|
Mail
Magazine 24
The
Massacre in Connecticut - Food for Thought
by Bright Knight
“Every
time something really bad happens,
people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights
away
from good people” - Penn Jilette
Before
I'll give you some “food for thought” I
want to say that this tragedy makes my heart feel sick and we must do
whatever
possible to avoid such massacres. I know that there is NO way to
totally avoid
them, thinking of that is like living in Utopia, but there are ways to
at least
increase the safety, minimize the risk and in case that an attack
happens the
number of victims can be held as low as possible.
Many
people might say that now is not the time
to discuss this, but that's wrong. Our enemies, i.e. those who use such
tragedies to attack our freedom and our rights don't show emotions
(some tears
in front of a camera don't count). We can pray for the victims and
their
families and discuss this issue on a rational level.
The
Failure-in-Chief and his minions have an
agenda and part of the agenda is disarming the Americans.
The
UN arms treaty was off the table and is now
back. The corrupt UN, a club of America hating Islamists, Communists
and other
despots want to take the sovereignty from the USA and the
Failure-in-Chief as
well as Hitlary would love to get this done, but know that there is a
lot of
resistance, even amongst the Democrats.
So
they desperately need “something” that
weakens the resistance. And these tragedies are “the perfect storm” for
them.
Do you know that 5 of the 12 worst massacres happened under the
Failure-in-Chief's regime? How convenient when you try to disarm your
subjects!
I'm
not a big fan of conspiracy theories but a
lot of the information I gathered, discussions I followed and the facts
make me
think!
What
if these “Reichstags”-events were
initiated by those who want to grab the guns, who want to disarm the
Americans?
To
be honest: I don't trust this regime.
A
regime that watches in a live-stream how
Americans get attacked by Islamic terrorists and denies help and is
lying to
the American people (saying that was because of a video) to hide gun
running to
Al Qaeda/the Syrian rebels (and that's only one example how they act)
has no
scruple to do anything to push their agenda. Such kind of people give a
rat's
behind about the individuals. They are willing to sacrifice thousands
or tens
of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people as long
as it's
for “the good cause” of their agenda!
As
said, under normal circumstances the people
(or let's say the majority of the people) would NEVER, EVER agree to
gun-laws.
The Failure-in-Chief would never get this approved by the Congress –
even the
Senate with the Democrat majority would say NO!
BUT....
if there are more and more tragedies...
and if children are victims... the situation might change. Such
tragedies might
break the resistance. So it's not too far-fetched to assume, that the
gun-men
(who had a mental disfunction and were under medical treatment) might
have been
misused for these massacres. It wouldn't have been the first time, that
a
regime used false-flag actions to push an agenda!
Folks,
for the gun-grabbers it's not about
safety, it's about control and power over the (then defenseless)
people! Stalin,
Hitler and Castro would second this – it worked very well when they
used this
scheme.
If
it would be about more safety/less crimes
they would do exactly the opposite. Here are some facts – but why
should
Libtards and gun-grabbers let get facts in their way?
In
all countries where they restricted gun
ownership, the crime-rate went UP significantly (e.g. Australia,
England)
US
states with the most restricted gun-laws
have the highest crimes with guns (in Chicago were more people murdered
with a
gun than soldiers were killed in Afcrapistan in the same time-period)
Vermont,
a state with one of the least
restrictive gun-laws, has the third lowest crime-rate in the USA
Criminals
will find a way to get a gun and they
give a rat's behind about gun-laws (hey, they are CRIMINALS) and it
makes their
“job” easier and less dangerous when their victims are unarmed
If
you restrict gun ownership there are many
other possibilities to commit a massacre: knifes (on the same day of
the
shooting in Connecticut a man in China killed 11 children in front of a
school
with a knife), chemicals (you get all instructions on the Internet and
can buy
the “ingredients” almost everywhere), a car (the gunman from
Connecticut could
have waited in the car until a group of children comes out of the
school and
then run them over and kill them). Do you want to restrict knifes,
chemicals,
cars, etc.?
Such
massacres also happened in countries with
strict to very strict gun-laws, such as Germany, Finland, Scotland,
Norway, to
name only a couple
We
had 147 victims of massacres in the USA in
the last 40 years, that's a quota of 0.468 per Million people, Germany
with its
restrictive gun-laws had 52 victims, which is a quota of 0.634 per
Million
people.
There
is plenty of proof that restrictive
gun-laws don't give you more safety! The only way to stop a gun is with
a gun.
Usually it takes some time until the cops are at the scene, so you
better have
your own gun to stop the one who's attacking you with a gun.
If
we would allow at least the principal of a
school and a couple of teachers to have a gun, there would be less
massacres
(because the gun-men would know that there are people who'll shoot
back) or if
someone starts shooting there would be less victims (being him one of
them). It
works in Israel! The only problem is that many teacher/employees within
the
educational systems are Libtards who are against guns and are not able
to
handle one so they would most likely accidentally shoot themselves
before they
would stop a gunman. So they would need some training...
Again:
don't let you fool by the gun-grabbers.
Once they got their way, you have and are lost! History shows what
happens if
they get their way and they'll try every dirty trick to get it.
God
Bless America!
Read
this and other articles at Mail Magazine
24
|
