The last few days in mainfakestream media have been dominated by another extremely violent false flag event: The Las Vegas Shooting.
This shooting is the newest hot item of an already very extensive list of desperate attempts, by the establishment, to perform a serious blow on the US constitution, by killing the 2nd amendment.
And, of course, as always, the left did not waste any time to try to take political advantage from this episode and, once again, take the stage to autistically screech in order to further push their agenda.
Now, before you start giving in to the last avalanche of propaganda I invite you to embark on a couple of mental exercises with me.
What if it was vehicles they were trying to ban?
A simple image search on Google for the term "vehicles" retrieved me, among many others, the image above.
Pretty much everyone with at least a hint of common sense can understand that a vehicle can, in some circumstances, be as lethal as firearms. Just think about the numbers of road mortality. Remember some of the most recent terrorist attacks in western Europe. What were the means used to spread all that chaos, death and destruction? Was it firearms? No. Guess again. It was vehicles.
Now, let's play leftist for a moment and make some good use of their logic. Cars have been widely reported to be a cause for the loss of lives and the injuring several people on various occasions. Therefore, for the sake of safety, we MUST prohibit all citizens from having access to vehicles and thus only the state and official authorities should be allowed to make use of them.
Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Of course, it does! If not, because cars are an essential part of life in a modern society. People need vehicles to commute to work, to travel, even for their everyday tasks such as going shopping. If you deprive people of the access to their means of transportation, you are taking their mobility away. You are also significantly undermining the standard of living and seriously threatening the economy (I could elaborate on this argument, but since this is not the main point of this post, I will not do it).
They outlawed drugs, and how did that turn out?
A simple image search on Google for the term "drugs" retrieved me, among many others, the image above.
Who isn't familiar with the so-called war on drugs? This term was made after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by United States President Richard Nixon (this info can be easily found on Wikipedia). The war on drugs intended to crack down on the illegal drug trade and, by prohibiting the use of recreational drugs, to discourage production and, basically, kill the whole supply chain. Too bad it never succeeded....
It resulted instead, in a notorious increase in criminality, incarceration, and the marginalization of entire communities. Not to mention the whole parallel tax-free economy that flourished from that underworld.
Even more interesting is that Portugal, a western European nation that was struggling with a drug addiction epidemy throughout the 1980's and 1990's, decided to decriminalize the use of drugs back in 2001. "And how did that turn out?" You may ask...
Well, unlike many pundits would have predicted, the country did not turn into a new Colombia or into the drug ghetto of Europe. What happened was that the rate of drug use and the incidence of HIV have both fallen sharply, cities become safer and social inclusion increased significantly. Of course, not everything is roses and sunshine, as there is still much work to do in order to fully rehabilitate long marginalized communities and reintegrate drug users into society. But the progress has been notable and the country is now regarded as a worldwide role model when it comes to deal with drug addiction.
The kind o conclusion that one can easily make from this simple example is that: outlawing stuff does not necessarily mean that they will disappear from society. It just means their continuous proliferation, outside the boundaries of law and devoid of any kind of regulation and taxation whatsoever.
As to what drugs are concerned, even the famous economist Milton Friedman advocated the legalization of drugs and their trade. Let that sink in...
The logical case for the right to bear arms
I have shown you above that prohibiting people from using vehicles would severely hinder their mobility and strongly affect their way of life. This takes me to my first my point: Taking away the people's right to bear arms will diminish their ability to protect themselves. This can lead to an increased feeling of unsafety and unrest. Do not forget to take into account the many statistics that show that the most mass shootings happen to take place in the so-called "gun-free zones".
Do you think that, if the people of the had access to firearms, the Muslims would have been able to get away with mass raping and grooming of underage girls? Do you think that the fathers and mothers and brothers would have left the task of making justice to the judicial system, only to see the perpetrators not getting the punishment they so much deserved? Would you think we would see the daily terrorist attacks, the Islamization, radicalization, the sharia enforcement, and the mass killing and raping of European women and children that we have been seeing pretty much throughout all of western Europe nowadays? Do you really believe that the Brussels eurocrats would still be left unchecked, continuously destroying the national sovereignty and crushing the democracy of EU member states? I beg to differ!
An armed population is a population that is able to defend itself, thus helping to preserve the fabric of society and protecting the communities from both external (such as islamic terrorism and EUSSR) and internal (police state and corrupt globalist governments) threats. This can only make a country safer, which then enables society to prosper from increased social cohesion and the maintenance of the freedoms that constitute a corner stepstone of a truly healthy democracy.
Besides that, the outlawing of guns will not stop the mass shootings, since the psychopaths and mass murderers will still manage to get access to guns. In the meanwhile, the black market for guns and ammunition will flourish even more and the possibility to regulate the use of guns will cease to exist. Keeping guns legal allows for the enforcement of certain requirements in order for one to be granted the right to own a gun. Just like a driving licence is required for individuals who drive vehicles, and in order to obtain such licence, one has to fulfil certain physical and ability requisites. By banning guns and vehicles, such requirements would fade away and there would no longer be ways to ensure that guns and vehicles would be in the right hands.
Remeber folks, Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Mao took the guns...
In sum, all this mainstream hysteria for the extinction of the right to bear arms is nothing but a pure fallacy. This is just another step towards a fully authoritarian absolutist state. They want to strip people of their basic rights, just like they have already done with the right to privacy (the whole mass surveillance grid that surged in the aftermath of all the craze generated by the banalization of terrorism) and free speech (the whole PC culture thing - I will write a related piece soon) and conduct the whole human society into a new era of feudalism.