A few years ago, during a Murrieta City Council Meeting, a woman, while testifying against the city's desire to change its ordinance with the intent of attracting an indoor gun range, said, "We don't want a shooting range in our city. It will attract people who own guns, and we don't want that kind of criminal element in our city."
Her opinion was based on the belief that all gun owners are dangerous, and capable to acting criminally. She might have even thought that was the reason for being a gun owner in the first place, that deep down all gun owners bought their guns with the intent of eventually using that firearm for nefarious means. In her mind, guns equal danger, and guns equal crime, and therefore to eliminate the danger of gun violence, and gun crime, one must eliminate the guns.
After the Islamic terrorist shooting in San Bernardino, California, President Barack Obama was quick to blame the guns, and not the terrorists. He claimed that there is no parallel in the world to the violence we are seeing with mass shootings in the United States, blaming the American gun culture on the violence. He called for more gun control. He demanded that we do more to take guns out of the hands of the public. He wants us to believe that he thinks that in order to eliminate the danger of gun violence, and gun crime, we must eliminate guns.
Obama is not the only one blaming guns for the violence. Shortly after the shooting in San Bernardino, a professor from University of California at Irvine blamed the National Rifle Association for the shooting massacre.
A few weekends ago I had a booth selling my books on the Constitution at a gun show in Costa Mesa, California. The place was full of guns, gun owners, and ammunition. The people attending were gun enthusiasts, and perhaps a few curious newcomers, and they were gladly there as a part of the American gun culture. . . and I never felt safer.
A restaurant near New Orleans decided to offer a discount to gun owners if they arrived for their meal while packing. Louisiana is one of thirty-one States in the union that allow open carry without a permit. When news of the offer got out to the mainstream media, reporters flocked to the place. A member of a major network asked the owner of the restaurant in the interview about his decision to offer a reduced price for gun owners openly carrying, and if he thought it might be dangerous to allow so many guns in his restaurant. The restaurant owner responded, "Actually, I have the safest restaurant in Louisiana." The slogan on the website says they are the "safest restaurant in the world."
When the woman at the Murrieta City Council Meeting had completed her spiel about the dangers of gun owners, I was the next person in line to provide a public testimony. I set aside my planned speech, and responded to the woman's erroneous rant.
"The criminal element," I said, "fears being shot by a gun just as much as the innocent. If the City of Murrieta has a gun range, it will have a city full of law-abiding gun owners who go to the range to become a better shot. That is the last place the criminal element wants to be."
The same argument applies to Mr. Obama's claim that the way to stop mass shootings in America is stricter gun laws. As Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association says, "The way to stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns." In fact, there have been many instances in which La Pierre's words have proven to be true. While Democrats, and their allies, are sickened by families that are proud to be fully armed, the reality is, the more Americans we have in society that are armed, the safer we are.
Guns are not the problem, the presence of evil individuals in the world is. When guns were invented, the genie was let out of the bottle, and no matter how much government tries, the genie cannot be returned to the bottle. Therefore, gun laws will have no effect on shootings in the manner they say, and in fact, gun crime will increase if gun control is implemented because there will then be less good guys with guns, and the bad guys will still figure out a way to get guns.
In reference to the recent shooting in San Bernardino, there is an even greater threat we face than mass shootings by mentally ill or evil people. In the case of Islam, the mass shootings are pre-meditated, and carefully planned. No amount of gun control will stop Islamic jihadists from killing Americans, should they decide they have the green light to begin to light up American targets. In fact, gun control would more easily enable the end of American society at the hands of Islamic terrorism.
Japan, during World War II, never considered invading mainland America with ground troops. No enemy since the British in 1812 have ever orchestrated an invasion of the United States. It would be suicide. There is a gun behind every blade of grass.
History, and the statistics, reveal all of what you have read here to be true. In Britain and Australia, after banning guns, the incidents of gun crime, home invasions, and violent crime all went up. The Obama administration, I believe, knows this. They know that more guns in the hands of private citizens can both reduce the number of mass shootings, and protect the United States against jihad. That was the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. . . to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Therefore, if Barack Obama, and his familiars (familiars are humans that faithfully have devoted themselves to the blood suckers in the comic and movie "Blade"), know that strict gun control laws will actually increase the likelihood of mass shootings, and will embolden the rise of violent jihad in the United States, it is entirely possible that the Obama administration not only knows mass shootings and jihad will be the consequences of their actions, they are counting on it.
Today's Democrats are statists. Perhaps they have always been statists. After more than two centuries of working to destroy the American System, they now believe they have the opportunity to fundamentally change America. Through gun control laws they can disarm those that would stand against them (an unarmed populace is much easier to control, and subdue), while using mass shootings and jihad to their advantage to create chaos, and a scenario where the government must intervene. Domestic violence demands that the government get involved, and use strong military tactics on the streets of America to restore peace and safety (with the approval of the American People, because all they know is that they want the terror to stop). And it all begins with getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Thomas Jefferson so distrusted the creation of a central government, though he knew it was necessary, that he suspected there would be the need for a bloody revolution every twenty years. Liberty exists with the proper amount of government. Too much government intrusion and we will suffer the rise of tyrants. Too little government and we suffer through the chaos of anarchy.
The United States Constitution was written with the express intent to create a larger central government for the purpose of protecting, promoting, and preserving the union, but limited so as to enable the States to retain their sovereignty, and maintain their ability to provide checks and balances against the federal government to prevent it from expanding to the point of becoming a tyrannical oligarchy.
In the end, the truth is clear. We can either preserve our right to keep and bear arms so that we may continue to be a republic Blessed with Liberty, or we can allow the government to disarm us so that we may lose our liberty, lose our republic, and ultimately find ourselves in bondage under the iron fist of a tyrannical oligarchy where a powerful elite few rule over the populace.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment