As for Leftist lying, go read The Safest Bet: Assume the Left Is Lying by Trevor Thomas at the American Thinker today. Whether they are lying about abortion, or climate change, or guns, it is a safe bet they are lying. The truth usually wins out in the end, but it usually also requires a great deal of tragedy before that happens. See Venezuela for the latest example.
Yet, I am also often reminded about having faith, and that because of that faith, I need to proceed with doing what I am doing, even though I do not see the results myself. St. Paul put it like this, from 1 Corintians Chapter 3, verse 6 "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." And so, I continue in faith that I may say the thing that turns another to faith in Him.
So, as Rush point out yesterday, we continue to educate one person at a time. It is therefore fitting that I also point you, dear reader to Bearing Arms where Tom Knighton points out Why Combating Ignorance is Vital to Pro-gun Efforts. Knighton becomes discouraged reading letters to the editor from people who should be on our side, but who, for whatever reason, choose to side with the gun grabbers in hopes, one supposes, of being eaten last. After reading a letter written by a poor gentleman thinks that his revolver should be okay, but a semiautomatic is not. Knighton writes:
The idea that some guns are “offensive” and others are “defensive” is popular in Fudd circles, to be sure. There are those who believe that at some point, a gun becomes less of a tool for self-defense and more of one for villainy. But that’s just stupid.And here is why. Guns are tools. Just as a chainsaw can be misused and cut off an arm or a leg, so can a gun be misused. Just as a table saw can cut off a finger, so a gun can accidentally injure or kill. Guns are just tools, no more and no less. Whether a gun is used offensively or defensively is not a function of the gun itself, but a function of the intent of the user. If the users intent is offensive, certain weapons may be chosen which will enhance his efforts, but those same weapons may also be utilized by the side defending itself.
Why would want less effective weapons when one is defending his or her life? Yet that is what this poor gentleman is arguing for. "Give me a less effective weapon, because I WANT to die." He apparently thinks a revolver is "enough." Well, good for him. But why should his measure of "enough" be enough for everyone else? Doesn't each individual get to evaluate his or her own level of risk? If not, why not? I do not doubt that someone in the public eye may need to carry himself, and have armed security to boot. Further, I don't begrudge him. My only complaint is when these people (Michael Bloomberg I am looking at you) try to take away my guns while hypocritically keeping theirs.
Here is the bottom line, if you could magically fix the people, we wouldn't have need of guns. But since neither one of us can fix the people, and since even if you could rid yourself of guns, there would still be knives, screw drivers, hammers, fists, feet and rocks, lets keep our guns. There will be no heaven on earth. That awaits the second coming of Christ, when "swords shall be beaten into plowshares..." Meanwhile, if you impose gun control, you will enable a lot of hell on earth.
Look at poor Venezuela.