The problems with (il)liberal efforts to curtail or eliminate the ability of American citizens to defend themselves are several:
First, the right to self-defense is a God-given and unalienable right, period. Only tyrants and criminals want the innocent defenseless. If you're a criminal seeking to harm someone, and you have a choice between two homes -- one in which the residents are armed and one which is defenseless -- which would you choose?
Second, we already have multiple laws forbidding homicide; if mass murderers and other criminals refuse to follow a law as basic as that, what makes you think that they'll obey gun laws? They won't; only the naive and the nescient think otherwise.
Third, you'll never eliminate firearms; if you make them illegal, only the law-abiding will be weaponless; government and criminals will still be fully-armed.
Germany tried that. Communist and Islamic states, too. How does that work out?
Fourth, the president and other elected tyrants who want to take away our ability to defend ourselves would never, ever, under any circumstances give up their armed security (for which we pay). What makes their lives and the lives of their families more valuable than ours?
If Barack Obama wants the nation disarmed, then him first.
Finally, why would you voluntarily give up your right to defend yourself, those whom you love, and your neighbors? And even if you would, why would you use the coercive power of the state to steal away from the rest of us our ability to do so?
Sunday, October 04, 2015
The New York Times tries a new way to tackle the Bill of Rights
In response to another attempt by the depraved and subversive New York Times to usurp our Constitution: