Sheep, Wolves and the Sheepdog
The history of the sheepdog was to “…see off any predators, would stand its ground against any rogue beast and would see off man attacked by a bull or ox intent on mischief” according to the Old English Sheepdog Club of America. Sheepdogs protected their herd and their human. The sheep were unknowing of the dangers out there and were able to graze and sleep without worry, thanks to the sheepdog. The wolves, however, were always watching, hoping for an opportunity to steal one of the flock and devour it. The sheep were naive, the wolves were predatory, and the sheepdog was the protector against the wolves.
The analogy of the sheepdog, by today’s society, is that those who are legal gun owners, using their God-given freedom and protected by the Second Amendment, can protect those unaware of the dangers in society. The “sheep” are those people who are unaware of the dangers out there, naively believing that violence will not happen to them. The wolves of today are the criminals, looking to attack or sexually “devour” these “sheep”.
You can see by this analogy that legal gun owners, most of whom have trained with their firearms, have practiced shooting them, follow the laws imposed on their rights, own guns to protect their families, their neighbors, their community, their state and their country. Wolves have no concern over laws. They are aware that there are laws against murder, rape, robbery, assault, home invasions, etc. They don’t care about those laws. They are also aware that there are laws regarding gun ownership. They don’t care about those laws either.
A study of prison inmates, done in 2016, shows only 1.3 percent of criminals currently in prison legally obtained the gun they used in their crime from a retail source. Only 0.8 percent stated they purchased a firearm intended for criminal purposes, from a gun show. 6 percent said they stole the gun, 7 percent found it at the crime scene, 43 percent bought the gun off the black market, and 25 percent had a family member purchase it for them (an illegal “straw man” purchase) or it was a gift from a family member.
The results of this study clearly show that gun control laws on legal gun owners will have little to no impact on criminal’s hell bent on committing a crime. The imposition of gun control on legal gun owners, in effect, takes away the “sheepdog,” i.e. those willing to protect others who are unable to protect themselves or are unknowing of the dangers out there. Gun control laws allow the “wolves” free access to continue carrying on their criminal acts without worry if someone, like the sheepdog, can prevent them from doing so.
In 1994, under Bill Clinton’s presidency, there was a ban on “assault weapons”. This was a 10-year ban that was to be reviewed in 2004. The Center for Disease Control published a study on October 3, 2003 and it concluded: “In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of ANY of the firearm laws reviewed for preventing violence.” The ban was not renewed. The study looked at the following laws: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearm laws.
One must ask, with all these studies and results, why continue making laws against legal gun owners? What is the goal or purpose of the increased pursuit of creating more gun control laws if these laws clearly don’t work? Why throw all this data “out the window”? There is an agenda here, and clearly it is not to protect the sheep.
* Edited for punctuation
The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews
As right as it may be to apply the analogy to some of the people, it may be a good idea to accurately identify (actual due process not counterfeit due process) the facts that matter in these cases where criminals consume the innocent.
Many people willingly fund the wolves, because those wolves wear sheep clothing, or no clothing in the case of Emperors without clothes: another apt analogy.
People anywhere, anytime, willingly, paying wealth (blood, sweat, and tears monetized) to these wolves in sheep costumes, aid, abet, lend support to (moral and material) those criminals: accessories to any crimes perpetrated by those criminals. That was why the people in Germany were blamed for the Nazi atrocities, those who knew, and did nothing, were complicit at best. A profitable monopoly, a criminal profitable monopoly, operating under the color of law, and some people not only work to pay for it, they also work to defend it.
Germany is just one case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEYle7DVxDI