Continuing with the "More Guns = Less Terrorism" series, and having shown that the vast majority of so-called gun crime are thug on thug, or thug on citizen. And that the majority of these murders and assaults take place in cities with a high population of low income, racially diverse populations, and high incidence of gang and drug activity. Those are facts. The reason of why those facts exist is for another time and others to discuss.
That being the case, why does it rail the socialist so much for a man in Texas to have an AR-15...or for a woman in Arizona to carry a pistol on her belt? Why do they want such people, in fact, ostensibly, "everyone" disarmed? Read carefully my historically challenged, Pokémon-chasing American as you are about to get an education.
Firearms and other weapons convey to the wielder the ability to magnify his will. In and of themselves, weapons are benign artifacts. Give a good man a pistol, and it is the pistol that saves life. Give a bad man a pistol, and it is the pistol that murders life. Prevent the good man from having that pistol, by "good citizen" shaming him into thinking it is the right thing to obey, and he becomes defenseless against the man who ignored such political restrictions. You see that phenomena every night in Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, and similar places.
One would think that if reducing the number of murders was actually their objective, they would dump money and assets and personnel into these blighted areas in an effort to educate and revitalize rather than leave them as ever bloody examples to use as the mask of their agenda but I digress.
Eventually, the good man stops caring about being seen as good or law abiding, is not shamed by the reality of his violating the law and arms himself against the bad man that has already decided to ignore the law. Such is what happens when stupid laws are passed.
But lest we focus only on "defense" against common crime and terrorism, we must understand that the left...the socialist and communist, doesn't care about the safety of anyone. Your safety does not trump their agenda.
Their agenda is simply to redesign society to fit their image of what the world should be. Their image comes from Marx, and Lenin, and Ayers, and Alinski. Their view of a socialist utopia involves taking from those who build and create, by force of government, and give it to those who do not build or create...nor even work. Their tactic is to build class warfare between those with wealth...or on their way to build it, and those whom they have convinced to be hopeless in ever having anything.
Look at any communist nation in the past, and that is the vision these people have for America. I know. I lived in a communist nation in my childhood, and I know well the smell of communism. I know how it subverts racial jealousy, and the envy of the slothful class. I know their use of the word "privileged". I recall hearing that the first time in Cuba in 1967, by a lady explaining how Fidel Castro had taken from the privileged and given to "the people". Had a look at what Cuba looks like lately?
Now, what would a man that had the courage, the will, as well as the teeth, say about the redistribution of wealth, the taking from the "privileged" classes, the reorganization of society to fit the Marx-Lenin-Ayers-Alinski-Castro-Chavez-Obama view of how things ought to be? I will bet he would say no.
And here is the most salient point. A no carries far different weight and meaning if you are holding a picket sign, or if you are holding a rifle. A man without a rifle...or a handgun...is practically powerless in his protest. While Americans are armed, like we are now, there will never be a total Communist takeover in the USA. Nor will there be widespread Sharia Law. Only while and if we are armed as a nation. If that ever changes, the respect for the Armed nation will disappear, and the creep of the communist cancer will spread uncontested.
An armed man has options, and while he may be hated and vilified...he and his self-enforceable wishes will always be respected.