Update on the Virginia Tech massacre
 |
There really is a true definition of victim, and the Virginia Tech recipients of Seung-Hui Cho's bullets qualify 100%.
But, there is nothing more irritating, and destructive, than when victims exploit their victimhood and make impassioned requests to have things their way.
Some survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting tried to pass a bill in Virginia to require background checks for those buying guns from private individuals at gun shows. Their point is that anyone could end up buying guns this way, including people like Seung-Hui Cho who caused the mayhem that took the lives of 32 fellow-students, and almost took theirs.
But, Cho didn't buy his gun at a gun show, and there is no evidence that guns bought privately at gun shows are a source of criminal activity.
Pro-gun advocates say that this bill was just a red herring towards the bigger goal of eventually eliminating gun ownership altogether.
What I found especially pertinent about this anti-gun story was that one of the victims of the shooting (a true victim since she suffered several injuries), who was vigorously pushing for this particular bill to pass, is an immigrant from Eritrea.
So, an immigrant goes on a shooting spree, and amongst his victims is another immigrant who now tries to excuse his atrocious behavior (or at least camouflage it) by saying the problem was inadequate gun control laws.
I don't want to go too much into the predominantly leftist and liberal stances of most immigrants. What I find consistently appalling is that immigrants have taken on the role of dismantling their host country’s culture and traditions.
Cho's fellow-students, instead of discussing the conditions that led Cho to go out and shoot them in broad daylight (alienated immigrant, comes to mind, they should know better), are bringing into question an American tradition, the Constitutional right to bear arms.
There is this constant dearth of knowledge and understanding of their host countries by immigrants. I don't know where such obstinacy comes from, except that it may be (is?) an innate desire to dismantle their host country's standing institutions and traditions. Thus, anything that may have a historical or traditional component is up for questioning, if not removal, at some point.
So, instead of studying and honestly reporting on gun laws, the Second Amendment, the culture of gun ownership, the statistics on crime and gun violence, these immigrants immediately jump on the tradition itself and try to dismantle it.
I have never met an immigrant who hasn’t done this. So, it is safe to assume that the laws and traditions of a country will forever be in danger of destruction with increasing immigration.
Immigrants, to put it bluntly, will eternally be in the business of destroying their host country, for a variety of reasons (one being that they become liberals when they land on Western countries’ shores). But the reasons are irrelevant. Their behavior is already evident.
