Another Gun Free Zone Shooting Is Politicized For Gun Control
What is your opinion regarding the immediate politicization by your president (within minutes) for ‘more’ so called ‘gun control’ following the shooting in a ‘gun free zone’ Umpqua Community College in Oregon – where killer Chris Harper-Mercer singled out Christians during the murdering spree?
In case you haven’t been following one of the patterns, so called ‘gun free zones’ only keep law abiding citizens (and security guards) from carrying a defensible firearm whereas (not unexpectedly) the criminal knows that he will meet little or no lethal resistance (for a time) while he proceeds to murder the innocent… It just doesn’t make common sense.
The Associated Press reported that the school only has one security officer on duty at a time, and that person was not armed.
Instead of addressing security measures such as the apparent failure of ‘gun free zones’ and security guards stripped of their weapons, it is becoming more common for schools to ‘drill’ their defenseless students for an ‘active shooter’ whereby they are instructed in various manners to hide, perhaps throw a chair and other such things. Not only are the schools ‘scaring’ the young regarding firearms in general, but they are apparently ignoring the obvious (a psychopathic killer knows that there are no guns there to stop them).
I watched Obama yesterday afternoon as he angrily politicized the shooting – even before hardly any of the facts had become public. I personally thought it was disgusting, disrespectful, and very much ignorant while calling for more ‘gun control’ (again). I was astounded (and angry) that he went so far as to blame us (the people) for the shooting (rather than the nut job who committed the crime). Additionally I have wondered why there have been more ‘mass shootings’ under this president than any other (I’m pretty sure anyway) – and I fear that one reason might be the tremendous attention, publicity, and limelight that is brought forth to the killer by this administration (for their political activist gun-control benefit)… the shooter’s name goes down in history – perhaps later enticing other unstable ‘wackos’ to consider doing the same thing… (just a thought – because other thoughts are darker…)
While violent shootings are horrible tragedies, their number of deaths are minuscule in comparison to so many other things that result in incredible number of deaths – that rarely (or ever) get even a fraction of the politicization that gun control advocates get following an ‘event’.
There is no apparent logic with gun-grabbers. We logical thinkers can argue all day long with any of them, but it will make no difference in their thinking whatsoever. They fail to accept that we live in a world (always have) where there is a percentage of bad people (psychopaths and others) who will always find a way to get a gun if they want to. There are no amount of gun control laws that will stop that. Even if all guns were banned (which would certainly trigger a horrific civil war), the criminal element will still have their guns (and use them).
Look back through history.
Germany (Adolf Hitler) established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union (Josef Stalin) established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China (Mao Tze Tung) established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda (Idi Amin) established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century’s most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.
The 2nd Amendment to our U.S. Constitution was not put in place by our forefathers for the purpose of hunting, but instead to protect us from those who may be doing the hunting. The gun control advocates (including this president) would have you believe that this Amendment is there for hunters and sport, but that could not be further from the truth. If you study history in this regard, you will discover that it’s there to protect us from a tyrannical government (such as was the case with the tyrant King George at the time). This president would abolish the 2nd Amendment in a heart beat if he could. The deeper question is, why?
So what are your thoughts on all this?