why would there be a problem with labeling the guy a terrorist?
 
To begin with, the guy was a Leftist himself and blamed “racism” for Trump’s 2016 election victory. He also reportedly bullied other students while in high school, believing that they had been racist to him and would reportedly threaten them with filing hate crime charges against them to coerce them into silence, according to National File.
 
All the victims of the shooting were also white and there are reports that he was targeting Christians and Trump supporters, so one could just as easily slap him with the label of domestic Islamic terrorist as the Left tried to do with the Atlanta shooter.
 
But as soon as it was revealed that the shooter wasn’t white but was, in fact, a Muslim and possible ISIS-sympathizing terrorist, the Left’s narrative shifted away from “this is a white domestic terrorist” to “this is the fault of white people for wanting to keep their guns” even though law-abiding citizens will, by definition, not do this kind of crap.
 
Republican strategist Caleb Hull had actually compiled a list of statements and claims from Leftists about the identity of the shooter before it was revealed he was Muslim, with all of them going with the assumption that it was just an “angry white man” who “hates women” and whatever else.
 
Once it was revealed that he was Muslim, some shifted to just “mourning” the victims of the shooting whom they had just politically exploited and would have continued to politically exploit had the shooter actually been white.
 
Amy Siskind, far-Left nutjob activist, tweeted before learning the guy was Muslim: “The shooter is was [sic] taken into custody. In other words it was almost certainly a white man (again). If he were Black or Brown he would be dead.”
 
But after learning the guy was Muslim, Siskind tweeted the following: “Let’s mourn the victims, but not glorify the killer with the attention of having his name widely known.”
 
Generally, I would agree with that last statement, which is why I won’t be sharing his name, but let’s not pretend that the ONLY reason she is saying this is because the shooter has an Arab name. She wants people to not blame the death cult of Islam following the revelation that the shooter is a Muslim with an Arab name and was born in Syria, and instead implores that we simply “mourn the victims” whom she was politically exploiting in her previous tweet to attack white people (ironic, given that all of the shooter’s victims were white).
 
Somewhat similar to the Orlando night club shooting perpetrated by a radical Islamic terrorist whom had been confirmed to have sworn allegiance to ISIS, the Left wants to focus not on the identity of the perpetrator but on the method of killing. They want to target and enslave people by taking away their guns, so they pretend as though AR-15s are a massive threat and that people shouldn’t have the right or ability to own such guns.
 
As a result, Occupier Biden and Democrats in Congress are looking to institute more ineffective gun control (but not before eliminating the filibuster first so that they can impose all kinds of far-Left crap to further cement their power) that will only lead to more such shootings, not lessen them, and will only victimize more Americans than save them.
 
Often times, when such a shooting happens, the Left argues “what if gun control saves just one life?” The thing is that gun control ENDS lives and is more likely to do so the heavier it is enforced. Multiple times, I have shared with you the statistics for Defensive Gun Use (DGUs) and how those uses of guns are FAR more prevalent than offensive and criminal use of guns.
 
Hundreds of thousands to millions of people are saved every year because they are able to use their guns in a defensive manner. Gun control doesn’t stop criminals from owning guns or using them, because by definition, criminals don’t follow the law.
 
I would go further into this argument but we all know that the reason the Left is looking for more gun control measures isn’t to stifle gun-related crimes or shootings of this sort. They LOVE it when shootings like this happen because they get the opportunity to talk about how “dangerous” guns are and how people shouldn’t be allowed to have them and institute policy which would further disarm the populace they want to have complete control over.
 
In a recent article, I pointed out how the Second Amendment still serves as some amount of check against tyranny. This is true because the single best way for tyrants to reign is if their populace is completely defenseless and at the mercy of the government. Venezuelans got rid of their guns and are now wishing they still had them; instead, they have to live in destitution which will not end unless their government is unrealistically merciful and undoes the decades of socialism that they have implemented.
 
Germans got rid of their guns during the Nazi regime and we all know what happened then.
 
Tyrants love for nothing more than for their subjects to be at their complete mercy. Leftists are tyrannical by ideological nature and love any and all opportunities to target the biggest check there is against them: people’s right to bear arms.
 
So they implement more and more gun control laws, call them “common sense” and when they don’t deliver the promised results, they claim that it’s because “we haven’t gone far enough” in that direction. And so they brainwash people more and more into believing that “common sense gun laws” include less and less gun rights until no one is allowed to own guns, apart from those at the top, of course, whom are always protected by the very guns they don’t want YOU to be able to own.
 
But in any case, it is interesting seeing the Left with egg on their face when they make wild assumptions and accusations based on political narratives and seeing them having to backtrack on those things (though some still adhere to the idea that white people and white men specifically are all dangerous).
 
Shame on them for using the victims to try to score political points. Heartless monsters, Leftists are.
 
Isaiah 48:22
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”

Since the days of slavery, the Democrat has always hated the idea of black people having guns. After all, if their slaves had guns, they could very easily revolt against them and that would be disastrous for them. That kind of mentality is still around, having expanded to all minorities in general, and for much the same reasons: they want a permanent underclass of voters and such a class cannot be allowed to defend itself against their masters.
 
So it’s not surprising, really, when The Violence Policy Center (VPC) sets its sights on the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the NRA and the gun industry as a whole, charging them with “racism” for “targeting” blacks and Latinos as being first-time gun owners.
 
The VPC released a report saying: “In its marketing efforts to communities of color, the gun industry frequently focuses on the self-defense use of firearms, despite the fact that guns are rarely used to stop crimes or kill criminals and are far more likely to be used in homicides, suicides, or fatal unintentional shootings.”
 
Oh, boy, we just began and already, we can smell the bullcrap.
 
First of all, it’s a fact that guns ARE used for self-defense more than for committing crimes. According to Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, “The best estimates of DGUs (defensive gun use)…, even if compared to the more generous estimates of gun crimes, are 4.6 times higher than the crime counts for all guns, and 4.2 times higher for handguns, or 3.9 and 3.4, respectively, if the more conservative… estimates of DGU are used. In sum, DGUs are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, even using generous estimates of gun crimes.”
 
So the VPC is absolutely LYING about self-defense use of guns. But the other thing that they do here is they move the goalposts from just defensive use of guns to outright stopping crimes and KILLING the criminals.
 
Depending on the context of the defensive use of the gun, chances are that some sort of crime is being stopped or prevented. DGUs can vary from preventing rape, murder, assault, etc. to stopping a shooter or a mugger or a robber. So one’s definition of “stopping a crime” can be rather varied. But in a way, using guns to stop any of these constitutes as stopping a crime, so the VPC is outright wrong about that.
 
Secondly, the argument of “guns are rarely used to kill the criminals” is irrelevant because DGUs are not about killing the criminal but about SELF-DEFENSE as the name suggests. If one is capable of brandishing a firearm and scaring away a criminal, that counts as a DGU. The gun doesn’t have to be discharged. Furthermore, killing the criminal is not exactly every gun owner’s desire, even if they are put into a position where they have to use their gun.
 
Kleck also noted that “Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year, representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs.”
 
So the argument of “criminals are rarely killed by gun owners” is a red-herring argument. Killing the criminal is not a gun-owner’s primary intention when using a gun for self-defense or for the defense of another person.
 
But do you see how they try to “debate”? They don’t argue the issues, they position things so that they are in their favor, using favorable language. “Guns are rarely used to kill criminals” as though that was their purpose.
 
So you have to be able to fight back against that b.s. because their entire line of arguments are based on erroneous premises.
 
At any rate, the report continued: “Recognizing that Blacks and Latinos are already disproportionately impacted by lethal gun violence, these efforts can only increase death and injury in these communities.” See what I mean by erroneous premises basing their line of argumentation? “Guns are bad and selling guns to minorities is, therefore, bad.” Never mind the fact that that is wrong and that it only makes sense to market and sell to people who are MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY GUN VIOLENCE.
 
The guns are already in the hands of the criminals, so what sense does it make to keep the innocent from being able to defend themselves? The Left doesn’t answer that because, again, their entire premise rests on the “fact” that guns aren’t helpful for those who wield them defensively.
 
They don’t ask themselves if their underlying premise is wrong at any capacity. It’s like atheists trying to figure out the reason as to why people are so religious based on their faulty premise of “since God doesn’t exist, why is there religion?” They preface their question with a massive presupposition that God doesn’t exist, but don’t even bother to question whether or not that presupposition is correct.
 
That’s what the VPC was doing and what the Left often does. Truly, they make for awful scientists, in this way. Instead of asking if their hypothesis is correct and trying to find the data that proves it isn’t, they assume that it is correct and try to find the data that proves that it is.
 
It’s part of the reason they are so insistent on the idea that there are a bajillion genders.
 
So they assume that guns are pretty exclusively used for crimes and can only hurt gun owners (as though they were sentient beings), do not question that basic premise, and go on to charge that those whom are willing to market and sell guns to minorities do so in order to bring harm upon them, when that is far from the truth.
 
They make charges like the following: “Along with the hope of increased gun sales, a corollary goal of this effort is to turn more Blacks and Latinos, who historically support gun violence prevention measures, into pro-gun advocates for future political battles.”
 
So they charge that the self-defense marketing is not the true intention of the gun industry (without evidence) and they only target minorities for financial and political profit. Because black people and Latinos are incapable of holding independent thought, seemingly.
 
Again, take note of the favorable language that they use. Who wouldn’t support gun violence prevention measures? To be against that would basically mean being in favor of gun violence, right? It’s all b.s. because anyone with half a brain could understand that “gun violence prevention measures” only lead to further gun violence because that’s what gun control tends to lead to. Chicago is a city with plenty of “gun violence prevention measures” and some of the highest crime rates in the country. Disarming those willing to follow the law doesn’t lead to less unlawful acts – matter of fact, it only leads to more of them.
 
And as far as “turning them pro-gun” goes, 1) what’s wrong with wanting people to be more willing to protect themselves and exercise their Second Amendment rights? And 2) Planned Parenthood basically does the same thing by installing abortion clinics in black and Latino neighborhoods, so how is that any different? PP specifically targets and markets to minorities to brainwash them into thinking that their babies are burdens not too dissimilar to cancerous tumors so that they go into those clinics and get an abortion.
 
Planned Parenthood is in the business of ethnic cleansing and no one bats an eye, but if the gun industry wants minorities to be able to protect themselves, that is an outrage? We can see, clearly, where the priorities of the Left lie: only they get to be protected by guns and have the ability to live, while the “weeds” must be rid of in the womb and, if necessary, on the streets.
 
There is good reason I call the Left evil and there is good reason I consider them to be black people’s number one enemy (as well as the enemy of just about everyone who is sane).
 
They want to kill minorities in the womb and leave them unable to protect themselves out of the womb.
 
Will the Left’s racism never end?
 
Micah 2:1
“Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in the power of their hand.”