Guns in the control of decent people: good. Guns in the control of terrorists: bad.
We need more guns in the hands of decent, law-abiding citizens to help prevent (or end) tragedies like the one that transpired two days ago in San Bernardino. Gun control laws, obviously, by definition, do nothing to deter criminals from acquiring guns…as they don’t obey laws, but can result in decent people having fewer guns, or at least being unable to carry them. That is the crux of the matter. Why do you think nearly all of these attacks occur in schools, recruitment centers, care facilities, theaters, etc.? Because they are all “gun-free zones,” where concealed carry isn’t allowed. (Is it easier to “take candy from a baby,” or from a middle-linebacker?). The founders, through their belief in natural law, have enshrined and codified for us the most fundamental right of all…the right to protect ourselves, via the Second Amendment. When someone claims the authority to take that right away from you, it should make you think long and hard about their motive for doing so. Hint: it isn’t really guns or your safety they are concerned about. It has to do with control, power, ego, image, and elections.
If the President actually believed the demonstrably preposterous notion that fewer guns lead to less violent crime, why would he have an armed Secret Service protecting him 24/7?
Post a Comment