The Politics of the Tragic Charleston Church Shooting

It pains me to feel even the need to write this entry. I must apologize to the families grieving in Charleston right now; not for anything I’ve done or am about to say, but for the fact that we are living in a time where now what follows, an entry about politics after the very tragedy they haven’t buried their loved ones from yet, is being written. Funeral arrangements aren’t even finalized for some of these victims, but due to comments from the President, Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, and others in the gun grabbing camp, this tragedy will not go to waste in the interest of curbing our Second Amendment Rights.

The politics post Charleston church shooting had been predictable all along, from the first MSNBC rant about guns to the very comments from Obama claiming “more advanced countries don’t have this problem,” doubled down by Hillary calling for Gun Control at her most recent campaign event. The commentators are making the same baseless claims that Americans want more gun control. Their branding the issue with blatant propaganda and feeding said blatant propaganda through the air waves, day after day, have caused a small group of pro gun grabbing policies activists to believe that, you guessed it, more Americans want gun control.

Lets take the gun control debate out of the equation and define just what exactly gun control is and what it aims to do.

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun. It’s a statement once used by I think Mao, but it’s true. The founding fathers here wrote the Bill of Rights in such a way that after expressly announcing there would be freedom of speech and religion, there would also be the decree that the right to bear arms is necessary to the safety and security of a free society, and that right shall not be infringed. There they are, Amendments 1 and 2, and they are ordered that way for a reason.

That reason is simple. He who wields the pen against his government when writing to congress about a controversial issue cannot be imprisoned for his controversial letter, or stance. The possible penalty for imprisoning him, remembering that imprisoning him for the contents of political speech sent to congress would effectively be tyranny as we are not talking about reacting to a bomb threat here, but reacting to routine free speech. Also He bears arms. He is a member of arms bearing society. If his right to speech is silenced, the right for everyone left to pursue his silencers is in stone.

Thats exactly why we have the second amendment. So what is gun control?

Gun control is, by using the same example above of a citizen writing a letter to congress on a controversial political subject being immune to persecution for his viewpoints backed by his right to bear arms to prevent the loss of his right to free speech, the idea that the government can in fact punish him for his viewpoints because his weapons have been stripped from him, his speech is now subject to what is acceptable to society as he knows it according to socialites and politicians he may not know.

In simplest terms, gun control is the beginning of the left’s move to assert total control. While the agenda of US Gun Grabbers may not rise to the same agendas used by Hitler, Stalin, The Japanese, or even certain Americans at Wounded Knee. If you don’t know, Wounded Knee was a result of American gun control in the earliest days. The women and children had given up their guns and, in the one room school of the Indian reservation, were shot by US soldiers.

Total control to the left may not mean herding women and children into the church at Wounded Knee, but whatever it does mean, we are unfortunately left to find out after the gun control processes Post Charleston’s gun free zoned Church mass shooting begin.

So on the way to total control they will propose new controls. Those will include forcing background checks on family members doing gifted guns. They’ll include forcing a gun registration system that, when total control can be implemented, proves to be the database used to attempt disarmament. I think I need not elaborate as to why I wrote “attempt” disarmament.

Again, to the families of the victims of Charleston’s shooting, I pray for you and apologize for finding the need so shortly after your tragedy to write this. The media unfortunately picked the time frame, and so did the presidential candidates.

In the wake of Charleston, or any other tragedy, the left should learn that first, the bodies of the dead should be allowed burial. Second, our gun rights are not simple privileges you can license and regulate like driving. Third, stop standing on and using the graves of these dead children, grandparents, and parents to heighten your unpopular agenda of disarmament.

We will not comply. We will not give up our rifles or pistols willingly. We will stand for nothing more and nothing less than simple enforcement of current laws. There is already a national background checks system. There are already rules on substance dependency and guns. Stop trying to break it to fix it, it’s simply not broken. Guns aren’t the problem, they are our protection from the very types who would be so bold as to try and take them.