The views that are expressed in the upcoming section do not represent the Clarion or Sinclair Community College. This paper, along with Sinclair, is nonpartisan. It does not endorse any candidate. The opinions given represent the viewpoint of the author who wrote the article.
How many people do you know that a gun walked up to and killed? None? Congratulations, you’re somewhat mentally sane. To get to it, gun control won’t stop gun violence. Legal gun owners are rarely the ones that people should be concerned with.
In Ohio, if you own a gun, it means at least one person has looked into your background. That puts you leagues ahead of others, it gives you one edge above a stranger. Someone who owns a gun legally has gone through more scrutiny than the average person yet is viewed as a criminal and more dangerous, more risky than someone who does not pursue legal gun ownership.
To pull the trigger on this, let’s look at Hillary’s wikileaks email. In one particular email, Clinton expresses her overarching goal of actually grabbing guns in policy. Where does the idea that legal guns create and are responsible for crimes come from?
This is a largely Democrat policy issue. Famously, most Democratic policy revolves around avoided the human elements in situations and realities created by humans. Democrats would rather take a legal gun owner’s Constitutional right away from them to “solve gun violence” than actually deport or criminally prosecute illegal immigrants responsible for gun laundering and violence in these affected communities. Doing so removes the uncomfortable nature of reality where our ideals are constantly challenged while they play out in practice.
Another restriction to an inalienable right is not going to do much if any good in our tumultuous country. I’ve been to Chicago, my father worked in Chicago for many years, he was also shot in Chicago. Thankfully, my father survived. Many do not.
So far, Chicago has had some 3600 murders with gun violence this year. Baltimore, a city I have visited frequently these past few years has also had record breaking homicides involving guns. Tensions over the potential police brutality incidents have caused law enforcement to forfeit what small gains they could make.
These epicenters for gun violence will experience zero to no gain from further restricting legal gun ownership. It’s incredibly disingenuous to ignore these communities being downright run into the ground through violence in favor of trying to push an agenda that once again, offers no help all the while using them as leverage.
You can’t cry ‘poor them’ or ‘think of the children’ when you don’t do a damn thing to ensure those people will have a future besides take in money from groups that only want to use them for their career highlights.
If Democrats legitimately wanted to help Chicago, they’d embrace some very rational Conservative philosophies. One of which is that families are important. Broken homes and poor support lead to negative consequences, Conservatives understand how quintessential the nuclear family has been to society.
Personal responsibility is another. You can’t depend on the government to make your life go how you’d like it to. We can’t just think there’s going to be a program or the lack of a program is an excuse for criminal behavior. At least when Conservatives get uncomfortable it’s about social norms, not realities that so very deeply impact communities like Chicago.
Guns aren’t out there hiding in the woods to corner you, those are big bad wolves and often just people. You take one small modifier out of an equation where the threshold for ‘problem’ depends so very rationally on another variable and you still end up with that ‘problem.’ I guess Democratic math includes the feel good variable where so long as it appears you’re doing something, that something must be inherently good, acceptable and enough to pat yourself on the back or post about on Facebook.
Don’t let globalist-funded ‘do-gooders’ that functionally ‘do nothing’ control your vote in this election. Either candidate has stipulations on furthering forms of gun control, often using the term “common sense” to persuade you.
There’s nothing “common sense” about restricting your constitutional right. The Second Amendment boils down to a few things: as a citizen of the United States, do you have the right to defend yourself, up through lethal force in a situation? Most who lobby for gun control have never been in the position where lethal force has been the difference between life and death.
Do you really feel comfortable to have someone in the Oval Office that despite being surrounded with their own elite team of highly trained, armed security, campaigns to take away your ability to defend yourself?
No one likes talking about how useful guns are for self defense. When we talk about trying to say, ominously move to disarm the citizenry, we specifically mean we want to disenfranchise those that benefit from gun ownership. So in 95 percent of cases in which females were assaulted, yet legally owned a gun, used it–even by threat–to ward off their attackers, survived to tell the tales–they should clearly be punished so our nation can continue to live in this made-up land that we will be safe if we just trust big brother and that criminals will rescind their lifestyle choices to suddenly follow laws.
My last thought on the matter, perhaps a lot of individual uncomfort about guns stems from unfamiliarity. I can’t say that guns thrill me in the slightest, but I do enjoy that my police officers have them. Why am I comfortable with police having deadly weapons? Well, they are trained to use them. They’re also serving their functional purpose, I admire most police officers and understand some elements of the lives they live.
In the same way, I’m comfortable with the many people I know that pursued legal gun ownership. My own father taught me how to properly use arms. When I learned to handle them, I became more comfortable with them.
Part of that learning process is the immense respect for guns. You have to respect the power of a deadly weapon, paramountly. You hope you never, at any point have to consider using it–but if the time comes, that legislation could be the difference between being politically correct or seeing your loved ones again.
Don’t give the national government an inch of your Constitutional rights. What would we have been without the Shot Heard ‘Round the World? I’d contend that if you as a legal gun owner have had to use your arm, you understand full well the real power of the Second Amendment.
Barton Kleen
Executive Editor