“Gun Free Zones”: True Killing Fields

By Semperpapa

Question: place yourself, or at least try, in the mind of a potential mass murderer bent on going on a shooting or stabbing spree. How would you select your target?

Would you go to a gun store or pawn shop or police station or would you look for the closest “gun free zone” like a school?

The answer is obvious, at least to those of us with an understanding of the fact that evil exists in the world and live our lives with a baseline of common sense.

Liberals do not have the luxury of either gift, so they insist that the way to safeguard innocent people is to take firearms away from me and every law abiding citizen in America.

These anti 2nd Amendment activists have infiltrated every aspect of our lives, smartly pushing unscrupulous politicians to implement laws that have absolutely no meaning or usefulness for the safety of the people.

The University of Colorado is one of these examples, as demonstrated by the publicity stunt they are pulling now.

The administration of the university declared that they were complying with the Supreme Court ruling regarding the right to own and bear guns, lifting the blanket law of no guns on campus. So far so good, right? Not exactly.

What the university has directed is that students who have legal carrying permits have to be segregated in specific areas and dormitories on campus.

Realistically, what the university has done is to create an advertisement for “safe areas” for any mass murderers wanna bes.

Now if a lunatic wants to go on a shooting spree, he/she knows exactly which area of the campus they can go to conduct their business without any possibility of being confronted.

The vast majority of the past shooting sprees have taken place in areas designated as “gun free zones” where the perpetrators were absolutely sure that none of their potential victims would be able to counter the attack. The weapons free label of the locality is one that is observed only by those citizens who follow the rules, something that a criminal, by definition, is not likely to do.

The possibility of a random armed citizen is the only deterrent that criminals face. Not too long ago there was a surveillance video posted of an elderly man who just happened to be standing inside an internet café when two thugs came in to rob the patrons. The man pulled his .380 and shot both robbers, I am sure to their great surprise.

Am I advocating that everyone should carry a weapon? No, just as much as I am convinced many people on the road should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle, but if one is inclined to carry a firearm for self protection and he/she meets the guidelines for such carry, they should be allowed to do so. I know many people who do not and would not even own a firearm, and I am convinced that it is their sacrosanct right not to. But the U.S. Constitution gives me the right to not only own a gun, but to also “bear” the gun, which really means to carry the gun and no political activist should be allowed to prevent me from it.

Yet, in their infinite wisdom, the county sheriffs in California are very reluctant to allow their citizen their constitutional right.

It is my hope that actions like the one taken by the University of Colorado does not come back to haunt them. It would be a real tragedy if their publicity stunt, if their desire to make an anti-gun statement of some sort, in their attempt to somehow vilify those with carrying permits, would give some nut case the ability to be selective on their targets.

On the other hand, liberals are very much fine with the sacrifice of collateral damage if it fits the accomplishment of their agenda, actually the more innocent dead the better.

Just my thoughts!