Posted on 02/25/2010 8:26:53 PM PST by Neil E. Wright
Sorry - you too were nominating him for Darwin. Wanted to acknowledge that. :-)
Any woman who makes babies with this guy is in trouble. He would not rise to defend her, her children nor their home. LOSER!
This man may think that he is morally superior for such a position, but he actually reveals himself to be a moral imbecile.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/12/beyond_belief_1.php
Earlier articles from Van Gorder, which seems to support the satire theory:
READER’S VIEWS: Gun editorial
Patriot Ledger, The (Quincy, MA) - Saturday, April 21, 2007
Author: DOUG VAN GORDER , Quincy
Eliminating handguns seems to be the solution to preventing incidents like that at Virginia Tech, especially in the minds of people who consider only the sensational ...a deranged gunman, a mass murder, a picture of a Glock.
Some understand only horrific images and are blind to the subtle, far more significant side of gun ownership that occurs, the unspectacular, daily prevention of crime that occurs because law abiding citizens are allowed not only to own but to carry handguns for self-defense.
Thousands of little stories depicting thwarted crimes do not warrant the wall to wall coverage that Virginia Tech did. And how do we measure the amount of deterrence that effective self-defense creates in the minds of would-be assailants who learn of an attacker being shot?
Abolish, not handgun ownership, but bad policies like those at Virginia Tech prohibiting even licensed gun owners from carrying handguns on campus. Establish instead pro-active policies which encourage people to carry for self-defense ...in the mall, the work place, and, indeed, on campus.
READER'S VIEW: Bad Quincy gun policies
Patriot Ledger, The (Quincy, MA) - Wednesday, September 7, 2005
Author: DOUG VAN GORDER , Quincy
A recent Patriot Ledger article informed readers that Quincy residents are planning a rally across from the police station on Sept. 17. They do so to protest Chief Crowley's policy that Quincy residents should be denied the right to carry firearms in Massachusetts for what he terms generic self-defense.
Criminals must applaud the chief in his attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the general population. They find it hard enough to prey upon the innocent without having to worry that a potential victim might be capable of adequately defending herself.
Through his no-permits-for-self-defense policy, Crowley extends to criminals a professional courtesy ... one which proliferates crime.
Quincy needs a police chief who is one with law-abiding citizens, who will allow them to protect themselves, rather than strip them defenseless.
READER'S VIEW: Citizens have a right to carry guns
Patriot Ledger, The (Quincy, MA) - Wednesday, January 5, 2005
Author: DOUG VAN GORDER , Quincy
Picture a young woman walking late at night followed to her car in a parking garage by two men intent on committing your worst fears. Does anyone seriously believe that the police can protect her?
Police protect society at large by bringing to justice rapists, murderers, et al, only after they have committed their crimes.
In doing so, they provide deterrence, not protection. Save for the occasional chance appearance of ‘‘a cop when you need one,'' law enforcement is not designed to directly prevent crime against any given individual at any given moment in time.
The duty of protecting oneself, therefore, falls squarely on the individual. To hold the police accountable for injury from crime is to harbor unreasonable, even childlike, expectations of their responsibility and capacity. We must consider this when we separate their duties from ours.
But this is the last thing Quincy Police Chief Robert Crowley wants you to consider as he seeks to greatly curtail the number of gun permits he grants.
He is a member of the governmental elite, the upper decision-making echelons of authoritative governmental organizations.
The governmental elite enthrone themselves over a public overwhelmingly composed of unarmed, defenseless innocents reliant upon police protection (or believing in the myth thereof).
The myth of police protection propels the salaries and powers of the upper administrative levels of police departments in direct proportion to the increase in sizes of police forces that it generates.
And never are the elite themselves left unprotected. They grant themselves permission to carry guns while judging you, the little people, to be too rash, too unsophisticated and too unimportant to merit the same right.
Moreover, the governmental elite function as the ultimate lobby for criminal rights by ensuring that those on whom criminals prey remain defenseless. They tell us that in a society antiseptically cleansed of guns from everyone (or at least from those who obey laws, e.g. laws telling us we cannot carry guns), it is better that our young woman in the parking garage suffer whatever bodily harm, including death, may come to her in order to support the goal of minimizing handgun violence - even against assailants.
To Chief Crowley and his equals, we are but pawns to be sacrificed to the greater goal of attaining some utopian world that can never be, but which the pursuit of is a self-sustaining (and highly paid) endeavor for them. Should criminals be welcomed to a Quincy largely free from guns in the hands of law abiding citizens who have no criminal or psychiatric record? Chief Crowley evidently believes the answer is ‘‘Absolutely!''
Posted by: Bill Mullins at December 29, 2009 09:36 AM
You notice he did not say he would rather die then protect himself with a gun!!! Two set of rules for these people and they only work their way!!!
“She didn’t believe in any kind of violence and she counted self defense a violence.”
I count her as an idiot. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.