Donate search
close
Listen Now The Erick Erickson Show streaming live arrow_right_alt close

Share

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

More Attention Should be Paid to Elizabeth Warren’s Callous Church Shooting Answer

By now everyone has heard, seen, or read about the heroism of volunteer church security guard Jack Wilson who saved potentially hundreds of lives inside West Freeway Church of Christ last week. When a deranged man stood up in the middle of communion and opened fired on the unsuspecting congregation, Wilson drew his pistol and dropped the man with a 50-foot shot to the head.

It was a sterling example of what a well-trained, armed citizen can do in a dangerous situation where waiting on law enforcement isn’t tenable. Unfortunately, like with so many other things in our current political environment, discussions over gun rights have become so polarized that neither side is willing to grant the other any legitimacy.

For instance, Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren was asked at a recent campaign event whether after the Texas church shooting she could acknowledge the wisdom in allowing citizens who are licensed and “checked” by the government to keep and bear concealed weapons.

Her answer included no nuance, no fair treatment, no reasoned thought. It was instead a one-word declaration: “no.”

Think through the stubborn ignorance exhibited here – not just by Warren, but by the throngs surrounding and applauding her.

Had Jack Wilson not been carrying a concealed weapon that fateful morning, it would have unquestionably meant a bloodbath. Women, children, elderly – a complete slaughter, all livestreamed to the world.

It is also undeniable that there isn’t a single law that would have prevented the murderer from doing what he did. As a mentally ill criminal with a lengthy rap sheet, he was already legally prohibited from having a gun. But he still had one.

So if these things are true, explain the wisdom in Warren’s position. Explain the logic. Explain how her obstinance is not a callous declaration that her political donations are more important than the lives that would have been lost without conceal carry.

Personally, I don’t understand gun rights advocates who are unwilling to engage the conversation about limiting the prevalence of guns in our culture. But barring any national mandatory gun confiscation – which would never be even remotely successful – realists have to acknowledge that we will be living in a country where bad guys have access to guns.

If it is truly the position of the anti-gun left that good guys should not also have access to guns to protect themselves, what is their plan?

Saying “no” isn’t an answer. It’s just obnoxious.

Share

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

Advertisement

More Top Stories

First Female Graduate of The Citadel is Determined to Flip SC-1 Back

One of the most watched races in the 2020 election cycle is South Carolina’s First Congressional District. Right in the heart of Lowcountry and the charming town of Charleston, SC-1 is a beloved …

Stimulus Punch-Counterpunch – Crenshaw vs. Amash

Now that the House is taking up the recently-passed Senate $2 Trillion coronavirus stimulus package, we are starting to see some of the debate emerge within House Republican circles. Certainly the pac …

Will Democrats Dump Biden And Draft Cuomo?

Whether such a feat would be possible with current rules and superdelegates is doubtful, but the upheaval of 2020 could mean that this year would be the most likely time for a dark horse candidate to …