Posted on 10/06/2015 9:59:53 AM PDT by shortstop
When two people look at the same issue and come to different conclusions, it’s usually because one of them is wrong.
Like Obama is wrong about Roseburg.
Before the bodies were out of the building, he had pulled his pre-written speech out of the drawer and was angrily denouncing guns and the people who own them.
He ripped the Republicans and he ripped the NRA – I happen to belong to both organizations, by the way – and he said that America was a screw-up nation.
Somehow, he said, we’re dumber than the rest of the developed nations and only in America is there mass murder or gun violence. It’s not mental illness, he said, as there are disenchanted young psychos the world over, but only in America can they get a gun and shoot up the place.
And, dammit, he is going to change it.
It was stock-in-trade Obama, using someone else’s tragedy to advance his political agenda. No sorrow, no grief, no condolences, no mourning, just a reminder that he knows best and guns have to go.
That’s one conclusion to draw from Roseburg.
And, like I said, it’s the wrong one.
Because that community college already was an Obama gun-free zone. The state required the every-transaction background check the left favors, and the campus had a firm policy against firearms. Not even the lone security guard was allowed to have a gun.
When every second counted, armed law enforcement was 10 minutes away.
And so a lot of people died.
A lot of people who were left unarmed and defenseless by the very anti-gun policies Obama calls for. Disarming people doesn’t stop violence, it facilitates violence. At Roseburg, the killer knew the one place in that logging town that he wouldn’t find armed resistance, and he turned it into a killing field.
People were methodically held and shot with no viable option of self-defense. When a brave Army combat veteran challenged the shooter and slowed him down, the former soldier ended up taking seven rounds and probably being paralyzed for life.
Far better for that veteran to have had the option of shooting once instead of being shot seven times. Just as one grieving mother publicly wished that her daughter had been allowed to be armed, and thereby empowered to defend herself and her classmates, others in Roseburg have cried for more freedom, not less.
Roseburg isn’t an example of what happens when you have insufficient gun restriction, it’s an example of what happens when you have too much gun restriction.
No place illustrates better the failed outcome of gun banning than the president’s adopted hometown of Chicago – where the carnage of Roseburg is less than half a weekend of typical violence. In Chicago, with the nation’s strictest anti-gun laws, you find the nation’s most dangerous streets.
And in city after city, where decades of Democrat leadership have restricted gun rights, you have the worst of American crime.
When it comes to propensity for violence, it’s not what’s in your hand, it’s what’s in your heart. It’s not guns that endanger America, it’s evil. And what the president refuses to recognize is that, for law-abiding citizens, guns are a last line of defense against evil.
And because liberal rules had stripped the Roseburg students and staff of the right to carry a gun, they were soft targets for evil.
The president says that to make the Democrats’ anti-gun laws effective, they must be made nationwide. States that respect the Second Amendment must be brought into line with states that don’t. That, the president and his ilk say, will reduce gun crime.
What a preposterous and dishonest notion.
Restricting and banning legal gun ownership would do nothing but empower criminals and the government.
For example, the Obama Administration already has the responsibility for protecting the United States from heroin. A drug grown in Afghanistan, Myanmar and Mexico, it is illegal under the laws of every state, and of the United States. And yet, unmeasured hundreds of tons of heroin are imported into the United States every year, and over the last few years a dramatic uptick in supply and abuse has taken place.
Completely illegal, and yet criminal syndicates flood our streets with it.
How would guns be any different?
If the bad guys can figure out how to import heroin – and any number of other illegal substances – how can the Democrats pretend they won’t be similarly able to figure out how to import illegal guns?
Which will leave America sitting in a Roseburg classroom – disarmed and defenseless.
Which might be fine with Obama, but it sure as hell isn’t fine with the rest of us.
The sad lesson of the Oregon junior college is that disarming people makes them targets, and eliminates their ability to protect themselves.
In which case they not only aren’t free, they aren’t alive.
Banning guns endangers the ruling elitists.
Beg to differ. The ruling elitists have their own paid bodyguards. They live by different rules than the rest of us (so they think), and think the rest of us little people should not own guns, should not choose which schools to send our children (outside of mediocre government schools), and take offense if we do not live down to their expectations.
The bombastic media reporting of and editorializing about school shootings such as Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and now UCC, with calls for action deflects attention from important realities. Harvard Law School found that worldwide murders and suicides are unrelated and often inversely related to firearms possession, and found the U.S.A. had fewer deaths and more firearms than most countries. The National Science Foundation and the Center for Disease Control found, after reviewing 450 sources and doing their own research, that no positive benefit accrued from laws concerning bans, restrictions, waiting periods, registration, or licensing.
However, a most important reality is that imbecilic gun free zones exist in opposition to the self-evident right to life. A condition precedent for any discussion must be recognition that the inherent natural right of self-defense occupies a position superior to any opposing laws or rules.
For the United States protecting Constitutional guarantees regarding firearms in common usage should be paramount. Those debating this issue would then retain a proper tension between personal freedom and the demonstrated condition of humans. A focus on personal freedom would likely lead to a focus on predators and criminals, and not intensify the failed strategies mentioned above.
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Center for Disease Control
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
National Science Foundation: Firearms and Violence, A Critical Review
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
It seems like this is something that a 12 year old could figure own on their own, but a decade and a half in public schools being indoctrinated along with a lying complicit media makes it harder for those not used to thinking to understand.
A gun free zone is an open invitation .
BANNING GUNS ENDANGERS VICTIMS
should be
BANNING GUNS CREATES VICTIMS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.