Gun Fanatics Express Their Support For a Mass Murderer’s Second Amendment Rights

gun fanatics

Solidarity is a feeling of unanimity, agreement, and identification with a specific movement or action; especially among individuals aligned with the movement’s purpose whose devotion and mutual support inform their mindset is in complete harmony with the movement’s mission. If Americans have learned only one thing from the increasing number and frequency of horrifying mass shootings by crazed individuals allowed unrestricted access to firearms, it is that gun zealots, 2nd Amendment fanatics, and the National Rifle Association are in complete solidarity with the shooters.

The notorious response from gun fanatics after each mass murder using firearms informs why this country will continue suffering firearm tragedies; “guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.” The response from the NRA, open-carry advocates, and 2nd Amendment devotees to this country’s predilection to shooting-sprees and mass murders informs that they share a common worldview with the people who go on shooting rampages; “my right to own weapons of mass destruction (guns) trumps your right to live.” As gun zealots are inclined to parrot ad nauseum, guns are not the problem, crazy people are, but there is no difference between crazed mass shooters and gun fanatics.

Gun advocates revealed their solidarity with the Santa Barbara shooter immediately following the tragedy when open-carry advocates in Texas strapped assault rifles across their backs and went into family restaurants terrifying patrons. Without provocation or solicitation, Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher penned an angry “open letter” in response to the bereaved man whose 20-year-old son was indiscriminately gunned down to inform him that “your dead child doesn’t trump my Constitutional rights” as if he is the victim in the horrific Santa Barbara mass murders. Of course, the National Rifle Association followed its regular tactic of lying low for a week or two before emerging with a new round of calls to put more guns in the hands of more people for no other purpose than equipping them to kill other people.

The NRA will never reveal that the only purpose of a firearm is to terminate life. It does not matter if it is ending the life of a wild creature or a human being, a gun’s only purpose is to kill. However, without a human behind the gun, it is just an inanimate object devised, manufactured, and utilized by humans to end life with immediacy and extreme prejudice; likely from a distance. It is a common occurrence after a mass shooting for gun zealots to rise up and defend the shooter’s right to own and use firearms, including publicly displaying guns to show their solidarity with the mass murderer’s 2nd Amendment right to end life. Make no mistake, shotguns, long rifles, automatic handguns, and assault rifles are manufactured to end life; primarily human life. Except for a dwindling number of hunting enthusiasts, the preponderance of Americans who purchase firearms have them to kill other Americans; even if kept for home security. For gun maniacs, the NRA, and open-carry advocates who immediately terrify the public with assault-style weapons strapped across their backs and automatic handguns holstered on their hip, the reason for displaying their guns or supporting unrestricted gun ownership is publicly announcing that, like mass shooters, they own firearms with the intent to kill people. The reason the Santa Barbara, Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook, among many others, shooters had possession of firearms is precisely the same as gun fanatics; to kill other Americans.

If, as gun fanatics claim, gun safety advocates are bent on placing restricting guns that do not kill people without people using them, then it is time to change the conversation on gun control to regulate people whose sole purpose in owning a gun is ending the life of other people. It cannot be overstated that the people most likely to advocate for unrestricted gun ownership, are advocating for people like mass shooters and themselves whose only purpose in owning guns is to kill other people. The overriding character trait among those who champion universal gun ownership is the brazen lack of humanity that, without an existential threat to their personal safety, have no compunction in anticipating their apparent joy in taking a human life that likely manifest itself early in the person’s life.

The solution is mandated comprehensive psychological examinations of prospective gun owners including in-depth background checks going back to childhood. For example, if an adult had anger issues in junior high school, initiated physical confrontations, tortured or mistreated animals, threatened other students, teachers, friends, or family members, then they should be permanently prohibited from owning a firearm. Likewise, if an adult has a history of brandishing firearms, whether in a private residence or in public places such as restaurants, shopping malls, or at political protests then their firearms should be confiscated forthwith and they should be safely ensconced in a mental ward until they undergo a thorough psychological evaluation, and intervention if necessary, to determine and treat their dysfunctional personality that led them to publicly reveal their solidarity with mass murderers.

Gun advocates claim the U.S. Constitution exists to protect their right to own firearms to end human life, but the Preamble to the Constitution tasks the government to provide for the general welfare of the people. Tantamount to providing for the people’s general welfare is intervention to regulate the people, not guns, whose sole intent in owning firearms is killing other Americans; not doing so is contrary to providing for the people’s general welfare and violates every American’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Gun maniacs cite the Santa Barbara shooter’s use of a knife and automobile to kill and injure other people and claim they are not regulated (cars and operators are extensively regulated), but those objects, unlike firearms, have other uses. However, people deemed by psychologists to be a danger to themselves and others are prohibited from being around sharp objects such as knives and are not allowed to drive automobiles. Those are ridiculous arguments from ridiculously callous human beings who would dare equate an eating utensil or transportation device with an object created explicitly to end life.

Solidarity is expressed in myriad ways whether it is wearing the jersey of one’s favorite sports team, flying a flag of one’s home country, or putting up signs in support of striking workers or a political candidate. It is no different with gun zealots who wave their guns, fly 2nd Amendment flags, or write letters claiming dead children do not trump 2nd Amendment rights and the message is always the same; they stand in solidarity with mass murderers who used their 2nd Amendment rights to end human life. It is the only reason crazed 2nd Amendment advocates, the National Rifle Association, and the rest of the mentally-deranged gun fanatics love their firearms because very, very few of them hunt.

 

59 Replies to “Gun Fanatics Express Their Support For a Mass Murderer’s Second Amendment Rights”

  1. And then they are “outraged”, I’m telling you, OUTRAGED, about the 4 dead in Benghazi… I guess they are outraged that the four were NOT killed by firearms…

  2. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of these jackholes look like the product of generations of incestuous relationships. Most of them look like the only thing they have ever hunted is is a spot in line at the buffet.

  3. Everyone supports their second amendment right to keep and bear arms. But one thing we DON”T have the right to do is go on a shooting spree and injure or kill people!

  4. next week, the rw slobs will claim it didn’t happen, its a false flag, and obamas coming for your guns. just like sandy hook.

  5. I’m really sick of hearing about their constitutional rights. Like it or not their rights don’t trump the taking of human life. Half of them can’t even spell “constitution”, let alone what the constitution really means. Our Politicians have to grow a set , and start passing laws about carrying guns around like the old west. They can keep their manhood extensions, but me and my family shouldn’t have to have them shoved up our noses.

  6. Gun manufacturers–want to keep the life-style and money flow they’ve become used to. NRA is an PR/advert company for them.

  7. Just wondering how many of these gun toting Americans have ever actually been in a FIRE fight; most who have would not be involved in any of these bring a gun to intimidate rallys.

  8. It has been such a long time since they have had sex, they have become members of a rarely identified and often unspeakable “Society of Born Again Virgins”.

    Membership includes the belief of “feeling pure and whole, again”. Void with the contraction of any STD.

  9. The only way these gun nuts will ever come to their senses and realize that not everyone can have a gun, is when their sons and daughters become victims of a crazed shooter.

  10. Joe the plumbers response was breath taking in it’s callousness, it’s sheer mean spiritedness and total and complete lack of empathy. I am afraid for his children that they are already victims of his bullying, abrasive, mean personality.

  11. It’s like I’ve been saying off-site: As a RWGN, your right to carry your people-killing machines does not trump my right to life. Elliot Rodger’s entitled behavior certainly didn’t trump the rights of the (at least) six people he killed to life. Kind of makes me wonder if the sane people of the States should go back and revisit the Second Amendment since obviously these RWGN’s don’t know the difference between a privilege and a right.

  12. There is only one word for these cretins…COWARDS!! plain and simple! The 2nd amendment should be repealed and the NRA brought down.

  13. “the preponderance of Americans who purchase firearms have them to kill other Americans”

    While guns may be designed to kill, that is not how they are always used. They have 4 uses – deterrence, intimidation, control and lethal force and only the latter causes injury or death. Shooting someone is a last resort as every responsible gun owner knows every bullet has a lawyer attached to it.

  14. Morons! Why do they think they are the only ones who have rights? Every child, man and woman who has been killed has the same right as they do,the right to life,Liberty and pursuit of happiness. These people choices were taken from them by people who were mentally ill. They all had prior problems. This man was in treatment but tragically he slipped through the system because if we had background checks in place at least 6 more people would be alive today. It would have been easier to subdue him then with a gun. Why doesn’t the NRA see this? Money is their master and too many of them make more than a comfortable living off of it. Why can’t the NRA be sued? It is a private institution and does not deserve protection. They promote the selling of weapons of destruction to everyone. Too many human lives are destroyed because of them.

  15. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say “Freedom to walk around intimidating other citizens”. They’re taking the “bear arms” covenant with a very literalist and opportunistic bent.

    Legal open carrying is absurd. Want to carry a concealed pistol? Fine. Take the classes. Get the license. And keep it under your shirt, in your purse, whatever. An unfortunate fact of life in 21st century America is there are situations where you may need it.

    These classless boors are terrorizing the public. A real show of dignity would be a “moment of silence” – a nation laying down their weapons out of respect for yet another tragic group of victims. Not… whatever these guys think they’re doing.

    “MOAR GUNZ” is the de facto, knee-jerk reaction to senseless violence. While intimidating an undefined and terrified “they” – assuming all who don’t walk into an Applebee’s wearing an AR-15 are against their agenda.

    Join the army if you want to play soldier, kids.

  16. Funny, how some gun sucking fanatic runs down the comments down voting everyone but never makes a comment. Just another coward hiding behind his gun. Go ahead, down vote us all, you still won’t out number us.

  17. Browncoatvoter, they are cowards just like I said! Where are they? Likely we will not see them here on this thread because at least the have enough wits to know we will defeat them with truth. Or because they can’t threaten us with their guns or shoot us because it’s the internet. They can’t use their guns on us so they stay silent and snipe at us from a safe distance.

  18. I wonder if ANY of those creepy looking dudes with rifles slung over their shoulders or carrying it in their arms as if it were their babies, EVER served in the military or was EVER in a fire-fight, with people shooting back at them? Because it seems to me that all this gun bravado, macho 2nd amendment BS comes from those who never really used their guns to defend anything but their egos.

  19. Hey Judson,
    I agree with your comments. And these gun fondling jerks are just that: JERKS! Morons. Walking, ticking time-bombs at that. Just waiting for some spark to set them off and fling some rounds towards some a person or group of people because of some perceived insult. Just wait. I see it happening one day. ((Sadly enough))

  20. Judson, I agree with your comments.
    Those gun toting mentally unbalanced, are going to end up in a self inflicted fire-fight one of these days. Believe it. ;)

  21. Re: “tasks the government to provide for the general welfare”

    The Constitution does not task the government to “provide” for the general welfare – it says “promote” the general welfare.

  22. I like the distinction made in this article, i.e, certain weapons are intended for killing humans. Those are the ones we should severely restrict. That would include handguns and any semiautomatic gun. [I believe ownership of fully automatic guns is already restricted.] Leave the ownership of single shot long guns permissible (with required permitting) for the target shooters and game (how did that term come to be used?) hunters.

    I also like the concept that the Constitution Preamble – establishing government’s overarching duty/right to protect the population’s general welfare – supersedes the authority of individual rights granted in the Amendments. Certain conservative members of the SCOTUS like to parse the Constitution; pitting the Preamble versus the Amendments will drive them crazy.

  23. I see reading isn’t fundamental for you. Point to one comment when someone said their rights trump a persons life.

  24. Most people will not comment in a forum with all one sided views and such a nasty article title. I have a gun to protect myself from people like the shooter.
    I do not agree with gun regulations or the lack there of. That needs a major overhaul. I own and carry everyday for self defense. I hope to never be in a situation where I have to use it. That is not my intent. A ban usually creates a black market (think drugs and prohibition) where only criminals and psychopaths will have guns. I don’t like those odds. Let’s reform, not ban. It has never solved problems in the past and perhaps we can learn from it instead of making the same misinformed decisions.
    Please do not stereotype all gun owners.I would never do that to people who don’t own guns. It weakens your cause and your argument when you say insensitive and frankly sick things about a group who doesn’t agree with you.
    I responded to you because you said I was hiding behind my guns. But this is addressed to everyone who commen…

  25. I see reading comprehension is not your gig. “Not much worse”. This board if chock full of emotional, sarcastic haters that I would never trust with a weapon of any kind. And by the way your rights do not trump my rights.

  26. Joe the Plumber’s ‘Dead Kid’ Callousness

    My mother was the principal of Sandy Hook elementary. I’m sorry my loss inconveniences you, Joe. But you’re the one who’s out of touch.

    Every day in this country 86 lives are cut short with guns. Multiply that number by 365 and you get more than 30,000 families who suffer from gun violence over the course of a year.
    Read More
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/29/joe-the-plumber-s-dead-kid-callousness.html

  27. Vanessa, I agree with you to some extent. Most of the people on here, however, haven’t called for an outright ban. Most Americans want COMMON SENSE gun laws. Comprehensive background checks would be a good start. I know a lot of states have that law, but only if you buy from a federally licensed gun dealer. Here in Montana we have weekly gun shows where any nut from any state can buy as many assault rifles as he wants without so much as giving his name. That’s what most people don’t agree with. That and the guys that swagger around shopping malls & restaurants with AK-47s slung over their shoulders, getting their little woodies over the fear & intimidation they cause. As a female gun owner, I AM compensating for something…the fact that I’m not as strong or well-armed as guys like that. But, I bet I’m a MUCH better shot :)

  28. IAll stages have background checks. And no not anyone from any state can buy a gun at you’re gunshows. Only residents can. Everyone else would be breaking the law even attempting to purchase and leave with a gun. What really kills the anti-gun nuts arguements is that for the most part they dont even know their own states laws. Been to alot of gun shows and dont remember EVER seeing an actual assault rifle for sale. You should google what an assault rifle is and not keep on with DNC talking points.

  29. Wow,

    I can’t believe that some of you think the preamble trumps the Bill of Rights…

    Instead of adding anything anything of worth to the discussion all I see are words like “fools, creeps, jerks, morons and cowards…”.

    If some think that the second amendment does not guarentee an individual the right to own a firearm then why does even the BATFE consider firearm ownership a civil right?

    [18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)]

    Obviously, the plain english of the second amendment is hard to understand to the obviously logically superior author of this article and their consituents.

    Here’s an article for some of you to gnash your teeth at:

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/daniel-silverman/worst-gun-bill-history-world-ever/

  30. Agreed. I don’t feel safe as a woman, especially when I’m out running. I feel like I have a target on my back. So I carry then too. Which I know seems really paranoid, but I’d rather be prepared. And yes gun laws in PA are pretty crazy. I just had to look up laws regarding transfer from person to person. And it’s not regulated. It’s up to the seller to make the decision on whether that person should own a gun. No background check needed. You don’t need a license to purchase here, just a license to carry. They are very strict about that, but you can also open carry without any license. You have to think, these crazed people are murdering so why are they going to abide by any other gun laws? People will always find a way to carry out their agenda. It happens without guns. Guns will always end up in the wrong hands, there is only so much we and the government can do about it.
    Maybe people on here aren’t calling for bans but they’re over emotional and insulting remarks do not help…

  31. In 2010 there were 8775 people murdered by firearms in the US which works out to about 24 people per day. These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 310 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 35,000 people being murdered by a firearm. Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 35,000 people. If 1 in 35,000 is too high what number would ever satisfy you? Ban all the guns and a determined individual could have used something else and there are a lot of other options thanks to the Internet. If you think Newtown was a horrific crime, imagine the carnage and suffering if the killer had used a homemade flamethrower and accomplished the task in half the time. What would you do then? Ban gasoline and plumbing parts?

  32. The problem with “common sense” gun laws is that the devil is always in the details. As an example consider the recently failed US Senate background check bill (SB-649). The title of the bill was word doctored to be innocuous but what was being proposed as part of the background check process was a litany of vague, abstruse and onerous restrictions on friends and family members that could trip them up and subject them to intimidation and entrapment by overzealous and unscrupulous authorities who are aligned with an anti-gun agenda. In addition, the hastily written Toomey amendment was worded in such a way that existing gun laws that currently protect gun owners (like a prohibiting a registry) could be circumvented by the President simply having the BATF report to DHS instead of the Attorney General. Cost and HIPPA considerations aside, similar problems will be encountered when trying to implement the author’s suggestion for comprehensive psychological background checks.

  33. The Constitution or Bill of Rights does not grant rights. The document merely lists the limits of government. The right of self protection and the tools necessary (guns, ammo, gun training) is a basic human right. That is precisely why the NRA is a civil rights organization.

  34. Since Adam Lanza had to break a window to enter the school, any trained and armed staff member had more than ample opportunity to STOP him prior to any life at the school being lost. So, if you want to blame some group, blame the groups that support Gun Free Zones.

  35. It seems that this latest event shows that no level of extreme gun laws can stop such events. CA certainly is extreme in laws that stop people having the tools for self defense. Also, it shows that mental health professionals either ignore the law about taking action on dangerous patients or do not recognize dangerous patients. It shows that killing is not limited to guns, but knives, cars and other things are all killing objects.
    The difference between a gun and a knife is that a gun makes a much better defensive weapon to protect people from criminal violence. I just can not believe that the gun grabbers have any audience.

  36. No that is exactly wrong. I want these crazy people stopped prior to a high body count. You apparently think it is OK to have people killed as long as you can use the killing to further your political agenda, only wealthy/powerful people have guns, everyone else is just to be used or killed at will.

  37. no one is talking about grabbing your gun idiot. What we want is better regulation. But you keep your guns because we know you have to over compensate for something

  38. In 1934, 1968, 1986, 1993 and 1994 I suspect similar arguments were made for “common sense” when more restrictive gun laws were passed. Since all of the regulations derived from these laws are apparently not enough, maybe you can understand the reluctance of gun owners to entertain the idea of accepting the any more. The problem is the real agenda of progressives is to ban all guns except for the government and governments (unlike individuals) have the track record for killing people that don’t agree with them. The reality is expanded background checks or banning semi-automatic firearms has nothing to do with keeping the people safe – it’s about using horrific crimes like Newtown to whip lawmakers into an emotional frenzy to goad them into quickly advancing the agenda of gun control irrespective of any facts in more incremental “progressive” steps in order to set a new baseline and move the goal posts to the point where an unscrupulous government could do what ever they ple…

  39. If a crazed sniper were to open fire on the armed individuals in a resteraunt then those same people would be able to protect themselves. The end result would not be a sniper goes on a 10 min shooting spree. It would end Mich sooner and possibly before police could arrive with their guns. Story wouldn’t even hit the news as it does not fit the agenda.
    I realize that there is a ton of emotion in this article, not much clear thought. There is a balance and we need to find it.

  40. If people had taken Eric Harris or Elliot Rodgers “jokes” more seriously, they would have been stopped before they launched their mass killings. This is the same reason that airport security will pounce on you if you joke about a bomb.

    To me, this comment is disturbing. You’re fantasizing about taking the lives of people for nothing other than their opposing political views.

    Are you planning an act of terrorism yourself? Maybe we need to lock you into a psychiatric hospital and force-feed you Risperdal and Zyprexa until you’re safe for society again.

  41. Don’t repeal it, Amend it to add “While actively serving in the Militia” after “Keep and bear arms,” as Justice Stevens has suggested.

  42. No one said that. Both are part of the same Constitution. The Constitution which uses the word PERSONS when referring to individuals and PEOPLE when referring to the collective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.