Guns Don't Kill People; Gun-Free Zones Kill People

Adolf Hitler Target – Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (Photo credit: Marshall Astor)

Journanlist and gun rights advocate John Lott is interviewed by the BBC.  The BBC advocates more gun control.  John Lott argues for gun rights.

In this argument, Mr. Lott makes an extraordinary claim which I hadn’t previously heard:  Since WWII, in every instance (but one) where more than three people have been shot by some “crazed” gunman, the shootings took place in a “gun free zone“.

For example, the recent Aurora, Colorado shooting (where 12 were killed and 50 wounded) took place in a theater that was a “gun free zone“.  Because it was a “gun free zone,” even citizens who were licensed to carry concealed weapons were prevented from entering the theater with firearms.

Result?  The audience was guaranteed to be unarmed and the shooter (a man willing to break the gun-free zone law) could fire away, secure in the knowledge that no one could shoot back.

Mr. Lott argues that the prevalence of mass shootings in “gun free zones” is no accident.  He implies that gun-free zones attract mass killers.

Here’s Mr. John Lott’s interview with the BBC.  You’ll like it.

video

00:05:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZOX7so3fko&feature=relmfu

But gun-free zones don’t merely attract killers to theaters.  They attract genocidal maniacs to rule nations.  Jews For the Preservation of Fireams Ownership (JPFO) has published an extraordinary list of governments that: 1): deprived their people of the right to keep and bear arms; and 2) shortly thereafter engaged in genocide against their own people–sometimes killing tens of millions.

The JPFO list includes nine countries that disarmed their people–including Nazi Germany.  The resulting genocides produced anywhere from 300,000 to 35 million deaths. JPFO calculate that nearly 90 million people have been killed by genocide perpetrated by their own governments–after they had first consented to be disarmed.

Perhaps disarming people is nature’s way of “selecting out” the world’s morons from the gene pool.   It might not be true, but it’s arguable that anyone or any nation dumb enough to consent to be disarmed deserves whatever genocide they get.

The evidence is clear: gun-free zones and gun-free nations kill–sometimes dozens, sometimes millions.  Clearly, any man or nation that consents to be disarmed is stupid, cowardly and self-destructive.

In fact, JPFO’s evidence of the relationship between gun control and genocide has been available and unrefuted for at least 20 years.  Given that evidence, why would any rational man or woman seek to disarm the people?

Answer No. 1:  Because they’re afraid.  A lot of people fear guns much like some people fear snakes.  Such people are afraid of having and using a gun themselves and they’re afraid of others having guns.  Their “firearm fear” motivates the cowardly to vote in favor of disarming those who are not afraid to own or use guns.  (The real “gun nuts” aren’t the people who have guns, they’re the ones who have a strong psychological aversion to even touching guns.)

But if you read Revelation 21:8, you’ll see a laundry list of those destined for damnation.  The list includes the usual suspects:  murderers, sexually immoral, and all liars.  But it also includes the unbelieving, the abominable (sodomites), sorcerers, and idolaters–which are sometimes a surprising choice for damnation.  But top of the list is the “cowardly” (or, in some versions of the Bible, the “fearful”).

Whenever I see anyone motivated by fear, I presume that they’re motivated to work against God and for Satan.  I don’t mean that anyone who’s afraid of something is a witting Satanist.  But fear opens the door to Satan, and whether people know it or not, whenever they succumb to fear they’re more prone to act in ways that are ungodly and satanic.

Thus, I regard those who are motivated by fear to support gun control to be acting in ways that are ungodly and sympathetic to Satan.  I don’t doubt for a minute that most such persons see no spiritual implications in their fear.  They regard their actions as normal and even rational–and maybe they’re right.  Maybe I’m wrong.

Even so, whenever I see any motivated by fear to do anything I am instantly wary.  Our fear is inversely proportional to our faith.  Those who have great fear, have little or no faith.  Those with great faith, have little or no fear.  Those who act out of fear are never acting out of faith and, in my judgment, never acting in service to God.

Thus, I regard regard those possessed by “firearms fear” to be acting in a way that’s ungodly.

Answer No. 2:  But, while the fearful may support gun control ignorantly, there’s a second group who advocate disarming the people:  the wicked.  These are the people in government and other positions of power who seek absolute control and therefore seek to disarm the people and leave them without earthly means to resist.  These are the people who ultimately lust for genocide.  They want you disarmed so they can subject you to absolute bondage and perhaps kill as many of you as they think appropriate.

Unlike the fearful, the wicked know what they’re doing is wrong.  They know that disarming the people will help cause the people’s deaths.  They knowingly do wrong.  That’s what makes them truly wicked.

It might be argued that disarming everyone may be the “Christian” thing to do.  But I said “disarming everyone“.  I might be prepared to give up my firearms the day after the police and all government agents give up theirs.  But I don’t trust this government in the least.  If disarmament laws worked (say, in New York City), why would the police insist on their right to have firearms after the law mandated everyone else give up theirs?  The fact that governments who seek to disarm the people nevertheless insist on the government’s right to “keep and bear arms” is evidence that even the government doesn’t expect gun control laws to work.  Criminals will always find a way to have guns.  It necessarily follows that all free men must also have the same right.  Therefore, until the government agrees to be disarmed, there’s no way in Hell that I will consent to be disarmed.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect us as individuals.  If the cops won’t protect us, and we are disarmed and unable to protect ourselves, who will protect us?  Why would our government seek to leave us defenseless . . . unless government intends to attack us?

The “Declaration of Independence” declares it self-evident that every man is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights–including the right to Life.  Insofar as I am a man made in God’s image, I have a duty to protect my particular “image” of God.  If the police have no duty to protect me, and if I’m disarmed, how can I protect my “image” of God, and how can I ensure my God-given, unalienable Right to Life?

The idea that our “government intends to attack us” may seem far fetched.  But it wasn’t far fetched to the Founding Fathers who expressly declared the purpose of the Bill of Rights in what came to be known as the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights“.  That purpose was to prevent the “misconstruction or abuse” of the powers of the Constitution.

Who could “misconstrue or abuse” the powers of the Constitution?  I can’t.  So far as I know, I don’t have any powers derived from the Constitution.  The only people who have powers under the Constitution are the officers and employees of the federal government.  Thus, the only people who can “misconstrue or abuse” the “powers” of the Constitution are the officers and employees of the federal government.

The 2nd Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms” was not intended to protect us against an invasion by foreign enemies.  It was not intended to protect us against criminals in our midst.  I was intended (as were the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights) to prevent the “misconstruction or abuse of the powers” of the Constitution.  In other words, our Founders recognized the probability that people in government might be so prone to misconstruing or abusing their constitutional powers, the the only way we might be able to stop that misconstruction or abuse would be to shoot those governmental officers or employees.

Bear in mind, that that’s not my idea.  That’s the clear meaning for the 2nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms: to provide the people with the necessary means to keep their government’s lust for power in check.

Thus, from this nation’s early years, the Founders recognized the possibility that the government they created would eventually attack the people.  They provided us with the 2nd Amendment to defend ourselves against our own federal government.  Thus, the idea that our government might attack us has been recognized for over two centuries and is not in the least “far fetched”.

Any politician who advocates reducing you right to keep and bear arms is implicitly threatening your life and lives of millions of Americans.  Such politicians should be removed from office as quickly as possible.

About these ads