The NRA is the equivalent of our modern Spanish Inquisition. Wayne Lapierre has become the Grand Inquisitor. He insist politicians vote\believe his way or face ostracization or political death. He does this all in the name of the Second Amendment. They forced their beliefs on the rest of us at the cost of our lives for belief in what is to them an infallible document. We have the right to bear arms says the 229 year old document. It says it we must believe it even if some say you are taking it out of context or the document is a bit dated when talking about guns. They currently hold the government and public on the stretcher because they have money and power.
Orlando will be explained away as was Newtown and the regular occurrences of gun violence all over our country. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. As if guns had nothing to do with it. I admit it people in our country are violent. But why do we insist they have a right to probably the best method of perpetuating their violent nature. Because they hunt? With AK47s? or they like to target practice with these guns we feel a need to let them have them even though they are used in mass shootings. Anyone knows on the surface hunting and target practice are hardly enough reason to have access to military guns. It is called stretching folks. But we need guns to protect ourselves from governments gone bad. I know you para military groups and others think your weekend trainings will somehow enable you to protect yourself from the government tanks, drones, missiles, and such but if we are honest I do not remember one standoff between these types and the military or police force in which the government forces came close to losing. After all we have the greatest military in the world.
Now some will say if there was a good guy with a gun present it would have been different so let us have our guns. This argument of course has so many ifs, ands, and buts it disqualifies itself quite easily. First you always assume no one there had a gun. Thanks to your persistent work this has become very unlikely. Second you assume a pistol of some sort will be a match for an AK47. It will not be. Thirdly, you assume that you will not be shot before you even have a chance to use your gun. After all whenever I am in a crowded nightclub and dancing and drinking I am ready and alert for some gun action at any time. No you are not. Fourthly, you assume that if you start a shootout with the shooter you will not injure even more people during this free for all. And what happens when the SWAT team arrives and they see several people shooting how are they to determine the good guy, the hesitation to make that determination in these situations can cause death of a SWAT member. Or if they shoot first and ask questions later you the good guy may find yourself dead.
There is another segment of the NRA crowd who want to argue the finer points between a semi and automatic gun this is a red herring. To mistake the two does not make your argument wrong and to know the difference does not make your argument right. If one merely pulls the trigger once and continuous bullets fly versus if you have to pull the trigger each time is a non sequiter since both happen too fast to stop someone from shooting without taking a bullet. It certainly has no place in the argument in the amount of rounds that should be in the magazine because that is about how long before they have to switch weapons or reload which can be crucial to escape or capture.
So some in the NRA knowing the above arguments are pretty silly propose the solution of requiring everyone to have guns everywhere. You see more guns lead to less deaths. Now there is not one iota of proof to this statement but they believe it and to preserve our second amendment rights they demand we all carry guns. This proposal scares me because if I carry a gun and I grow tire of inane reasoning for what has become an epidemic in our country I may go on a rampage at a gun show or NRA meeting to show how ludicrous they are. So please I so do not need a gun. But besides this if everyone has a gun and shots are fired you might stop a gunman or more likely you would have everyone’s guns drawn shooting at everyone else who has a gun. I am not even mentioning the fact it does not take much brains to conclude that there will be more one-on-one shootings by people who do not know how to settle their road rage, political ire, and other anger issues without violence.
Another part of this is that everyone should carry will be a deterrent shows no awareness of the mentally ill. First if fear of death kept a person from shooting they would never try to assassinate a president where there is an overwhelming amount of trained firepower present with Secret Service Agents there. Secondly, I assume the mentality is the same as people who attach bombs to themselves mass shooters go in it okay with death or with a distorted reality that makes them think they will somehow survive the incident. Yes they may choose soft targets (although army bases and recruitment centers do not seem soft) but that is more likely because they are stopped and wanded or searched beforehand. In other words the hard targets are not places that everyone has guns but ones which are vigilant about ensuring no guns make it in in the first place. Try to enter a courthouse it is safe not because everyone has a gun but because you are searched beforehand.
Of course gun rights advocates play whack a mole if you address ten of their issues they say Timothy Mcveigh used fertilizer not a gun they do not make laws to prevent use of fertilizer (actually they do) and they keep droning on while more people are killed. It is logical fallacy if you have to always leave your current reason for believing something to try another reason to see if that argument works any better. It is called kettle and moving the goal post fallacies. It is as arguments are addressed you throw all the shit out you can think of hoping something will stick. They are still shit arguments but it has not currently been dismissed.
It is odd that when the conservatives address issues such as alcohol, drugs, and sex (esp. gay sex) they say just say no. Why this does not apply to guns I cannot fathom. Guys and Gals just say no to guns. But I hear the whimpering whine now but it is our God-given right through the second amendment. Thus they are the Grand Inquisitors if you do not believe in gun control you must be stretched out on a rack until either you recant your belief in gun laws or you die as a non-patriotic heretic. It took a lot of deaths the turn the tide against the Inquisition before the well-being of the people was found more important than church doctrine and purity. Unfortunately approximately two thousand people were killed, tens of thousands more were force to accept their doctrine at fear of death, hundreds of thousands more were exiled before they came to this conclusion. Surely we are getting close to the number that will put well-being over infallible gun rights.
The bottom line is do you love people more than you love guns? Do you love people more than your ideology? Do you love people more than being right? Do you love people more than your hunt or sport? Do you love people more than your social standing or political power? Do you love people enough to be open to a few gun laws? If enough of us do, this modern Inquisition can be put to rest. I love you my gay friends, school children, teachers, fellow movie lovers, soldiers, social workers, and others and I am sorry we as a nation have not loved you enough.