AWR Hawkins
BreitbartFri, 18 May 2018 00:00 UTC
© UnknownSenator Rand Paul
During a May 18 Fox News appearance Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said
it is time for Americans to take a stand and say, "We're not going to leave our kids defenseless." His comments came in the wake of the shooting that killed at least 8 at Santa Fe High School.
Paul said,
"Why don't we say it as a country - we're not going to leave our kids defenseless. We're going to defend them."He also spoke to Hollywood celebrities who react to a high profile firearm-based crime with calls for more gun control, saying,
"Every Hollywood actor that hates guns has armed bodyguards defending them. So they hate guns unless the guns are defending them."Paul's call to protect our children is reminiscent of President Trump's response to the February 14 Parkland school shooting. CNN
reported that Trump responded to Parkland by saying that a
"gun-free zone to a maniac - because they're all cowards - a gun-free zone is 'let's go in and let's attack because bullets aren't coming back at us.'" Trump said adopting a policy where "20 percent" of teachers are armed would reduce or eliminate the perception of weakness, making schools a riskier target to strike.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio.
Comment: There is logic in the argument that a gun-free zone is an invite. Guns onsite may give a novice shooter pause, but will they also deter the game-changer false flags?
From
Conservative Fighters:
Rand said, "I think the first thing we should do is, there needs to be an announcement by every school district that we're going to defend our children, and that we're not going to have a sign outside that [says], 'We're defenseless.' And I think that's the problem, is that we do have these homicidal or crazy or mentally disturbed kids, but they still aren't so disturbed that they're going to shoot up the sheriff's office. They're showing up where there is no self-defense."
Rand also argued that we need to try to stop people who have psychiatric disorders that cause them to act violently and prevent people who are crazy from getting firearms. He further said there isn't enough work being done to keep people who are mentally unstable or breaking the law from having guns.
See also:
SOTT asks: There is logic in the argument that a gun-free zone is an invite. Guns onsite may give a novice shooter pause, but will they also deter the game-changer false flags?
Note; Plenty of prior objective studies have proven that armed burglaries of dwellings go through the roof where guns are outlawed. (And studies exist proving any obvious points I'm going to make below.)* Any objective study would indicate that 'gun free' zones are invitations to those who wish to kill; and kill as many as possible. Why go anywhere else?
But they needed to be done - and long since have been - to prove what are, frankly, painfully-obvious common sense points - if only to give the audience owning (via the PTB/MSM) anti-gun-fools - so as to shut up the gun banning crowd, such as Michael Moore,whose armed bodyguard got arrested at a NE US Airport recently.
And yet think of all the absurd! taxpayer paid studies to which we all reply: "No sh*t, Sherlock." Well our government has never paid for any objective firearm studies.
Since Florida legalized concealed carry armed burglaries of restaurants and stores have dropped through the floor. But you can't bring guns into Executive Buildings, liquor bars, and, (obviously-stupidly) schools. Importantly, the law includes an express presumption of legality to carry in all public places not specifically banned from concealed carriers.
Lately, our 'not specifically listed' libraries have nevertheless begun posting "no-firearms" signs, which are illegal and unconstitutional, but nonetheless, I bring no firearms with me there and won't be able to save anyone from a competent shooter - which most mass murdering types are NOT! (Along, with, in my sad experience in tactical situations, neither are most police officers.)**
So, being law-abiding, and a natural police target my whole life, [e.g., pulled over for over 40 times before I was 18. for no reason - with no tickets AND no violations - other than having surfboards, surfboard racks, and or long hair.]*** I have learned to err in favor of instructions from even obviously illegal signs. And I won't be able to help a soul when some illegally 'signed' library faces a determined idiot with a firearm.
But on to SOTT's quasi-loaded question: There is logic in the argument that a gun-free zone is an invite. Guns onsite may give a novice shooter pause, but will they also deter the game-changer false flags?
1. Anyone who knows guns, likewise is aware that carrying one does not make one bulletproof!
2. Who is more 'logically cowardly" and more likely to NOT go on a shooting rampage guaranteed to end in their own death?
A) a true nut case 'gonna go human hunting" today (guy in San Diego McDonald's in 1984) OR
B) A paid-either-way black op "presentable" psychopathic hitman, working the orchestrated "game-changer false flags?"
Answer: B, who of course cares more for his own skin - and who is closer in definition to evil than any kid on SSRI's. Finally: R.C.
* Of course, the PTB's MSM speaks not of these.
** Simply put, do you know anyone who 'keeps their cool' almost naturally as things get dangerous? My father would describe such as 'someone he'd like to have in his foxhole.' A lot of it is training, but there are, I'd guess, over 1/3rd of the US Population who all the training in the world will NEVER make them that way. (And to throw in a relevant (despite its non-PC status) truth, it's likely that >70% of that >third, are female!)
***And I'm not Black! (Who then did, and still do, get pulled over for DWB.]
**** Tm. RC, here at SOTT.
RC