[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: A USA Today op-ed said it was “terrifying” that Texas churchgoers were armed. Do you agree even though lives were saved? Why or why not? A USA Today op-ed said it was “terrifying” that Texas churchgoers were armed. Do you agree even though lives were saved? Why or why not? Andrew T. Post, American by birth, American by choice Answered Jan 8 · Upvoted by Richard Redmond, lives in The United States of America and Nathan Creager, lives in The United States of America (1983-present) Here's something that really annoys me. And it's something I have never, ever understood about the anti-gun crowd, progressives in general, or the Democratic Party as it stands today. They seem to have major trust issues. They simply do not trust their fellow human beings. They have a lack of faith in humanity that borders on misanthropy. They don't trust that corporate executives and CEOs will treat their employees fairly, even when it's been shown time and again by economists and real-life examples that employers have a strong vested interest in doing so. So the libs pile regulation after regulation upon the private sector, drive up the minimum wage, and do all sorts of other things that only make it harder for businesses (especially small ones) to survive, not to mention drive up costs for the consumer. Democratic policies, especially in the economic arena, are self-defeating: intended to protect the little guy, they actually make it harder on the little guy. Or rather, intending to protect a tiny minority of people, Dems usually make it harder for the majority. Just because they don't trust people to do the right thing without being forced to do so at the point of a bayonet. And it's the same thing with the gun debate. Anti-gun progressives do not trust ordinary average-Joe citizens to own a gun or use it in their own defense. In this as well as many other arenas, progressives seem to be obsessed with credentials. You need the proper credentials if you're gonna own and use a firearm. You have to be a soldier or an LEO or something. If you're a private citizen, horror of horrors! You've gotta be trained and permitted to own a firearm. Despite the fact that guns are relatively simple machines with common-sense safety rules, hours of training and a Byzantine certification process should be mandatory for any civilian who wants to possess one, in the progressives' opinion. Many anti-gunners are plainly fearful of the idea that their fellow citizens could be walking around with a concealed firearm. They earnestly believe that anyone who carries a gun is a mass shooter just one bad day away from a killing spree. That's why the woman who authored that USA Today op-ed says it's “terrifying” that “we know nothing” about the people who were armed at the Texas church during the shooting (excluding the parishioner who actually shot and killed the assailant, who was a former law enforcement officer with what the op-ed's author clearly considers to be the proper credentials). My goodness, did the other armed churchgoers have training? Are they former soldiers? Or former policemen? Has any competent authority certified them to carry a gun? Or were they just…carrying guns? Terrifying! I detest and despise this sort of thinking. It's patronizing and supercilious and downright misanthropic. This country was not founded on the belief that our fellow citizens are untrustworthy and need to be vetted and regulated and certified before they can do anything, especially carry firearms for self-defense. America was founded on the idea that we are an enlightened citizenry, independent of government control or oversight, who have the wherewithal and the wisdom to go armed and discern when we need to use our weapons and who we need to shoot. The United States has always been a society held together by a well-developed sense of individual responsibility, where everyone looks after his own affairs and holds himself to a personal standard of behavior. It's not a society built on collective responsibility, where we are all responsible for one another's welfare and the regulation of the citizens' behavior falls to a body of elected officials. Progressives are desperately trying to mutate the United States into a society that runs on social responsibility, and we're seeing the fallout from that today: progressives are pushing, conservatives are resisting, and the political climate is divisive and vitriolic. Hillary's failure to win the presidency in 2016 was a clear repudiation of the notion of collective responsibility in America. Our individualism is what gives us strength, not diversity. Our personal liberties and freedoms are what make America great, not a government-enforced delusion of safety and equality. I trust my fellow citizens to go armed, with or without my knowledge. It's as simple as that. I am not “terrified” by the idea there might somebody sitting next to me on the bus who is carrying a weapon without having had any formal training. Good for him. He's taking personal responsibility for his own safety, not whinging to the government to make him safer by taking guns away from his fellow law-abiding citizens. And I do the same. I reject the notion of social responsibility. I reject the notion that laws make us safer. I reject the notion that I should fear my fellow citizens. I don't expect anyone else to be responsible for my safety, which is why I concealed-carry. And I'll continue to do so, as long as there’s even the slightest chance that some irresponsible nutcase will try to put me or my spouse in danger. And I'll be damned if I'll let any misanthropic, moralizing busybody take that away from me because they find it “terrifying.” Paul Montgomery Jan 9 · 149 upvotes including Andrew T. Post The armed parishioners at the Texas church were part of a security program the church had established. They all had been trained in a customized program of close quarters combat by the former reserve deputy sheriff who ended up shooting the man with a single round to his face. All of the armed congregation were more trained that any policeman for this situation. I watched an interview with the trainer at the training range that the church set up. Here it is. The killer was taken down with a single shot to the head in just six seconds after he drew his shotgun. He states that he had to hold his fire until he had a clear shot because of people fleeing past him and he only had a clear head shot to take. I only hope that I am so skilled and lucky if I am ever in a situation like that. Remember, the gunman was able to shoot two security people before they had time to draw and shoot. One got off a round after he was shot but missed. A shotgun blast to the chest at point blank range is devastating. Three people died in a quick draw that was over in less than six seconds. The response was perfect and it is a tragedy that two of the defenders had to die to stop this guy. We live in a sick world. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
#2. To: ghostdogtxn (#1)
Had the perp known that he was entering a church with such well-armed and trained congregants, he may have chosen another location to attempt his slaughter.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||