03 May 2013

defenseless

As our culture continues the hard work of processing recent events of violence, those progressive ideologues who are politically motivated push forward their long-standing agenda on restricting gun ownership in our country.  Preying on the fact that many are shaken, and even fearful, these voices look to seize an opportunity to rewrite one of the most basic principles of our founding - the Right to Bear Arms that "shall not be infringed."  As has become customary in the leftist-progressive playbook, there is no shame in making accusations, allegations, parades of victims, further victimization, or threats, even in the immediate days and hours when civilized people are grieving - for themselves or for their neighbors.

I am not the first to point out - though it bears much repeated emphasis, let we forget - that those who refuse to call hijackers, bombers, and any who would violently attack unarmed innocents as terrorists, have no difficulty whatsoever with demonizing and openly wishing for harm (or even death) upon those who peacefully disagree with their progressive agenda.  That is to say, terrorist seems to be a term that the political left refuses to use, except in the paraphrastic descriptions of those on the political right.  Even though the majority of Americans are self-described conservatives, those in the mainstream media and in political office think themselves as morally and mentally superior, and are thus doing us all a favor by keeping us from hurting ourselves.

But, let us consider where these acts of violence have been committed.  There was a bombing at the Boston Marathon.  First, let us consider that this was at an open athletic event - these men and women are not paid for this, and there are no politics associated with the affair itself.  Most people were wearing light-weight clothing, and there is not a lot of self-defense readily available to such a crowd (as opposed to someone trying to hold up a skeet-shooting event).  Second, this was in Boston - the one in Massachusetts, a blue state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.  It should also be no surprise that the alleged perpetrator of the Boston bombing had already made plans to strike Manhattan (now with absurd gun laws) as his next target.

Second, let us consider that we are still trying to comprehend a tragedy such as what happened in Newtown.  One notices that the murderer went to an elementary school.  Notice that he did not attack a police station or military base - this would have been stupid because they have guns there.  Instead, he chose to prey on the innocent lives of children.  Worse still, he chose the smallest and weakest children in the entire school.  Only after other guns were on site did he then stop his killing and take his own life.  Connecticut - again a solid blue state with very strict gun laws - responded to this tragedy by instituting even stricter gun laws.  What didn't prevent the tragedy in the first place was reinforced to keep another tragedy from occurring.

Third, while not listed as a tragedy - or even covered by mainstream news media - is the daily violence that occurs in cities with some of the strictest gun laws in our nation.  Chicago might as well be listed as a war zone - you have better odds of surviving a night in Kabul, Afghanistan.  We could also find similar results in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, or even Philadelphia.  And, once again we would discover that the common denominators are strict gun laws and liberal mentality.

What is apparent is that there is a disproportionate amount of violence - domestic or terrorism - in cities that have rendered the citizenry defenseless.  Places where gun ownership is allowed and respected have less violence as a whole.  Although they convince themselves that they are doing a brave (and even honorable) thing by their militant actions, those who enact terror on others are clearly cowards who lack the backbone to fight head-on for their beliefs.  They prey on the innocent and defenseless, and those who use these opportunities to further an agenda of infringement on the Right of the People to defend themselves are no better.

Let us be clear that the bombs would have exploded in Boston even if every citizen had a gun.  A firearm cannot stop an explosive device as was used there.  In this we must also consider the failure of our government to adequately protect the People by use of intelligence gathering.  This administration has repeatedly failed to protect the American People - both official and non - from terrorist threat.  Along with Representative Cotton, I no longer trust this administration to be able to carry out their charge.

The Founders did not see this as a legitimate possibility, either.  Which is why we have the Second Amendment.  And why it should remain steadfast.

No comments: