CureZone   Log On   Join
Frontsight Ambassador Pat Kerby writes amazing Essay on Piers Morgan and Gun Control
  Views: 1,591
Published: 8 years ago

Frontsight Ambassador Pat Kerby writes amazing Essay on Piers Morgan and Gun Control

This is an essay written by Pat Kerby, a frontsight "ambassador" and sent out in an email to frontsight members. Very enlightening and well written. Worth a share with any of our family members who are doubtful or riding party lines on the gun control issue..........

"Piers Morgan asked why Alex Jones wanted to deport him.

Because Piers, and people like him, don't understand the PRINCIPLES involved in being an American, here is what I wish Alex Jones had said...

America was founded on PRINCIPLES of human rights that are aligned with the laws of nature. The Second Amendment is derived from the principle that every creature has the right to defend itself. If some guy walked in and started punching Piers in the face, no one would argue that he had the right to hit back. If the same guy came in with a bat, no one would argue that Piers could pick up a chair or table leg to defend himself, and would have every right to do so. But if the same guy came in with a gun, then Piers is arguing that you no longer have that same right to defend yourself? You must become a helpless victim? That would be like saying you must tie your hands behind your back when the guy comes in to punch you, or hit you with a bat. You no longer have the right to defend yourself.

"But why do you need an assault rifle?" This PRINCIPLE is not affected by time or technology, and it is self-evident that it should apply to whatever the weapons of the day might be. Here is hoping that we never need our modern rifles for anything but 3 gun competitions, but in America we recognize the difference between having and not needing, and needing and not having.

You see in England, they have the royalty, who are sovereign, and have all the rights, and the subjects get to live their lives as long as they obey the rules that the sovereignty grants them. In America, we the people are the sovereigns, and we have allowed government the authority to handle certain things, all designed to protect our liberty. We don't like the idea of being subjects. We are a nation of heroes and free thinkers, and the idea of leaving our people helpless to criminals or tyrants is offensive to us. In England they take comfort in the fact that, even though their rape, robbery, and murder statistics are comparable, gun related deaths are low. In America, we would rather think that some of those people who would be helpless victims in Europe, would have a chance to defend themselves here.

Piers brought up the statistics of gun related deaths in America compared to England. The statistics have nothing to do with the PRINCIPLE, but let's examine them for a moment. When you consider that there are around 52 million households owning 200 to 300 million guns, the number of gun deaths is amazingly low. It means that over 50 million gun owners (a number that dwarfs every other country in the world) in America harm no one. That means that the good guys outnumber the bad guys by a ridiculous margin, and in an increasingly dangerous world, only a fool would want to disarm the good guys.

Statistics bring little comfort to those good people who are so terribly affected by tragic events like in Connecticut recently. The startling reminder that there are monsters in the world compels them to want to do something. What they really want to do is outlaw the monsters, but they know that monsters do not obey laws. Encouraged by government and media, (who have a different agenda) they fall for the propaganda and lash out at the tool, as though it was the monster. They think that passing laws against them is going to somehow make 300 million guns unavailable to the monsters. Here is a reminder. Monsters don't obey laws. You cannot un-invent guns, and even if it was a good idea (which it is not) we have two porous borders and 300 million guns already in the country. It would be impossible to make guns unavailable to those who would do harm.

How good was the government at keeping alcohol out of hands of criminals during Prohibition? How good has the government been at keeping cocaine, crack, meth and marijuana out of the hands of criminals to this day? What makes anyone think the government could ever keep guns out of the hands of criminals? The government can't protect us from criminals having access to guns, no matter how strict the guns laws they wish to pass.

So the only choice available to us is whether we understand the PRINCIPLES, and allow good Americans to be armed against criminals and tyrants, or you leave them helpless they do in England.

They say that people who want to keep weapons as a defense to tyranny are paranoid, and that it can never happen here. Really??? TSA, The Patriot Act, FISA, the NDAA,...if the government was not defecating on the Constitution every other week perhaps we could talk (no...we still couldn't), and as they lead us into the very real possibility of a financial collapse, I don't think this is a very good time to consider giving up our weapons. If you look at gun and ammo sales statistics from the last few weeks, I'd say a good portion of America agrees with me."

-Pat Kerby

Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

1.672 sec, (3)