I don’t like most Executive Orders. I certainly don’t like the growing abuse of using an Executive Order to circumvent the Legislature and upturn the delicate balance of power. The very balance of power that protects our country from a single person in the White House. When Obama started using Executive Orders to get what he wanted, I was concerned.
When I voiced my concern to liberals I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist.”
When I voiced by concern over his threat to use his pen and his phone I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. He’s your President.”
When I voiced my concern over the large number of Executive Orders I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. He’s getting things done.”
When I voiced my concern over his continued use of Executive Orders I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. He has every right to do this as President.”
When I voiced my concern that the delicate balance of power was broken when Obama was “making” the laws instead of the Legislature “passing” the laws I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. He wouldn’t have to do this if the Legislature would help him get this done.”
When I said this was an abuse of power I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. Bush did it, too.”
When I said it was wrong when any President abused this power I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. You’re only saying this because you don’t like this President.”
When I said Bush shouldn’t have done this either I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. You’re lying because you hate what Obama’s doing.”
When I said NO PRESIDENT should use Executive Orders for anything except the most exigent circumstances I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
When I asked how the liberals would feel when the pen and phone were in another person’s hand I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist.”
Now, the pen and the phone are in another person’s hand and the liberals are suddenly outraged over the “abuse” of Executive Orders.
Don’t say I didn’t try to warn them.
If you haven’t heard, Columbus Day is no longer politically correct. Instead of schools using the holiday to teach kids about EXPLORATION, they are using it to teach kids about EXPLOITATION. According to the video my daughter was assigned to watch at home, Columbus was a selfish, greedy, money-driven, privileged, white-skinned killer who only wanted to make a fast buck by abusing his connections to European power and murdering dark-skinned indigenous American peoples. Being of both European and Indigenous American descent, I am not taking sides on this. I can see it from both directions. Personally, I don’t have a problem with Columbus Day.
That said, in order to facilitate the eventual departure from all politically incorrect holidays, I suggest we just get on with it and change everything immediately. Here are my recommendations:
New Year’s Day: This is politically incorrect because not all cultures consider January 1 to be the first of the new year. In fact, the entire 12-month calendar we use is politically incorrect because not all cultures use it. I suggest we just end this holiday entirely and return all peoples to to the use of myriad calendars. There are lots to pick from so let’s not pick any one calendar over any other because that would be offensive to some subset of the human race. Let the Jews use their own calendar. Let the Chinese use their own calendar. Let the Muslims use their own calendar. And in the interest of reparations for past calendar discrimination, I vote we resurrect the use of all obsolete calendars. I’m sure there are people just itching to use an Egyptian, Aztec, or Roman calendar.
And don’t worry if a particular calendar isn’t accurate by modern standards. If I’ve learned anything from my children’s new Common Core-based homework, it’s that things no longer need to be correct. They just need to be “reasonable”. I’m sure all of the 75 or so current, obsolete, and proposed calendars I was able to find through Google have something “reasonable” to offer. If nothing else, I’m sure the people at Microsoft are looking for a challenge. I can’t wait to see how they modify their Outlook product to handle all of these calendars. Scheduling meetings will be half-day adventure. Woo hoo! Viva political correctness.
Martin Luther King, Day: I don’t have a problem with this day because the guy was a Republican and that pisses off liberals when they learn of that little tidbit of information. Wait, I do have a problem with this holiday. While he did do things lots of people appreciate, he was just another American fighting for what he thought was right. We can’t go around giving holidays to all the people who fight for what they think is right. We can’t go around giving holidays to all the people who did great things. We’d run out of days on the calendar and nobody would ever go to work. What about Ben Franklin, Rosa Parks, Thomas Paine, Susan B Anthony, Thomas Edison, General Patton, Elvis Presley, etc. I think you get my point. There are too many people to recognize. Let’s outlaw all holidays designed to honor and celebrate any single American. It’s offensive to the ones who don’t get their own holiday or to the people for whom their favorite person does not get a holiday. I think I’m pretty special. I want my own holiday. See? I just offended someone with that idea.
Groundhog Day: Let’s just end this blatant display of materialism and chicanery. This is nothing but a ploy to bring tourists and media to a small town in western Pennsylvania. Who in their right mind believes the groundhog “sees” a shadow? Besides, the whole thing is oppressive. The “Inner Circle” is a bunch of old white MALE “dignitaries” standing around in top hats exploiting a rodent for their own personal profit. I seriously don’t see how this can be allowed to go on for one more year. It’s despicable. Where is the feminist and environmentalist outrage?
Valentine’s Day: What can I say here? It’s offensive on so many levels. For starters, it celebrates Christianity. This was originally the Feast of Saint Valentine. That’s a deal breaker right there. Christianity is inherently politically incorrect. I could stop right here. But let’s continue. A historical symbol of Valentine’s Day is Cupid, the Roman god of desire, erotic love, attraction and affection. Surely that offends Christians to know a Roman god is a key figure for their feast day. Plus, let’s be honest here, a winged infant is definitely indicative of some form child abuse. Someone better call Child Protective Services. Also, this holiday is offensive to all single people and people not in a romantic relationship. Whether they are single by choice or single because they are annoying or single because they just haven’t met their true love . . . it’s detrimental to their self esteem to be excluded by a holiday. Last, but not least, the pro-capitalism, materialism is offensive. All that money spent on cards, flowers, dinners, and jewelry should be given to the government so they can spend it on important things like giving it to our enemies in foreign countries.
Presidents’ Day: This is an easy one to end. I find the idea of celebrating a holiday that celebrates the likes of Obama to be offensive. I know liberals find the idea of celebrating a holiday that celebrates the likes of Bush to be offensive. Done. Remember all those mentally frail individuals who suffer mental anguish after Presidential elections? Some of whom actually seek medical treatment and/or sue? Let’s just save them the agony and not have them relive those moments.
Mardi Gras: It’s related to Christianity. It’s politically incorrect. Let’s move on.
St. Patrick’s Day: Yet another holiday linked to Christianity. Ergo, politically incorrect by default. Plus, it appears to celebrate a single pale-skinned ,European group of peoples. That’s also politically incorrect and offensive to everyone who is not Irish. Additionally, many individuals who celebrate do so with drinking beer. Too much drink can lead to questionable behavior and someone might be offended by what someone says or does. Because someone might be offended, we might as well cancel this holiday right now. No need to take risks.
April Fool’s Day: I suggest we keep this one. It’s a great day for Obama supporters to celebrate themselves.
Easter: Considered by many to be the most holy of Christian holidays. Totally offensive just because of that. As the Atheists ask, “why do you people insist on celebrating a fairy tale?” Plus, the pagans are still pissed off because Christians stole the Oester name from the Norse peoples. I’m sure Michelle Obama would love to see an end of all the chocolate bunnies, sugary peeps, and jelly beans (if for no reason other than Ronald Reagan liked them). It doesn’t take a village to raise a child these days, it takes an oppressive and intrusive government. I’m sure the artificial grass pisses off the environmentalists, too. I bet it takes forever to degrade.
Earth Day: We need to keep this one because how can saving the earth possibly be offensive to anyone? Oh, yeah, it offends me when they take away my incandescent bulbs and want them replaced with toxic fluorescent bulbs that make my eyes feel wonky. It also offends me when they take my hard earned tax dollars and give them to some fly by night “green” energy company with friends in high places. However, my opinion doesn’t matter because I’m a fiscally conservative, social libertarian. I’m not a progressive or a socialist or a communist so I’m not allowed to have an opinion on environmental issues. In fact, because I am a “climate change denier”; many liberals think I need to be put in jail or at least sent to a reeducation camp. (I’m not kidding.)
Mother’s Day: There are people with crappy mothers. This day makes them feel depressed. This day offends them. Time to outlaw it.
Memorial Day: This day celebrates people who died fighting to further the western ideals of freedom. So, it’s totally offensive to so many people. This day celebrates people who died fighting against the exact type of socialism and communism our current day liberals are fighting so hard to expand in the USA. So, it’s totally offensive to so many people. Definitely needs to be ended. Liberals consider this a celebration of pure oppression and exploitation and hatred for other peoples. I know several liberals who use this day to berate the “US war machine”. I can’t believe liberals still allow this to be considered a holiday.
Father’s Day: See, Mother’s Day, above. This is even more offensive due to the large number of kids growing up without a father. Instead of fixing that problem, let’s just outlaw this holiday because we don’t want so many kids feeling excluded.
Independence Day: Perhaps the most offensive non-Christian holiday on the calendar. A holiday that celebrates exceptionalism, patriotism, and freedom. Liberals would rather this be changed to “Dependence Day” in honor of all the entitlement programs, multi-generation welfare families, and government employee unions. Instead of “God Bless America” the tag line will now be “God Damn America” in honor of Obama’s pastor. American flags are now considered offensive and politically incorrect. Better to change it to a hammer and sickle before someone’s feelings get hurt.
Labor Day: Liberals love this celebration of socialism, communism, and unions. We’ll never get rid of this day. Ever.
Halloween: I know a lot of Christians who have already outlawed this celebration at their houses. They consider it a gateway to the occult. Personally, I love Halloween. Then again, this holiday has links to Christianity. It is the start of Allhallowtide. We better outlaw it, just to be safe. We don’t want to offend anyone. Christianity is totally politically incorrect.
Veteran’s Day: This day conjures up similar complaints as Memorial day. This celebrates our military. Many liberals consider our military to be a male-dominated, war machine that takes money from the mouths of welfare babies. It needs to be outlawed.
Thanksgiving: This makes a lot of liberals mad for the same reasons they don’t like Columbus Day. Liberals consider Thanksgiving to be a celebration of pale-skin fueled genocide. Sit down with a hard core liberal feminist and they’ll tell you John Smith was a child molester when it came to Pocahontas. Don’t forget the mental anguish PETA people experience when all of those turkeys are slaughtered so oppressed women around the country can slave all day while their oppressor husbands watch politically incorrect sports with exploited cheerleaders. Some liberals insist we rename it “National Ethnic Cleansing Day”. Not kidding. Let’s end this before someone gets hurt. As a final note, the whole “Black Friday” pisses off liberals because a) it uses the word “black” in an arguably negative way and b) it celebrates materialism and capitalism.
Christmas: I don’t even need to go there. It’s so patently politically incorrect. It goes without saying. It needs to be outlawed. Immediately. Reparations should probably be paid to to all peoples who do not celebrate this holiday.
So, there you go. Every holiday needs to be outlawed because somewhere there is at least one thin-skinned, mentally fragile individual who will find a reason to find it offensive. Let’s do it by Executive Order. Yeah. That’s the answer.
In case you haven’t been listening or paying attention, liberals are proudly boasting their insistence that they have taken over the USA, a conservative will NEVER again be elected to POTUS, and they are now empowered to continue (unabated and uncontested) the “fundamental” transformation of our country. While liberals dream of a third term for their savior, Obama; I can’t help but wonder how the Christmas holiday will change if (God forbid) those “in your face” liberals are correct. Here’s what I envision.
- Santa will be shutdown for myriad reasons. First, he’s a rich, old, white, male. According to most liberal stereotypes, that means he’s probably a Republican. Second, he lives in an area where they think global warming is making an impact. They must control that land so he’ll need to be ousted by eminent domain. Third, if he can’t be ousted due his mere presence in that part of the world, he’ll be ousted for his carbon footprint. Those elf-run factories must have one hell of a carbon footprint. Fourth, speaking of carbon footprints, Santa is known to leave coal for bad kids. Obama wants the coal industry decimated. What better way than to shut down one of the big coal users? Fifth, Santa is notorious for his flabby, “bowl full of jelly” physique. I’m sure Michelle Obama will shut him down as a poor role model for today’s youth. Sixth, I’m pretty certain Santa’s workshops are not regulated by OSHA. Seventh, I like to believe Santa’s workshops are not yet unionized. I’m sure the liberals can make that happen. Resulting in unsustainable Santa-funded pensions and benefits leaving nothing left to make toys for the good little boys and girls. Leading to an eventual shut-down. Eighth, I have proof Santa has, for many years, given toy and real firearms to people as gifts. That will be unacceptable. I could go on and on . . . but you get the point.
- Rudolph will be jailed for using an incandescent bulb.
- Lights on houses will be outlawed because they waste electricity. If not completely outlawed, the government will require them to be attached to a Smart Grid so they can decide when the lights are allowed to be turned on and off.
- Christmas as a government-endorsed holiday will end because the holiday has a basis in the Christian religion. No more day’s off of work. You’ll need to take vacation.
- Gift shopping will become regulated. Only local, fair-trade, green, organic, and/or sustainable items will be available for purchase. Shopping at Wal-Mart will become strictly prohibited (unless, of course, they unionize).
- People who celebrate Christmas will be taxed. Probably to off-set the union contracted triple overtime or something like that for government personnel who have to work that day.
- Fresh cut Christmas trees will be outlawed because of the impact to the ozone. Regardless of how sustainably they are farmed and harvested.
- The trend towards outlawing red and green in public schools will become a national mandate (probably by an executive order Obama passes). I’m not making this one up. It’s already happening. Google it.
- Stockings will no longer be allowed to hang by the chimney. That presents a fire hazard.
- Candy canes will be outlawed because sucking on them can result in a viciously sharp point. That point can be used to harm someone. Schools will hang up “Candy Cane Free Zone” signs to make sure they don’t make it onto school grounds.
- All old family heirloom decorations will be confiscated. They might have lead or other dangerous chemicals if they were produced before the government started to meddle in everything.
- Five-pointed stars will be outlawed because they discriminate against Jewish people who embrace the six-pointed star. Unless, of course, it is a red star which is a communist-embraced symbol.
- All Christmas carols and songs will be rewritten by Obama speech writers. “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” will become “Goddess Rest Ye Merry Gentle Folk”, “Good King Wenceslas” will become “Bad Oppressor Republican”, “Frosty the Snowman” will become “Frosty the Snowperson”, “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas” will become “I’m Dreaming of a Multi-ethnic Holiday”, “We Three Kings” will become “We Three Union Bosses”, “Little Drummer Boy” will become “Vertically Challenged Drummer Youth”, “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus”, will become “I Saw Daddy Kissing Santa Claus”, you get the point.
- Snowmen will be outlawed for two reasons. First, the term SnowMEN is offensive to feminists. Second, the existence of snowmen brings into question the existence of global warming and we wouldn’t want anyone to question that “settled science”.
- Use of the words peace and peaceful will be restricted so they can only be uttered publicly when describing the thugs (sorry, the wonderful humanitarians) at the UN or the Occupy Wall Street people.
- Hot cocoa will be outlawed because the cocoa beans might come from countries where they oppress their workers.
- Children will no longer be able to leave cookies and milk out for Santa (assuming he hasn’t already been outlawed). Home baked cookies are not subject to government regulation and the milk might be raw milk. Also, these might accidentally be seen and consumed by a robber who would then be able to sue the homeowners for creating an attractive nuisance.
- Gingerbread houses will be outlawed unless they meet all building codes, are union built, and are eligible for Section 8.
- All of the “Elf on the Self” elves must approved by the NSA and join a public employee union because only the government is allowed to spy on you and your family.
- Letters to Santa (assuming he hasn’t already been outlawed) will be prohibited because of the unnecessary burden on the US Postal Service.
There. That’s twenty. I know there are more. Fee free to add your own ideas in the comments.
P.S. Ho ho ho . . . and Merry Christmas a little early.
First of all, I can’t believe Americans are even discussing the right to bear arms. If people are too thick-skulled to read the Constitution in a rational manner, that’s their problem. I don’t have a reading problem but I do have limited tolerance for liberal idiocy.
I love liberals who claim the Second Amendment only pertains to hunting guns. Um, no. Our founders wouldn’t have wasted their time protecting our rights to hunting guns. That was a given. Plus, if they wanted to protect hunting, they would have said something like, “the right to have a gun to shoot dinner shouldn’t be restricted”. I don’t think the inclusion of the words “Militia”, “free State”, “keep and bear Arms”, and “shall not be infringed” is accidental in any way. I have a law degree and a law license but it doesn’t require either of them to read the simple and plain meaning of the Second Amendment. And for my liberal friends who shout “no means no” when it comes to rape, “not means not” when it comes to infringing on my Second Amendment rights.
I also love liberals who say the Second Amendment only applies to muskets and other “period” firearms. If that’s their logic, then the First Amendment only applies to hand written documents penned with a feather dipped in an inkwell or documents printed on old-school printing presses. If you liberals truly believe the Second Amendment only applies to black powder and other old-school guns, I don’t want to hear a single one of you yapping about your First Amendment rights when it comes to email, documents written on computer, or anything you publish on the Internet. Same goes for anything you say over the telephone.
The final liberal idiocy I will mention here is the idea that “Militia” only applies to government run millitaries. Seriously? Do liberals truly believe that? I guess they skipped out on their high school government classes. Our founders wanted to escape tyrannical government – they didn’t want to create one themselves. Again, if they meant only the government run military would be armed, I am relatively certain they would have written it that way. Our founders knew darn well the average citizen deserved the opportunity to protect themselves. I also think the founders wanted it loud and clear, the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers by choosing who should and should not be armed.
I think, bottom line, we’re facing a standoff between those who believe rights are inherent simply by being alive. I’m one of those people. I don’t believe the Constitution grants us rights. I believe the Constitution simply memorializes those rights and then protects them from infringement and encroachment by the government or others. Liberals, on the other hand, believe it is the Constitution document itself which grants rights. Rights which they believe can be taken away simply by editing the document.
I don’t think our founders planned on the liberal interpretation. Our Constitution was signed not long after our Declaration of Independence. Reflect a moment on these words found in the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .
That is not the mindset of a group of people saying, “if it ain’t in the document, it doesn’t exist”.
It’s not hard to understand what the Second Amendment means. Our Constitution was written by founders inspired by earlier documents and philosophies. Peruse the Magna Carta and the intent of that document to see the stance against tyranny. Consider the writings of John Locke. Contemplate why the authors of the Constitution opted for a President instead of a King. Reflect on why they established a republic instead of a pure democracy. Look at the Constitution itself and it’s emphasis on federalism. It’s not hard. Seriously, you people should have paid more attention in class when your teacher taught you about our Constitution.
Liberals want to take away or (at a minimum) restrict inherent rights. Conservatives recognize the inherent flaw in the liberal desire to do so. I side with the Conservatives on this issue. I will never understand why liberals want to voluntarily forfeit their own rights and infringe on mine, against my will, for a false sense of security – a modern day 30 pieces of silver.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Gun laws don’t prevent crime. They just constrain and infringe on the rights of the lawful citizens. Criminals will always find a route to obtain guns whether those guns are legally owned or illegally owned. If they can’t find guns, they find other weapons. I highly doubt there will soon be a movement to outlaw knives, baseball bats, pencils, cars, rope, and fists . . . but who knows how far liberals are willing to go in eviscerating our inherent rights and simultaneously converting a huge number law abiding citizens into criminals with nothing more than a stroke of the pen.
In my heart of hearts I am a Libertarian. I believe the government has one purpose and that purpose is to govern. My definition of govern means to make sure the people are protected from each other (that does not mean to protect them from themselves) and to make sure there are adequate government resources to achieve that goal. I support a military focused on protecting us. I support protecting our borders. I support fire departments. I support laws against murder, robbery, rape and other things. In general, I support the things which help us maintain calm and order.
I do not support government telling me what to eat, forcing me to get a license to marry the person of my dreams, telling me whether or not I can own a firearm, or preventing me from finishing my basement b/c the new building code regulations are too expensive to fulfill.
Do I believe the Democrats have gone way too far in meddling in our lives? Yes. Do I think the Republicans have gone way too far in meddling in our lives? Yes. Do I think we need a lot less “two party” and a lot more Libertarianism? Yes.
Does that mean I am going to vote for a third party candidate on election day? NO.
Here is why. Right now our country is more or less divided when it comes to elections. Divided means split into two halves. Those halves aren’t necessarily equal, but our country is more or less split down the middle. You have Republicans and Democrats. The problem is we’re not really divided. We’re actually broken down further. In between the two big slices of the pie, there is a “third party” which is actually a collection of other political parties which make up a smaller portion of the whole. There are well known political parties in the “third party” such as Independent, Libertarian, Environmental, Tea Party, Communist, and Socialist. There are also less common parties such as Justice, Prohibition, and Labor. The problem with this “third party” is it makes up too small of a fraction of our population to get the traction needed to beat one of the big two.
Note: Before you start sending me emails about my “division” comment . . . depending upon how you look at parties (by registration or by voting) you get difference percentages. In “dividing” the country I based it primarily on the election outcomes for POTUS races which is arguably “divided” in most election years. Yes, I recognize in 1992 Ross Perot had enough votes to make it not a true “division” between the two major parties.
That’s not to say people from other parties can’t win an election. They do win. There just isn’t anyone from any of those other parties who gets the air time necessary to get the required votes in a POTUS election to win. It’s a unfortunate fact.
I have lots of Libertarian friends who are adamant about voting for their candidate. I applaud them for wanting to stand proud and send a message. They are correct. If they don’t vote for their candidate, they’ll never get traction.
After contemplating the options in this particular POTUS election, I have decided, no matter how much I believe in the Libertarian ideals, I cannot bring myself to vote for that candidate in this election.
SHOCKING. I KNOW.
Let me tell you why. This election has the potential to tip of the scales in America one way or the other. Not only are we split between Republicans and Democrats; we are also split between makers and takers. We used to be a nation of mostly makers. Now we are a nation where almost half are takers. We are becoming a welfare state. I honestly and sincerely believe, after this election, if the wrong person makes it back into the White House (and you know who I’m talking about) there will be nothing standing in the way of takers overtaking the makers.
Once the amount of people taking becomes more than 50% of our country, the takers will be empowered to take more and more from the makers. The takers will be the majority and they will win every future election we hold. People living off the government have will have no incentive to vote for smaller government or less government intrusion in their lives. We are already a country riddled with socialist programs which are failing. Imagine that administration, with no need to worry about reelection, going for broke (both figuratively and literally). Imagine a minority of makers having to support a majority of takers. We’re almost there.
Romney was correct. How can a candidate who believes in smaller government and cutting programs garner the vote of individuals who are fully or even partially living off the government? The number of people willing to put the needs of the country ahead of the needs of themselves is shrinking rapidly. I feel like I’m one of a dying breed.
Why am I telling you this? Because I ardently want every Libertarian to get behind Romney. Not because I support everything he stands for or agree with everything he has done in the past. I want every Libertarian to vote for Romney because I honestly believe if Romney doesn’t win, the scales will tip and there will never be a chance to put a Libertarian in the White House. Libertarians believe in smaller government. Libertarians have the same challenges getting the “takers” to support their candidates for the same reasons Romney has challenges getting the “takers” to support him.
If this election results in the current administration returning to the White House, it will be “game over” for those of use who are makers and those of us who support smaller government. Libertarians and Conservatives will never have another bite at the White House because too many votes will have been bought with our tax dollars via entitlement programs. Just look at the food stamp numbers and unemployment under the current administration. Just look at the growing infringement on our individual liberties.
As much as I love Libertarian ideals, there is no Libertarian candidate for POTUS who has the votes necessary to win the race. I’d rather see Libertarians vote for Romney if for no other reason than to (hopefully) have a chance in the future to run a candidate who can garner the votes necessary to be the man or woman to make it to the top.
Until that time, I don’t want to see the opportunity for the election of a true small government Libertarian forever sidelined by the takers. That is why I am voting for Romney and that is why I think you should vote for him, too.
I don’t know who created this, but it’s fantastic. I’d do a little editing if it was mine . . . but the intended message hits it home loud and clear.
The fairy tale goes something like this . . .
Once upon a time, a big, black, scary-looking semi-automatic assault weapon lived in the deep dark woods. Every day, he would prowl the paths looking for victims. One day, a sweet, innocent, dainty little girl with a posh red-hooded cape happened along carrying a basket full of organic, grain-free healthy goodness for her ailing grandmother. The big, black, scary-looking assault weapon shot the girl. The end.
It’s a fairy tale the pro gun control lobby loves to tell. However, it’s just a fairy tale. The big, black, scary-looking assault weapon is an inanimate object. It does not live in the woods, it does not prowl, it does not shoot. Only a person can live somewhere, do something, and pull a trigger.
I could just as easily rewrite their fairy tale and replace the antagonist with an aluminum baseball bat, a finely crafted carbon steel steak knife, or a pair of fists. However, those other antagonists don’t make for good media coverage. They aren’t as scary looking as a rifle with lots of extra black molding and a pistol grip. Those other antagonists don’t elicit an emotional response.
Here’s how the fairy tale should go . . .
Once upon a time, a person was walking in the woods carrying an assault weapon. He came upon a group of bird watchers in a clearing searching for the Red-whiskered Bulbul. He pulls his weapon, aims it towards the bird watchers, and prepares to do the unthinkable. One of the bird watchers espies him at a distance aiming the weapon. The bird watcher notifies the others of the man with the weapon. The man with the assault weapon opens fire. One of the other bird watchers pulls out his legally owned self defense weapon and ends the confrontation immediately. An untold number of lives are saved and everyone spared an early death lives happily ever after. The end.
However, if the gun control lobby gets its way, that man with the legally owned self defense weapon wouldn’t be armed and the tragedy would have unfolded with a large number of lives lost. Every time I hear about these massive shootings in gun-free zones I can’t help but think how differently things might have ended and how many lives might have been saved had there been one hero in the crowd who knew how to shoot and was armed to do so.
I have lots of friends who used to be anti-gun but who at one time found themselves in a precarious position. One of them was the victim of a break-in. One of them was mugged on a city street. One of them had a friend die in a shooting. They all now own a gun (legally I might add). They realize how owning a gun and being prepared can help you rewrite the ending of the fairy tale. They no longer are willing to be victims. None of us should be willing to be victims. The gov’t shouldn’t be writing the end of the story for us good guys.