As I mentioned a few days ago when I discussed the 52 year old married man with children who became a six year old girl (in his mind), modern culture has sadly “progressed” beyond the point where you can discount even the most outrageously unlikely claim about what someone is doing or allowing.

Christianity, whether practiced actively and consciously or ignored but played out in the behavioral standards internalized from parents, grandparents, teachers, peers, etc., is what made “domestic tranquility” possible in this nation, so people could live securely in their homes and daily lives and concentrate on building homes and families, ultimately maintaining a nation of liberty and opportunity.

It may not stick up for your child’s right to pray over his or her lunch at the school cafeteria or jump to your defense if you want to put up a cross anywhere other than your basement bunker. But the ALCU sees no constitutional bar when it comes to banning guns for people on government watch lists.

I do not mean to be crass with my title, but for a few decades now I have noticed many anti-American sentiments around the topic of innocent Americans protecting themselves. None of these sentiments are logical; none of them are ethical; and certainly none of them have prevented weapons from taking the life of the innocent they are claiming to protect!

Nov. 4, 2015, the day Ted Cruz took on sanctuary cities, Chinese oppression, Obama’s attempt to put a financial chokehold on gun shops, and the failure of the Obama Administration to prosecute the war on terror.

Generally speaking, if your average woman gets in a physical altercation with your average man, she’s going to lose. And unless she’s an Amazon or Mama Godzilla on steroids, there’s only one sure-fire way (pun intended) for her to equalize the field if faced with a male assailant intent on grave bodily harm: Sam Colt. Or Smith & Wesson. Ruger. Beretta. Sig Sauer.

If guns are the killers, as liberal talking ceaselessly presumes, then conservatives must ask some tough questions on the topic. Commentator Bill Whittle takes the lib presumption to its logical conclusion in the wake of the mass shootings in Oregon.

So how did that gun break the law and enter a gun free zone and murder people? Didn’t the gun read the sign? Gun-free is just an invitation for safe working conditions for mass murders – it’s the promise that there will be no return fire.

We would do well to heed George Washington’s warning, since governments, under the guise of gun control and the pretense of making their citizens “more safe,” have exterminated over 56 million of their own people in the recent 20th century.

What is it about the guns used in these crimes that made these guns different than the 300 million other guns in America that didn’t “choose” to shoot innocent people? Is it really the steel? Do we need steel control? Is it really the fault of inanimate objects of steel? Or is it about what virtually everything today (according to the Left) is about: the escape from responsibility?