A good guy with a gun doesn't always stop a bad guy with a gun

CNN is wetting its collegial panties with joy at the demonstrated evidence that the NRA is wrong, and it does so by implying that a good guy with a gun must stop a bad guy with a gun.

Here's definitive proof that a good guy with a gun doesn't always stop a bad guy with a gun - CNNPolitics: There are no simple solutions. There are no foolproof answers. Mass shootings are not entirely preventable.

Law Enforcement Officers are not legally required to protect private citizens; why then does CNN imply that armed private citizens should be held to a higher standard?

As usual, CNN is oversimplifying the situation, and then castigates the NRA by accusing that organization of oversimplifying the solution:

"To stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said to applause from the CPAC crowd on Thursday morning.

The CNN article makes assumptions which are not warranted (as is often the case when Leftists attempt to misinterpret pro-gun positions).    The National Rifle Association never claimed that the mere presence of "a good guy with a gun" would automatically counter the predatory actions of "a bad guy with a gun".

That claim would be just ... stupid; much like these insinuations of CNN.

The Constitution enumerates Rights ... not Obligations.

The fact that an armed citizen was nearby during another {sigh} shooting, but declined to risk his life in protection of others, speaks only the constitutional choices available to each individual.  The CNN article suggests that an armed private citizen has an obligation to defend others which the state does not even assign to Sworn Officers.

The Second Amendment recognizes our personal right to carry a firearms; it assumes that we have the right to protect our persons, our property, and other persons. 

It does not present a mandate for the individual to protect others, at the risk of our own life.

 Few of us know, for sure, how we would react when faced with armed personal combat. 

This CNN article is just another feeble attempt by an anti-gun website to undermine the 2nd Amendment by implying that armed citizens are guilty of moral terpitude if they are unwilling to risk their own life by protecting others.

One wonders what the author of the CNN article would do, if presented with the challenge of protecting self or others against an armed aggressor.   But that is a problem for his laundry service.