The American Prospect:

As we have yet another round of our repeated and possibly fruitless arguments about the role of guns in American society, there’s one thing I desperately want to hear gun advocates say. It’s not complicated, it would have the benefit of honesty, and it might enable us to move this debate to ground where we could actually make choices about what kind of society we want to have.

What I want to hear gun advocates say is, “This is the price America has to pay for the right some of us cherish.”

The reason I want to hear this is that on no other basic debate over constitutional rights that I can think of does one side argue that there are no tradeoffs, that exercising a particular right, even in the most extreme way, doesn’t actually involve any cost whatsoever. Only gun advocates say that.

But it doesn’t work that way.  Paul has tried to force us into a formal logical fallacy, and you can think of it as a “Hobson’s Choice” (not a Hobbesian Trap, but Hobson’s Choice), where someone puts forward what he claims to be a free choice, but where only one option is really presented.

Don’t bite on things like this.  Here is the answer.  Criminals and terrorists will get their guns anyway because only peaceable people obey the laws.  Paul knows that, and so does everyone else.  It wouldn’t matter if every gun in America was confiscated (something that would lead to bloody civil war, and which I am only granting for the sake of argument).  Weapons will still flow from across the American border.  Or another way for criminals to get their guns is to attack police, kill them, and steal their weapons.  This happens frequently in South American countries.

Another way to get weapons is to buy fertilizer.  Or gasoline.  Or any of a number of fire accelerants, or acid to throw in the face of other people (this happens more than you care to know in far Eastern countries like Japan).  You see, Paul is in that category of people who want the state to have a monopoly of force, and dresses his designs for control up in all sorts of sympathy for victims.

Don’t believe him.  He isn’t being honest about things, and you know that because he isn’t advocating that the police be disarmed.  Because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals.

Daily Mail:

She writes of one occasion, when developmentally challenged children were having difficulty picking up the eggs at a traditional Easter egg hunt on the grounds of the governor’s mansion during Bill’s tenure in the Arkansas state house. 

Reluctant hostess Hillary had enough.

‘The frustrated Me-First Lady demanded, “When are they going to get those f*****g ree-tards out of here?”‘ Dolly writes.

That’s what she has to say about those precious little ones who bless us so much and have the eye of God upon them.  Well then.  Perhaps that special place in hell is being warmed for her as we speak.

ABC News:

“When I said that if, within the Orlando club, you had some people with guns, I was obviously talking about additional guards or employees” … Trump’s latest comment clashes with a number of his previous remarks about the shooting at Pulse nightclub. For example, Trump said on Friday night, “If some of those wonderful people had guns strapped right here — right to their waist or right to their ankle — and one of the people in that room happened to have it and goes ‘boom, boom,’ you know, that would have been a beautiful sight folks.”

It’s difficult to triangulate when you’re trying to make everybody think you’re awesome.  Always carry a gun, and stay away from confined spaces and crowds.  Don’t expect anyone in government to support what you do.  Ever.

Salon:

But while the ostensible pitch is self-defense, it’s also hard to escape the sense that they (sic) marketing pitch is building on the fact that the nation just got a full eyeball of what the AR-15 is capable of doing: Mowing down dozens of people in the space of minutes.

After all, they know full well that their customer base is people like Stokes, who doesn’t even really bother to hide that he includes “mass shooting capabilities” in  his assessment of what makes this gun so cool.

“The rifle’s popularity is almost certainly the main reason why mass shooters increasingly reach for it when they go on a rampage,” Stokes writes. “Think about it: if you’re planning to shoot up a room full of people, are you going to reach for a rare, exotic weapon that you have little experience with, or will you select the familiar option that’s easy to train with and that you have plenty of practice time behind? The answer, for anybody who shoots, is the latter.”

It speaks volumes about how all sense of reason has escaped the pro-gun lobby that they think that “capable of destroying a room full of people in minutes” is a defense of a gun, instead of an obvious reason why the damn thing should be banned immediately.

Well, Amanda, let’s talk about this for a moment.  First of all, you don’t really believe what you’re saying, and you know it and we know it.  If you really believed your own propaganda, you’d advocate disarming the police.  But you don’t, and you won’t.  Because you believe in a monopoly of force, despite your undertones of pacifism.  You want the state to be armed as it sees fit, so you want some people to have access to the weapons of their choice, just not all people.  Because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals.

Second, your propaganda drips with hatred and sarcasm, as if you know all about when and why someone would need a certain kind of weapon.  But I’ll bet that you’ve never shot the weapon you criticize, have you?  If so, please tell us all about it.  Otherwise, get an education.  Start by searching on the words “home invasion” every day for a month on Google news or some other aggregator, and see how may home invasions are perpetrated with two, three, or four or more men at a time, and you’ll see why Mr. Stephen Bayezes needed his AR-15.

Finally, you focus on self defense, but we all know what the real issue is, don’t we Amanda?  You know the second amendment wasn’t written about hunting, or the shooting sports, or even individual self defense (although that would be included under the rubric of what it does include).  We all know, however uncomfortable it might be for you to admit, that the second amendment is all about amelioration of tyranny.

That’s right Amanda.  Are you shocked?  Are you stunned that I said it?  Weapons are the surest means of maintenance of our liberties.  But you don’t want people to have liberties, do you?  Like all good collectivists, you want the state to decide right from wrong, issue the necessary orders for social stability, and ensure cradle to grave sustenance and security.

Don’t you, Amanda?  That’s why only the state can have guns, isn’t it Amanda?

Debris hut shelter.

Friction fire.

Field medicine.  Matthew gives us an interesting run down of what he learned.  My son Daniel went through a combat lifesaver course in the Marine Corps where they used live pigs, shot them in select places, and had to do things like find and clamp arteries to prevent bleed-out, all the while laying down suppressive fire.  I’m not too worried about what PETA has to say about this.  They know it happens, just like when doctors use pigs in medical school because of the anatomical similarity.  The pigs are sedated.

At any rate, Daniel told me out of all the training he received in the Marines, room clearing, CQB, field markmanship, sniper school, etc., the medical training was the best he had.

Comes this report:

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump is reaffirming his stance on potentially restricting individuals on the terror watch list from being able to purchase firearms, a week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.

“We have to make sure that people that are terrorists or have even an inclination toward terrorism cannot buy weapons, guns,” Trump told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl in an interview to air Sunday on This Week.

Asked by Karl if his position is that those on the no-fly or terror watch list should not be able to purchase a gun, Trump responded, “I’d like to see that, and I’d like to say it. And it’s simpler. It’s just simpler.”

Hmm … I wonder if the predilection for stripping rights away from peaceable people because of something others may or may not do qualifies for being a terrorist?

The GOP is getting ready to do what the GOP always does – cave to the force of progressive bullies.

According to CBS News’s Steven Portnoy, McConnell has a meeting with FBI director James Comey and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday. Portnoy Tweeted that McConnell has signaled he may be willing to consider new gun controls after that meeting.

Via SSI, it might be claimed that this is all being done for a purpose and by design, effecting no change except for raising money.

The Republicans have had the White House and the Senate and the House and they have never passed real pro-gun legislation. Bought a full auto lately?  Heck, have you priced a full auto lately?

The Democrats as recently as a few years ago had Obama and the Senate and the House. They didn’t pass gun confiscation legislation either.

It’s a game to keep us distracted.  The Republicans get to scare us with threats of Democrat gun control and we send them money and vote them into office.  For the Democrats, it keeps their rabid base energized to send the Democrats lots of money and get them voted into office.

Heck, even the famous NRA would go broke if real gun rights legislation ever passed into law.

So, how does this lead us to the shootings in Florida?

When things like this happen, I always implore the motto, “follow the money”. Who wins with a shooting of this type?

Obviously, the two political parties do. It’s unlikely that any real legislation will be introduced between now and the election.  Republicans want to be reelected.  Of course Republicans and the NRA are now pushing a “real” bill to keep guns out of the hands of the terrorists.  The Democrats will whine and cry that it isn’t enough but will go along.  Of course once it’s passed and folks want to exercise due process over being on the terrorist watch list, we’ll all be told that national security trumps any legal protections.

And both sides will continue their fund raising.

Well, this is a jaded view, and I’m not above being quite jaded, but this analysis seems to me to ignore several very important things.  First of all, many republicans come from the Northeast where they do want gun control, but they actually fear the loss of that percentage of voters who can put them out of office.  Second, the democrats haven’t passed gun control for one simple reason, i.e., lack of votes.  If they had the votes, you can be assured they would have most white, conservative Christians hooked up to mill wheels turning grain into flour and corn into grits.  The rest would be in concentration camps (Fusion centers).

Ideology trumps donations because enslavement of the working class produces wealth for the elitists.  They will always find a way to enrich themselves.  So if mere interest in campaign donations isn’t the impetus behind this, what is?

Before we get to that, take careful note of what Donald Trump said about this push for gun control.

In an abrupt shift in message, Donald Trump indicated Wednesday that he might be taking on a Republican tenet: the party’s long-standing opposition to gun control.

Trump said he would talk to the NRA about not allowing “people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.” In typical fashion for the presumptive Republican nominee, the announcement came via Twitter:

I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.

The NRA, for its part, says there’s no conflict:

Happy to meet @realdonaldtrump. Our position is no guns for terrorists—period. Due process & right to self-defense for law-abiding Americans

In a statement, the NRA said it would be “happy to meet with Donald Trump.” But that:

“The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.”

Trump doesn’t tell the democrats on capital hill to go to hell because first he is a Northeast big government liberal, and second he doesn’t understand the predilection to evil in fallen mankind.  The goal is not now and has never been gun control.  The progressive goal has always been people control.

You know this because when they advocate the total disarmament of the population, they always exclude the police.  It isn’t that they don’t want people to have guns, it’s that they don’t want some people to have guns.  If they could be assured that you would never use your guns to upset their progressive social planners and their designs for society by killing others (even to defend your loved ones), or to prevent their tyrannical designs, they wouldn’t mind you having all the guns your heart desires.

But they cannot trust you with those boundary conditions, and so every machine of the state must be properly tuned to work at their disposal.  Thus, no one can ever get off of the no-fly list once they have made it on.  The decisions for the terrorist watch list and no-fly list are made in secret by the federal executive, and are subject only to the FISA court, which ends up being a rubber stamp for the federal executive.

The terrorist watch list and the no-fly list is different, and they leverage this difference and use it to their advantage when they discuss this in front of the cameras.  Furthermore, there is nothing to stop them from, say, adding all NRA members to the list, or adding you to the list, if you’re reading this article.  After all, they have said they believe that the “right wing terror threat” is the biggest threat facing America today.

No one in the MSM has the guts to ask why someone who is a “terrorist” is allowed to be in America to begin with.  It would force the executive to admit to all of his plans for social change, his open borders policy, the fact that none of these lists are subject to due process, no jury has decided on the fate of pitiful souls who have run afoul of the system, and all such souls are left to the devices of an out-of-control executive who doesn’t care, and sends their problems to judges who have been educated at Harvard, Yale and Emory.

Is anyone really surprised at this?  After all, a Syrian immigrant who said 9/11 changed the world for good is a homeland security advisor.  They will call light darkness and darkness light.  If you believe that the second amendment is in place to ameliorate tyranny, you must be eradicated because you’re the enemy, a right-wing terrorist.

Or so they seem to think.  And that’s the point, isn’t it?  Guns are good, and they know it.  They are wonderful machines, just like cars, stoves, and HVAC.  But in the “wrong” hands they can prevent the grand social designs of the ruling class.  Again, the goal isn’t to destroy the gun companies.  That would mean no one had guns, and no one includes them.

The goal is to control whether you have them, and to do that they won’t be so obvious as to pass a law against all gun ownership.  The Fuds in the hunting clubs will be left alone to purchase their shotguns for dove and quail hunting.  They don’t want to anger the gentlemanly class.

They will go after you by the terrorist watch list, the no-fly list, and any other assortment of executive powers and decisions and regulations and rulings.  They will never confiscate your guns.  They will prevent you from renewing your driver’s license, your hunting license, your fishing license, your professional license, your bank cards, your concealed handgun permits, and in short, all the framework you have built your entire life as a law abiding, peaceable citizen.  Then they will go after your wife and children and their ability to enroll in education.  They will go after what matters most to you.

If you’re focused on guns rather than people and their relationship to the ruling class, you need to be recalibrated.  Don’t ever give up your guns, but think smart and be strategic.  If they can’t take you guns directly, they will attempt to control you by other means.

If you’re disappointed in Donald Trump, be prepared for more to come.  This is only the beginning.  The GOP elitists cannot be trusted, and couldn’t care less for your ability to defend your family.  The democrats want your soul, but will settle for your servitude.  If they can’t come in through the front door, they will come in through the back door.  Conspiracy theories are sometimes correct, but sometimes they blind you to the real situation.  This is about more than campaign donations.  This is about controlling you, and therefore, controlling your guns by extension.

The reaction is virtually ubiquitous across the progressive world, and it pays to know what’s going on.  I won’t have a long analysis of any one commentary, but I have brief comments on multiple commentaries.

First up is Bill Clinton, who is lying when he says that his AWB did anything to drive down any sort violence whatsoever, using any metric at all.  The trend on crime has been decreasing from since before his AWB and continues to decrease today.

On another front, Jeh Johnson says that gun violence is a matter of homeland security.  What he (and the administration) wants to do here is promulgate rules, directives and regulations separate from and unreviewed by Congress, accountable only to a FISA court (which is just a rubber stamp on the executive).

According to NBC, the shooter was racist, belligerent and toxic.  Not Muslim, mind you, but something else.  Because this certainly couldn’t come down to Islam.

Heather Digby Parton at Salon, with whom we’ve interacted before, thinks we don’t need an AR-15.  No one needs an AR-15. Because she says so.

Would a ban on semi-automatic rifles end Islamic extremism? No. But it won’t make it worse, the way that religious bans and calls for torture and killing of suspects family members will. And it would sure make it a lot harder for any of these twisted souls, Muslim or otherwise,  to spray bullets at a room full of first graders or movie goers or gay guys dancing the night away. You can’t fix what’s in these people’s hearts. That is beyond anyone’s ken. But you can make it harder for them to act on their hate. Nobody needs an AR-15.

So bans won’t end the problem, but it won’t make it any worse.  That’s a pretty low threshold for passing laws.  But wait.  She modifies the assessment.  It sure would make it a lot harder, she says.  But how does she know?  How does she know that someone couldn’t bring multiple handguns to the shooting and perpetrate the same carnage?  She doesn’t.  She just made that up.

Amanda Marcotte, writing at Salon, tells us that we are a bunch of puckered old farts except when it comes to guns.

Conservatives might be opposed to “politically correct” ideas like same-sex marriage, religious tolerance, due process for all, efforts to end race and gender discrimination, and even a freedom so basic as the right to choose when you give birth, but hey, you get to spend a cool grand on an AR-15 and all its trimmings, and isn’t that the only thing that really matters?

Amanda doesn’t hang with enough of us to know.  Hey, we support low or almost no taxes, minimal government regulation, oppose the war on drugs, and believe in small government.  I’m not sure who Amanda is referring to, but she needs to expand her horizons a little.  I think we’re more gun – um, excuse me, fun – to be with than she does.  Care to hang out, Amanda?

Mark Follman at Motherless Jones doesn’t remember his history.  As I read his histrionics I couldn’t help but think of Charles Whitman and scoped bolt action rifles wielded by someone in a sniper’s hide.  For hours and hours and hours.

Josh Earnest doesn’t know what an assault weapon is.  It’s okay, Josh.  It doesn’t matter to me what you call it.  It’s just a machine, like any other machine.  It can be used for good or not, just like a car, or a hammer.  It’s a shame when they send a ventriloquist dummy out to perform without the ventriloquist, huh?

Justin Peters with Slate has issues with what we call the black gun.

The term modern sporting rifle, evoking outdoorsy competition and good, clean fun, sounds incongruous when applied to weapons like these …

Well, it can be used for hunting, or 3-gun competition, or target shooting, or self defense, but since Justin is having difficulty with this, let’s just be clear.  To dispel the myth surrounding the gun, some folks don’t like it at all and prefer an AR-10 or some other weapon (M1A, etc.).  Tall tales about how this gun can inflict carnage on a scale like no other weapon in history are usually written by ignorant boobs who are just pushing an agenda.  It’s just a rifle firing an intermediate cartridge.

But I like it and always will because of a number of reasons I’ve rehearsed before (e.g., the modularity, the fact that the recoil is on-axis rather than being coupled about a point, etc.).  And one reason not mentioned is that we have guns as a remedy for tyranny.  That’s right, Justin.  Got it?  That’s the close quarters battle thing you mentioned and didn’t really flesh out.  As for a field rifle, it may not be the best option if you’re talking over 500 yards.  One may decide not to use the “black gun” for that.  Is this too much detail, Justin?  All the talk about remedies for tyranny?

David S. Cohen, professor at Drexel University, thinks it’s time to repeal the second amendment.  He spends a lot of time talking about how deeply flawed the constitution is.  In fact, I think Cohen is deeply flawed and the constitution pretty good.  But his prose is cute.

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.

Oh horse shit.  The founders wrote the second amendment specifically as a remedy for tyranny.  If they had been able to craft the AR-15, they would have used it and ended the war of independence much more quickly.  Guns, rather than a threat to liberty, are the practical surety of liberty.  But the disconnected professor should give it a go if he thinks he can repeal the second amendment.  Any time he feels froggy.

Finally, writer Charles Pierce at Esquire writes about Stanley McChrystal on guns.

If an Army general says this is a weapon that should not be in civilian hands, like a grenade launcher or an F-16, then we should be able to agree as a nation that this is a weapon than should not be in civilian hands. I wonder why “both parties” can’t “talk about it in a rational fashion to dial it down.”

Well, we’ve already talked about what a complete ass clown and worm Stanley McChrystal is, or really to be more honest, a murderer with his ROE (see many engagements in Afghanistan, and I used Ganjgal as one stark example).  But beyond having to use an adulterer (Petraeus) and a murderer (McChrystal) as your touchstone for gun control, what kind of analyst asserts that being a general has anything whatsoever to do with public policy?

Seriously.  Staff and flag officers spend time in TRADOC, strategy, logistics, and so on.  Why would anyone conclude that a general had to have any knowledge of operation of weapons or any special insight into public policy at all?  What kind of juvenile did Esquire hire with Pierce?  Here’s a bet.  The gunsmiths down at Hyatt Gun Shop can out-gunsmith McChrystal or anyone he knows every time, and I’d lay good money on that.  And a random selection of people in the phone directory (and testing those people) would yield better policy results more focused on the maintenance of liberty than Stanley McChrystal at his very best and most studied.

During my coverage and commentary on Operation Iraqi Freedom And Operation Enduring Freedom, I never liked David Petrarus or Stanley McChrystal.  As for the campaigns (because that invariably comes up), I didn’t agree with OIF1 or in other words the initial invasion of Iraq, I did agree with OIF2 and OIF3 because 80-100 jihadist fighters were coming across the Jordanian and Syrian borders per month to fight U.S. troops who might have crossed American borders instead if we didn’t finish the campaign, I agreed with the initial stages of the campaign in Afghanistan, but when I saw that we had busted the Northern Alliance with were courting the Pashtuns, I opposed the remainder of the campaign, and when I saw the complete debacle we made of both campaigns, I called for total, immediate withdrawal from both theaters.  Now that roadblock is out of the way, let’s proceed.

Aside from the campaigns, Petraeus and McChrystal are part of the class of generals who believe in COIN and waging “armed social work.”  Their rules of engagement were a function of that, and the rules got many good men killed and maimed.  You may drive or walk right by young men who are getting along with no legs or arms, but I don’t.  I stop, sometimes shed a tear, and beg forgiveness for not finding the son of a bitch who started all of this and cutting his balls off and feeding them to the dogs.

Petraeus and McChrystal won’t cease and desist showing us what kind of men they are either.  Just recently we learned that they don’t take their oath to the constitution seriously, or better yet, they lied when they took their oath.  They are leading the charge on gun control for the progressives.

Retired Gen. David Petraeus is teaming up with former astronaut Mark Kelly to form a gun-control advocacy group that “respects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.”

Kelly has made frequent appearances on the 2016 campaign trail with presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, as well as his wife, former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords, who sustained a serious brain injury after being shot in Tucson in 2011.

Petraeus and Kelly are joined by other military veterans, including retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, in launching the “Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.” The group’s stated purpose is to urge lawmakers to do more to prevent mass gun tragedies.

Shamefully, there’s even a Marine in the mix.

“I believe that our Constitution affords responsible Americans the right to own guns, but we need to keep dangerous people from having easy access to guns. Felons, domestic abusers, even known terrorists can buy a gun here without something as simple as a criminal background check. This has to stop,” retired Marine Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney said in a statement. “Our laws don’t support responsible gun ownership, and far too often guns fall into the hands of dangerous, irresponsible people.”

So let’s rehearse what I said about Stanley McChrystal when he first came out as a gun controller progressive.

But the irony is that McChrystal, who issued the most restrictive rules of engagement ever promulgated on American troops, waxes know-it-all on what it takes to keep our people safe.  He can micromanage the campaign, release a bunch of inept, bureaucratic, PowerPoint jockeys into highly protected mega-bases to command the troops under fire in the field, turn so-called general purpose troops into constabulary patrolmen, and become a laughingstock when his juvenile staff turned party-animal with Rolling Stone.  But he didn’t manage the campaign in such a manner as to keep our children in uniform safe in Afghanistan.  If he didn’t do that, why should I care what he has to say about anything else regarding my safety?

This is what happens when media stars think they know something about policy.  So here is a suggestion for Mr. McChrystal.  You go read the lamentations at this article from the families and widows of SFC Kenneth Westbrook, Gunnery Sgt Aaron M Kenefick, Corpsman James Ray “Doc” Layton, and others in the Ganjgal engagement.  You know the one I’m talking about, even if others have forgotten.  You and I will never forget.  The one where they left our men to perish without fire support because of your rules of engagement.  You sleep with this reality, if you can, you ponder on those men and their lives morning and night, and you lament with the widows and families.  And then you tell me why I should give a shit what you have to say about anything, much less what it takes to keep my children or loved ones safe?

I don’t retreat one iota from what I said there.  McChrystal, with his ROE, is a murderer.  I don’t give a shit what he says about anything.  As for Petraeus, he is an adulterer and that during deployment when men under his charge were suffering and dying.

I’m glad those are the best two men this ungodly bunch could come up with.  Those two men should be embarrassments to the gun controller crowd.  It gives me amusement and pleasure to have them as enemies.  Sometimes good things do happen.

So at least 50 people are dead, and more than 50 wounded from a single shooter who aligned himself with Sharia law.  Who could have guessed it?

Expect calls for more gun control even as Obama floods the country with Sharia-compliant Muslims.  They are already calling one of his guns an “assault rifle.”  Most of all, expect more calls for controls on the evil “black guns” that enabled him to do this.  Never mind that he could have chosen an M1 and 1911 or multiple revolvers to do the same thing.

As for the person who did this, he was apparently a “security guard” who worked for a company called G4S Security.  Some security company.  Actually in all fairness, they are probably like most of the others, and therein lies the answer to the soccer mom reflexive answer to events like this to get more security.

Here it is soccer mom, are you ready?  Your security guard may be the terrorist, so that gun he’s toting around that makes you feel good and protected, and that makes you feel so uncomfortable when you see open carriers doing it, may just be the instrument of your demise.  You might have just wanted that open carrier after all.  He might just save your life one day.

“Security” means nothing, and the police merely responded to the event and wouldn’t have been able to stop it.  This event proves it.  Be your own security.

Dodging questions posed by George Stephanopoulos, Hillary Clinton left no doubt that she doesn’t believe in the individual right to bear arms as recognized by the second amendment.  In fact, the Brady Campaign is already boasting that gun control is a central plank of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

But it’s one thing to boast, another to have Hillary’s duplicity on the record, but yet another to have the committee members of the DNC say out loud what they really think about guns.  And that’s just what we’ve got.

She’s lying, just like the commentary by this boy I ran across today where he claims that gun free zones save lives.  Note the absolute and unequivocal claims.  No lives can be saved by guns.  No one should have guns.  Only bad things happen when people have guns – never mind that World War II was ended by the power of guns.

But again I say, neither this DNC committee member nor the boy who wrote the commentary, Grayson Everett, believes what is claimed.  You know this because they aren’t advocating for the disarming of police.  They want someone to have guns, just not you.  Only the special people get to have them.  They believe, like all statists, in a monopoly of force.  They get to exercise it, and you don’t.  Because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals.