Virginia Tech: Solidarity
Like many people, over the past two days gun owners across America have witnessed with horror, the murders that occurred at Virginia Tech. We, too, feel the sense of loss, the utter emptiness, after an abhorrent event of such wickedness. We feel the anger rising up within our very souls at the evil that brings about such acts of malevolence. 
Gun owners see another wickedness, however, a pervasive and insidious wickedness.
Because the criminal carried a gun, many will equate the gun itself with the evil that played out on Virginia Tech's campus. That is understandable, I suppose, if one is looking for answers and only has the media as a reference source. A few people will believe murder sprung from Cho Seung-Hui because he was Korean. They may not verbalize this, except in whispers to their racist friends. They will believe it, nonetheless. Others will claim Cho Seung-Hui embarked on a murderous rampage because he felt the humiliation of poverty. That was the excuse he penned himself, after all. However nationality and depleted bank accounts do not cause people to go on bloody rampages. Guns do not either.
In the coming months, the events at Virginia Tech will no doubt be used by many for the advancement of political agendas. Gun rights will be assaulted by misguided legislation designed to protect the citizenry. Gun owners may begin to feel assaulted as well. Just as others will use the tragedy at Virginia Tech for the advancement of agendas, gun owners must stand resolute in their constitutional rights. Indeed, we must stand resolute in the rights of those who died at Virginia Tech, rights to self preservation that were stripped away in a Machiavellian move towards a Socialist society.
Gun owners are not "against" the people who had their lives violently stripped away at Virginia Tech. We are not. We are in solidarity with them. We are no more like Cho Seung-Hui because he bought a Glock than Song Hye Kyo is like him because she is Korean. Gun owners are in solidarity with the victims of violent crime everywhere, and that includes those at Virginia Tech. As a gun owner, I would never seek to harm these young students, but rather to arm them so they stand a chance against a heinous killer like Cho Seung-Hui.
Guns do not make people evil. Guns do not emit some malevolent force that impregnates the brain of those who touch them. Guns are not magic, and they are not evil. They are, however, tools that can be effectively used to protect people from evil. They are tools that can be used to protect people from the same kind of evil that stalked through Norris Hall on April 16, 2007. Gun owners do not just want to preserve the right to keep and bear arms for themselves, but rather, for everyone. Everyone like those who awoke to their last day on April 16, 2007. We are in solidarity with them. It is my belief that because they did not want to die helplessly at the hand of unmitigated evil, that they were in their last moments in solidarity with us. Protection from an unjust death is the very basis of the rights that gun owners cherish. The right to keep and bear arms is not about guns. It is not about militias. It is not about Rose O'Donnell. The right to keep and bear arms is about effective protection from a violent, unjustified death at the hands of a killer.
When faced with violent evil, often all it takes is one brave soul to make a difference.
There were several brave people who died at Virginia Tech's massacre. Bravery alone is often not enough to resist armed evil. Bravery combined with training and a firearm is much more effective against armed evil than bravery alone. Gun control takes away the means to do what a person knows he must when confronted with a murderer. As a result, the murderer prevails until armed men arrive. Gun advocates simply desire that the means to resist a violent death be available to all law abiding citizens. The choice of whether a person decides to take up the means is a personal decision. The abolition of the right to self preservation is not.
Virginia HB 1572, proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League died in the subcommittee stage in 2006. Virgina Tech spokesman Larry Hincker gave Virginia Tech's position on that bill afterwards, stating "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Virginia HB 1572 would have restored the ability of effective self defense to the students and faculty who died on April 16, 2007. That is the dirty little secret that the mainstream media will hide over the following months of debate.
It is my sincere hope that from the carnage at Virginia Tech, a mature comprehension of the importance of the second amendment for the average citizen will arise among young people in this nation. Like Suzanna Hupp learned in Killeen, Texas, a person cannot run from evil. Evil will come unannounced, and a man cannot stand up against it if he is not prepared to do so. Governments cannot legislate away tools a murderer may use to gain superiority. Evil will follow a man until he faces it, and criminals will find tools, just as they have done throughout history. Gaston Glock did not invent murder. He developed an effective means of dealing with evil.
Gun owners must not let the emotional arguments of their gun control adversaries distort the Virginia Tech massacre into what it is not. Lives were not lost at Virginia Tech because an evil man was armed, but rather because a just and law abiding man was not.
More......A Human Right
An interview with Suzanna Hupp
Gun owners see another wickedness, however, a pervasive and insidious wickedness.Because the criminal carried a gun, many will equate the gun itself with the evil that played out on Virginia Tech's campus. That is understandable, I suppose, if one is looking for answers and only has the media as a reference source. A few people will believe murder sprung from Cho Seung-Hui because he was Korean. They may not verbalize this, except in whispers to their racist friends. They will believe it, nonetheless. Others will claim Cho Seung-Hui embarked on a murderous rampage because he felt the humiliation of poverty. That was the excuse he penned himself, after all. However nationality and depleted bank accounts do not cause people to go on bloody rampages. Guns do not either.
In the coming months, the events at Virginia Tech will no doubt be used by many for the advancement of political agendas. Gun rights will be assaulted by misguided legislation designed to protect the citizenry. Gun owners may begin to feel assaulted as well. Just as others will use the tragedy at Virginia Tech for the advancement of agendas, gun owners must stand resolute in their constitutional rights. Indeed, we must stand resolute in the rights of those who died at Virginia Tech, rights to self preservation that were stripped away in a Machiavellian move towards a Socialist society.
Gun owners are not "against" the people who had their lives violently stripped away at Virginia Tech. We are not. We are in solidarity with them. We are no more like Cho Seung-Hui because he bought a Glock than Song Hye Kyo is like him because she is Korean. Gun owners are in solidarity with the victims of violent crime everywhere, and that includes those at Virginia Tech. As a gun owner, I would never seek to harm these young students, but rather to arm them so they stand a chance against a heinous killer like Cho Seung-Hui.
Guns do not make people evil. Guns do not emit some malevolent force that impregnates the brain of those who touch them. Guns are not magic, and they are not evil. They are, however, tools that can be effectively used to protect people from evil. They are tools that can be used to protect people from the same kind of evil that stalked through Norris Hall on April 16, 2007. Gun owners do not just want to preserve the right to keep and bear arms for themselves, but rather, for everyone. Everyone like those who awoke to their last day on April 16, 2007. We are in solidarity with them. It is my belief that because they did not want to die helplessly at the hand of unmitigated evil, that they were in their last moments in solidarity with us. Protection from an unjust death is the very basis of the rights that gun owners cherish. The right to keep and bear arms is not about guns. It is not about militias. It is not about Rose O'Donnell. The right to keep and bear arms is about effective protection from a violent, unjustified death at the hands of a killer.
When faced with violent evil, often all it takes is one brave soul to make a difference.
There were several brave people who died at Virginia Tech's massacre. Bravery alone is often not enough to resist armed evil. Bravery combined with training and a firearm is much more effective against armed evil than bravery alone. Gun control takes away the means to do what a person knows he must when confronted with a murderer. As a result, the murderer prevails until armed men arrive. Gun advocates simply desire that the means to resist a violent death be available to all law abiding citizens. The choice of whether a person decides to take up the means is a personal decision. The abolition of the right to self preservation is not. Virginia HB 1572, proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League died in the subcommittee stage in 2006. Virgina Tech spokesman Larry Hincker gave Virginia Tech's position on that bill afterwards, stating "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Virginia HB 1572 would have restored the ability of effective self defense to the students and faculty who died on April 16, 2007. That is the dirty little secret that the mainstream media will hide over the following months of debate.
It is my sincere hope that from the carnage at Virginia Tech, a mature comprehension of the importance of the second amendment for the average citizen will arise among young people in this nation. Like Suzanna Hupp learned in Killeen, Texas, a person cannot run from evil. Evil will come unannounced, and a man cannot stand up against it if he is not prepared to do so. Governments cannot legislate away tools a murderer may use to gain superiority. Evil will follow a man until he faces it, and criminals will find tools, just as they have done throughout history. Gaston Glock did not invent murder. He developed an effective means of dealing with evil.
Gun owners must not let the emotional arguments of their gun control adversaries distort the Virginia Tech massacre into what it is not. Lives were not lost at Virginia Tech because an evil man was armed, but rather because a just and law abiding man was not.
More......A Human Right
An interview with Suzanna Hupp
Labels: School Shootings
posted by Xavier at 10:21 PM
6 Comments:
Here's a link to a great interview with Suzanna Hupp regarding VT. (you may need to cut and paste the link to get it to work)
http://keyetv.com/topstories/local_story_107174031.html
Be sure to select the video marked "web extra" for the full interview.
Xavier,
Splendid, very appropriate and tactfully put.
Thank you for eloquently stating what needs to be said.
XB,
Thanks again for educating me. I had heard about the Luby's shooting, but did not know about Suzanna Hupp's story. Amazing.
I sincerely hope Larry Hincker is having a hard time sleeping the last few nights...
Thank for saying what needed to be said, Xavier.
Gun owners feel the utmost compassion towards the families and friends of those affected by the terrible act of a deranged individual. We offer this sympathy and love, and most of all, we offer a means to defend themselves against the wishes of violent individuals who wish to visit harm upon others.
Political opportunists seek to rob the spotlight for their own purposes from those who need it most in their time of loss. This is most shameful. They seek to monopolize on the grief and fear of this terrible event to push through laws which would only serve to make people more vulnerable while criminals, whose very activities violate laws, would break these laws and remain armed.
In public places, there are stationed fire extinguishers to fight fires. Instead looking for further ways to make the large groups of gathered people more vulnerable and defenseless, why could we not have similar "extinguishers" such as a tazer gun or tranquilizer gun placed in these areas? Just like a "In Case of Fire, Break Glass" system under which an alarm would sound and notice sent to emergency responders, so too would a "In Case of Madman Who Needs to be Put Down" system offer us protection. It's a start, but it's a more common sense idea than offering up ridiculous laws and easily by-passed security proposals.
Personally, I would love to see this proposal bolstered with responsible individuals carrying their firearms on campus.
Beautifully and eloquently written, sir. If only you weren't preaching to the choir. :) But still it has to be said.
~Monica
Post a Comment
<< Home