Confirmed: Devin Kelley, the accused murderer of at least 26 people at a Sutherland Springs, TX, church yesterday, had been dishonorably discharged from the U.S military. He was also convicted of committing domestic assault against his wife and child. By dictate of the unconstitutional 1968 Gun Control Act (under President Johnson), it was illegal for him to own a firearm. He got a hold of one, anyway.
Confirmed: the police didn't stop this man at the scene. They didn't save any lives.
Confirmed: the person who stopped him shot him with a weapon many politicians want to "ban."
So the man who committed the murders already broke the gun control laws that politicians claimed would keep people safe from "gun violence," while the one who stopped him by engaging in defensive "gun violence" -- if he had been law abiding and the politicians had been successful in banning his gun -- would have been breaking the law by possessing it.
Many, if not most, people pushing for the government to threaten imprisonment for citizens who own firearms want only the government to have firearms. The murderer was formerly in the U.S military. He used to be one of those people. If he were still in the military, he would have been one of those men who would be given tax money to "protect" citizens from the man who used his firearm defensively to take him down.
The right to self-defense is not to be controlled by agents of the state. Agents of the state have murdered more people than any others in human history.
Does the ownership of an object connote intent of use? No. Despite assumptions others might make, our reasons for owning things are our own, and cannot be arbitrarily "told" to us. Even if one were to assume ownership connoted intent, the stats show that privately owned firearms are most often used to stop crimes, so the assumption would have to embrace that as the most likely possibility.
Is the ownership of an item a violent act? No.
In what activity do agents of the state engage when telling people they cannot own firearms, or any other object? Threats of violence.
What will agents of the state use to enforce these threats and punish people or prevent them from owning arms? Firearms.
So those who support "gun control" are engaging in threats of violence against people who are most likely not going to harm others, and will get the state to act on these threats through the use of firearms in the hands of agents of the state. This is undeniable.
Please support MRCTV today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of the Media Research Center)DONATE