If you don't like guns. . .

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The above image came from a follower at Facebook, and it speaks volumes.  "You may not like guns.  That is your right.  You may not believe in God.  That is your choice.  But if someone breaks into your home, the first two things you are going to do are 1) Call someone with a gun, 2) Pray they get there in time."

For whatever reason, the mindless hordes of liberal voters buy the propaganda about gun control, not realizing that the true believers of their ideology, the ones at the top, have a more sinister reason for desiring that the populace is disarmed.

When I was younger I lived with my family in North Long Beach.  The area was fairly rough, but at the time it was what we could afford.  Though I never experienced some of what a number of my friends have experienced in the terms of their neighborhood often being like a war-zone, I understand the concern over how many guns are out there, and how may of them are in the hands of gang members.  The sound of gunshots were a common occurrence.  And with little children being in danger if ever one of those errant bullets from a gang situation entered our neighborhood, the parents wished there was a way to disarm the gang members.  Fearful of the gangs, and fearful of guns of which often they had little understanding, these folks depended heavily on the police - of which were often too late to arrive, and in the Los Angeles area, often corrupt as well.  In some areas it was getting so bad that some folks were just begging the government come in and take all of the guns out of the area.  That way, since no one was sure who had guns, and if those who had guns were, or were not, gang members, we could be sure that the guns being used to kill so many of our friends and neighbors were gone.

Dad owned a couple guns, and his attitude was that if a sweep through the neighborhood was made to eliminate all of the guns, the gang members would only be without guns for a day, but the citizens would be unable to defend their families indefinitely.  It wasn't like we could depend on the police to get there on time - not because the police were so lousy, but because it took them "minutes" to respond, and in most situations, one's life depended upon actions taken within "seconds."

Eventually, as the area spiraled out of control, and the safety of our family was diminishing with each passing day as the violence on the streets spread around us like a plague, Mom and Dad moved us out of there, and to a home on the outskirts of Corona, with dirt roads, empty fields, and no gangs.

Dad kept his guns, but he no longer felt he had to keep them loaded every moment of the day.

I told you that story to relay that I truly understand the hope of those that fall into the gun control trap, believing that disarming the population, or at least increasing restrictions, will somehow make them safer.  It sounds good on the surface.  The problem is, we don't live in a static society.  Bad guys don't follow the law, and they don't care what the laws say.  They are intent on having a more powerful weapon than their rivals, and law enforcement, and they will always find a way to get their hands on those firearms, with or without stringent laws being on the books.

However, stronger gun control laws do hinder the law-abiding citizen's ability to protect themselves.  They become limited in what they can own, how large their magazine can be, or how many bullets they can buy - which reduces their training time at gun ranges because they now need to conserve their bullets for home security.  The criminal element knows this, and become emboldened in their home invasions, and other criminal activities, when gun control laws are put into place, because the odds of them coming across gun owners that don't shoot back improve for them greatly.

In Britain, when the government disarmed the entire population in 1997, in the long run, gun deaths eventually went down.  But home invasions, violent crime, and murder, all went up.  The bad guys, armed with a gun, or not, knew that their potential victims were unarmed, and so instead of being careful where to strike because of being wary of if the intended victim was armed, now they could hit any location without any worries of a law-abiding citizen packing heat.

There is an old saying.  "If you don't like guns, and you are a conservative, you don't buy one.  If you don't like guns, and you are a liberal, you don't want anyone to buy one."  From the standpoint of freedom (after all, this is supposed to be a free society, right?) which do you think is more free?

Tyranny does not like armed victims, either.  Hitler's first move was to create a national registry for guns, and then once he knew who were gun owners, the German government confiscated the weapons, and the began the slaughter of millions of unarmed Jews, Christians, gays, and disabled or handicapped.  Tyranny likes their subjects to be unarmed, that way it is easier to have their way with them, and eliminate the undesirables that may stand in the way of their evil plans.

The populace in the streets just wants peace and safety, and the political establishment is fully willing to use that desire against the people so that they may increase their power over us.

When you are being attacked, and you call 911, help is only minutes away.  My loaded .357 can solve the problem in seconds.

The best way to stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns.  That is just a fact of life.

The Founding Fathers understood all of this, and their definition of bad guys went all the way to the top to include the tyrants of government.  That is why we have the Second Amendment.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary