How could this have happened? Is that a serious question? In a place where
possession of a gun — and indeed, any effective means of self-defense — is
prohibited; a place packed with young people who have been taught that
surrender and submission is not only the correct, but the morally superior
response to lethal confrontation; a slaughter-chute where the prey were
lulled by a moronic mantra of "this is a gun-free zone; a safe and nurturing
place; there is nothing to fear," 32 are killed at leisure by a lone, armed
psychotic. Through a red film of rage, I ask, I cry, How could it NOT have
happened? Did thinking people not know, from both ancient and modern
history, and from simple common sense, that it had to happen?
First, disarm as many citizens as possible. Restrict their God-given right
to self-defense, and make those who successfully deter predators the
subjects of aggressive prosecution and endless life-destroying lawsuits on
behalf of their would-be murderers. Create "killing boxes," and fill them
with infantilized, mind-massaged victims, and give them rules against
resisting killers. Forbid trained, experienced, armed citizens and even
off-duty peace officers from bearing arms in those zones, and ridicule those
who protest as "paranoids."
Coddle the obviously crazed and dangerous. Brush aside and ignore their
prolonged, repeated, graphic threats of grisly mass murder. Minimize their
malignant malice; indulge it as "diversity" and celebrate its "otherness."
If the most obvious threat is brought before a court, then fumble and fail,
without follow-up, and hold no one accountable for it, because the guilty
are "gentle, compassionate, socially-sensitive souls." Do not blink at the
ticking time bomb's return to the classroom, where his freshly embittered
brain spews out even more and greater warnings of the coming explosion.
Finally, claim this inevitable event, and the actions of its architect
"could never have been foreseen," even if, absurdly, you "knew it had to be
Cho" when you heard of the slaughter. Only a "respected professor" or other
half-wit could utter such words without seeing their irony.
Above all, totally abdicate decision-making power on the issues of arms and
self-defense to those who are completely unqualified to even address the
subjects.
A Better Bloodbath
In America, many of our oldest and most onerous gun laws were crafted by
criminals and passed by their puppet politicians. Frequently their purpose,
as in New York City, was to prohibit arms to rival gangs. In other places,
like Chicago and San Francisco, their aim was to criminalize ethnic
minorities and "subversive elements," including blue-collar workers with
coal on their clothes and grease under their fingernails; those who might
organize and object to dangerous slave labor conditions and perennial
poverty.
Following on that foundation came more restrictive weapons laws propounded
by "progressive thinkers" and "social engineers," many of whom also embraced
the "science" of "eugenics," which called for the euthanasia of "congenital
misfits, morons and degenerates." Jews were, as a race, defined as
degenerates. The "progressive" philosophy also envisioned a more
"manageable, unarmed populace" of those who were not quite bound for the gas
chambers, but well below the sophistication level of "gifted society" —
those "born to lead." They only abandoned euthanasia, by the way, when the
Third Reich co-opted the theme.
Tyrants and gangsters still exert their influence, because corrupt
politicians prefer unarmed peasants; a simple fact. Their motives ethically
disqualify them from such decision-making. Then, increasingly, our laws,
policies and public perceptions have been and are promoted and enforced by
psychological cripples, the emotionally unbalanced, and moral cowards.
Am I being rash and unreasonable?
Please consider this: Those who fear inanimate objects — tools like guns and
knives — and believe them to be intrinsically evil or capable of inspiring
evil, are clearly psychologically crippled. They cannot think rationally
about arms and their lawful use. Those who cannot differentiate between
armed, trained, dedicated guardians of their fellow man, and twisted,
predatory, psychotic killers, based on shared use of firearms, are clearly
emotionally unbalanced. Those who so morbidly fear physical confrontation
they preach submission and surrender, even unto death, in preference to
fighting for life — and seek to enforce that condition upon others — are
moral cowards.
None are possessed of the courage, wisdom and appreciation of the dynamics
of violence and counter-violence requisite to engage in decision-making on
those critical issues — yet they do. They persist, and the killing zones
widen, deepen and darken with the blood of innocents.
Our rights and freedoms were fought for and affirmed by brave and brilliant
men, now derided and ridiculed by academia and the effete as "Irrelevant
Dead White Males." Our rights have been stolen by the unworthy. To them we
must say, "Your way has not, does not, will not work. Sit down and SHUT UP!"
HYPERLINK "http://www.nssf.org " \t "_blank"
No comments:
Post a Comment