Posted on 03/22/2007 10:11:39 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
When the night spits bloody fire and gunshots bang outside your door, when metal bars can't keep a thug out, when the crack pebble rules, when the boys on the corner think "going hard" is spraying bullets at the back of someone's head: How are the "good people" supposed to protect themselves?
When there is talk that police take too long to come or may not come at all and that real justice belongs to the street, and retaliation is the No. 1 motive of homicides in the city, and somebody's knocking at your door round midnight, is that the time to engage in a debate about the commas placed in the Second Amendment?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This was in the Washington Post??!?!?!?!????
Yeah. Tell it.
BINGO! Liberals don't feel they can handle a gun so no one should be allowed to keep one.
Several years ago (I am not making this up) I spent a weekend with a favorite cousin. She's married to an arch New York City Liberal. Talk turned to guns and his final reponse was, "No one should have a gun. If I had a gun there are some people I'd kill, I hate them so much. No one should be allowed to have a gun."
As I said, I am not making this up.
"How are the "good people" supposed to protect themselves?"
Kill the bad ones.
A good man. The only one who had any sense at the time. What really bites is it took over 30 years to get this crap addressed.
Gun control advocates are trying to kill these black Americans.
God, it feels good to point this out.
I'm not saying that pointing a shotgun at a police officer is a good idea, but in this case, it seems that the notions of self-protection behind the 2nd Amendment were successfully expressed.
Gun control is also sexist, and ageist. In fact, gun control automatically hands the reins of power in any situation to the larger, stronger, better armed person, and/or the larger group.
The assumption that the only way that violence will stop is for honest people to kill dishonest ones is false. There will be no bloodbath, no "OK Corral" because that isn't the way the dynamic works. The violence stops when the bad guys are presented with the probability that their victims might be armed. The higher that probability is the less likely they are to take the risk of finding out. That isn't a projection, it's an observable phenomenon backed up by reams of prison testimony.
A lot of anti-gunners are classic utopians, attempting to create a static society with unchanging characteristics such as "no guns, no violence." Societies don't work that way. Where a dynamic balance of violence within a society is broken by disarming the wrong side the balance change is absolutely predictable - "where guns are outlawed, etc" - and absolutely observable. It's really tough to be in the test population for these little experiments.
About what you wrote in post #4, I once read about the "psychology" of gun-haters is that they have this fear that they don't have total control over themselves (and this fellow certainly meets that definition) and might do harm if they had a gun. Also, they don't basically trust their fellow man to do the right thing, hence their dislike (and fear) of firearms in others' hands.
"I want a gun, too, but I can't handle one," Martin says. "And you got some regular citizens out here as crazy as people across the street." He is pointing toward St. Elizabeths Hospital.
"The way I see it is, if you get guns, the crooks are going to break in the house and steal your arms. Second, if somebody is picking at you and they chase you in the house and you think that's them at the door, it could be someone else, but you fire through the door and kill an innocent person. I just think the law should stay where it is."
Two classical Leftist diatribes against ownership of firearms. What if someone steals your gun out of your house? It would be hard to steal if your gun is either on your person or close-by you in your house, not to mention most B&Eers are more interested in goods that can be liquidated without much fuss or muss. The other being that criminals can't be trusted with guns so the law-abiding citizen can't be trusted with them either. Hello? Dumba$$? A criminal by definition is someone who breaks the law. If possessing firearms is illegal, what is to stop the criminal, the lawbreaker, from seeking out, procuring and possessing firearms anyway? Absolutely nothing.
P.S. See my tagline. Aristotle had this covered back in the 3rd century B.C. Apparently limp-wristed Utopians and would-be tyrants existed in Hellenic Age. And here I was taught in publik skool that murder didn't exist before guns were invented.
Hmm. The article claims that Martin is a "Vietnam combat veteran" and yet he claims that he "can't handle one". I find that strange and paradoxical. It just doesn't add up.
Anyone have statistics with regards to crimes committed in nations with strict gun control?
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.