Terrorism? We must ban guns!

Good day all. With the latest Islamic terrorist attack, once gain the calls from the left have begun to ban guns and repeal the 2^nd Amendment. They are also talking about banning anyone on the Terrorist Watch list, or being investigated by the FBI from possessing firearms.

The problem with all of these is that they either will never happen or violate the Constitutional rights of people. For instance, people on the Terrorist watch lists and the no fly lists have no recourse to being removed from those lists. They will have lost their rights with no court hearings or due process. (Say goodbye to the 5^th Amendment along with the 2^nd Amendment) There are many reports of people erroneously put on these lists, including Representative John Lewis, (D-Georgia). He’s been put on the No Fly list and has had a devil of a time getting off of it.

Then we have the idea that if you are under investigation by the FBI, then you can’t be allowed to have a gun. Hillary Clinton came up with this bright idea the day after the attack when it was learned that the terrorist, who worked for companies providing security to government buildings and sites, had been investigated by the FBI for potential radical Islamic connections. I wonder if that means that Cankles should also be barred from having access to guns and nuclear weapons? After all, she is under investigation by the FBI.

Then we have calls to outright repeal the 2^nd Amendment and force people turn in their guns. This was proposed by one David S. Cohen in Rolling Stoned Monday. Mr. Cohen claims that he teaches the Constitution and that the founders made a mistake. Here are a few choice excerpts from Rolling Stoned:

I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries.

So far so good, other then the Social Justice crap.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Cohen goes into various changes made to the Constitution over the centuries that corrected errors. The problem is this moonbat considers the 2^nd Amendment to be an error of major proportions.

In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It’s been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now.

Let’s take a look at prohibition shall we? It was not a popular amendment and was, much like Obamacare, rammed down the throats of Americans. It was also widely ignored. Thanks to prohibition, Organized Crime gained a solid foothold and we’re still dealing with that problem almost a century later. Cohen then brings up the nonsense that since the AR-15 and other firearms didn’t exist back then, the founders had no idea what they could do.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.

Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn’t have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.

Perhaps Mr. Cohen might like to consider that back then, people could and did own artillery. Would he care to see what little things like Grapeshot can do to a crowd? They were always trying to invent more efficient weapons back then. And then there was explosives. You know, the things that make bombs go BOOM! Of course, this fool won’t bother to consider those pesky little facts. They get in the way of his fantasy. Then he goes into what might have happened if other people in that club had been armed,

Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.

I think that this screaming coward is projecting. It’s obvious that he doesn’t know what sort of training people with CCW’s have or how they would react. The fact is, we have many incidents not dissimilar to what happened in that club where there were people carrying guns. Surprisingly, only the bad guy was taken out, generally in body bags.

There was also an armed guard who did engage the terrorist. From what I’ve read, he was either nicked in the face and ducked or ran out of ammunition and ducked to reload. That was when the terrorist got into the club and started firing. If you watch the videos and listen to the survivors, they didn’t realize a terrorist was hooting the place up at first. Once they did, they started running.

If someone had been inside with a gun, he or she would have drawn and if the target was clear, fired on the terrorist. There would have been no “Shootout” as the terrorist would have been hit or his attack disrupted. Again, we have hard evidence regarding the scenario DumbleButt came up with.

The gun-rights lobby’s mantra that more people need guns will lead to an obvious result — more people will be killed. We’d be walking down a road in which blood baths are a common occurrence, all because the Second Amendment allows them to be.

Wrong. Studies have shown that in a lawful shooting situation, the Citizen with a gun is far more likely not to hit innocent bystanders than the “trained” police officer. There are also studies on the number of shots fired by police officers and citizens. As I recall, and I think this was from John Lott, the average police officer fires upwards of 15-17 rounds, where the citizen fires 1-3 rounds.

Why is that you may ask? It’s a simple matter of practice. The average police officer may fire 100-200 rounds a year in practice, where the average armed citizen will fire 100-300 rounds or more a month. Also citizens who carry a gun only think about what they will do if they have to draw and fire. Police think about other things, like the suspects civil rights, paperwork and all sorts of things. An armed citizen is taught to only draw his or her weapon if they intend to fire it or put it away. Police draw their guns at the drop of a hat, sometimes literally. In other words, a citizen will only draw their guns if they perceive a life threatening situation.

Cohen is a typical Ivory Tower Moonbat who probably lives in a gated community with a lot of security around him. He also doesn’t seem to consider that taking away the rights of a citizen to keep and bear arms will do NOTHING to stop crimes and terrorist attacks such as happened in Florida last weekend.

Just take a look at what happened in France. 100+ people murdered by Islamic terrorists in a country where it’s all but impossible for a citizen to own a gun. Since it’s illegal in France for people to have fully automatic weapons, never mind semi-automatic weapons, where did the terrorists get them? I’ll save you the trouble. They were smuggled in. That’s something David S. Cohen won’t even deal with. Terrorists and criminals will have no problem getting guns, grenades, RPG’s and one day, nukes.

Next on the so stupid, it burns list, we have the head of the Department of Homeland Security. You know, the agency that the terrorist indirectly worked for? The same ones that are aiding in smuggling in illegal aliens instead of kicking them out? Yeah, Jeh Johnson. He now says that gun control is a national security issue. Here are those details from CBS News:

Just days after the massacre in an Orlando nightclub left 49 people dead and 53 wounded, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Tuesday said that gun control is now a critical element of protecting the U.S. homeland and keeping Americans safe.

“We have to face the fact that meaningful gun control has to be a part of homeland security,” Johnson said in an interview on “CBS This Morning.” “We need to do something to minimize the opportunity for terrorists to get a gun in this country.”

How about not letting them into the country in the first place you Stuttering Clusterf**ck of a Miserable Failure?

Johnson said that President Obama is “frustrated” with the lack of action on preventing gun violence, but he’s still “determined.”

“I thought frankly after Sandy Hook where you have schoolchildren murdered in a classroom that maybe finally this will be the tipping point and we were not able to move the needle in Congress, unfortunately,” Johnson said.

There is a reason for this to fool. The people have decided that they don’t want to be victims, and the best way to not be a victim is to have the means of defending yourself. People are voting on this, with their wallets. They are studying the 2^nd Amendment and understand that it means that we, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms. They are also coming to understand that the 2^nd Amendment allows us, the American People, a way to protect all our other rights. Take away the guns, and in very short order, the Republic will be but a memory.

The comments section of the Rolling Stoned column by Cohen make an interesting read. It’s almost uniformly opposed to Cohen’s plans to repeal the 2^nd Amendment, with way to many attacking David S. Cohen himself. One them running through the comments should scare the crap out of Cohen if he bothers to read them. The commentators are stating that repealing the 2^nd, or at least the attempt to do so, would probably lead to a full blown insurrection and armed rebellion. Mr. Cohen is not able to grasp that this would happen and more importantly, that his side would probably lose…badly.

I don’t know where this fool teaches, but he should be removed from his position for incompetence. He obviously has no idea why the 2^nd Amendment was written. I don’t think he has any real understanding on why any part of the Constitution was written. He would eb the last person I want teaching about the most important document in the nation.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]