For the last three days, I've been dealing off and on with individuals who simply cannot think straight. Of course, they believe they're right (about everything), but the truth of the matter is that they are only right about the lies they believe. They began to attack shortly after my article on Sandy Hook was published at another website (and eventually taken down) when the attacks became so convoluted. It's tough trying to explain truth to anti-gunners. They just can't handle it.

It's like playing a game of "Telephone" when you were younger. Everyone sits in a circle and the first person thinks of something to say. They whisper it in the ear of the person they're sitting next to, then that person whispers what they heard to the next person and so on until it goes all around the circle. Finally, when the last person has been told what was allegedly stated to the first person, everyone finds out how close the final was to the original. It's rarely close and usually and outlandishly different from what was originally stated.

musketsSo it was with my article. In it, I merely asked questions about some of the things surrounding the tragedy of Sandy Hook. I wasn't stating anything other than wondering aloud why there appeared to be so many anomalies associated with Sandy Hook. I also wondered if Adam Lanza was capable of doing what we are told he did or did he have help? Finally, I asked if our government could be that despicable to actually do something as horrendous and unthinkable as kill 26 Americans (adults and children) and then blame it on Lanza? There's nothing wrong with asking these questions especially when there are so many unanswered questions regarding the situation.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that too many leftists cannot actually think critically, accusations went from me writing about government attempts at gun-control to leftists accusing me of saying that Sandy Hook did not happen at all, to them accusing an elected official of actually writing my article, to finally this one:

"When you stop presenting opinion as fact, I'll go my merry way"
https://twitter.com/ashleyfnmorgan/status/445593140503003136 (Tweet has since been deleted)

To be fair, this person claims she is not a "leftist." Unfortunately, she acts just like one. Notice that she accuses me of presenting opinions as facts. This is in spite of the fact that she never read my original article because it had been taken down. What opinions were presented as facts? All I did in my original article was ask questions. The left exploded with stupidity and noxious fumes of rage stemming from nothing except their own uncontrolled imaginations.

In all of this, one person has been the most redundant, the least profound, and the most tiring. Apparently, she believes herself to be truly intelligent, yet everything she posts is a testament to exactly how mundane and witless she truly is and for that, I feel terribly sorry for her.

She is Susan Beehler, and she lives in North Dakota as noted on her Twitter page. Apparently, since the Sandy Hook tragedy, she has been so deeply affected, that it prompted her to create a chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense (actually for gun confiscation). Did I mention she lives in North Dakota, where probably everyone (except Beehler) owns a gun?

The Washington Post ran an online article on her activism just over a year ago. In it, she discusses how deeply affected she was by the Sandy Hook tragedy that prompted her actions to do what she could to end the scourge of guns.

Susan is an individual who also never read my original article, but apparently, feels she had. It prompted her to come out of the blue with an attack:

Again, I never said lives were not lost. Of course, there are people out there who believe that no one died. I'm not one of them.

What concerns me about people like Susan Beehler is their lack of understanding when it comes to gun control and the alleged need for it. Of course, the reader will recall that our government guaranteed that a national registry of guns would not turn into a gimmick ultimately used for confiscation. Yet, we have also seen in those states where gun registration is mandated, law-enforcement officials have started doing exactly that - confiscating guns. It began in California, and is now starting to occur in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Illinois and elsewhere.

Yet, Beehler believes that her activism regarding gun control is necessary to the point that she unabashadly states that she wants to see "assault" weapons banned because "I mean, they are not used for hunting."

In the Washington Post article, there is someone who agrees with her on this, but in reality, I actually know people who do use them in hunting. Most "assault" rifles that we hear about are the ones that shoot either .22 or .223 calibers. They are not truly assault rifles because they're not fully automatics. They are semi-automatics, meaning as fast as you can pull the trigger, the gun will fire. It's the same principle behind a pistol. Pull the trigger and the gun will fire a round. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster the gun will shoot. In that sense then, a pistol could also be classified as an "assault" weapon, but it's not.

The word "assault" was coined by the media to make these weapons sound more dangerous. An "assault" rifle that shoots a .22 caliber bullet is no different from a Ruger .22 rifle that has a wooden stock. Both rifles do the same thing. One is not more dangerous than the other. They simply look different, but they work the exact same way.

Growing up in New York state, I hunted with my father. Our rifles held ten or more bullets because it made hunting easier. Reloading was not necessary. It didn't mean that when we found a deer, we were going to "fill it full of holes," with blood coming out in 20 places. When my dad took down a deer, he always did it with one shot so that the meat would not be destroyed and the deer would die quickly.

People like Susan Beehler do not seem to get this at all. In fact, Beehler seems unable to appreciate metaphors and figures of speech. Note the post below. You see mine where I used the word "bite" with quote marks, signifying that it is hyperbole. Was I trying to say that she actually bit someone? No, and no reasonable, intelligent person would take it that way.

Yet, unfortunately, as can be seen from Beehler's response, she did take it that way. She actually believes I was accusing her of physically biting someone.

What began as an annoyance has come full circle for me. I actually feel sorry for this woman. I am sorry she does not understand English in its most plain, ordinary sense. I am also sorry that she fails to understand that what she is trying to accomplish with gun control will have absolutely no impact on how criminals and crazy people obtain weapons.

At the end of the Washington Post article, someone left a comment. I think it sums it up best about what Susan Beehler is trying to accomplish and the way she has priorities a bit mixed up.

"So some lunatic goes on a rampage in Connecticut, and the resident busybody in North Dakota goes around looking for 'responsible gun owners.' Lady, you are surrounded by them."

No amount of additional regulations, laws, or policy will make life safer in America where guns are concerned because no law, policy, or regulation will ever affect those who obtain guns outside the law anyway, as Adam Lanza allegedly did.

In this way, people, like Susan Beehler, with her bleeding heart, play right into the hands of the Obama administration and all anti-gunners. They are trying to get us to believe that national gun registries/databases won't mean confiscation, that Obama himself respects the 2nd Amendment, and that by adding more "common sense measures" to existing gun control laws, the world will indeed become a safer place.

The actual problem lies not with the gun but with a person's heart. It is a heart problem. People hate others and want them dead. Gun or no, they'll do it as evidenced by the recent massacre in China in which 27 people were killed and 109 others injured by perpetrators with knives. That's more than were killed at Sandy Hook, yet I don't see China attempting to establish new laws regarding knives. Even if they did, would the people that perpetrated that massacre be unable to obtain knives?

Keep dreaming.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.