Some People Should Die

Others don’t even deserve to have ever LIVED. One such is the man who murdered his own SISTER (after murdering his own grandmother and spending time in prison for it), then set his own house on fire to lure UNPAID firemen (who only do good, and don’t even get paid for it) to his home so he could kill them. The only reason he only killed TWO of these “good Samaritans” is that an off-duty policeman showed up and stopped him, making him commit suicide. The liberal media didn’t report that, because it doesn’t fit into their anti-gun narrative. Others are Islamic terrorists, who only LIVE to KILL people who don’t believe exactly as they do; another is the shooter who murdered 20 innocent CHILDREN who has never done him any harm, and all the other shooters who lately have PROVEN to me that we need to not only have the RIGHT to keep a gun and carry it without restriction for our own protection, it needs to happen, NOW. The “anti-gun fanatics” decry that, saying, “Why should we allow everybody to be armed? That would just create a 'wild West atmosphere' where more people will be killed.” Not so! And a stupid statement, at best, because it’s a proven fact that where “gun laws” are the tightest, the easier guns are to get illegally.

Anybody who WANTS a gun, for good or evil, can get one easily, NOW. And it’s much better for responsible people to be armed, so as to defend themselves and make illegally armed criminals DEAD. Robert Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society” and the “wild west” proved it. Bad guys who misused their guns were soon DEAD, making gun misuse a disappearing problem. Yes, there would eventually be some gun killings—in self-defense more than for any other reason. And that’s a GOOD thing, for it quickly thins the ranks of ILLEGALLY-armed criminals. Some people are only still alive because it is ILLEGAL to kill them. Some of those people are the liberal media who consistently MIS-report, or do not at all report stories that would tend to prove their anti-gun rhetoric false. But even if I DID have a gun “legally,” I wouldn’t kill such people because it is ILLEGAL to kill them and I am a responsible human being. The kind of person they don’t understand. They think if people were allowed to carry their own guns, that people would be shooting each other with wild abandon, all over the place. And they’re WRONG. Responsible people don’t do that and they don't understand that.

These people are FOOLS and shouldn’t be allowed to be in a position to REPORT the news. But we have a First Amendment, which is just as important as the Second, which they’re trying their best to eliminate. Frankly, if they EVER get rid of the Second Amendment, they should do likewise with the First, at the same time, because the First made it POSSIBLE to get rid of the Second. When you talk about getting rid of the First, they whine about it, all the while trying to get rid of the Second. The fact is, the Second Amendment is there ONLY so we can defend ourselves from IRRESPONSIBLE people who do not OBEY any laws, let alone ones that say they can’t be armed while they commit their crimes. It’s not there for hunters, though it DOES protect them, as well. The “toothpaste is out of the tube.” Guns EXIST. They cannot be “uninvented.” So we have to DEAL with them logically. Making laws against them is NOT logical. It not only does not work, it causes more people to be KILLED by those unscrupulous criminals who will ALWAYS be able to get them ILLEGALLY. (Just common sense)