A Case for Constitutional Carry and the Art of Self Defense

Pick a tyrant out of history, especially the ruthless ones, and you will find that in order to control and invoke fear upon the populace, the tyrant ensured that they had no means to fight back and/or rebel.
This has been an ongoing argument. But then again, anti-firearm enthusiasts and the politicians who use them to take away firearms from everyone else is constantly on the rampage against the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Those folks have the right not to own, keep, or carry firearms — but haven’t the right telling others they don’t cannot. 
And, isn’t it a bit hypocritical that some who are all for gun control and/or confiscation have armed body guards? I will never get over the travesties committed during the Katrina Disaster and aftermath between barbarians looting and law enforcement with the help of military units confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens – most while they are in their homes.That really solved the problem, didn’t it? And GW Bush was commander-in-chief at the time.

Indeed, this recent Colorado massacre, like Columbine and the Fort Hood massacre by an officer who was a clandestine Islamic fundamentalist, has horrified and angered me just as much as the anti-firearm freaks. However, if just one movie goer, preferably more, had been carrying a concealed weapon into that theater, the outcome would have been different with less people killed and injured at the most. Definitely the dirt bag that committed the horrific crime would have been full of bullet holes, especially since there were military personnel in the theater at the time – ballistic protective gear or not. Head shots and shots to the extremities would have disabled him long enough to put him out of action. Several legal concealed carry persons would have riddled him full of holes so an arrest wouldn’t have been necessary or the reading of his Miranda rights. It would have saved the Colorado taxpayers funding for putting the crazy SOB on trial. I can tell you right now that the defense is going to go for mentally incompetent rhetoric. Hey, am I the only one here that sees anyone committing such a crime someone who isn’t playing with a full deck.
There were police officers in the theater area because of the huge crowd to see the premiere Batman film, supposedly the last in a series. However, by the time they discovered what was going on and headed toward the particular theater partition, the deed had been done or the jerk ran out of ammo and departed before they got there out the exit door. This is not a critical response to what the police did, but clearly shows that law enforcement folks just can’t arrive on the scene to prevent something or reducing the body count (of the good folks) and end up writing reports on the aftermath. Law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once, no fault of their own. That is why it is good for lawful citizens be afforded the opportunity, if they wish, to carry concealed weapons to thwart or reduce damage by a criminal in such incidences.
And what a time for this to occur – when we are protesting President Obama’s treaty with United Nations for gun control and arms confiscation. I sometimes wonder if there isn’t a left element orchestrating such actions because it seems to occur when the NRA and other freedom-loving Americans fight city hall and the feds over gun control via lawful citizens.
And, what is it with Colorado? First Columbine and now this movie theater? Of course, many years have separated the incidents, but one would think there would be armed citizens in that theater. What is going to happen now is that folks going to movie theaters are not allowed to be armed, with a permit or not, with no firearms allowed signs posted. It is just the reaction that Americans who have lost common sense would want.
Time and again it has been proven with statistical facts that when citizens are allowed to arm and protect themselves the death by homicide is reduced, as well as other violent crimes.
The political left has been long standing in the department of making figures or doctoring them to prove their point or get their way. This is true of a myriad of causes: global warming, endangered species, firearms, fast foods, SUVs, et cetera. Time and again they get caught cheating on the statistics and/or spinning the facts – yet, people still side with and believe them.
Mark Baisley wrote a great article [A Firing Squad with No Black Hood] on the subject at Townhall, who lives in Colorado not too far from Aurora. He wrote:
The naive theorist will challenge NRA members with, “Would it not be preferable to surrender individual gun ownership in order to stop all this senseless violence?”  The statistics flow from these believers with numbers of accidents, unsuccessful struggles with burglars, and the biggie — 11,000 annual deaths from gunshot wounds.  And I think that we err in responding directly to the faulty premise of their appeal. The motivations for defending the right to individual gun ownership generally fall into three categories; personal protection, citizen defense against an oppressive state, and hunting. . . . As in most partisan debates, the political leadership on the left uses misdirection to leverage a more popular urgency that would result in the desired outcome.  Rank and file leftists are single-minded with the expedient solution of eliminating personal weapons in order to eradicate violence against citizens.  Leftist leadership, however, wishes to eliminate personal weapons in order to prevent the people from having the power to uprise against the state. . . . The appropriate response to the gun-control advocate who cites death statistics where gun ownership is allowed is to cite death statistics where gun ownership has been denied.  With Second Amendment rights in the United States, there were 11,000 homicides using firearms in 2010.  With no such rights in the former Soviet Union, the state murdered over 6,000,000 citizens annually.  China topped out at 3,500,000 each year.  And Germany exceeded 2,000,000 in annual murders during their Nazi era. Individual firearms control is the sign of a misplaced fear.
Doug Giles states he carried a firearm just about everywhere:

Look, stuff happens when and where you don’t think it’ll happen. My recommendation to you, the good citizen, is to get equipped with a gun—a fire-breathing dragon of a weapon. Get proficient with it. Make it like a cell phone: an additional appendage to your body. And then pray that you’ll never have to use it. However, should you be in line at the grocery store, or at Chili’s eating a burger, or at a park playing football with your homies, and some James Holmes wannabe shows up carting an arsenal and quoting Kafka as he shoots kids … you’ll be ready. Simply find cover if you can, draw your weapon, take a fine bead, and double tap the center mass of the murderous jackass. Should he or she have a bulletproof vest on then pull your sight picture up to the perp’s noggin and shoot him or her in the head; it’ll explode like a watermelon. You’ll feel bad for a nanosecond. But then the cops and families will show up and thank you for putting Jack the Ripper down. The end.

Indeed, end of that story.
Victor Davis Hanson:

As of now we know little about what conditions drove, or proved useful to, the Aurora suspect to murder and maim. But given the worldwide incidences of so-called “rampage killings,” the culprit was not the particular gun laws of Colorado. His dark counterparts exist in contemporary Norway, Uganda, Russia, and Latin America. I am sure there is a typology of the multifarious conditions that might prompt such demonic killers—workplace anger, spousal revenge, school-related grudges, religious fanaticism, race or ethnic hatred, political extremism, and abject insanity that offers no exegesis at all. So far we have heard that guns did it; or that there were unfortunately not any good gunmen in the theater to stop him; or that the mentally ill are not closely enough watched, medicated, or hospitalized; or that we live in a “sick” culture; and on and on.

One unmentioned fact is that rampage killing is not necessarily a modern phenomenon, although firearms as force multipliers facilitate it and up the horrific body count. Killers in the 19th century often shot down innocent bystanders. Yet I think there are some new developments that already have brought hundreds of millions worldwide into the horrifically demonic mind of the suspect James Holmes. . . .
All of which brings us to our third symptom of the modern age that makes the contemporary rampage killer somehow different. If the suspect is charged and found guilty, I have zero confidence that he will be hanged. I have a great deal of confidence that over the next five years, his awful presence will pop up on a news broadcast. We can execute bin Laden and high-five it; we can incinerate over 2,000 suspected terrorists by video-controlled Predators, and have the president brag about it in warning away suitors from his daughters at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner— but we cannot do the same for someone who was tried, convicted, and sentenced for horrifically destroying people. . . . Tonight, I wish to know nothing about him other than the information necessary to try, convict, and punish him—and any data that might provide some sort of deterrence in preventing another such rampage. . . .
In other words, I don’t care a whit whether the Aurora killer was a loner. I don’t care if he was unhappy or if he was on medication. Millions share such pathologies without killing a mouse. I don’t even know whether giving him swift justice will deter the next mass shooter. Yes, give the suspect expert legal counsel; call in all the psychiatrists imaginable; sequester the jury; ensure the judge is a pillar of jurisprudence; but if he is found guilty, I would prefer the gallows and quickly so, to remind us that we live in a civilization that prefers to remember the victims and to remember nothing at all of their killer.

In an unrelated news bit, Jefferson’s Rebels reports on a Democrat Minnesota state politician who is an underground Islamic militant and conspirator via Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR. 
Now maybe you realize why I advocate that all candidates who want to run for office in Congress and as President of the United States, VP and his Cabinet members should undergo a thorough background check before qualifying to run for office. After all, they have access to sensitive information and what makes them better than the military members and other folks that must undergo the same process to receive a security clearance?
It should would have prevented woes, tribulations, and unconstitutional acts concerning one Barack Hussein Obama, alias Barry Soetoro as Senator and President of the United States.  And it certainly would have prevented Keith Ellison from holding office in Congress, for sure.What were the voters in Minnesota thinking? If indeed he won the election honestly.