By now the reader is well aware of the recent school shooting that took place at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Another mass shooting, another excuse for the left-wing vultures to prey on the carcasses of the dead. Another opportunity for Pres__ent Obama to grandstand and huff and sigh and affect an air of righteous indignation. Another occasion for left-wingers to roll their eyes and complain about how, even after this shooting, those dastardly right-wingers still won’t support “common sense gun laws.”
The reason we don’t, of course, is because the left-wingers are still making the same old, nonsensical, discredited arguments that they always do. As always, the ideas they’re floating yet again would do nothing to stop a mass shooting such as occurred at UCC. They propose universal background checks after a case in which the shooter passed the stringent background checks that Oregon already imposes. They want to ban “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines” in response to a shooting spree which involved neither. They have literally no new ideas for dealing with these mass shootings, so it’s not surprising that normal people will continue to reject their “solutions.” Essentially, the left-wing solution is to punish millions of people who didn’t commit a crime.
But what we need to understand is that those on the Left cannot really bring themselves to deal with these shootings in a rational manner, nor can they really produce reasonable plans for preventing them in the future, simply because the policies and predilections of the liberals themselves are ultimately root causes of these mass shootings.
First and most obvious is the phenomenon of “gun free zones.” Liberals love them. So do mass shooters. Whenever you hear about a mass shooting, before you learn anything else about the situation, you can be guaranteed that the venue where it took place was a gun-free zone. You don’t see mass shootings at gun stores or shooting ranges for the same reason you don’t see doughnut shops setting up franchises inside a Gold’s Gym. The whole environment would render the attempt completely futile. So instead of choosing a tougher nut to crack, people like Chris Harper-Mercer and James Holmes choose places that they can be reasonably certain no one will be likely to shoot back.
The problem, of course, is that this isn’t just a theoretical argument that has no real-world ramifications. People get killed in gun-free zones. And the left-wingers who put those zones into place are directly responsible for the taking of those innocent lives. They enable people like Harper-Mercer to have a target-rich environment. They disable good people from being able to defend themselves and other innocents.
Further, the left-wingers have succeeded in inculcating a lot of folks with the attitude of, “I shouldn’t defend myself, I should just wait for the police to show up.” Let’s remember, though, that even the fastest police response is far slower than a pull of the trigger finger. As Umpqua was the latest to show, a psycho can shoot dozens before the police get there. Gun-free zones only serve to reinforce this sort of counter-productive and dangerous attitude because they instill the false hope that should something happen, the police will be there to do more than just clean up the mess and take statements from the survivors. In most cases, however, they will not, which means that for those present with the shooter, there is no credible means of defending themselves in situ.
One argument for more gun control that the lefties will make is that we need to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazy people. In principle I agree—we should keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. But the problem is that the Left has made it so difficult to identify and interdict crazy people before they go off the deep end and actually do something crazy, that it is practically impossible to prevent the crazies from doing crazy things.
Beginning in the 1960s, the Left made a “cause” out of “destigmatizing” mental illness. As a result of this, many institutions—which used to be known by the gauche and un-politically correct name of “insane asylums”—gradually began shuffling their inmates out the door. One effect of this was to vastly increase the number of mentally ill individuals living on the streets, or ending up in prison.
Another long-term effect of this left wing-driven movement against institutionalization was to replace genuine care with medication. And this is another commonality between all of these mass shootings—each of the shooters was a young male who was taking, or had taken, one or more behavior-altering psychotropic drug. Instead of investigating and dealing with those who begin to show genuine signs of mental illness, the easy and politically correct route is simply to “give ‘em meds.” These meds, in turn, also carry with them side effects such as depression, anxiety, paranoia, and others. Even otherwise healthy young men are given Ritalin, Prozac, and other drugs in school under the guise of treating their “ADHD” (which most often is not) because the effeminized educational system would rather drug them than simply deal with active boys being active boys—female teachers in the publik skoolz often seem to want to turn these boys into docile little lambs like the little girls are in their classrooms rather than do the heavy lifting of shaping, molding, and directing these boys. These drugs, however, will often warp the minds of these boys, creating mental problems and making them more likely to display the personality traits associated with mass shooters.
Having discussed these other areas, let’s turn to the elephant in the room that the Left desperately wants to avoid talking about.
Mass shooters that we have seen have been—(almost) without exception—denizens of the Left.
The mass shooters that we have seen have been—(almost) without exception—denizens of the Left. Take this latest shooter, Chris Harper-Mercer. Here you have a guy who had a well-known hatred of “organized religion” and who specifically targeted Christians during his rampage. His social media footprint indicates that he supported the Black Lives Matter movement and expressed admiration for Vester Flanagan, the black supremacist who shot two white reporters dead in August. He was a supporter of the marxist IRA (Irish Republican Army), and stated on internet forums that he wanted to “strike back” at “normals”—which is a sarcastic term sometimes used by socially disaffected people on the Left to describe all the people like you and me who don’t support “social justice” and political correctness and all the rest.
It’s interesting that the media and the Left seem to have an understanding that this is the case, for they initially made some underhanded efforts at casting Harper-Mercer as a “right winger”—and did so by attempting to hack, alter, and misreport information about him. For instance, at one online dating website, Harper-Mercer’s political views were listed as “republican, conservative”—yet it was noted that this was changed (and indeed, the profile was altered five times) after the shooter was already dead. Actually, Harper-Mercer was registered to Oregon’s Independent Party, a left-leaning third party that has previously cross-nominated liberal Oregon Democrats like Jeff Merkley and Ben Westlund in 2008 and John Kitzhaber in 2010. In a rather transparent attempt to distance him from ties to Black Lives Matter, the media even altered the image of Harper-Mercer (who is mixed race, with a white father and black mother) to make him appear more white. Hilariously, the LA Times has even attempted to cast Harper-Mercer as a “white supremacist,” despite his identification as mixed race, his affinity for Vester Flanagan, and his murder of an exclusively white set of victims.
Special: Americans Urged to Search Their Names Before Site Gets Taken Down
The reason they do this is because the Left desperately needs a “right-wing killer” to counterbalance all the left-wing crazies who have perpetrated massing shootings in recent years.
But there’s no getting around the data.
Jared Laughner, who attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabby Giffords, hated George Bush, hated religion, and went after Giffords because she wasn’t liberal enough. Seung-hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, hated George Bush, hated Republicans, hated religion. James Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter, was connected with the Occupy Wall Street movement, hated Christians, and eventually ended up converting to Islam in prison. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, was reported to have a website dedicated to satan, and hated Christians. Even Craig Stephen Hicks, the atheist who shot three Muslims students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in February, hated “religion” of all kinds and could just as easily have vented his frustrations on Christian neighbors. It’s not just shooters, either – Andrew Joseph Stack, the guy who flew his Piper Cub into the IRS building in Austin, Texas, left behind a rambling screed praising Marxism. The only seeming exception to these in recent years would be Dylann Roof, the little sicko who shot up the church in Charleston, South Carolina, back in June, killing nine black parishioners. But even then, we should note that he SHOT UP A CHURCH AND KILLED NINE CHRISTIANS—not exactly the actions of the stereotypical “radical religious righter” boogeyman that the Left always warns is hiding just over the horizon.
It’s really starting to look as if the only way to keep Americans safe is, instead of banning guns, to ban liberals who don’t like Christians.
But we can’t do that, of course, because there’s some kind of constitutional amendment against it. And we wouldn’t want to go overturning any constitutional amendments, after all.
At this point, the only way the Left is going to be able to achieve its dream of a gun-free America (except for police and the military and other agents of government, of course) is to overturn the 2nd amendment. They can try to do this legally by amending the Constitution, either with an Article V convention or the more old-fashioned way that has been employed 27 times now. But let’s be realistic—this simply will not happen. They could not get anywhere near the support they would need to even begin to hope to go this route.
So the more likely route they will take will be to “repeal” the 2nd amendment illegally. This could be done by simply legislating a ban and subsequent confiscation. It could be achieved via executive order. It could also be realized by ginning up lawsuits that would allow them to steer cases towards left-wing judges, who would then allow the federal courts to “evolve” on this issue and start finding that gun bans and confiscation are “constitutional,” hoping that by the time the cases made their way to the Supreme Court, at least one of the conservative Justices will have been replaced by a liberal.
Any of these methods would be completely unconstitutional and would have no legitimacy at all. And should this route be employed, the states and the people should be ready to resist such attempts. The states should stand ready to nullify any such law or ruling, using their constitutionally provided right to judge such legislation as unconstitutional, and hence null and void. At the same time, the body of the people should simply refuse to obey any order to turn in their firearms, as roughly 90% of AR-15 owners in Connecticut reportedly did. Further, the body of the people—the militia who stand in defense of the liberties of this nation—should also be ready to resist, with whatever force is necessary, any violent attempt by our own government to confiscate our guns. When a government makes war on its own people in such a fashion, it immediately loses any claim to obedience, legitimacy, or forbearance on the part of its people.
The reason for this is simple. You think individual left-wing fruitcakes on Ritalin are dangerous? Just wait until left-wing government gets into power without a citizenry that is broadly and heavily armed. You can ask any survivor of the Soviet, Nazi, Khmer Rouge, Sandinista, or Maoist regimes what happens when the only people who have guns are the agents of government. The abundant evidence from these governments shows that the radical Left does not mind mass killings at all—provided they’re the ones who get to do the killing.
The lesson from the Umpqua college shooting is not that we need fewer guns. Instead, it is that we need more of them in the right hands—the hands of law-abiding citizens ready and willing to take action to defend themselves, those around them, and ultimately, the liberties of their nation.