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.
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 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...