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.
 
Matthew 5:44
“’But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’”

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 a rifle, provided that it’s semi-automatic and that the magazine doesn’t have too many rounds in it at any one time (dumb as I may believe it to be, but that's the law as it is currently written). 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 and obviously outside the means of the law. 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.


Luke 22:36
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.’”