They were forced to be unarmed… and now politicians are using that to argue you don’t need a gun.
That should make every gun owner furious.
The people at Virginia Tech were not unarmed by choice.
They were disarmed by policy. They were trapped in a gun-free zone.
And now a politician is pointing to their courage in that moment as “proof” that you don’t need a firearm.
How twisted is that? They weren’t choosing between a gun and no gun.
They were denied the option. And somehow the lesson we’re supposed to take from that is:
“See? You don’t need a gun.”
No. The real lesson is that courage without the ability to fight back is still courage — but it is also a tragedy.
So let me ask you: If those students had been given the choice, do you honestly think they would have chosen to stay defenseless?
Why do politicians protected by armed security keep telling regular people they don’t need protection?
Why is forced helplessness always repackaged as moral virtue?
And why do anti-gun politicians keep using disarmed victims to push more disarmament?
I want to hear what you think.
Were they unarmed by choice… or were they failed by the very policies politicians keep defending?
Drop your answer in the comments.
https://t.co/UftfiMtwO1
Sometimes the most impactful statement you can make is a strong resignation. It's unfortunate it's come down to this. God's speed @joekent16jan19 I hope this wakes some people up.