4 Ways The Anti-Gun Movements Supply Crime And Terrorism

Print page


As I write this, three more police officers in Baton Rouge, LA are dead, and three more have been wounded. Even as these officers lay in a pool of blood, the left wing stubbornly refers to this as a “racial matter” and offers “gun control” as the miracle cure for the whole mess.

But even as these people demand disarmament, their very own rhetoric creates more innocent victims in our schools, in our movie theaters, among people of color, and among our civil servants.

Unfortunately, when anti-gunners write and speak, I feel, they have a tendency to use their words in ways that justify things that no humane being would ever agree to. In this election season, let’s have a look at the dark side of the anti-gun movement so that it becomes easier to see how it contributes to crime and terrorism.

Anti-Gunners Deny Human Equality as it Applies to Self Defense

I know some people are going to say that the 2nd Amendment is “subject to interpretation”. Let us not forget that the Constitution was written by military commanders and soldiers. As with any other soldier or veteran across time, they were every bit as aware of the difference between civilians and military personnel. Surely, if they had not meant for the common people to have guns, they would have made that absolutely clear.

Not only did the founders of our nation mean for us to have guns, it is my contention they meant for us to have unfettered access to anything we want regardless of how technology changes over time.  It is clear to me, that “equal under the law” applies to guns for every citizen in this nation.

Weird as it may be, when liberals talk about “equal rights” for the elderly, veterans,  minorities, LGBT, the disabled, the mentally disturbed, ex cons, and women, they never admit to the Constitutionally guaranteed equal right to self defense with a gun.   Instead, they appear far more interested in  deep throating our children with Common Core sex ed, and then say equal under the law only goes so far as men and women using the same bathroom!

Nevertheless, for every group whose rights they pretend to defend, they consistently seek to use the “reward” of recognition of other “rights” in order to prevent these people from speaking out about the right to keep and bear arms. Have a look at some of the disgusting things anti-gunners say to people that should be armed, but instead become victims of criminals and terrorists for want of a gun:

  • The elderly, disabled, and mentally disturbed, via the Social Security Administration, are being disarmed if they cannot manage their own money. Since when does asking someone to write you checks for you suddenly mean you don’t have a right to a gun in order to protect yourself from robbers and others that target the elderly? To add insult to injury, statistics show that these are the very people most likely to be the victims of crimes, not the ones carrying them out.
  • Veterans with PTSD and other disorders are being told they can’t carry guns in the homeland even though foreign terrorists have ordered them to be murdered. As I said in another article, don’t our veterans deserve a right to protect and defend themselves regardless of the condition they come home to us in?
  • The poor and minorities of all races living in Section 8 housing are told that they cannot have a gun for self defense, yet they are the ones most likely to be robbed, mugged, raped, and murdered, in part, because there are not enough police to patrol these areas. Why should where you live determine whether or not you  have a right to defend yourself by any and all means?
  • As for the LGBT –  just look at that “gun free zone” night club in Orlando where dozens were killed and injured by one gunman while waiting for police to arrive and take him out USING GUNS. Nuff said?  If you can’t protect yourself with a gun while you are out on a date, what makes you think you can protect yourself at any other time just because a “law” says you are protected?
  • Ex cons are another group that liberal anti-gunners seek to garner support from, yet they don’t want to admit that they, too, can easily become the victims of terrorists. Quite frankly – I feel –  people that have paid their dues to society just don’t deserve that, no matter what they did in the past. The right to self defense does not go away, and neither should the right to keep and bear arms.
  • And then, the anti-gunners brainwash women into believing they aren’t strong enough or smart enough to carry guns. So how is it a woman can “safely” spread her legs for everyone in the town courtesy of Planned Parenthood, get drafted, and “do everything a man can do”, but she can’t own and use a gun? Since I wrote about this in another article, I’ll just leave it to you, dear reader, to go on over and read about the egregious harm caused to women by the anti-gun movement.

As you can see, in case after case, anti-gunners deny every group of special interests the right to keep and bear arms even though this is the one right that serves as the lynch pin for every other right.

As we have seen in Syria, Nazi Germany, the former USSR, and many other places in the world, when the people do not have guns or the absolute equal right to self defense, they wind up having no rights at all. No matter whether a terrorist attacks you in a night club, a serial killer attacks you in a parking lot, or someone else attempts to harm you, the fact remains, in that moment, guns are the only remedy that create even some degree of equality between predator and prey.

Without Guns There are Insufficient Consequences for Committing Crime

In the arena of nuclear weapons, there is something called “M.A.D.” or Mutually Assured Destruction that is said to keep nuclear nations from blowing each other out of existence. As among politicians, perhaps it is also so among average citizens. Our human race must still contend with everything from the wiles of nature to disaster of our own making.

Guns are precisely the kind of weapon that make people think twice about attacking each other. This is especially true of criminals that see risk differently than law abiding members of society. Never forget that criminals are classic opportunists that only look at the tangible capacity to take in the “here and now”.

Laws don’t matter when the opportunity to take what they want is open and available. When criminals know that people are armed and ready to defend themselves, they move on to easier targets.  From that perspective, anti-gunners reduce the immediate consequences of criminal acts, and therefore invite those acts against to be carried out against children and other innocents.

Without Guns, There are Also Insufficient Consequences for Terrorism

For the sake of this article, I make a distinction between terrorists and other criminals because, in acts of terror, there is a stated desire to disrupt and change society in a harmful fashion. By contrast, your garden variety criminal – even a serial killer – is more focused on how the event relates to him/her, and not the impact on society.

As such, I believe the risk assessment for a terrorists is a bit different than for other crimes. A murderer might be deterred by someone carrying any kind of gun, but a terrorist will pay more attention to the type of gun and the (for lack of a better term) machismo of the carrier. Terrorists want to know if they can generate fear in their victims and the larger society, not whether they can escape with their lives.   This is why all civilians need unfettered access to any and all forms of weapons, including military grade equipment (aka big stick = big… well you get the picture).  If a terrorist knows they will be outnumbered and unable to create fear in the crowd, they get no satisfaction, so they will not waste their time.

Sadly, we are seeing just how much fun ISIS is having slaughtering millions of unarmed people all over the Middle East and Europe because these people don’t have the power of a gun with which to do the necessary. To my thinking, the problem is as much unarmed citizens as it is the very nature of ISIS and other “terror groups”.

Anti-Gunners Promote Race Riots and Cop Killings

Criminals and terrorists are not stupid – they will always pick on gun free zones. People that go to these places are telling the world they are disarmed, and, therefore, vulnerable. These are the places where anti-gunners endanger people most by calling gun carriers paranoid and attempting to intimidate others into not carrying a gun.

Far too many naive, unsuspecting people these days practically advertise the fact that they want to be raped, robbed, kidnapped or worse by virtue of  being unarmed. To a criminal looking for easy pickings, anyone brainwashed by anti-gun rhetoric is good enough target for all their sick agendas.

Today, this disgusting outcome has evolved into a situation that is also increasing the risk to our police officers. Every time a citizen cannot defend themselves from a criminal, that means a police officer must do the job for them. Now here’s how that leads to the murder of both innocent people of color and the police:

  • Let’s start off with a situation where a “gun free” store that has video surveillance cameras is robbed by someone with a gun. Since the store worker has no gun, the criminal gets away.
  • Next, the police arrive, but the only trace of the perpetrator is on the surveillance camera. And there, in the grainy image, they see a man of color.
  • And so the pictures go out, and the police roam around trying to look for this one criminal on top of stop other crimes in progress.
  • Then one fine day, a cop thinks he has found the “suspect”. Maybe the officer has been told someone suspicious is around, maybe something else has got his/her attention.
  • The suspect may reach for a gun, or maybe he’s been conditioned by a behavioral scientist via the media to freak out at the sight of a gun. Either way, it ends with a dead suspect and a police officer left holding the smoking gun.
  • And then… as is the way of human nature, efforts are made to retaliate. This costs more lives, and drives us closer to the kind of civil war that no gun law, and no martial law will ever be able to control or stop.

It should be obvious that when elected officials do not support the equal right of self defense of the nation’s police, soldiers, and citizens, it sends a message of encouragement to our enemies.  I feel right now anti-gunners are saying loud and clear that our citizens are “too crazy” or “too weak” to have guns, and  that our police are too incompetent to send out without cameras on their shoulders.

In my opinion, when anti-gun politicians bemoan how horrible it is that our citizens have guns, that also sends a dangerous message to terrorists.

Stop and think about it. If you were ISIS, would you want to hear that the nation you plan to attack is filled with people that can handle guns and are have the full support of the government behind them? Would you be encouraged to attack  if you heard that soldiers and guns are a normal part of society?

Of course you wouldn’t!  Common sense alone dictates you would move on to weaker cultures that don’t have guns, and therefore are easily driven to the kind of fear where retaliation is impossible and domination is guaranteed.

While the anti-gunners run around saying they only want to “keep the public” safe, their actions and the way those actions are read by our enemies send the opposite message. If it is an embarrassment and a disgrace to discriminate against people based on gender, sexual orientation, color, mental condition, age, or religion, then it is also just as disgraceful to say that a person’s right to self defense with a gun can be limited by others.

This election season, we have a choice to make, not just about how our country runs, but on how our friends and enemies see us. Are we going to stand with the police, the people of color, the poor, the veterans, and the disabled and uphold our collective right to keep and bear arms?

Or, are we going to throw them to the mercy of terrorists and criminals just as we threw the children of Sandy Hook and every other massacre to misguided freaks that made such horrific use of gun free zones and other gun control laws?


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.

7,695 total views, 2 views today

Carmela Tyrell

About Carmela Tyrell

Carmela Tyrrell is committed to off gridding for survival and every day life. She is currently working on combining vertical container gardening with hydroponics. Tyrrell is also exploring ways to integrate magnetic and solar power generation methods. On any given day, her husband and six cats give thanks that she has not yet blown up the house. You can send Carmela a message at editor [at] survivopedia.com.
Rate this article!
[Total: 49    Average: 3.8/5]


  1. John Siemens says:

    Well written! Very good arguments that are so very, very true.

  2. I think your quote by Thomas Jefferson pretty much says it all.

  3. Bradley Martin says:

    Greetings, while over thirty thousand people are killed every year by people with guns, a large part of them are suicides, and less than 2% are mass shootings. Over one million two hundred and fifty thousand private gun owners defend themselves against criminals every year, also. 40% of that number are certain they would have been killed by their attacker had they not been armed. That's another 500,000 deaths every year. Why do we never hear these other gun owner statistics? Because it doesn't support the lying, self-deceived narrative of the gun-control lobby. Chicago has the toughest gun control laws in the nation, but also has the highest gun murder rate. So their laws aren't working. Why should we try "harsher laws" when they haven't ever worked. Additionally, when you look into the back grounds of the mass shooters & domestic terrorists, they're almost all leftist, democrats, tyrants or mentally ill. Aren't most inner city citizens of Chicago Democrats? So the truth is increased gun control is a scam. Armed citizens are better protected citizens. Nuff said.

  4. My heart goes out to the people who have lost their lives or a loved one because of another human's decision to use a gun to commit a terrible act. I would only like to say that the constant broadcasting by the media of the response of the emergency response team members is only allowing the terrorists to learn the "normal" behavior in a crisis. This will only encourage a larger event with more causalities. Also the removal of guns from citizens was done before WWII in Germany for the "protection of the citizen." What happened-the 'police squads' & SS were able to walk into a neighborhood uncontested & force people into ghettos. Remember what happened next-C

  5. From what I have read, tougher gun laws in effect cause more gun deaths. Evil people can always get guns while good people are restricted from using guns.

  6. john hevener says:

    man is despicable by nature , always was, always will be. alpha dogs, submissive others. Cain killing able. WHY? man is despicable by nature .know this understand this. common cense, intelligence at the highest levels are just road blocks to this nature. it does not stop this behavior only quells it. one must understand this nature in order to understand SELF DEFENCE. in order to defend ones self, you have to be despicable by nature. and if not?

  7. My favorite 2nd amendment story is that of Admiral Yamamoto, commander of the Imperial Japanese Naval Fleet from 1939 to 1943. He attended Harvard University for three years and later served in Washington, D.C. as a naval attache' for two years prior to 1930. Thus he was well versed in American culture. Flush with success from the Pearl Harbor attack, Emperor Hirohito summoned Yamamoto to his palace and instructed him to prepare an invasion plan for the west coast of America. The emperor reasoned that with the Pacific Fleet virtually destroyed and most U.S. troops engaged in the war in Europe that the landing of troops on the west coast would be a cake walk and they would meet little defensive resistance. Upon hearing this, Yamamoto's face drained of color and he replied to the emporer "I cannot and will not take part in such an invasion because behind every blade of grass in America is a gun!" His years in this country had shown him how well armed our citizens were and he knew such a plan would never succeed. The second amendment had saved our land from the horrors and bloodshed that would have surely followed.



  1. […] and forces them to leave their homeland instead of stay and defend it. In a situation like this, ISIS and other terror groups have insufficient resistance from the people they seek to dominate. As such, there is no reason for […]


Speak Your Mind

All comments, messages, ideas, remarks, or other information that you send to us (other than information protected according to the law) become and remain our property. You are fully responsible for your comment, as depicted in Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy of the website.