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.
Whenever a shooting occurs, people tend to focus on being sympathetic towards the victims and their families… unless they’re Republicans, I guess.
Now, I don’t know whether the victims of the shooting were Republicans and Trump supporters, but that really doesn’t matter. However, to one particular Leftist woman, the fact that they may have been Republicans means that she has no sympathy over their deaths whatsoever.
According to the Daily Caller: “A top legal executive at CBS, Hayley Geftman-Gold said she ‘is not even sympathetic’ for the victims of the shooting at a country music festival…” Hayley had said: “If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered, I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing. I’m actually not even sympathetic because country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”
Wow, what a special lady, huh? Now, she clearly references Sandy Hook here... or maybe she references the 58 million dead babies since Roe v. Wade. Ah, wait. Nope, hold on. She's a Leftist. Right. They don't show remorse about THOSE dead children, do they? Forgot.
And she says that taking guns away from people is “the right thing”. There’s not a single law that could’ve prevented what happened in Vegas. There’s not a single law that would’ve prevented Paddock from killing 59 and injuring over 500 others. Know why? BECAUSE IT’S ALREADY ILLEGAL TO DO EVERYTHING HE DID!
You can’t own an automatic weapon in this country. According to reports, the weapon he used was converted to fully auto, but guess what? THAT’S ILLEGAL TOO! Purchasing/owning a fully automatic weapon is entirely ILLEGAL for civilians. There already are gun control laws about the weapons he used, and yet, he massacred 59 people and wounded 500 more.
But that’s not the topic of this particular article. I’ve already written an article explaining why it doesn’t make sense to attack the 2nd amendment, and I’ve already explained my points thoroughly in that article. The topic of this article is the insensitivity, bigotry and hatred of the Left. This woman feels absolutely nothing for the victims of the shooting, but only as long as they are assumed Trump supporters.
No doubt she’d be crying if the victims were Democrats. But since there is a chance that there was a mixed political crowd, no doubt she would only cry for the Democrats slaughtered there, and not shed a single tear over the Republican deaths.
This is simply more identity politics, only in a twisted way. This particular Leftist’s message is: don’t cry for the deaths of Trump supporters, for they are your enemy. No doubt she was sad about the terror attack in an Orlando night club, since the victims were gay people. But if the victims are her political enemies? Forget about it. Not a single tear shed for them.
Leftists don’t feel sympathy for Right-wingers. I even saw one Twitter user (whose identity will remain private for their safety) tweeting: “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.” Gee, love you too, friend.
But this is what I’m talking about. Could you imagine if any conservative person said that of Leftists? The FBI would storm into their home in a heartbeat! This person clearly has no sympathy for the victims of the Vegas shooting either, since they just so happened to have tweeted that the day after the shooting.
The Left is inherently evil and sick. They want evil things to happen to people they disagree with and pretend as though they are in the right. They pretend they are sympathetic and open-minded about everyone, when they’re not. They are close-minded bigots. If you disagree with them in any way, you become less than a person to them immediately.
If it’s confirmed that Trump supporters were, indeed, targeted at the Vegas shooting, one of two things will happen: 1) either the media will immediately stop talking about it, or simply slow down the talks about it, or 2) they will blame it all on Trump and supporters for “getting themselves killed”.
I’ve already seen Jimmy Kimmel blame Trump and Republicans for this. In his show, Kimmel said: “they should be praying for God to forgive them for letting the gun lobby run this country.” So he’s already blaming Trump, and he definitely won’t be the last one to do so. They don’t blame Islamic terrorism when a terrorist attack happens, but they blame the NRA and Republicans when a shooter (who is almost always a Democrat) kills people.
They want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens when someone that will not obey the law breaks it. They miss the common sense point that if a bad guy wants to get a gun HE WILL GET ONE NO MATTER HOW DIFFICULT! There is such a thing as the black market. There is such a thing as BREAKING THE LAW TO GET THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL! It’s the same principle as a drug addict: if a drug addict wants to get a drug, he will get one, no matter what.
They pretend to have compassion when they wholly lack it. Kimmel actually cried when he gave the message that he wanted people’s guns taken away. He pretended he had any sort of compassion within him, but the message he gave out would cause only more deaths and heart-break in this country.
AEI (American Enterprise Institute), a “conservative think tank” as described by Google, published an article about the number of homicides occurred by guns from 1993 to 2013 and the number of gun ownership in that same timespan.
The article shows that Gun Homicide Rate has gone down 49% in that 20 year timespan, and that gun ownership has gone up by 56% in that same timespan. They explain that an increase in gun ownership seems to be correlated to the decrease in homicide rate using a firearm. They also explain the fact that “the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.”
This means that if more people have guns, the less likely people will try to kill someone else with a gun. That won’t stop them completely, but it’s clear that if there are more people with guns out there, bad people will be more hesitant to try and kill people. Because it doesn’t make sense to try to mass murder people who are likely armed themselves.
So it’s safer for people to own guns than for them to be taken away, and yet, Jimmy Kimmel and the Left want guns to be taken away from people? That’s, factually and realistically speaking, very insensitive and devoid of any sort of compassion for your fellow man.
But alas, the Left doesn’t run on facts. They run solely on emotion. “One bad person killed people with an illegal gun, so guns should be illegal!” “The world is on fire, so we have to pass laws and regulations that screw businesses to keep the world from getting too hot or too cold, we haven’t decided yet.”
For all the emotion the Left uses to drive its agenda, they sure are devoid of any of it when it comes to the deaths of their opposition.
“’But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Late at night on the first day of October, 2017, a gunman opened fire from the Madalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas unto concert goers across the street. This evil act is by far the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. And the Left is salivating over the opportunity to attack the 2nd amendment.
But doing so makes absolutely no sense. Granted, that won’t stop the Left from attacking gun rights, but there’s a reason I say it makes no sense.
You see, according to reports, “Video of the attack showed panicked crowds fleeing as sustained rapid gunfire ripped through the area.” Did you catch the important part? Sustained RAPID gunfire. There are people that can shoot very fast, but they are typically very skilled and experienced with weapons to do that. According to the UK Sun, the gunman, Stephen Paddock, “was a retired accountant who flew small planes and had no criminal record, authorities said.”
So a retired accountant who flew small planes seemingly as a hobby couldn’t possibly be skilled enough to fire a semi-automatic weapon so fast that it seems automatic. Paddock very clearly had an automatic weapon at his disposal.
“Over a period of more than a minute at least four separate periods of sustained gunfire, believed to be from a high-powered assault rifle, were heard as hundreds of deadly rounds unleashed into the crowd, which included children.”
So this is very obviously, and according to the UK Sun, a high-powered assault rifle. Assault rifles tend to be fully automatic… oh, and ILLEGAL in the States.
But of course, that fact doesn’t matter to the Left. Hillary Clinton tweeted out: “Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try and stop this from happening again.” And: “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.”
Oh, how I wish the Left would go after ISIS the same way they go after the NRA. The Left will never accept that radical Islamic terrorists do anything, but if there’s any sort of shooting, it’s automatically the NRA’s fault.
But here’s why attacking the 2nd amendment doesn’t make sense: YOU AREN’T ALLOWED TO OWN AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON IN THIS COUNTRY!
You can own an assault rifle, provided that it’s semi-automatic and that the magazine doesn’t have too many rounds in it at any one time. And since you can’t legally own an automatic weapon, why attack the 2nd amendment here? The shooter got his hands on an automatic weapon somehow. Clearly, nothing stopped him from breaking that particular law. Why would more laws preventing good guys from owning guns be in any way able to stop bad guys with guns?
If someone wants to hurt you, they will. Murder is illegal, and bad people still do it. This guy had no legal means of acquiring his weapon. Not to mention that he had in his possession 30 OTHER WEAPONS TOO!
According to Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, there were more than 10 rifles in the room where Paddock killed himself. Now, I don’t know what kind of rifles all of them were. But I’m certain that if he could get his hands on ONE automatic assault rifle, it’s entirely possible that he could’ve gotten more as well.
This guy was out on a mission to do some serious damage. I don’t know why he had so many rifles with him, but he clearly intended to destroy lives on that day.
Now, ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack and the FBI has said that there’s no evidence to suggest that Paddock had any sort of relation with any terrorist organization. The FBI, being the FBI, is not exactly trustworthy to me at this point, if the last 9 months have been anything to go by.
But I do want to see evidence of his relationship with ISIS if there is any. That’s why, at this point in time, I want to call this a “shooting” as opposed to a “terror attack”. He could’ve been a new member of ISIS, and a recent convert, as ISIS claims. Or, he could’ve been a lone wolf with a heart full of evil and hatred. He also could’ve been a socialist nut looking to kill some Republicans at a country music concert.
But, as of yet, we don’t have a motive and I won’t assume anything.
But there is something that irks me about the situation. Like it has been mentioned, Paddock was a retired accountant who flew small planes, seemingly as a hobby. And yet, he was able to kill 58 people, and wound over 500 others. He was able to do that using a fully automatic assault rifle from the 32nd floor of a hotel.
Now, this being a concert, people tend to group together. But the fact that Paddock doesn’t seem to have an awful lot of experience with weapons (he might’ve, but maybe not with automatic weapons) and that he was quite far away from the concert, at least in terms of height, doesn’t quite add up.
There are people that question whether Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK because he wasn’t too skilled with a sniper, but he at least had training with it! No doubt Paddock trained for this attack, but Oswald had VERY professional help to teach him as a member of the U.S. military, and still, people ponder over whether he had the necessary skill to effectively kill JFK.
This guy, however, doesn’t look as though he would have enough experience to do as much damage as he did. Granted, people were grouped up in the concert, he had the necessary view and panic and chaos would lead people to not know what’s going on and where the shots are coming from. But Paddock managed to kill and wound FAR many more people than you’d expect from a former accountant.
Whether he simply got lucky or he had the necessary experience, I don’t know. But it is indicative of someone who may have ties with some sort of militant group. Now, I said I wouldn’t assume he is tied to ISIS, but this isn’t merely an assumption. From what we know and what we can see, it doesn’t look as though Paddock had the right training or experience necessary to pull this off as effectively as he did.
Someone working for ISIS or a militant group, however, is entirely different. They train and they train a lot with any kind of weapon at any range. I wouldn’t be surprised if the FBI is wrong (or simply lying to us) about his ties to ISIS.
The other thing that irks me about it is the fact that the FBI said there’s no evidence of ISIS ties merely 12 hours after the attack. They’ve been investigating Trump for over 9 months, but they still think he colluded with Russia despite the lack of evidence. And now evidence is very important?
ISIS claims responsibility for the attack, but the FBI decides there’s not enough evidence for it, so they dismiss their claim. Could you imagine if O.J. Simpson claimed to killing Nicole Brown, and the judge dismissed it because there’s not enough evidence of it?
Or if Russia admitted to colluding with Trump in the election? I imagine the FBI would immediately go with their claim, even if there was no evidence for it. As I imagine a judge would take OJ’s confession over lacking evidence.
But returning to the main topic, it makes absolutely no sense to attack gun rights. Paddock used an illegal weapon to do what he did. It makes no sense to push for good people to not be able to use weapons over this attack.
In fact, this is the perfect example as to why gun control DOESN’T work. The legality of Paddock’s weapon didn’t matter. He still managed to acquire it somehow. A bad guy wanted a gun, and a bad guy got a gun. If a good guy wanted the same kind of gun, he would be told no by gun stores and would simply purchase a different gun or not get one at all.
Paddock shouldn’t have been able to have that gun, but he still did. Others can’t get a similar weapon, so why punish THEM when no law will ever be able to stop a bad guy from hurting someone?
And don’t tell me “well, we have to try”. No we don’t. Gun control only puts good people in danger. It doesn’t help anyone. It never works. Like socialism, it’s never worked, doesn’t work and never will work. Because bad guys will always manage to get a weapon and do damage to people, no matter what law is passed. And if good people can’t get guns, only bad people and politicians will have guns. And that’s not a world I wanna live in.
“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 Drake.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Drake 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...