Should Democrats Be Disarmed?

by Anna Von Reitz

I have a good friend whose integrity I respect highly and whose information is always solid.

He has investigated the known mass murderers, assassins, and gun-violence terrorists in recent years and with one exception—-and it’s a long list—-they were all Democrats.

Now, it has been a big question in my mind for years why the Democratic Party has been calling for “gun control”, when it is clear that our Constitution requires an active militia and guarantees our right to keep and bear arms—-and it is also apparent that guns are not the problem.

I have watched guns for sixty years: rifles, pistols, Uzzis and submachine guns in general, air rifles, AK47s, 911s, 50 mm sniper rifles, elephant guns, shot guns, little bitty two shot Derringers, you name it, I’ve observed them lying on logs, perched on tables, snugged down in gun cabinets, tucked behind doors, over doors, carried in holsters and backpacks and purses—- and I have never once seen a gun move by itself. Ever. Not as much as a quarter of an inch. So why would they need to be controlled?

The Dems, however, can disarm whenever they wish.

While they are at it, why stop with guns and pistols? They can turn in the billions of rounds of ammo they have purchased for quasi-governmental agencies like FEMA, FBI, BATF, DHS and the other alphabet soups.

If Democrats cause more than 90% of all these shootings, just think of the harm they can do by misdirecting government agencies?

If they feel so inclined, they can turn in their nail guns, chain saws, ice picks, all kitchen knives with blades longer than one inch, lawn mowers, drinking straws, ropes, razors, pipe wrenches, hammers, chisels—oh, well, the whole tool box is dangerous. Decorative swords, antique animal traps, axes, hoes, shovels, post hole diggers, ice scrapers, bicycle chains, rolls of wire, baseball bats….. just add it to the pile.

Why not just clear out the garage entirely? Cars are really, really dangerous, so….turn that in, too.

Come to think of it, should they be trusted with poisonous substances of any kind? Might as well collect any rat poison, pesticides, drain cleaners, caustic soda, weed killers, and fertilizers,

Matches, too. They might start a fire. And God Forbid! Seize their woodpiles! Just think of all the damage that could be done by one man gone crazy with a piece of unauthorized fuel?

As for the rest of us—-the obvious move is to go sign up for a refresher course at the nearest shooting range and start carrying.

Seriously.

If all those people had been on their toes and carrying sidearms, we wouldn’t be talking about fifty dead Americans in Orlando. We wouldn’t talking about one dead nutcase, either. He’d simply be dead and we’d never know—-and that would be all right with us.

Same thing in Paris. 150 sane people with weapons can easily dispatch three nutcases, but 150 unarmed people are helpless as fish in a barrel.

We must admit that the police are never there when you need them and always present when you don’t. That’s not their fault. It’s just a law of nature, like the rain storm that comes in response to me washing my car.

The government also needs to admit that its “Open Doors” policy is contributing to this sad day when lawlessness compels average Americans to strap on shootin’ irons and make like John Wayne. Or, in my case, Granny Clampett.

People—sane people—have to be ready to defend themselves and their families and friends and neighbors. For most (though not all) Americans the days are gone when they had to worry about Grizzly Bears and charging Moose and stalking Mountain Lions, but the worst predator of all remains.

Those that don’t want to carry firearms can pay a Community Defense Tax, payable to the families of shooting victims. After all, if we have to bear the responsibility of defending ourselves and our communities, it’s not fair to let the Disarmed Democrats get off with a shrug.

I am liking this plan better and better.

332 Total Views 1 Views Today

One comment

  • Those who wish to take the right of self defense away seek to violate others rights. Since violators are the violent not those who defend against such for the safety of others against such violators, these very violators fear the fact of their own violations being dealt with promptly. Word games again used to make it appear anyone who needs to use force to protect against violence created by a violator is them self violent in taking protective defensive action is mixing/muddling up and a confounding of words in today’s grammar starved population. Violence and use of protective force are two different things. Beware of agents who would provoke you to anger (like police) and then claim you violated them. There is no law anywhere that condones violence or being violated be it on paper or some other hateful attack. Again like shooting or hacking away at your own hand it is viewed as insane or totally unreasonable. So called reasonable, or “allowable” violence in movies, calling tools assault screwdrivers, rifles etc. is used to perpetrate and confuse this simple issue of right to defend.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*