Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Predictably, mere days after the deranged Leftist deliberately targeted and shot three Republicans and two Capitol Police officers on a Virginia baseball diamond, the Left clamored for more gun control.

But would stricter gun control have stopped the Alexandria shooter from obtaining his rifle?

The answer is ‘No, not at all’ and here’s why: The shooter had every legal right to own a firearm.

Having committed no past crimes that would prohibit him from legally owning firearms in his state, the shooter had the legal right to own his rifle. And no matter how restrictive, no gun laws would’ve stopped him that day because he had broken no gun laws up to that point in time.

“…but with a legally concealed weapon, they would’ve had a fighting chance to defend themselves; fewer people would’ve been wounded.”

While we would all like to eliminate mass shootings, the Left would like to limit Americans’ gun rights altogether. Like a never-ceasing drumbeat, leftist politicians knee-jerk reaction to every shooting incident is to call for so-called gun control. But, if we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, the only people without guns will be the innocent.

The Left wants more innocent unarmed people to die by taking away our ability to defend ourselves.

Congressman Mo Brooks, one of the shooter’s victims and an excellent witness, has said he believes if Capitol Police hadn’t stopped the shooter, 15-20 more people would’ve been wounded or killed. Luckily, the two Capitol Police officers were there, but what the Left fails to realize is that if two, three, or even one of those baseball players had been armed–not with baseball bats and good intentions–but with a legally concealed weapon, they would’ve had a fighting chance to defend themselves; fewer people would’ve been wounded.

As most of us know, our rights as Americans are secured by the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment secures our right to own firearms, while the Fourth Amendment authorizes police to arrest people only with probable cause and factual evidence.

In other words, sorry Leftists, but no matter how the you twist it, you cannot prove with 100 percent certainty what someone like the would-be assassin will do in the future. He must actually commit a crime before laws—even gun laws—can kick in.
In other countries, usually totalitarian in nature, police can simply arrest people based on accusations, suspicions, and even lies. Here in this country, we have the right to not be falsely accused

It’s a very slippery slope, indeed, to take away someone’s rights based on what one might do in the future, rather than what one has already done.

Who would be in charge of deciding who might carry out future crimes? Which type of crimes would be considered? Where does that sort of control stop?

No thank you. I’ll keep my rights and my guns.