Sunday, December 6, 2015

More Dead Sitting Ducks? Or Constitutional Self-Defense?

By now, most of us have heard about the terrorist couple that assaulted, wounded, and murdered so many people in San Bernardino, last week. Lest some think that I seek to minimize the horrors of that situation, yes, it was saddening. Yes, it was terrible, and the families of the dead and wounded are in great distress. But, despite all the suffering that the terrorists caused, at least the perpetrators were finally stopped.

Yet, in reaction to the attacks, the anti-gun crowd has filled the press with more of their usual emotionally-driven illogic that blames guns, and says next to nothing about sin and human nature. The anti-gun crowd has offered the public and the grieving families nothing new, nor any realistic solution to prevent future repetitions of such things. Some would be do-gooders have even called for more 'gun-free' zones! Gun-free zones and gun control didn't stop this latest assault on society, how do they expect more of the same will yield results that differ significantly? Most likely not, as history shows that human nature does not change. Cain is still killing Abel. Instead of living in fear, blaming guns, or glorifying the shooters, let's honor the fallen by not allowing such an attack to go this far again. The only way to attenuate such an attack is to responsibly arm ourselves in heart, mind, spirit, and holster, to physically stop the threat if it ever starts near any one of us.

Our Founding Documents go to great lengths to state in numerous ways that this is supposed to be a nation of responsible free choice, without infringing on the rights of others. In this present uproar about rights, that translates as follows, that those who wish to arm themselves in self-defense might do so without infringement, as our Second Amendment plainly says, and our Connecticut Constitution elaborates further about self-defense. The constitutional implication, in its whole context, is that those who elect to refrain from taking up arms might choose to refrain without penalty, as well. BUT, based on our Constitution, it is NOT the right of those who object to firearms to force their personal preference on those who choose to arm and defend themselves against evil, any more than it is the right of those who arm themselves to force their right to self-defense onto those who willingly make themselves victims by not arming and defending themselves.

After the San Bernardino shootings, our two U.S. Senators (from Connecticut) were on the air blabbering the usual Obama-Bloomberg knee-jerk party line about how awful guns are in our society. In clinging to their anti-gun dogma, they failed, as usual, to address the issue of the perpetrators' sin and personal responsibility for the terrorism and assaults. Those politicians seemed afraid to admit that human nature tends to sin, and as such, afraid to admit that criminals, the insane, and terrorists will always gather anything and everything that they want and need to perpetrate their evil deeds, irrespective of any and all laws.

But, firearms are still the obsessive fascination of the anti-gun crowd, the same crowd that failed to call for control of or a ban on pressure cookers, after the Boston Marathon bombings. The Senators also failed to address the fact that Law, itself, did NOT and could NOT stop the terrorist couple, who violated numerous laws in the planning and execution of their deeds, just as Law was not able to stop the bombers in Boston. All those broken laws could only describe and not stop the terrorist actions, because each perpetrator made a distinct personal choice to violate Law, and to do evil instead.

All that law enforcement could do was contain the situation, once law enforcement was notified and able to get there and deploy. But, Blumenthal and Murphy (and most of the anti-gun crowd) fail to recognize the EXTREME IMPORTANCE of the critical seconds and minutes between when the perpetrators were about to begin shooting and when law enforcement finally contained and terminated the threat.

Just imagine, for one moment, what a difference in casualties there might have been IF even one responsibly armed citizen had been present, had noticed the attackers moving into position, and had been able to terminate the threat and actions of even one of those two shooters! Draw your own logical conclusions about which of those two scenarios YOU would have preferred to be in, with or without an armed law-abiding citizen near you and actively trying to stop the deadly threat that the terrorists posed.

But, why think rationally about such things? Watch for emotionalism, ignorance of facts, and knee-jerk politics as President Obama makes a nationwide speech tonight. The President's speech comes in the wake of the media speedily hyping the Connecticut Senators' emotionalism. Let us NOT be fooled by the emotional ranting of those who cling to 104 years of failed U.S. anti-gun legislation.


I just called and left strong pro-Constitution, pro-rights, pro-self-defense messages for Senators Blumenthal & Murphy, and Representative Courtney, because, contrary to their constitutional oaths of office, they have all been dancing merrily to the Obama-Bloomberg anti-gun agenda. In my calls, I said that the San Bernardino shootings have proven, again, that gun-free zones serve no civil good, but rather, that gun free zones give a distinct advantage to criminals, terrorists, and the insane, who care little or nothing about Law. I told our officials that we need constitutional carry, and noted that there could have been far fewer casualties in all the mass shootings, IF, instead of gun-free zones, citizens had been armed and defending one another, instead of waiting for the killers to pick them off like sitting ducks.

Please take the time to call your respective elected officials and let them know that you and your community do not want gun free zones, but that you want to be able to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your neighbors, wherever you are. Let them know that you and your community want unabridged, uninfringed, constitutional carry; that you will not allow yourself to be governmentally disarmed and defensively-neutered citizens being led to slaughter.

The anti-gun crowd is gearing up to raise a tremendous anti-rights storm in reaction to these latest rounds of shootings. Let’s preempt that impending attack by calling our officials and insisting that they uphold their sworn constitutional duties to support and defend our Constitution, and ALL of our Rights that are enumerated in it.

No comments:

Post a Comment