Why do anti-gun bigots continue to hammer the idea that if you aren't violating the human right to own and to carry weapons you "aren't doing anything"?
Why do they keep pretending there's a "gun problem"-- separate from the continuing violation of the natural human right to own and to carry them?
Why do they lie and say the problem is "gun violence" rather than admitting the problem would be gun aggression-- by cops/government gangs and freelance archators?
Should there be a "process" for violating people? Does it only matter that they "really believe" they should violate the natural human right to own and to carry weapons?
Do beliefs change an unethical act into an ethical one?
Anti-gun bigots say "it's got to get worse" (more deaths) before anything can be done to make it "better" (more anti-gun "laws")-- that's right, anti-gun bigots are hoping for more mass shootings to advance their agenda. Will they "do something" to make sure they get what they are hoping for. Yep. They will. They already have been, for decades.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
I hope I add something valuable. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Find me on Patreon
Why does "better" in their analysis invariably mean more bureaucracy, red tape, and threats of violence against innocent people who fail to comply?
When your only tool is a government, everything looks like it needs a "law" used on it.