The title negates it: Guns Don’t Kill People—Liberals Kill PeopleA blanket attack on "liberals" is never a good way to get your point across!!!
I do believe that sick people kill and that a responsible person should be allowed to own a gun, that's where background checks come in!!! We need better mental health screening, not bans on guns!!! On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought this was an excellent column, and worth the read. Dunkin is > "Spot On' here, although I am quite sure there will be some Progressives > who will disagree with him: > > 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 armedGuns Don’t Kill People—Liberals Kill People > [image: Author] > By Tim Dunkin -- Bio and Archives > <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/75831/TimDunkin/467> *October > 6, 2015* > 86 Comments <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article-disqus/75831> | > Print > friendly <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/75831> | > Subscribe <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/About-us/> | Email Us > <[email protected]> > > > 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 > <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/01/umpqua-gunman-id-d-as-chris-harper-mercer.html> > 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 > <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d79_1443808511> 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 > <http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/10/02/the-curious-case-of-oregon-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-a-social-media-profile-shaped-modified-and-deleted/>. > Hilariously, the *LA Times* has even attempted to cast > <http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/03/shock-la-times-labels-black-oregon-shooter-as-white-supremacist/> > 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. > > 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. > > Oh wait > <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/03/obama-goes-beyond-mere-gun-control-hints-confiscation/> > . > > 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 2ndamendment. 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 <http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/150904> 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. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
