Last week, on Halloween, I wrote an article detailing the story of a man defending himself, his sons, and perhaps everyone inside a McDonald’s from a would-be shooter. Well, last Thursday, a mom in South Carolina protected her family and home with her gun from a would-be intruder.
Fox Carolina covered this story, and according to them, “A mother of three in South Carolina said she used her firearm to protect her family when a stranger tried to enter her house.”
According to Fox Carolina, the mother, named Ashley Jones, said “she heard someone banging on the door of her home in Anderson County around 6 a.m. Thursday.”
Jones detailed to Fox that “she looked out the window and didn’t see anyone, so she asked who was there. No one answered her, but she heard people speaking in front of the house.” Jones then called 911 and grabbed her gun.
According to Jones, she yelled: “I have a gun, I will shoot you, get away from my house.”
According to Fox, Jones said: “the man and a second person then went to the back of the house and tried to enter through the back door. Then, they went to the garage before coming back to the front door.”
Security footage from Jones’ security system showed much of the incident. It eventually shows the man kicking the front door, trying to get in, which is when Jones shot the guy, seemingly in the shoulder.
According to Jones: “Something just came over me, and I got calm. My heart slowed down and I got focused. I told myself if he comes in here, you can’t let him get past your doorstep. You have three young children to protect.”
Jones said she didn’t hesitate and would’ve fired again if the man persisted, saying “I would’ve killed him if I had to.”
According to Fox: “Jones said she was initially hesitant to be a gun owner and hoped she never had to use it. She took steps to train with the firearm and taught her children to avoid it. But after the events that unfolded Thursday morning, Jones said she is glad to be a gun owner.”
Jones herself said: “If I didn’t have a weapon, I wouldn’t have been able to fight him off.”
The two suspects caught on footage have been arrested, with the man being treated for his injury, which is non-life-threatening.
But this story highlights the great importance of owning a weapon and knowing how to use it.
As Fox Carolina notes, she was initially hesitant of being a gun owner. I get it. Guns can be scary when you don’t know much about them, much less how to handle one. All the time, you see them in movies, video games, t.v. shows, etc. and are constantly aware of how dangerous and deadly they can be.
Of course, real life is very different from fiction, but still. A gun can be scary if you don’t know anything about it. Particularly so when the news media and politicians make it a point to scare you out of having one and make it a point to convince you that they are bad and no one should have them.
But it’s largely because of situations like these that we have the 2nd Amendment. I often try to make the point, whenever possible, that the main reason the 2nd Amendment was put into place was as a safeguard against an oppressive United States government, in which the people of the country would be willing and able to fight once again against tyranny.
And while I maintain that that’s the main reason, that comes as part of the overall point of the importance of self-defense. The Framers had people’s defense of themselves in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment. Defense from the government, for the most part, but defense nonetheless.
So defending one’s own home from an outside force that threatens their very lives is part of people’s right to bear arms. Like Jones said, had she not had her gun with her, she would not have been able to fight him off and protect her family and home.
Given the actions described by Fox Carolina and Ashley Jones, the incident appeared to be an attempted home invasion. That much is obvious, but there’s a reason I mention that.
Let’s go over the details again. It was a Thursday morning in a usually quiet neighborhood, according to the live report on the incident. There were two individuals, seemingly a man and a woman. Neither of them were wearing masks or anything like that. Now, I wasn’t exactly expecting them to be wearing striped shirts and carry with them a sack of money, but I at the very least was expecting a mask.
Now, I am not familiar with how often home invaders actually wear masks. But you’d think it would be a common sense thing to wear a mask WHEN COMMITTING A CRIME!
But beyond even that, what really stands out as a red flag was the fact that Jones shouted at the two would-be home invaders and neither of them seemed willing to flee. Quite the opposite, since they went around the house looking for other points of entry before settling on kicking down the door.
Most home invaders attempt to flee when caught by the home owner. Not to mention that most home invaders don’t tend to continue in trying to get into a home when the home owner is acutely aware of their presence and even threatens them.
The guy literally kicked the door down before he was shot. What makes me think this could’ve escalated beyond a run-of-the-mill home invasion was the invader’s unwillingness to flee upon being discovered.
Now, regarding the threat, we can chuck it up to the guy thinking the woman was bluffing. After all, men tend to be stronger than women, so he thought he would be able to beat her physically, which he probably could have. He was a pretty big dude.
But it’s the fact that he and his partner in crime were both outside the home, the owner shouted at them, making them aware that someone’s home and someone knows they’re there, and they still attempted to enter the home.
That’s what makes me think things could’ve gone far worse and that the criminals possibly intended for far more sinister things than a mere home invasion.
Again, most home invaders tend to at least try to flee when discovered. These two were discovered BEFORE they were inside the home, had the best chance to leave, and still forced their way in.
Thankfully, Jones made the safe and smart decision of owning a gun and training herself with how to use it. Fox Carolina details that she hoped she never had to use it. Trust me, no safe and responsible gun owner ever hopes they get a chance to use it on anyone. We hope and pray to never have to use it, but thank the Lord we have it in the unfortunate case that we do have to use it.
Paraphrasing something I said in the article talking about the McDonald’s incident, people without a gun tend to go to people with a gun whenever a shooting happens. While this wasn’t a shooting, it is still a potentially life-threatening situation for the family of that home. She called 911, but you can never fully rely on the response time. Sometimes, you have to take action yourself. Had she not had a gun with her, who knows what they would’ve done?
Best case scenario, they would’ve taken a couple of things after likely beating Ashley to keep her quiet. Again, that’s BEST case scenario. I don’t think I have to detail what a worst case scenario would have looked like.
But because Jones was armed, and she knew how to use her gun, neither of the previously mentioned scenarios happened. The intruder was hit, and he and the woman fled before getting caught by the police and facing charges.
This highlights the importance of gun ownership and the importance of knowing how to use a gun. It’s not enough to simply have a gun. A gun can be dangerous in the hands of someone that does not know how to properly use it. You need to know how, when and where to aim, making sure you only hit your target and not someone else, and making sure that when it’s not in use, that it can’t harm you or anyone around you.
You need to know how to walk around with one (down to your side, pointed away from you, but also away from anyone you don't want to shoot, so best to aim at the ground at an angle that won’t hurt you), you need to know where to place your finger (never on the trigger unless you have the intention of shooting), you need to know how to aim (again, finger off the trigger, thumb over thumb, steady grip, and more things that I can’t properly describe), etc.
And Jones had all of that down and was able to protect herself, her family and her home. I am not surprised that the MSM won’t cover this story (I mean, it happened last week and I myself am just getting around to talking about it) considering that this is a pro-gun story. I am not surprised because the MSM has long ceased to be about honest, objective journalism and it’s all about narratives, rhetoric and the Leftist agenda.
But they can’t hide the fact that, in safe and responsible hands, guns can be a tool for good as much as it can be for evil. I had shared with you in that other article the statistics of defensive gun use (DGU) and how often it happens. That’s the result of good guys (and girls) with guns fighting against someone who would threaten their lives.
I’m thankful Mrs. Jones and her family are safe and I hope this story serves to help people recognize that safe and responsible gun ownership is never a bad thing.
1 Timothy 5:8
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Often times, whenever there is a tragic shooting that the entire nation talks about, such as the most recent one at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh that claimed the lives of 11 Jews, the Left will claim that the argument of a “good guy with a gun” is not real and does not happen - that it’s largely a hoax.
And to make sure they can continue saying that sort of thing, they will avoid stories like the one I am about to share with you. A story where a good guy with a gun potentially saved the lives of countless people at a McDonald’s in Birmingham, Alabama.
On Saturday night, the same day as the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, a masked gunman opened fire in a McDonald’s in Birmingham. WBRC-TV covered the story, saying that the gunman entered the McDonald’s “when an employee opened the door for a father and his sons to leave.”
The shooter “then opened fire in the restaurant. At that point, the father began shooting at him.”
The father, the shooter, and one of the sons were all hit, but only the shooter died, with the father and the son sustaining “non-life threatening injuries.”
At this time, authorities do not know if the shooter was simply robbing the restaurant or targeting a specific employee.
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be CCTV footage of the incident, so I cannot exactly tell one way or the other. From the description given by WBRC-TV, the employee opened the door to allow for the family to leave, at which point the shooter entered and opened fire.
That appears to be, from the description, the chronological sequence of events in this story, so it appears that the shooter did not intend to rob the restaurant, but rather intended to shoot up the place and leave as many people dead as possible. If he were robbing the place, he would’ve let the family go, so there would be less people to worry about attacking him or calling the police.
And considering this was late at night, I don’t think there were that many people inside.
Now, from the apparent sequence of events, I find it miraculous that the father was quick enough to pull out his own gun and fire back at the shooter. Not knowing fully how the whole ordeal went down, and only picturing it from the description given by the local news source, I find it incredible that the father reacted quickly enough to see the gun (if the gun was even out before the shooter went in, which it must’ve been the case), pull out his own gun and start firing back, while he and one of his sons took at least one shot themselves.
I imagine there are a few details missing from this since that would simply have to be next to inhuman reactions to be as effective as he was while sustaining as little damage as he did.
Regardless, that’s for the people to know and for us to wonder (unless more details arise).
The father, as is to be expected, will not face any charges for his actions, according to local authorities.
In the aftermath, one of the employees told WBRC-TV that he was “feeling grateful”. “Wrapping my head around it all, I was just wishing someone would come wake me up from this nightmare.”
Another employee added: “He’s my hero. Because I can only imagine how it would’ve went if he wasn’t armed. We might not be here having this interview.”
As incredible and fascinating as this story is, it has next to no chance of being covered by the fake news media. And if it does, they will likely entirely ignore the father having saved the day, or at least mention him as though his contribution had been next to irrelevant.
The reason for this is that this largely helps support the notion and argument that conservatives use that a good guy with a gun can beat a bad guy with a gun. That the answer to gun crimes like these aren’t to restrict law-abiding citizens of their rights to bear arms but to help them protect themselves with less restrictive gun laws because there will always be bad people with guns. Just look at Chicago, the city with the strictest gun control laws in America.
But aside from this one story alone, there are countless other instances when a good guy with a gun saves the day, either by saving his/her own life, property or other people.
According to a study by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which was ordered by the anti-gun Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence.”
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
A different study suggests that there are over 1 million (1,029,615, to be exact) DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” but excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” According to Paul Hsieh, a conservative columnist on Forbes who wrote about this subject using both of those studies, says that the second study “[yields] an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone ‘almost certainly would have been killed’ if they ‘had not used a gun for protection.’”
In other words, people tend to protect themselves when faced with a deadly threat, particularly when they are armed. It’s very common, but it feels as though it isn’t given the amount of times the Left covers a shooting taking place in a school, an office, a church/synagogue, etc. which most of them are typically gun-free zones.
This story, alongside many that the media refuses to cover, serves to further support the notion that the best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is through a good guy with a gun. It’s really not something even the Left should be able to argue.
When a shooting happens, who do people tend to call? Cops aka good guys with guns. Either they call the cops or security to deal with the threat. And both entities tend to have guns.
So the gun isn’t the problem here. It’s the sociopathic and evil individual perpetrating the evil deed.
In the UK, you may not see an awful lot of shootings (though they still happen), but you do see an awful lot of knife attacks, acid attacks, vehicular manslaughter, etc. That goes to show that the tool of use is largely irrelevant. Bad people will do bad things with whatever they have available to them.
The biggest difference between this story and any other story of a shooting is that there was a good guy with a gun right there to step up and eliminate the threat, even if it comes at a cost.
Thankfully, the father sustained injuries that are not life-threatening, but things could’ve turned far worse had he not had his weapon on him.
Gun control doesn’t keep bad people from owning or getting guns. It keeps good people from protecting themselves, having to hurdle through tons of bureaucratic bullcrap just to have the hope of being able to protect themselves should the need ever arise.
“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.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free. No hidden fees and nothing to pay for down the line. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
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.
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
“The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in Him.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I’ve said this many times before, but this is a conversation that always goes around in circles anyway: gun control doesn’t work. And even a high school student from the very school that was the target of Nikolas Cruz believes gun control doesn’t work.
MSNBC host Brian Williams (yes, the same one that can’t tell the truth to save his life) interviewed a couple of the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Williams asked one of them about the shooting suspect, with him replying that he had a couple of classes with Nikolas but never really associated with him until he was paired with him on a school project. Brandon, the student being interviewed, said that Nikolas told Brandon about how he had gotten expelled from “two different private schools, he was held back twice, he had aspirations to join the military and he enjoyed hunting.”
Williams then mentioned how Cruz left evidence behind on his social media pointing to the eventual shooting and he was the kind of person you’d usually leave alone.
Brandon replied how he “always thought that he was unusual and strange; always sat alone, twiddling his thumbs; keeping to himself, laugh at himself.”
From Brandon’s account, we can see some signs of mental instability. And when Williams asked Brandon how he felt when he had learned that it was Cruz who committed this heinous crime, Brandon said that he “wasn’t surprised, but it was kind of unfortunate to hear.”
Then, Williams gets to the political side of the issue. He asks Brandon that if he were “a lawmaker in a decision-making position, how would you stop… the kind of thing that happened today? A kid who had been thrown out, comes back with a weapon and takes out whatever grievance he’s been walking around with in his head?”
In other words, he asked Brandon whether he would push for gun control or not. This is what Brandon replies with: “Gun-wise, I don’t think there’s any way to prevent it. If you outlaw guns, it just creates a higher demand for it. I think it has to do with mental health. If he’s been expelled three different times in three different schools, I think he should be helped out.”
How is it that a high school student from a school that was the target of a mass shooting is more cognizant of the ineffectiveness of gun control than politicians and the Left?
While the Left makes the same expected push for gun control, brings up tons of made up statistics, such as “there have been 18 school shootings in 2018,” which even the Washington Post debunks as “flat wrong”, Brandon here understands that the issue is not with guns. And while I wrote an article saying that the issue is with the hearts of people, it’s also important to note that the issue also lies in the minds of people.
Brandon details a kid with some obvious signs of mental instability. And the fact that Cruz had been kicked out of multiple schools in a short amount of time indicates the fact that Cruz needed help and urgently.
He understands that, had Cruz gotten some help, the likelihood of him shooting up the school and mass murdering 17 of his former classmates would’ve severely decreased. And if he was determined enough to shoot up the school, I think he would’ve been determined enough to procure a weapon no matter what the law says.
Which is why I roll my eyes every time some idiot Leftist or supposed media “conservative” says we should repeal the second amendment. Let me tell you, even if the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed and all registered guns were confiscated in America, shootings would still happen and in even higher rates.
And say, for example, that the government confiscated ALL guns, both registered and unregistered, the problem wouldn’t be solved, only delayed. And how is delaying these things any better? Mexican cartels would still bring guns into America, at even higher rates under this hypothesis. As Brandon said, outlawing guns only creates a higher demand for it. So there would be more demand for guns in the country and no repeal and confiscation would even come close to solving this problem.
The Left never thinks things through and is never realistic. Think of it this way. Weed is illegal in most states. In those states, police sometimes find any amount of weed on someone. Despite the fact that weed is illegal, these people still have some, however small the amount may be. They still have it despite the fact that weed can not be legally sold and possessed there (at least without a medicinal marijuana license).
Now, replace the word “weed” in that example with the word “gun”. Do you see where the problem is? Even with a full repeal of the 2nd Amendment and total confiscation of all guns in the U.S., people will still find a way to procure one or more.
And that’s the major reason why gun control doesn’t work. Gun control only applies to those who follow the law and the ones who follow the law tend not to be the ones shooting up schools, churches, theaters and such.
So focusing on gun control, the NRA and these things only detracts from the real issue at hand. The NRA is the only organization in the world that gets blamed for things that their members didn’t do. The NRA is painted as child-killers by the same people that support abortion. Painted as controlling bureaucrats with money despite the fact that Planned Parenthood donates far more money to politicians than the NRA does.
The NRA is not the culprit here. The AR-15 used in this shooting was not the culprit here. The manufacturers who made the gun are not the culprits here. The culprit here is Nikolas Cruz, mainly, but also the school system’s failure to help out a child who clearly needed help and the FBI’s failure to collect the clear evidence left behind by Cruz on social media and instead focusing on destroying a duly-elected President.
What we need is not a change in our gun laws (if anything, guns should be made more readily available). What we need is a change in culture. A change in people’s hearts. A change in people’s minds. I won’t go too much into detail here since I’ve already written an article on how we can prevent most mass shootings, but that’s where the answer to these tragedies lie.
Laws don’t change people’s hearts and minds. Christ does.
“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 D. Marinelli.
If you know me, you know that whenever a shooting similar to the most recent one at a Florida high school, I’m essentially forced to push back against the typical, brain-dead response from the Left: blaming the guns.
I don’t want to ever be in that situation. I don’t want to hear of another mass shooting. I don’t want to have to defend our 2nd amendment rights every time one happens because guns aren’t the problem here.
The Left is more than ok with shootings (a bold claim, I know, but hear me out) because they will always lead to the same argument: gun control. It’s the one thing they most look forward to out of these situations. And despite the fact that once more information comes in and we discover that no measure of gun control would’ve prevented this shooting or any other shooting, the Left doesn’t care. They continue to push for more gun control, ignoring all the facts as the Left typically does with any subject.
But if you want to prevent most mass shootings (maybe not all of them, but at least most), then pushing for gun control is not the way to go. Gun control only affects law-abiding citizens. Criminals tend not to give two hoots about laws, hence why they’re called criminals.
Schools are gun-free zones, and yet, they’re still attacked. That should be evidence enough for the Left to see that gun control doesn’t work. Guns aren’t allowed in schools but people still shoot up schools. No evil bastard of a criminal is ever going to read the “no guns allowed” sign and think “Well, the sign said guns aren’t allowed, so I’ll just turn back and head home, I guess.” Branding any place a “gun-free zone” is the equivalent of painting a massive target for anyone without a heart to attack.
Not to mention that it makes no logical sense to blame an inanimate object for this sort of tragedy. When a drunk driver hits someone and kills them, who goes to jail? The car? The beer? And who gets the blame for the incident? The car manufacturer? The bar that sold the guy a beer? The brewery that makes the beer?
No, the driver gets the blame. Not the car. Not the beer. The idiot behind the wheel. So then, I ask, why blame guns in these cases? Why blame the NRA? Why blame gun manufacturers? If you put a can of beer in a car with no one in it, chances are that you’re not going to get killed in that instance. If you put a gun, loaded or unloaded, in front of you on a table, chances are that it’s not going to come to life and shoot you.
For the same reason that a car is not going to come to life and run you over. For the same reason a fork isn’t going to come to life and force-feed you until you get fat.
These are all tools. What matters is how we use them.
And, considering the previous example of the car and the beer, that should also be a good indicator as to why gun control wouldn’t work. Drunk driving is illegal in every state, but it still happens. Now, I’m not saying that we should legalize drunk driving at all. That would be a very stupid idea. But the point I’m trying to make is that, despite the fact that we have laws against drunk driving, it still happens.
Despite the fact that weed is illegal in most states, people still possess it, have it, smoke it or deal it. Despite the fact that crack is illegal in every state, people can still get it, smoke it, and deal it.
Law abiding citizens (at least the smart ones) aren’t going to drink and drive. Law abiding citizens aren’t going to possess, smoke or deal weed (at least the ones in states that are still smart and weed is still illegal). Law abiding citizens aren’t going to procure crack, smoke it or deal it.
And as it is, it’s illegal to kill people. Law abiding citizens aren’t going to kill people. Law abiding citizens aren’t going to shoot up schools or concerts. Making guns illegal only makes law abiding citizens less safe.
Gun control only affects law abiding citizens, not criminals. If an evil person wants to get a gun, they will get one legally or illegally if the will is strong enough. We know that the evil bastard that shot up the Florida school got his gun (AR-15) legally and even had smoke grenades (which are also legal). But who’s to say that the guy wouldn’t have gotten his armament illegally if he was that determined to shoot up the school?
We also know that a user by the name of “Nikolas Cruz” (same name as the shooter) left a comment in a YouTube video that said: “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” I don’t know why he wrote that, but the comment was reported to the FBI, who didn’t follow up on it (likely due to their witch hunt on Trump). Clearly, he was serious about the threat, so who’s to say any measure of gun control would’ve ultimately prevented the shooting?
Gun control wouldn’t have prevented any other shooting in the past and it wouldn’t prevent any in the future.
But given the title of the article, I know how to prevent most mass shootings: a Christian revival in the country.
I will wager you all of my money that not a single Christian, has ever shot up a school, theater, concert or any place with the intent to cause harm and death on people. All of the shootings that have ever happened anywhere in the world came from people who either didn’t believe in God or were Muslims.
Those are the only two culprits in any and all shootings. And what do they have in common? Neither is taught about the value of life.
According to data accumulated from the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute, just under 1 million abortions take place each year, with more than 55 million abortions having been performed since Roe v. Wade. Let me tell you, it’s not Christians killing these children.
So compare that to a report by CNN that “Guns kill nearly 1300 US children each year” (actual title), and tell me which sounds worse? Of course, I can’t ignore the phrasing by this CNN article, blaming the gun as always. And while I wish no child would ever die at the hands of an evil person with a gun, I also wish no child would ever be killed inside the safest place they should feel: their mother’s womb.
And just who are the people who push for the right to kill your own child? The same people that shed fake tears after every shooting. That’s precisely why I don’t believe anything they say for one second. They push for “protecting the children from guns” all-the-while pushing for women to have the right to kill their own children.
No Christian would ever have or perform an abortion. No Christian would ever shoot people. That’s why I’m saying that Christ is the answer for mass shootings. Christians know the value of life and know not to take one unless their own life is threatened.
The solution to mass shootings doesn’t lie in gun control legislation or debate. It lies in the hearts of the people. Only someone truly evil would do what Nikolas Cruz did. What the Vegas shooter did. What the Orlando nightclub shooter did. What Hitler did. What Stalin did. What Kim Jong-un does.
None of them had Christ in their hearts. And Christ is exactly what it takes to prevent mass shootings. Now, I understand that not everyone will come to Christ in this world, clearly. There will be people who will always be evil and never change. Those are the ones who will be likely to commit mass shootings. Which is precisely why good guys should be able to have guns. Gun control won't stop bad guys from getting guns, it will stop good guys from getting guns and protecting themselves and their loved ones.
Had Christ been in the hearts of any of the aforementioned people, they wouldn’t have done the horrible things they did. Again, the reason is because Christians understand the value of life. And with the Left constantly pushing for the right to end someone’s life in the womb, the Left utterly destroys the value of life. Or rather, they keep people from understanding the value of life.
People will put animals’ lives ahead of people’s lives, even ahead of their own. They will put trees’ lives ahead of people’s lives, even ahead of their own. Those people don’t understand the value of human life and its priority over the life of an animal or a tree.
Unless more people come to understand the value of life, mass shootings will only continue happening. And unless people start to understand what the Left is doing in diminishing the value of life, mass shootings will continue to happen, perhaps at even worse rates.
That’s why I say we need a Christian revival. If almost all people came to Christ and understood the value of life, FAR less shootings would occur, FAR less abortions would occur (both because of the understanding of the value of life and because people would understand the sanctity of marriage and sex within marriage) and the world would honestly be a far better place.
Alas, that’s not something that I expect will happen. I wish I could be optimistic over that, but I understand that not everyone in the world will become Christian, particularly since the Bible says as much. All I can do is hopefully get people to understand the value of life through articles like these and teach my future children the same Christian values I have.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.
You know, over the past few days, we’ve seen different reactions and viewpoints of the Left. A couple of days ago, we discussed how one Leftist woman was entirely devoid of sympathy. Then the following day, we discussed how one liberal woman’s opinion on gun control was changed upon reviewing evidence. Now, another Leftist goes a step beyond not having sympathy for the victims. She actually wants NRA members executed.
In a tweet on October 3rd, Nancy Sinatra, the eldest daughter of Frank Sinatra, said: “The murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad.” Yep, aside from blaming the NRA for the shooting in Vegas that killed 58 people and wounded 500 others, she also wants all 5 million members of the NRA to face execution for the evil acts of someone else.
Because of that tweet, I’m not surprised to see that she received some serious backlash, from both gun owners and anti-gun people. One tweeted: “Thank you, Nancy Sinatra, for representing the violent left so well and reminding us why we need the right to protect ourselves! Good job!” And upon seeing the backlash, Nancy tweeted: “I’m trying to make a point and save lives.” With one response being nearly perfect: “How are you saving lives by advocating that citizens with opposing viewpoints should be murdered with no due process? Get over yourself.”
This actually reminds me of another example that I’ve mentioned in a previous article. I remember seeing one person tweet: “I honestly want every single Trump supporter dead. This isn’t a tweet for attention. If you support Trump, I want you 6 feet in the ground.” And the Left wonders why we want to keep our guns? IT’S BECAUSE THEY WANT US DEAD!
But returning to Nancy’s tweet, not only is the irony rich, but also the significance as to why we even have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. The 2nd Amendment was written and instituted into the Bill of Rights not just so that people are able to protect themselves from someone who might want to do them harm. It was written so that people could also protect themselves from a tyrannical government and so that they would have the ability to rebel once again against a dictator.
The Founding Fathers knew what was in Man’s heart, and knew that it was entirely possible that the U.S. government could turn into a dictatorship, so they wrote the 2nd Amendment so that people would be able to rebel against their government. But what does that have to do with her tweet?
She’s calling for NRA members to be killed by firing squad. To achieve that, the government would have to arrest all of them and mass murder them. A tyrannical government would do that, because it’s happened in plenty of other places.
If a government faces a group of people with opposing views, they will attempt to justify their killing by calling them terrorists and criminals and then arresting them for it, followed by executing them. We the People have the right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government that might want to do us harm.
So that’s why I mention that her tweet is also rich in the 2nd Amendment’s significance, because the government CAN’T do what she wants it to do. The 2nd Amendment is there to PROTECT the very people she wants to see dead.
Now, returning to the backlash, I mentioned earlier that both gun-owners and anti-gun people disagreed with her. And I’m glad to see that. One person wrote: “I hate guns, but saying NRA is responsible for people’s crazy behavior is ridiculous.”
Which is funny, considering the Left is treating the NRA the way we conservatives treat ISIS. The Left BLAMES the NRA for this, even though they had nothing to do with it. They ALWAYS blame the NRA every time there’s a mass shooting, but they NEVER blame ISIS or radical Islamic terrorism when a terror attack happens. Which, coincidentally, happens more often than mass shootings.
I remember Dinesh D’Souza tweeting one day, back when racism and neo-nazis were the big topic of conversation: “If Donald Trump is a Nazi for not calling out Nazis, was Obama an Islamic terrorist for not calling out Islamic terrorists?”
Every time there’s a terrorist attack, the Left immediately comes to the defense of Muslims, saying not all of them are like that. But when a mass shooting happens, they immediately attack gun owners and treat them all as if they were like the killer. I can bet that Nancy Sinatra is no different in that she’s willing to call all NRA members murderers (it’s literally in the tweet) while defending Muslims everywhere when a terrorist attack happens.
Perhaps more interestingly, whenever a terrorist attack happens but we don’t yet know it’s a terrorist attack and the attack is done with a gun, the Left is more than ready to blame Republicans and the NRA for it. But when they find out it’s a terrorist attack, they switch gears and play defense, as opposed to offense.
I can only imagine how the Left must’ve felt when a Muslim terrorist shot and killed nearly 50 people in an Orlando gay nightclub. I bet they must’ve felt trapped. What do I mean by that? Well, Muslims and gay people are both preferred by the Left. Whenever they can, the Left sides with either Muslims or gays, depending on the circumstance. But when a Muslim terrorist kills gay people, the Left had to play things carefully.
They couldn’t flat out call the terrorist bigoted for targeting gays. If the terrorist had been white or simply not Muslim, they would’ve called him a bigot and blamed the Republicans. But since he WAS Muslim, they had to be careful not to call him hateful, since the death cult of Islam thinks the same way. Homosexuality is horrible to them and should always be dealt with through execution. And, boy, are they gruesome when they do it.
They throw gay people off of buildings and set them on fire in the Middle East. In the Middle East, there is no such thing as “gay rights”. But the Left chooses to ignore that entirely, and when you bring it up, they will go to their last line of defense which is to call you a racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot. Even though in reality, Leftists are the ones who are racist, sexist, homophobic bigots.
They choose to ignore the evil that occurs in the Middle East because it’s not according to their agenda. They choose to not place the blame where it should be whenever there’s a terrorist attack, but choose to place the blame where it shouldn’t be when an evil psychopath shoots people.
It’s the perfect example of the quote from the Book of Isaiah.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Now those are words I thought I’d never type out or say out loud. The whole premise seems impossible and crazy. A liberal realizing she was wrong about gun control? That is both astonishing and promising. It honestly gives me some hope that not every Leftist out there is set in their ways and can be converted to conservatism (and hopefully, Christianity).
Now, here’s what I’m talking about. Leah Lebrisco, a statistician and former news writer at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site, wrote an article published in the Washington Post. “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.”
That’s another thing I thought I’d never see: a liberal doing research. But jokes aside, this is quite eye-opening. This woman begins by saying she thought Leftist gun control measures were the answer to stopping mass shootings and homicides and says that, upon doing research, her perspective was changed entirely.
It’s also quite astonishing to see this being published on the Washington Post. That’s typically a Mainstream Media source, so to see this article on their site is quite unbelievable.
The article begins: “Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.”
Now, this is usually the time in which I carefully deconstruct and debate every single point by the Leftist writer, but I don’t actually have to do that. She does it herself later in the article.
The article continues: “Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.” Again, that’s not something I thought I’d see a liberal write. She admits that every point she had for gun control policy crumbled when she examined the evidence. I just wish more Leftists would do the same.
In the article, she even says that she “researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun-related crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.”
She says that she found out that no gun owner simply “walks into the store to buy an ‘assault weapon.’ It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip.”
And that silencers “deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.”
Wow, she is really tearing into her previous beliefs on gun control. She also happened to have destroyed one of Hillary Clinton’s arguments after the shooting. In a tweet, Hillary said: “The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”
So if silencers only benefit the shooter’s hearing, then the shots still would’ve been heard and no lives would’ve been saved that day… then again, silencers melt when fired by automatic weapons. There’s this video I saw where someone fires an M249 Squad Automatic Weapon with a suppressor on it. (silencers are different from suppressors, but not too much). The guy fired 700 continuous rounds until it caught on fire and eventually melted entirely. Oh, and it was insanely loud. Even the guy firing had to use noise-cancelling earphones while using the gun.
Now, an M249 is VERY different from an AR, but still. The suppressor on the M249 did nearly nothing to make the gun any quieter and eventually melted off. If Paddock had used a silencer on his gun, still firing fully automatic, maybe some more people would’ve come out alive. He would’ve had to either let the silencer cool off to avoid melting, or used another weapon entirely. That takes time away from him firing his weapons, and maybe at least one more person would’ve been spared. He still would’ve caused tremendous damage, but a silencer might’ve actually saved some people that night. Hmm.
But returning to the awakened liberal, she continues by stating that “two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them.” That’s also not something you see on the news often.
When people mention gun deaths in America, the assumption is always that they are all homicides or mass shootings. In reality, two-thirds of them are suicides, one-fifths of them were homicides of people expected to be murdered (gang members, and the such). And that 1,700 of the 33,000 gun deaths were women as a result of domestic violence. “Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.”
She explains that the proposed gun-control measures would do nothing to help these numbers drop, because these are individual cases with different circumstances. Guns were merely the tools used in these cases, but the deaths still would’ve happened, gun or no gun. If a suicidal person wants to take the coward’s way out, he will do it with any tool. If a gang member wants to kill a rival gang member, he will do it with any tool. If a poor excuse for a man wants to kill his wife or girlfriend, he will do it with any tool.
The key word here, as you can tell, is: TOOL. Much in the same way we use tools to build things, repair things, and do things, guns are tools as well.
And think about this for a moment. Remember the statistic I told you about in the previous article? The one that said the “number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013”? Let’s use that 2013 number, shall we? Even though it’s almost certainly gone up since then, let’s just use that newest statistic.
If there are 357 million PRIVATELY OWNED firearms in the U.S., why aren’t there more mass shootings occurring every single day? According to Wikipedia, there have been 42 “mass shootings” between 2013 and 2017. Now, that’s still 42 too many, but considering how many weapons there are in the country, why isn’t that number far higher?
If there are more guns out there than there are PEOPLE in the U.S., how is it that a mass shooting doesn’t happen every day in the country? Now, murders happen every day in Democrat-owned places such as Chicago and Detroit, but mass shootings are quite rare, considering the number of people who own guns in the country. In fact, I’d say that number is quite low by comparison.
And we’ve also seen in that previous article, that gun homicide rate has gone down between 1993 and 2013, when gun ownership went up at the same time.
So this woman is entirely right to point out that no gun control legislation would be helpful for anyone. Now, she does say that she’s “still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits.” So she’s still somewhat liberal on this, but at least she’s bright enough to realize that gun control policies wouldn’t do anything to help the number of gun-related crimes go down.
I’m sure she’s smart enough that she’ll eventually realize it’s better for her to have a gun in her house as long as she’s experienced with it, since experience means less risk. Now, I could understand if there are children in the house and she’s worried about them, but that’s why you have to make sure the guns are out of reach of the children. And if they are, the benefit certainly outweighs the risk, and she’d be better prepared to face someone who would want to harm her or her family.
I have hope for this woman. If she’s smart enough to realize gun control measures proposed by the Left won’t work, she’s smart enough to realize that with the proper training and measures, she can have a gun in her house without running the risk of an accident occurring.
And if this woman is smart enough to figure this out, I can only imagine there are others like her that will figure these things out as well, if they only look at the evidence and stop listening to the fact-less nonsense the Left spews.
“Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...