On December 14, 2012 a horrific mass murder occurred in Newtown, CT, a small town that was noted as being ‘quiet’ and a nice place to live. Already, the liberal politicians are jumping on this like ‘white on rice’ to make political hay over the bodies of the dead.
A 20 year old named Adam Lanza who evidently suffered from mental issues was the shooter. It is reported that a total of four pistols had been found at the shooting site. He also had a semi-automatic rifle in his trunk that was not used. He murdured 28 people, including Nancy Lanza, his mother, that day.
The liberal outcry has focused the public scrutiny upon the firearms and the false need to further restrict American’s Second Amendment rights to self-defense and self-protection.
Apparently, Nancy Lanza was one who collected firearms legally. The liberal press has been trying to make her hobby appear aberrant in the eyes of the public and has implied that her acquisition of the firearms was possibly illegal. It appears that at least two of the pistols used were hers. The Bushmaster AR15 rifle found in the trunk of Adam Lanza’s car was also her’s. All legally owned, and legally purchased.
Adam Lanza killed his mother and used her legally owned firearms to commit mass murder. Not once has the media managed to link Adam’s possession of the firearms with the killing of his mother. Obviously Adam Lanza acquired the firearms used in the mass murder by murdering his mother. Not by legally acquiring them. The question that should be asked is, did he have to kill his mother to get the firearms in the first place?
It has been reported by NBC that recently Adam Lanza tried to purchase a rifle on two separate days at a sporting goods store in Danbury, CT, but had been refused the purchase both times. CT has a waiting period before purchase. However, the report stated that he had been refused the purchases. A waiting period is not a refusal for a purchase. More should be forthcoming in the investigation as to why Lanza was refused the purchase of a rifle twice.
Connecticut, like every State, has imposed restrictions on legal firearms carry on school grounds. Law abiding citizens who legally carry a firearm are not allowed to take the firearm into a school. Law abiding citizens obey the law, criminals and those with criminal intent do not. Elementary schools are left unprotected from the criminal. Many inner city middle and high schools in heavily populated states with gang related violence have metal detectors and armed guards.
Given the prohibition against carry on school grounds, would any sane law abiding concealed carry gun owner risk jail time to go to the aid of the people in the school with their firearm, were the individual to witness a shooting in progress?
Legally carrying concealed carries no obligation to go to the aid of another or to put your own life at risk. That many have gone to the aid of others in jeopardy is a tribute to their sense of civic duty and training. The legal use of firearms by law abiding citizens has stopped 1.5 million to 2.5 million crimes a year across the U.S., and saved hundreds, if not thousands of innocent lives each year.
An Alaskan, like his/her Outside peer, who legally carries a firearm will not carry the firearm where prohibited to avoid breaking the law. The individual is not a threat to the children, other than in the minds of liberals who want absolute control over our lives.
The liberal believes that taking the firearm away from the law abiding citizen makes us all safe. History has shown that premise false. The Brady law waiting periods, and CT is one state with a waiting period to purchase a firearm, did not result in any reduction in crime rates where implemented.
Where concealed carry laws have been passed, mass mayhem arising from shootings between legal carry citizens has not happened, much to the disappointment of the liberal politicians. From 1977 to 1992, states that passed concealed carry laws had a reduction of 8.5% in murder, 5% reduction in rape, 7% reduction in aggravated assault, and a 3% reduction in robbery.
If the number of kids killed were a factor, football for our children would be outlawed. 45 kids were killed over a three year period in the 90s from heat stroke, injury to the head, and heart failure. Yet, there is no hue and cry to ban football.
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is prominent in his taking advantage of this tragedy to call for the banning of firearms. This is typical of the liberal elite. Bloomberg is a billionaire who has one of the few concealed carry permits in NYC and is protected by armed body guards. A typical liberal hypocrite. You, lowly citizen are not to be trusted with a firearm, but those who live in the world of the rich and liberal are as gods on Mt. Olympus, above reproach and excepted from any earthly restrictions on self defense and protection. It is for the common man or woman and the children to be sacrificed upon the liberal alter by the criminal so that these elite can ‘feel good’ about themselves. Oh, see how civilized that we are, we took their firearms away, violence has been banished . . . because we say it is! And, they tend to live in areas relatively crime free due to private security, and increased police patrols, because of their economic and political status. Such people do not live in the real world, but they recognize the danger, because they enjoy private armed security protection and they exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense by concealed carry, where they act to deny the same right to the average law abiding citizen.
Is everyone forgetting the 13 service members killed at Ft. Hood by Major Nidal Malik Hasan on 5 November, 2009? This slaughter happened on a military base where concealed carry is prohibited. The soldiers were all unarmed.
The July 20th theater shootings by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado were in a business that prohibited the legal carry of concealed firearms. Only Holmes was armed. The theater was a safe place for Holmes to commit his carnage.
April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech campus shootings were enabled, because the college regents had prohibited the legal carry of concealed firearms. Only the shooter was armed, leaving the student body at the mercy of the criminal and the insane.
In each of these massacres, the victims were unprotected, unarmed and vulnerable. The common element was their vulnerability imposed by shortsighted politicians passing unrealistic laws prohibiting their right to self-defense using a firearm under the Second Amendment.
You cannot outlaw something and make it so. The war on drugs is an abject failure. DUIs are still prolific–yet there is no law to outlaw cars, other than SUVs.
Crime is rampant in our major cities in the face of major initiatives to better police the high crime areas and to educate against violence. The missing element is the armed law abiding citizen.
To the socialist liberal, if firearms were banned, then Adam Lanza could not have killed those children. Yet, in China, on the same day, a demented individual with a knife managed to slash 22 elementary children at their school. Private firearms ownership is prohibited in China. The weapon used is irrelevant, because it is merely a tool, it is the state of mind of the killer that is the catalyst.
A firearm can be an advantage a criminal, but, not if there are citizens legally armed and prepared to respond. We arm the police for self-protection, why not ourselves? We have the right under the Second Amendment to self-defense. Our rights are endowed by a Creator and immutable.
The major factor in the proliferation of crime in many states has been the disarming of the law abiding citizen, or placing such restrictions on firearms ownership that one cannot carry outside of the home, and must keep the firearm locked and unloaded in the house, thereby making them useless–except as an object of theft. The effect is that only the police and criminals are armed.
Outlawing legally carried firearms is the only instance where the government has chosen to unreasonably restrict or to outright deny the law abiding citizen their rights to self-defense under the Second Amendment. The liberal is not interested in preventing a criminal entry to a premises that prohibits the carry of firearms, but to restrict the law abiding, because in the liberal mind there is a greater danger from the law abiding armed and trained citizen than from an armed criminal. In their liberal minds, they believe that their fellow law abiding citizens are mentally unhinged in wanting to own a firearm in the first place, and incompetent and untrustworthy in the use of a firearm, because that’s how the liberal ‘feels’ about firearms ownership. Of course, there are exceptions, but only liberal hypocrites are allowed to be the exceptions, like Bloomberg and his liberal ilk.
It is interesting that in the liberal mind, it is alright for only two groups to be armed: one with a badge and a gun, and the other the lawless criminal. The government controls the group with the badge and gun. This group comes on the scene after the group operating outside of the law finishes their evil. The law abiding citizen is expected to just suffer the consequences of the criminal act and to move on with their life, if they survived the encounter with the criminal.
It should be noted that the Constitution of the United States provides no bar to being offended or to being afraid. It does, however enable the individual the right to speak out and a right under the Second Amendment to self-defense of person and family using a firearm. In fact, it deems ownership and use of a firearm for such purposes necessary.
Connecticut made it illegal to enter a school with a firearm. It is illegal to carry concealed by a law abiding citizen or a soldier on a military base. NYC banned the ownership of handguns under the Sullivan Act. It is illegal to carry openly or concealed in many states where murder and mayhem are serious problems. The outcome of government abolishing legal firearms carry by law abiding citizens only results in the unnecessary death of innocents and the proliferation of crime. Such failed policies do serve the purpose of keeping the law abiding citizens afraid and looking to the government to afford them safety that they themselves have the right to under the Second Amendment. A safety that government has failed to provide and cannot provide.
The deaths of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary are a direct result of a failed government policy designed not to protect the children, because no sane individual would believe that the mentally imbalanced or the criminal would obey the restriction on firearms carry, but to restrict the law abiding, because it makes liberals ‘feel’ safer.
Instead of America and Americans focusing on those calling to restrict restrict our Second Amendment rights, and and the facetious lie that Americans should somehow be collectively ashamed by the murder of these innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary, we should argue for the full exercise of our Second Amendment rights under the Constitution. Our rights are immutable. Yet the liberal politicians are again telling us that we need to further restrict our rights to meet the liberal utopian view of the world so that Bloomberg and his liberal cohorts can ‘feel’ good. And, to be the only citizens allowed to legally carry under their law.
There is legislation introduced in Michigan to once again allow legal carry in schools and government buildings. This means that any citizen who has a concealed carry permit and has taken additional firearms training will be allowed to carry when they visit a school or a government agency. This should be the example for the rest of the U.S., including Alaska. This is how it used to be and should be again for a free society. This would be good in Alaska, given our high percentage of active duty, former military, and former and retired police officers, and a well trained and legally armed citizenry.
While Alaska has the most liberal carry laws in the U.S., Alaskans still cannot exercise their legal Second Amendment rights on school grounds, in government buildings, and those businesses that post a notice prohibiting the carry of a firearm on the premises. A notice must be posted near the door or on the door readily visible to the public that demonstrates that the building or business prohibits the free exercise of our Second Amendment rights.
Such firearms free zones create danger free zones for the criminals, and unnecessarily endanger the government employee, students, and business owner and their clientel. Notice is prominent that there will be no danger to the criminal who elects to commit a crime.
School staff should have the right to legal carry, with at least some of the staff armed at all times, especially in major high schools with a history of violence against the teachers. Additional training should be required to qualify for such carry.
The responsible, legal carry of concealed weapons by armed law abiding citizens should not be prohibited, but welcomed by business and government.
The liberal attitude that the public should be disarmed needs to be set aside by our politicians in favor of the recognition of immutable Creator given rights to self-protection and self-defense under the Second. Even the federal courts are beginning to recognize that our rights under the Second Amendment to self-protection mean that our firearms be carried with us for that use.
On December 12, 2012 in the case of Moore v. Madigan, the federal Seventh Court of Appeals ruled against the State of Illinois ban on lawful concealed carry. The court ruled that the concept of self defense is "broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home." Illinois will have 180 days to draft legislation to enact legal carry legislation that "will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public."
The Legislature of the State of Alaska needs to extend Alaskan’s ability to legally carry firearms where they are now restricted against doing so. Law abiding Alaskans should be allowed to legally carry concealed on school grounds without restriction. The safety of our children may depend upon the law abiding citizen who happens to be in the right place at the time an "Adam Lanza" decides to use that school as his obituary.
It is the duty of each American to be armed and adequately prepared in the use of a firearm. It was the Framer’s intent that the firearm be carried at all times for self-protection. It is time to throw off the liberal lie and to demand the full and unfettered exercise of our Second Amendment rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment