There have been a lot questions posed and comments made by pundits, the elected class and observers before, during and after the George Zimmerman trial that displayed an agenda on the part of some and a profound ignorance on the part of others. One of the worst is the question: Why was Zimmerman carrying a gun that night? Why indeed?
That the question would be posed by the gun grabbing punditry is not surprising. Their agenda is to muddle the understanding of the citizenry and create a sense that carrying a weapon is not only unusual, it’s downright weird. That the question would be repeated by the citizenry demonstrates the gun grabbers’ efforts have been successful and the citizenry is becoming increasingly ignorant.
So why was Zimmerman carrying that night? Because he could. Self-defense is a natural right. Carrying a weapon is a natural right. It is everyone’s right, and it’s affirmed in the Constitution in the 2nd Amendment — which is part of what is called the Bill of Rights. The Constitution would not have been ratified if not for the promise of passage of a Bill of Rights.
Now President Barack Obama, to no one’s surprise, is calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Zimmerman verdict. That’s not surprising.
Here’s a question for Obama: Why do you continue to try to disarm Americans — or restrict which weapons they can own — and deny them their ability to defend themselves against thugs, robbers or oppressive government while you have armed and are arming al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists in Libya and Syria, giving them automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc., which Americans cannot own without jumping through legal hoops, if at all? The very idea that the President would think terrorists are more deserving of possessing weapons than law-abiding American citizens is not just downright weird; it’s criminal.