- Text smaller
- Text bigger
If Sandy Hook provided the emotional impetus for the gun control hysteria that swept the nation after the school shooting massacre, the aftermath of the Boston bombing offered the sad spectacle of what happens when one presumably armed and dangerous terrorist is on the loose in a disarmed city.
- Entire communities of hapless and helpless citizens were forcibly evacuated;
- Other citizens were advised to stay in their homes and cower in fear;
- Some citizens were so paralyzed by fear and defenseless that they hid in their closets;
- Police conducted illegal, warrantless searches and seizures and held homeowners at gunpoint.
Hello! Is this America – land of the free and home of the brave?
Is this the same city that gave us the likes of Samuel Adams and the Minutemen?
Does anyone in Massachusetts remember what the Battle of Lexington and Concord was all about?
This was a pathetic sight that could only provide aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies around the world.
The Chechen terrorist wouldn’t have lasted five minutes in a free society that entrusted its citizens with their unalienable, constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
Despite the stark lessons of Boston, there are still those in Washington gleefully and excitedly pushing two initiatives – though they may have been temporarily slowed down for a bit:
- more sweeping liberal immigration policies that will make it more likely that more foreigners with more dangerous intentions to the health and safety of the public, posing more national security threats, will get into the country and stay here despite any consideration for common sense; and
- more national restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms that are essential for safeguarding homes, families, businesses and the public in general from future threats of this kind.
It’s really unbelievable. Do we ever learn from our mistakes? Or does the agenda behind these moves supersede the concerns of public safety and national security?
Even Sandy Hook could have been prevented and the carnage minimized had the school not been like so many others across the country – “gun-free zones.” “Gun-free zones” are the most dangerous places in America, as Sandy Hook should have illustrated for any thinking, rational human being.
If teachers and administrators were trained in the proper use of firearms, they could have protected all those innocent children. It’s unthinkable and immoral for us to continue to leave children to the mercy of mass killers in the belief that they will somehow respect signs prohibiting guns on campus. It’s contemptible, irresponsible madness!
Terrorists won’t be deterred from getting weapons to attack their targets. That’s a given. If they can turn pressure cookers into deadly bombs, they will surely break any gun laws on the books to carry out their deadly plans.
Serial killers won’t be deterred from getting weapons to kill and maim, either. As Sandy Hook showed, they will even kill their own mothers to take their firearms to conduct their slaughters.
There is only one deterrent that works against people like this – a well-armed and vigilant public, trained in the use of firearms for self-defense and defense of their communities.
Everywhere it is tried it works.
States and communities with liberal concealed-carry laws have less firearms violence.
Nations like Israel and Switzerland, where every citizen is armed, experiences less firearms violence.
So why does anyone in his right mind continue to promote the opposite agenda?
Do they simply want to see an all-powerful state that will keep them neither free nor safe?
Are they all wealthy celebrities who simply hire their own armed security forces to protect themselves and, instead of offering up Marie Antoinette’s advice to “let them eat cake,” offer up a far more ominous suggestion to the rest of society: “Let them eat lead”?
I am so sick of hearing well-guarded hypocrites like Barack Obama and Piers Morgan talk down to those of us who simply understand the way the real world works, who respect the Constitution and who believe in the absolute right to self-defense.