The Muslim jihad makes it abundantly clear. Our Founders were right—and you’re it.
After years of screeching about the first half of the Second Amendment, the leftists in America may get satisfaction. They hate that second half—the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed—but we have steadfastly clung to our guns (and Bibles), despite their best efforts to separate us from our precious rights.
Martin O’Malley’s passing comment at the tail end of the democrat’s second presidential debate went almost unnoticed after the grueling two-hour softball game. He used the word “comprehensive” before “gun-safety” reform. It was a first.
None of those folks say gun control any longer because that term is burnt out—we all know it means gun bans and confiscation. Better to co-opt gun safety, which means learning to shoot and handle firearms properly. Better to compromise that important phrase and drop so-called “gun control.”
If you couple “comprehensive” with “immigration reform,” you get amnesty and a huge democrat voting block. Everyone knows that, even though the fifth-column news estate hides and denies this self-evident fact. Now, if the free college education these socialists want were to include Comprehensive Adult Gun Education classes, there’s something 100 million gun owners might get behind and support. No diploma without a marksmanship credit? Me likey.
When you add in the clear and imminent danger from the global jihad currently being waged by the religion of peace (or at least, the violent jihad peaceful members of that religion are not objecting to), the need for all Americans, young and old, to be better trained to arms, is paramount.
The Left Has Made It Clear
How many times must the left remind us that a well-regulated militia is indeed necessary to the security of a free state, right? We have fallen behind in our training programs. The democrats are ardent in their desire for universal education—but haven’t described the curriculum. Let’s get on with it.
We can see from the Paris example (and dozens of others) that guns are needed when they are least expected, at least while the religion of peace is waging jihad. Being armed, and being prepared to use arms under stress are two different things. America has fallen behind. It’s way past time for public service ads, “sponsored by the Ad Council and this station,” to motivate people to go out and take the classes.
Because this is a matter of national security, a pure constitutional function, Dept. of Homeland Security dollars can be legitimately allocated to encourage Americans to go to the range, become better marksmen, and be prepared.
Television alone should have you supremely aware that authorities are excellent at closing the barn door after the horses are out. They show up in overwhelming numbers, beautifully attired for battle, after the battle is over. The “news” crews record them all decked out, never dirty, then show the same few short clips of them standing around aimlessly, doing nothing on a street corner like idle teenagers. A voice-over says something unrelated to the static scene of dozens of officials in body armor with machine guns not firing, flashy lights blazing in the background. Next day, same pictures.
Programs in jihadi awareness are so sorely lacking and need to be developed and disseminated. How many times must you hear the words “sleeper cell” before you realize some are at a store or home near you? Is there any way to spot them, alert someone, go from white to yellow awareness? Must we endure assaults like France just did before we recognize that, at least, if we are not at war with them, they are at war with us? The NY Trade Center, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, Times Square car bomber, Naval recruitment center shoot-up, Ft. Hood assault, Texas art-show attack, these didn’t wake you up?
It’s hard to imagine how one jihad sympathizer in the White House, constantly proclaiming that all we saw was workplace violence, one aberrant malcontent, one situation that is contained—when it is certifiably uncontained—could keep us this deeply asleep. George Orwell could not be more right, though someone far more evil put it better: if you lie to people long enough, they will swallow the lies as truth. Look where that got the world last time.
Modern CAGEY classes (comprehensive adult gun education for you) will need to teach, along with what true gun-safety classes teach, drawing and shooting, shooting amidst civil disturbance, acting in crowded conditions, armed escape and other tactics far beyond my ability to describe them. That’s for America’s trainers to come up with, right quick.
I’m the first to recognize that errant shots you make can count as murder in court. That’s the risk you face for pulling your gun and acting in a Paris-style jihadi-assault. After the first shots fire, everything starts to move, the noise gets deafening, and no amount or type of training has prepared you for it, short of actual field combat, which civilians simply don’t have.
In a jihad assault however, all bets are off. The muslim jihadis are going to kill and kill some more. You can lay back and take it, or you can attempt a stand. One wrong move and you’re in trouble. You’ll have to decide which trouble is worse. Do you want to be caught empty handed facing a gun barrel? Or do you want to have a remote life-saving chance of something more than your purse to throw at the vicious murderer about to kill you?
A Word About Language
Don’t let the bigots and quislings in the media compromise your thinking. These are not terrorists or extremists. These are muslim jihadis, enemy warriors. They are not gunmen, an offensive sexist term, they are murderers. This is not an attack, it is jihad.
When you hear their bald-faced lying reports and they say “terrorist,” know that this term applies to a wide array of actions, like an adjective, like we saw in Ireland or South America. Think in its place “jihadi,” and see how the report morphs closer to truth. (The terrorists attacked… vs. The jihadis attacked…, not the same, eh?)
When they say “gunman,” understand this non-gender-neutral term is blatantly sexist, offensive to men and guns, and is a way to avoid saying murderer, with all its truly ugly connotations.
One Final Thought: Every reporter who says that offensive and sexist word “gunman” is using a play from the radical left-wing play book. There were four gunmen… vs. there were four murderers… what a difference… and what will they say if there’s a woman? It’s all part of the propaganda they play on you. For shame.
—–
Alan Korwin is the author of 14 books, 10 of them on gun law. His book After You Shoot examines ways to lower your risks after a self-defense shooting. He has been invited twice to observe oral argument in gun cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Reach him at GunLaws.com, where he is the publisher of Bloomfield Press.
Read all about the left-wing assault on our language, at The Politically Corrected Glossary, http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm.