Pulse Nightclub And The Rise Of The "Anti-Guners." 2 Years Later


It all comes down to a choice.

The Jihadi who committed the Pulse Nightclub attack made the choice to murder his victims. The citizens who notified law enforcement of his suspicious activity made the choice to do so. Local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers had a choice to act before it ever happened. The victims didn't have the choice to defend themselves because that decision had already been made for them by the government when they gathered in a gun free zone (Title XLVI Chapter 790). Yes, that's the same government entrusted by the victims for their protection and personal well-being.

Gun free zones invite the kinds of people who are determined to create as much damage and chaos that they can, and in the shortest amount of time possible. Restricting the public's right to defend themselves, while forcing them to rely on the government agencies who have repeatedly failed to protect them isn't only unconstitutional, it's amoral.

Perhaps you're thinking that carrying a firearm isn't for everyone, and surely you're right. It's a great responsibility to own, store, maintain, and train with one. Just like any other tool, it takes practice to become proficient with one, and to learn to use it safely. Luckily, there isn't any shortage of access to training for anybody who wishes to receive it. However, some of those who choose not to arm themselves go a step further and take up the position of the "anti-gunner."

Anti-gunners not only chose NOT to exercise their right to posses firearms, but they vehemently oppose the right of others to do so at varying degrees - presumably due to fear, or a lack of understanding of firearms. Fear, and a lack of understanding about anything can cause people to be apprehensive. But, one person's apprehension is never a valid reason to deny another's right to experience that thing, whether it be flying on an airplane, swimming the ocean, maybe petting a large dog. This is especially true when it comes to firearms because, at the end of the day, it's the individual who is responsible for their own protection, not the government. A firearm is the only thing that can level the playing field between a victim and their attacker.

I am old enough to remember Columbine. I was in middle school when it happened. I watched it unfold on live television, and it was the most horrific thing I'd ever seen in my life. Unfortunately not much has changed since then in the way that our society handles a mass shooting. More gun laws have passed since Columbine, but our schools, nightclubs, churches, and universities are just as helpless and vulnerable as they've ever been. What has changed is how these events are reported on and politicized by the media, Hollywood celebrities, and our elected officials. These tragedies are then used by "astroturf" organizations to effect public policy - no longer through lobbying our elected representatives, but by utilizing bully and boycott tactics against our major corporations and largest banks - a dangerous precedent.

What is your choice?

Comments (3)

It's not implying anything, take it at face value. There are bad people in the world, and laws won't stop them from doing horrible things. We've seen it time and time again, but the left assumes that passing more laws will stop these things from happening. I'm saying that they won't. We need to treat the threat seriously, and do what's necessary to keep our schools and our kids safe. Laws and regulations only apply to the people that follow the law, and mass murderers aren't law abiding citizens.

Look at the way we protect our banks, our celebrities, our politicians, our government buildings. They all use armed security. The threat of a shooting is greatly reduced when there are people armed, trained and ready to defend against that threat. It's time we take the safety of our children as seriously as we do our banks. We need armed guards in schools, and we need to end gun free zones.

No. 1-3

So what does this 'no amount of laws will ever prevent an evil person from doing evil things' suppose to imply?


I'm more Pro-Matthew than Anti-Gunnar. I mean it's so hard to tell them apart it's really pointless to be anti one or the other. BTW, your title is misspelled. "Gunnar" has 2 Ns, and the E should be an A. We are talking about Nelson, right?