But before that happens, we’ll all become victims of the most sinister and barbaric among us because we will have been disarmed, completely, by the Donkey Party (which, of course, will be well-defended and protected by men and women with guns).
The latest church shooting occurred once again in Texas, but this one did not turn out like the one in Sutherland Springs in November 2017, where 26 people were killed and another 20 injured by a former U.S. Air Force airman who should not have been legally able to buy guns because of a criminal record while serving.
Rather than double down on victimhood, majority Republicans in the Texas legislature got together and sent Gov. Greg Abbott legislation that extended the right of armed self-defense to churchgoers. The result: The shooting at the West Freeway Church of Christ Dec. 30 was far less deadly.
During Sunday’s attack, parishioners Richard White and Jack Wilson sprang into action after a gunman opened fire at the church in White Settlement. The attack lasted only six seconds before Mr. Wilson, a former reserve sheriff’s deputy and Army veteran, fatally shot the gunman. White, an armed member of the church’s volunteer security team, drew his weapon and fired a shot into the wall before he was fatally shot by the gunman, Mr. Wilson said Monday. One other church member was also killed in the attack.
So yes, there were deaths of innocent people. But there were far fewer deaths than there would have been if no one had been armed and ready to respond.
Nevertheless, in a column by Elvia Díaz originally for the Arizona Republic but republished by USA Today, while crediting the parishioners for their quick actions nevertheless lamented that the incident would be championed by “gun advocates” as the right policy to adopt everywhere. (Related: Are Republicans preparing to sell out constituents over gun control following Texas church shooting?)
Wilson, she said, was trained in the use of a weapon so he’s “exactly the kind of man you want around with a firearm.” But she complained that not as much was known about six other churchgoers who drew their weapons, “and that’s terrifying.”
“[H]ave we really reached a point when each of us need to carry a firearm anywhere we go?” she asked.
In a word, yes, but that’s not even the right question because life in America is inherently safer today than it was 100 years ago or even 230 years ago when the Constitution was being debated and ratified.
What’s more, let’s just say that the law in Texas still forbade anyone from carrying a gun inside a church; that didn’t matter in Sutherland Springs and it wouldn’t have mattered at White Settlement.
Also, Diaz writes, “The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. And that isn’t going anywhere. But that constitutional amendment doesn’t spell out the types of firearms Americans should bear, nor does it give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere.”
Again, that’s not even the right point to make. The Second Amendment pertains to firearms, period — so yeah, specific firearms are not mentioned (does she really believe the founders never thought someone would invent a better gun than those they had in 1787?). The amendment also makes this important distinction: That the right “shall not be infringed.” Any law that restricts firearms, firearms ownership, or where someone can take that firearm is an “infringement.”
It’s like saying Americans can have free speech on the street corner but not in a library; we can freely worship any god (or no god) we want, but we can’t wear a religious symbol in a Walmart store, etc.
Fact is, there is nothing more ‘terrifying’ that being victimized without having any means of self-defense. Anyone who’s ever been in that position knows that for a fact.