The blood is still warm from one of the most tragic mass murders we have ever had in our country and now the anti-gun people really want to have a conversation. A few months ago I explained we had the conversation over the last 40 years and they lost. They apparently didn’t get the message so, okay, let’s have the conversations.
Instapundit has some suggestions but he is far, far too timid for me.
Say Uncle is a little closer in line with me but he is still too timid.
Here is my list conversations openers:
Civil rights attorneys and/or prosecutors should be lining up to confiscate the wealth of and/or send to prison the politicians and other government employees who created victim disarmament zones. These people enabled the murder of dozens of people, mostly children, by a single person. If a private citizen had enabled these murders they would be facing massive civil liability and probably criminal charges. Government employees should not be exempt. If we don’t have the prison space for all of them then turn the drug addicts, prostitutes, and other “criminals” who committed victimless crimes loose and make the room. These public servants stripped people of their rights to keep and bear arms and then put signs up advertising “Gun Free Zone”. It’s bad enough to enable cold blooded murder but to advertise the fact they enabled it and to be proud of it is seriously sick and criminal. This can and should be used as evidence against them at their trials.
The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right. This makes it the equivalent of the right to a lawyer when being questioned by police. The right to a lawyer is backed up by government payments for a lawyer if you cannot afford one. Health care isn’t in the bill of rights but we have politicians claiming it is a basic human right and the government should pay for your doctor if you cannot afford one. If people cannot afford a firearm and ammo to defend themselves the government should provide them.
When people are advocating the murder of people peaceably exercising their rights the police should investigate and prosecute as appropriate. The First Amendment does not protect death threats or the advocating of murder. If these threats are not dealt with quickly and appropriately further blood is likely to be on the hands of government officials. This is no different than violent threats against people of color, homosexuals, or any other group. By ignoring them government officials are tacitly approving of them and should be held accountable for their failure to do their job.
Our rights are not up for grabs, compromise, or debate. Such a discussion will not be part of any conversation. One of the reasons we have the Second Amendment is to make sure that such “conversations” are brief, vigorously resisted, and successfully concluded on the side of freedom. We don’t want to go there and the other side damn well doesn’t want to go there.