A Saudi military official in the United States for aviation training is suspected in the mass shooting that has killed at least three people at Navy Air Station Pensacola in Florida. This has stirred up the usual suspects advocating for liberty control, including contenders for the Democratic nomination for president. But as details unfold following the attack, nearly every narrative the left loves to use in such situations is failing them.
This wasn’t some white supremacist who bought an AR-15 at a gun show so he could go out and shoot immigrants. Everything about this act of terrorism debunks claims by the left that stricter gun laws will make us safer. If anything, it’s evidence that we need more patriots armed and ready to stop similar events from occurring in the future. That notion seems to be lost on the left as they trip over themselves to craft the proper Tweets and soundbites that will endear them to Gun Grabbers of America, aka their far-left voting base.
Democrats Call For Restricting American’s Freedoms After Saudi Military Official Attacks U.S. Military Base
Top Democrats called for restricting American’s constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights on Friday in response to an alleged Saudi Arabian military official opening fire and killing several people at a U.S. naval base in Florida.
Several of the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates, including a couple of the top-tier contenders, rushed to politicize the attack.
Let’s see how well their standardized, well-rehearsed arguments stand up to this attack. Will we see that the left was right all along and their calls for new gun laws are righteous? Spoiler alert: no. Here are some of their favorite sayings:
“Assault weapons are the problem in mass shootings”
Reports indicate the gun used by the assailant was a handgun. If you’re unfamiliar with those, it’s because they rarely get mentioned by mainstream media or the left when it comes to so-called “gun violence.” This fact flies in the face of the narrative that they’re trying to protect us because handguns are by far the most common firearm used by criminals who shoot people.
If the left really wanted to protect people instead of take away our firearms incrementally, the focus would be on figuring out how to stop criminals from using handguns. They don’t want to go down that road because the best solution for ending violence from people using handguns is to arm more people. It’s shocking, I know, but when we look at places like Chicago where law-abiding citizens aren’t allowed to protect themselves, we see crimes involving handguns go up. Imagine that.
Calls to ban “assault weapons” are based strictly on emotion. There are 100-times more murders perpetrated with sharp objects like knives than murders that come from rifle-bearing criminals, whether they fall into the “assault” category or not.
“Gun-free zones work”
Some on the left quickly pounced on the two shootings at Navy bases this week. They made ignorant claims like, “See, even people on military bases aren’t safe from gun violence!” In their minds, they picture U.S. military bases being populated by men walking around with M-16s strapped to their shoulders. This is, of course, ludicrous.
Military bases have some of the strictest firearms regulations in the land. Nobody carries a firearm without a very specific reason and permission unless they’re trying to commit a crime. Despite the prevalence of firearms on the base, the people on them – both military personnel and civilians – are generally unarmed. They are essentially gun-free zones.
“Gun laws will stop bad people from getting guns”
The alleged perpetrator, Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, was in the United States for military training. He was not allowed to possess a firearm on U.S. soil.
Regulated under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B) and 922(y)(2); 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.32 https://t.co/p4ccqX2QUP
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019
“This isn’t about confiscation”
The entire gun debate has been framed by the left as one that does not intend to lead to confiscations of firearms. At least it used to be. Today, the notion that government needs to confiscate weapons to various degrees has been mainstreamed by people like Beto O’Rourke and Michael Bloomberg. In other words, while some are still saying this isn’t about confiscation, others are finally acknowledging it is about confiscation and has been all along.
Bloomberg in particular is a dangerous candidate because he has a clear plan that will lead to confiscation. It starts with a national gun registry and restrictions on both the types of firearms allowed (no scary “assault weapons!”) as well as the amounts of ammunition we can acquire. From there, it turns quickly to forcefully removing prohibited firearms from law-abiding citizens. The natural progression in Bloomberg’s plan, though unstated for now, is the removal of any firearms that can be used to kill people, which is essentially anything.
This is about confiscation. It has always been about confiscation, at least from those in the radical progressive wing of the Democratic Party. They know that the paths to socialism and communism rely on having a populace that is hampered in its ability to protect itself and defend the Constitution. This is why 2nd Amendment advocates rightly point out that the founders weren’t just worried about our abilities to hunt or protect ourselves from burglars. They 2nd Amendment’s primary intent was to allow the people to defend itself against a future oppressive government. We’re seeing the seeds of that oppressive government being planted in the Democratic Party today.
A man with a handgun that he wasn’t allowed to possess went to a gun-restricted base to commit an act of terrorism. Literally nothing the left has proposed other than total gun confiscations would have prevented it.
We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.
[gravityform id=”2″ title=”true” description=”false”]