Whenever there is a shooting or a terrorist attack, Democrat lefties immediately seize on the tragedy, seemingly before the bodies are cleared, in order to ride their favorite political hobby horse of gun confiscation, or as they like to more gently refer to it, gun control. There seems to be a complete logic disconnect as they suggest that taking guns away from ordinary citizens is going to make everyone safer when the bad guys or the terrorists come to shoot them. How will unarmed citizens be safer under those circumstances?
There is, in fact, ample evidence that arming the public will do more to advance the safety of society than even a huge increase in police might would. Police cannot be everywhere at every moment, but an armed populace, especially one with hidden weapons, is a tremendous deterrent to bad guys since they have no idea who is armed or where they may be. And it certainly does not require arming every person in a crowd. The unknown factor of who might or might not be packing a nine millimeter pistol keeps the baddies guessing.
The evidence for this proposition is that most or all of the recent mass shootings have taken place in “gun free zones,” meaning zones designated to be free of guns. And they were, except for the bad guy or guys, who somehow missed the rule and so were able to mow down countless unarmed and defenseless citizens.
Another arrogant, anti-gun “progressive,” in this case a law professor by the name of David Cohen, has rushed to print anti-American propaganda in Rolling Stone magazine. While there may be as many as a dozen people who still actually read the magazine, it might still be instructive to broaden the reach of his musings and review some of the good professors points in this article.
Read anti-gun arguments on page 2:
You think the civil war was bad, try repealing the 2nd.
Time for rolling stone morons to quit smoking dope!!!
THATS WHY WE HAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT.. To eliminate Those sent in to Disarm Americans and TO REMOVE THOSE THAT SENT THEM!
IT TIME TOBOYCOTT THE ROLLING STONE MAG.
Not the guns it the people that don’t need them that are bad
Rolling Stone and Clinton news network. Are liberal as$#%&!@*$#%&!@*them!!! Who the$#%&!@*reads rolling dipshit magazine anyways?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS OUR FREEDOM. WITHOUT IT, WE CAN BE DEPRIVED OF FREE SPEECH, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND MUCH MORE. DO YOU WANT TO GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO PRINT STUFF LIKE YOU DON’T LIKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT? WITHOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT YOU COULD BE TOLD WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT PRINT. YOU WOULD NOT B E ALLOWED TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION, AND DO YOU LIKE TO HUNT AND FISH? tHAT TOO MIGHT NOT BE ALLOWED. THINK ABOUT IT
You don’t want to bring it to a vote because every dead person in America would be voting to repeal it
Maybe you should reduce the magazine’s circulation. You are not addressing the entire amendment.
I believe the part about defense against foreign and domestic enemies is in the oath of citizenship.