Once again, the entire nation is in an uproar over guns. We even have a president who cries tears on cue for children who were killed in gun violence in the USA – all the while pushing the button on drone attacks that kill children everyday in other countries.
He must be upset!
President Obama was quoted as saying, “Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad,” he said. “And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day.”
Yeah. “Every day,” right?
“Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Illinois remains the only state in the country where nobody can legally carry a concealed weapon, and lawmakers recently introduced measures to restrict legal gun ownership even more.”
As some of you do, I fiddle with Facebook every day. (Actually, I hate Facebook, but it’s free advertising and, well, it’s free! So you take the good with the bad.)
On Facebook, I often see gun control advocates battling it out with others who believe verbatim in the Second Amendment, which states:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The key word here is (the) “right.”
I thought Karl Denninger stated it well when he wrote,
“Let us remember that The Bill of Rights, and in fact the Constitution generally, does not and cannot grant “rights” because the government never had any rights to grant to anyone else.”
I wonder what part of “right” and “shall not be infringed,” Mr. President and gun control advocates find so difficult to comprehend?
Seems like it’s pretty basic, doesn’t it?
Anyway, on Facebook, I watch these gun control advocates argue with people who still believe in a republic built on laws… I find the arguments of the gun control advocates to often be illogical and specious at best. The point of the argument always goes back and forth and then, often, into leftfield and onto absurd comparisons with other nations and ad infinitum.
But, really, there’s no arguing with emotional or illogical people. Society is chock-full of people who were never taught to think analytically or clearly.
Thank god for public schooling.
I don’t own a gun. I don’t feel I need one where I live, but that doesn’t mean that I think I know how best you should live.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if I did live in a high-crime US city, I’d be packing heat. I would have my wife carrying and be trained on how to use one too.
So when I get involved with a gun argument, I always politely ask the gun control people one simple question. It’s always the same question every time – over these past few years – and I can honestly say that I have yet to get an answer. Perhaps one of you, dear readers, can ask this question in a courteous manner and get an answer for me, please?
The question goes like this:
“A poor woman, whose husband ran away a year ago, is the single mother of three small children. She lives in, say, Chicago or Detroit. Her neighborhood has a very high crime rate. She has come to the conclusion that she needs a gun to protect herself and her kids. What right do you or I have to tell her how she can or cannot protect herself and her children?”
The people who believe in the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” can easily answer this question, in one word, it seems.
It’s the gun-control advocates who will avoid answering. Instead, I am assaulted from them with invective or other colorful statements. But they will not answer the question.
Isn’t that odd?
Interestingly, this seems a simple enough question, but I’ll bet you half a donut that you can’t get a straight answer from a gun-control advocate either.
If you can, let me know, because, like Mr. President, I get mad every time I think about kids being killed by either guns on US streets – or drones over Iraqistan.