---

Additional Titles

 

By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and
"Global Censorship of Health Information" and
"Restore The Republic"
October 10, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

Against a torrent of media attacks against him for being “insensitive to the victims of the Oregon school shooting,” Ben Carson has stood his ground in favor of individual action to overwhelm single shooters and the right of American citizens to bear arms.

The media attack is predicated on an inaccuracy. It is, therefore, a political move. Carson never uttered a single criticism against the victims of the Oregon school shooting. He never said those victims were wrong or culpable in any way for the shooter’s assault upon them. Rather, he advised what he thought all Americans should do in future to diminish the loss of life associated with school shootings. His advice was for all of those present to attack the shooter and, by overwhelming force of numbers, overwhelm the shooter.

That advice makes imminent good sense. Recognize that had not American heroes on board a Paris bound train done that very thing there would assuredly have been a mass murder instead of an aborted murder attempt. Likewise, had Americans not overwhelmed the shoe bomber and other would be terrorists by intervening directly, loss of many lives may well have occurred.

Carson is right that Americans must act to attack, rather than flee from, those who engage in these cowardly acts. The loss of life will be diminished. He is also right to offer his own personal example by saying that he would be willing to lose his own life to achieve an end to an act of terror. The criticism of him for being “insensitive to the victims” is a non-sequitur. It is precisely because he is sensitive to the need to protect the lives of future victims that he has offered an imminently sensible and plausible means to reduce that loss of life. Far from being “insensitive to victims,” it is precisely because he cares so much about averting loss of life that he has offered his solution.

Moreover, against a wave of new calls for legislation to limit access to guns, Carson again perceives the issue not in the hysterical terms that lead many to misplaced arguments about denying the law abiding access to weapons for self-defense but rather to a defense of the second amendment.

In an interview on “CBS This Morning,” Carson effectively rebutted the contentious questions presented to him not only by making clear that he meant to ensure greater protection of victims but also because he understood fundamentally the principles that support our Second Amendment rights.

Carson said that the ideological foundation for the Second Amendment involves a recognition by the founding fathers that individual Americans might be called upon to protect the nation from invasion or attack and to protect the people from an “overly aggressive federal government.” He quoted from Daniel Webster that “America will never suffer under tyranny because the people are armed” and from John Adams’ warning that there may come a time when the nation did not have good people at the helm and we would have to defend ourselves.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts Email Address * First Name *required field

We are fortunate, indeed, that Carson has rejected political correctness and has spoken plainly on this subject. We are doubly fortunate that he has reminded those who are all too quick to forget or reject the founding fathers’ intent, that the Second Amendment is one of the foremost pillars in defense of individual liberty against tyranny and that laws that limit the rights of the law abiding to bear arms do nothing to prevent those who already disobey the law from using weapons to commit crimes. Indeed, if anything, disarming the general public serves only to enhance the ability of the lawless to commit murder in the face of a disarmed public.

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

© 2015 Jonathan W. Emord - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing