Texas' Attorney General Offers Worst Possible Response to Church Shooting

Gun control is idiotic and a Democrat ploy to disarm the population. The original Gun Control was meant to keep firearms out of the hands of freed slaves. It was then used to keep minority's from the ability to stand up for themselves, now it is used to make more victims and garner votes.

A few days ago we had some zealot run down people with a Truck, did we hear a call to ban high capacity trucks? Did we hear a demand for more background checks of people renting a vehicle? We did hear "Not all Muslims are like that so don't judge" we heard "you should not judge everyone on the actions of one person" Funny how that only applies to terrorists and gang bangers. Guns are not the issue. I have 8 of them, I carry one everywhere I go that I am allowed to. I have a CCW. It is a tool no more no less.

Criminals by definition break the law its what makes them a criminal. This nut should never have bought a gun, he should never have owned one. He was Dishonorably discharged AND he committed domestic abuse. So that's TWO things he lied about to buy a firearm and then murder 26 people with it. You add in he was a Democrat and an atheist with a history of mental illness and violent tendency's... does anyone think disarming the rest of us will help? Remember it was a lone man with a gun that stopped this nut in his tracks. If you are in a large crowded group in this day and age be armed be vigilant save lives. More guns is the answer not sheep bleating in fear. Your a Wolf, a Sheep or a Sheepdog... I think most of us on here are Sheepdogs.

One of the mantras of the left for decades has been, "You can't legislate morality." Now when someone on the right says, "You can't regulate evil," they have a problem with that? Eleanor Sheehan, the author of the article, seems to have a problem with the idea of armed citizens taking out a gunman before the gunman has a chance to kill many people. She called it "The worst possible response to the church shooting," but I think it is a perfectly good response, perhaps the best possible response.

Sheenah, along with many/most on the left, have this idyllic notion that mass killings can be prevented. They can't. When someone decides they want to kill a bunch of people, they are going to find a way to do it. Airplanes, knives, trucks, cars, guns, chemicals, all have been used. And often, the person doing the killing didn't violate any laws up until the killing started, so there wasn't a reason for doing something to stop them prior to the killing. In this case, apparently there was sufficient cause to prevent the guy from buying weapons, but agencies dropped the ball.

I'm all for fixing the cracks in the system, and I'm all for preventing domestic abusers from owning weapons (with the caveat that the domestic abuse was actual abuse, and not the result of an overzealous neighbor reporting someone for spanking their children, for example). But people will always find a way around the law if they decide they are going to go on a killing spree, and that's a reality that Sheehan and people on the left refuse to accept.

The danger in their refusal to accept reality is in their opposition to what the TX Attorney General said, that armed citizens can take out a shooter before he kills very many people. Once a shooting starts, what's the alternative? Wait for the cops? We saw how well that worked at the Pulse nightclub in Florida, and at most school shootings. We'd be much better off by eliminating gun-free zones, and encouraging -- no, requiring! -- at least a couple of people to be armed in everything that is now a soft target (schools, churches, etc.).

Umm, You can't carry in a church in Texas if it is posted, like many are.