Someone posted this “article” to Facebook last week, and several of us took exception. We’re very, very tired, of the hoplophobic left fabricating this hysterical nonsense and attributing it to those of us who believe that we have a fundamental human right to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
That criminals don’t follow laws is, in fact, a legitimate argument against further restrictions on the rights of law abiding citizens. Stricter gun laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and everything to punish people who have never broken a law in their lives. If prohibitive laws worked, Prohibition itself would have been a raging success. Instead it led to more than a decade of increased violence and law breaking. The bad guys and dirty politicians got rich, while the innocent, upright citizens got the shaft, and sometimes dead in the crossfire.
The “really passionately angry” author of this piece of pap says himself that the definition of a criminal is “someone who breaks the law and commits crime”. When he suggests that those of us who are pro-gun rights don’t think there should be any laws at all is sheer fantasy on his part. We believe in the necessity of a free society to have rules to help govern civilization. What we do not believe in is the already massively bloated government stepping in, not to enforce the laws that are already on the books, but to create further restrictions that will affect no one but the people who already follow the laws. The new restrictions being proposed by various and sundry aren’t even based in anyÂ semblanceÂ of Â reality. (The term “assault weapon” is entirely a political construct designed to scare people into thinking these rifles are somehow SO MUCH WORSE than an “ordinary” hunting rifle. Wake up, people.)
And then he wrote this sentence: “The deaths of innocents is acceptable collateral damage to these people; why are we listening to them? “Â And that’s when I got angry. This is the real leftist fantasy right here. If there is a person among those of us who are anti-gun control who considers the deaths of innocents as acceptable collateral damage, we would be the first to stand up and condemn him or her. Sandy Hook was a great tragedy to all of us, but no more so than the deaths of innocents any where else in this country.
How many innocent people are murdered with firearms every day in Chicago, a city with the strictest gun control in the country? You never hear about that on the news. You never hear the left rising up in anger and outrage over all the murdered children in Chicago. No, you can’t do that, because you’d just draw more attention to the fact that that kind of strict gun control simply does not work. Criminals don’t follow laws but law abiding citizens do. So who wins?
“No, an AR-15 isnâ€™t any moreÂ lethalÂ at killing people. Itâ€™s just highly efficient. And while weâ€™re at this point, and I can actually hear a thousand gun zealotsâ€™ voices screaming at me that other guns are just as efficient, I call bullshit.Â … To get the same kind of efficiency out of a semi-auto handgun or shotgun, thereâ€™s a much higher level of training needed, at least so Iâ€™ve been told by other gun owners who donâ€™t run out of the room like petulant kids when the veryÂ subjectÂ of gun control is brought up.”Â An AR-15 IS a semi-automatic weapon. It is only as “efficient” as the person pulling the trigger, level of training notwithstanding.
The problem with putting your “reasonable restrictions” on our rights, as we “gun zealots” see it, is with your definition of “reasonable”. We’re also a little twitchy about “restrictions”, but we’re willing to compromise. You are all so willing to toss the Constitution out the window in favor of what you deem is best for everyone, what you deem is reasonable. And what you deem is reasonable in this instance, endangers innocent lives.
But ok, set the Constitution aside for one tiny second. Let’s take it down to the most basic animal level. We’re all primates here, so let’s look at it in a Wild Kingdom, basic nature type of way. I’m a female, and I’m not a very big one. I have predators. That’s just the way nature works, the strong will prey on the weak. Do you truly believe that I should simply shrug my petite shoulders, say oh well, and allow myself to be eaten? Really? What if it were you? Would you simply roll over, hands thrown up in despair, resigned to your fate? Please.
Aside from our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms – bitch about it all you want, it’s there and it’s not going away – we have a basic human right to protect ourselves and our loved ones. And you can bet your “really passionately angry” ass, that I’m not about to surrender that right any time soon.
Regardless of the astonishingly absurd rant penned by the prog referenced above, I’m mostly saddened and disappointed by the fact that so very many of the people I call friends or family post links to this kind of nonsense. This suggests to me that this is what my friends and family must actually believe about me. That you’re taking the easy way and standing with stupid. That I am some kind of right wing nut job who “wouldnâ€™t care if 500,000 children were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, or in Aurora, Colorado.” Of course, these people will say to me “But we don’t think that about you, Jennifer! We know you’re not like that!” Well, I have a newsflash for you. Most of the other people who are against further gun control are just like me. They’re women and parents and college students; they’re law abiding, responsible citizens of this country, who care a great deal more about innocents than you ever give them credit for. Just like me.