Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 155: Thank God our fighting men had big guns on D-Day, 1944

D Day and guns
The national conversation. It’s a term we hear quite a bit whenever something happens to shock the national conscience (if there is such a thing anymore) or gains widespread notoriety because a media editor or producer decides it’s something worthwhile to talk about and attract a lot of eyeballs.

At the same time no one’s quite sure exactly how to conduct a “national conversation,” since it’s impossible to simultaneously get everyone standing by and listening while one person speaks to the country. Far too many aspire to talk and far too few are willing to listen.

Therefore, when someone mentions a “national conversation,” take it with a grain of salt. It’s simply liberal-speak for shut up and accept whatever the ruling class decides is best for you.

Take last week’s mass shooting in Virginia Beach as an example. There, a lone gunman went on a rampage and killed twelve coworkers without an obvious motive or rationale for it. While Americans waited anxiously for an explanation as to what happened, liberal politicians and media figures jumped right in and predictably blamed the lifeless, dead-as-a-doorknob gun for the massacre.

Some liberals even suggested it was time to end the “national conversation” and simply act, as other countries have “done something” about mass shootings. Ronald Reagan’s daughter, Patti Davis, wrote at USA Today, “We shouldn't get ‘too deep into politics too soon,’ [acting White House chief of staff Mick] Mulvaney said Sunday. He added that this is a time for mourning and healing. We’ve heard this after every shooting, as if there is a timetable for mourning and a date on the calendar that will mark us ‘healed.’ Of course, none of this is sincere; they’re just spinning out a delay tactic until some other news story crowds out the tragedy of yet another mass shooting.

“Refusing to look at the bigger picture — the enormous number of guns in this country and how easy they are to get — is sort of like telling a smoker who has lung cancer, ‘It’s too soon to talk about your smoking. We need time to mourn the fact that you have cancer.’”

Are these situations truly analogous, Ms. Davis? Incidentally, Patti is now 66 years old and the only reason she’s got a soapbox to spout her liberal nonsense is one, she’s the surviving daughter of the late great liberty-touting icon Ronald Reagan, and two, she’s a media darling because her perspective and point-of-view is completely opposite her father’s. (Presidential son Michael Reagan is a well-known conservative radio talk show host, but does he have a column in USA Today?)

Because of the apparent intra-family ideological contradiction, the media treats Patti like a pathetic exotic caged zoo animal and she’s not even smart enough to recognize it. “Hey, Ronnie Reagan’s little girl is a with-it progressive who hates guns, believes #MeToo survivors and tramples on his pro-American legacy! Look at that! Quick, get a picture! She’s a freak!”

Moving to the content of Davis’s argument, does owning a gun necessarily translate to a desire to murder as the presidential daughter insinuates? Statistics say there are well over 300 million guns in America today, the vast majority privately and responsibly owned by Second Amendment revering citizens who wouldn’t dream of ever using them against another human being (unless in defense of themselves, their loved ones or gravely threatened innocents). It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to deduce that well over 99 percent of firearms are never used in anger against fellow persons.

A good number of gun owners don’t even hunt. They appreciate firearms because of the safety and security they experience with knowing they have the means to protect against immediate and unforeseeable menaces like the one in Virginia Beach. In such circumstances, unless you live next door to a police station, first responders are always minutes (or more) away, leaving you as a sitting duck at the mercy of someone with bad intentions and packing heat. Who wants to live this way?

Besides, the filthy rotten terrorist scumbag who murdered 86 people and injured over 400 others in Nice, France (in 2016) drove a big box truck, yet no one’s come out suggesting such vehicles should be outlawed -- or that we should engage in a “national conversation” to pressure political leaders to finally get serious about the epidemic of wackos using large trucks to run over crowds of people.

The argument is absurd and everyone knows it. Do you think anyone fears trucks on the highway or city streets because one (or more) have been misused to kill people?

Davis didn’t stop there… she continued, “Americans are left to wonder why a country like New Zealand can act so quickly, so decisively, after the Christchurch shootings in which 50 people died, while we lumber along doing nothing. It only took less than a month for New Zealand’s gun laws to change, proving it isn’t that complicated or that hard.”

Yes, that’s right, New Zealanders have all the answers. Maybe all liberals should relocate there.

But Patti’s got a point here. It wouldn’t be complicated or hard for politicians to do something they see as popular, but does hasty action make it right? The Christchurch shooting Davis referenced was carried out by one deranged individual with a rifle and a willingness to die in order to make a name for himself in a hateful act against a certain type of person. Will New Zealand’s swift action to ban guns save anyone from the next determined and illegally armed assailant who couldn’t give a squat about what the law says?

Murder is a crime with very specific punishments. Everyone is aware of them. Perpetrators of mass shootings understand what they’re doing and the sanctions that go along with pulling a trigger multiple times, poisoning, stabbing, arson, etc. They don’t care about the law any more than they give credence to the grieving families of those who die at their hands. If anything, the higher the body count the more satisfaction they derive on their way to prison or…hell.

As someone who’s suffered and been forced to cope with the reality of a family member being murdered (not gun related), I’m well aware of how it feels to be victimized by a killer. Davis talked about her father’s near-assassination and suggested it was too easy for John Hinckley Jr. to get a gun and bring it close enough to the president of the United States to shoot him.

Millions of others own similar guns (to Hinckley’s) and they’re locked safely away at home or carried with permits to help make sure the next mass shooter’s name doesn’t become nearly so infamous. One good guy with a gun neutralizes the bad. It’s common sense.

What would Davis have American leaders do? Virginia’s KKK hood-wearing governor called for a special session of the state legislature to “do something” about “gun violence” and mass killings. What will legislators come up with? Will they expand concealed carry rights so deputized citizens can self-prevent the next rampage?

Don’t bet on it. And chances are they won’t address the real problems either. Dennis Prager wrote at PJ Media, “America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower...

“Given the same ubiquity of guns, wouldn't the most productive question be what, if anything, has changed since the 1960s and '70s? Of course it would. And a great deal has changed. America is much more ethnically diverse, much less religious. Boys have far fewer male role models in their lives. Fewer men marry, and normal boy behavior is largely held in contempt by their feminist teachers, principals and therapists. Do any or all of those factors matter more than the availability of guns?”

Obviously they do. Prager pointed out that there’ve always been guns but until the aforementioned decades, very few mass shootings. There was only one mass shooting in the 1950’s, for example, despite millions of firearms-trained veterans being home from overseas conflicts where guns played the key role in quelling the greatest hazards mankind ever faced.

Thank God American GIs and Marines didn’t confront the enemy in WW II by announcing “I’m unarmed and here to defeat you! Put down those machine guns and surrender!”

Mass shootings took a big leap starting in the 60’s and 70’s and continue on through this day. They’ve become so common people hardly notice when they take place and only receive media attention when opportunists like Davis and Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam choose to use them to score political points with the trusting and easily fooled.

Make no mistake, liberals aren’t interested in a “national conversation” on guns. They only want to confiscate them while scoffing at the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to protect yourself. Blame the gun -- it’s the liberal thing to do. It makes liberals feel useful and the gullible and uninformed actually follow along. Nonsense.

Share this

Factor for mass murder?

The author of this article asks what has changed since the 60's and 70's that may have contributed to the rise of mass murders. One factor missing from his list is the massive increase of the use of psychoactive prescription drugs. One organization has explored this factor and has found that close to 100% of mass shooting have been perpetrated by people who are either on or trying to come off of psychoactive drugs. Perhaps the questions we should be exploring are what role these medications play in contributing to mass violence.