No part of me ever thinks a world where the weak are defenseless against the strong, numerous and ill-mannered would be a better place.
Thanks for posting.
“Honest liberal.”
Scientists have discovered a new species?
Too bad we are falling back on reactionary politics, the left is exposed here. We could crush them on so many levels, but especially what they do in schools. And for those who want to attract minorities to the GOP a good many minorities hate the white libs who run the school system.
It seems to me tragedy could’ve been averted had the shooter’s mother stored her guns in a safe. I know there are those who don’t like safe storage laws, but it seems to me that if you’re going to have crazy people visiting the house, keeping the guns under lock and key might be a good idea.
Of course, people should be permitted to store their own guns however they want. As far as I’m concerned, the primary purpose of privately owned guns is political, rather than bump in the night type protection. So storage in a safe works for me.
YMMV.
I’ll have to find the link to this article and post it on the FB page of a woman from my Church who is horrified at the mere notion of guns and thinks more gun control is the answer.
It’s funny. If the Atlantic author actually believes that Canada is gun free, he’s really ignorant. Their rate of gun ownership is really quite high. It’s just in the few big cities where it is low. Of course plenty of the population is there, but once you get further north or out west guns are quite common. I also looked into Canadian gun laws recently, and they were not nearly as arduous as I had suspected. Worse than I would like, but nowhere near as bad as the UK.
Did Obama give arms to Libyans?
Did Obama arm Syrians?
Did Obama arm the Turks?
Did Obama sell small arms to Bahrain?
Did Obama arm the Mexican drug cartel?
And yet, Obama seeks to disarm law-abiding Americans.
To a liberal every crisis is just another opportunity to take away freedoms from those who do not agree with them.
when I first learned about the murders, thought the world might be a better place if guns had never been invented.Sort of like my gut reaction about...
Before guns/firearms there were swords, arrows, and spears...
And before that, sticks and stones...
Looking at the headline, I though article must be satire.
Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens
Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality by Raymond Kraft
Last week, Jack and Jill Pacifisto were walking home through the park after dinner with friends, during which they had spent a few hours discussing the immorality of violence and war and their commitments to send more money to progressive activists over the next year. Suddenly, Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows and pointed a pistol at Jack and said, “Give me your wallet,” and, pointing the gun at Jill, “Your purse.”
“What?” asked Jack, incredulous, “Hey, we don’t want any trouble. We’re pacifists. We aren’t going to hurt you.”
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your money.”
So Jack and Jill did, and then Tony said, “And now gimme your watches, rings, jewelry, everything worth anything.”
“Hey,” said Jill, “This is my wedding ring!”
And Tony said, “Not my problem.”
Jack and Jill handed over their wallet, and purse, and all their jewelry and Rolex watches, and then Tony shot them both twice in the chest and picked up the loot and stepped back into the shadows.
As Jill lay dying she whispered, “Jack? Why didn’t you fight back? Why didn’t you have a gun?” Those were her last words.
“I couldn’t,” whispered Jack. “I’m a pacifist.” Those were his last words.
A few days later, Bill Thaxton and his wife were walking home through the park after dinner, when Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows.
“Give me your wallet, your purse,” said Tony, pointing his gun first at Bill, and then at his wife. He did not know that Bill was an old lawman, and had been a Marine sniper when he was young, and was active in the Single Action Shooters Society and had a concealed-carry-permit. Tony assumed that the old man was just an old man with some money and a few credit cards in his wallet walking home from dinner.
“Sorry, friend, I don’t like guns, and I don’t want any trouble,” said Bill.
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your wallet, your purse,” he said, waving the gun at Bill’s wife, “Rings, watches, everything.”
“And what if I don’t?” asked Bill.
“I’ll shoot you both. Her first,” said Tony, pointing his gun at Bill’s wife again.
“Well,” said Bill, “Okay, honey, do what he says.”
She tossed down her purse. Bill reached slowly for his left lapel with his right hand and then, like lightning, did a cross-draw with his left and came out blazing with his trusty little 9, nailing Tony three times.
As he lay on the sidewalk dying, Tony Thug was heard to mutter, “Damn, I shoulda stuck with the pacifists . . .”
An acquaintance wrote me last week to tell me proudly how he had been a pacifist since the ‘60s. His letter set me thinking about pacifism, which is the ultimate and vilest form of immorality.
If you are Hitler, or Saddam, or Osama, or Ahmadinejad, your desire to kill those you dislike is at least honest and open. You wear you hate on your sleeve and we know who and what you are. But the Pacifist wears his refusal to resist evil as if it were a badge of honor, and claims it as a sign of his or her absolute moral superiority. The Hitlers and Osamas are at least honest about who they are, the Pacifist is not. Not even to himself.
The German Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote a poem circa 1946 about the quiescence of German intellectuals in the face of the Nazi rise to power that has become famous. Translated, it reads:
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent,
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out,
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out,
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me
there was no one left to speak out.
The Pacifist says something like this, but, unlike Niemoller, without apology. He says:
When you come for my allies
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my countrymen
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my neighbor,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my mother,
my father, my brother,
my sister, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my wife,
my husband, my son,
my daughter, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for me,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
The Pacifist claims that he (or she) is too good to fight against evil, and this is the catastrophic intellectual and moral failure of Pacifism. In the guise of being too good to oppose evil, the Pacifist invokes the ultimate immorality by aiding and abetting and encouraging evil, on the pretext of being too pure, too wise, too sophisticated to fight evil, thereby turning the pretense of goodness and purity into an invocation and license for evil to act without opposition.
The moral stance of the Pacifist is, unwittingly perhaps, homicidal, genocidal, fratricidal, suicidal. The Pacifist says, in effect: “There is nothing good worth fighting for. And there is nothing so evil worth fighting against.”
The Pacifist is willing to give evil free reign, because he or she thinks or feels that fighting against evil is even worse than evil itself . . . an intellectual and moral equivocation of monumentally staggering proportions. In order to be a Pacifist, one must hold that Nazism or Islamism or Communism or any other puritanical totalitarian ideology that seeks to slaughter or oppress all the Jews or all of any other race or tribe is no worse, is not morally inferior, to the existence of Jews and Judaism, or whatever other race or tribe is the whipping boy of the day.
To be a Pacifist, one must hold that acquiescence to a Jihad that seeks to destroy Western Civilization is no worse than Western Civilization, even though the Jihad seeks to extinguish intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, and ultimately even the freedom to be a Pacifist.
As the English philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The Pacifist replies, “I am so good that I will do nothing, I will hurt no one, even if that means that good will be destroyed and evil will win. I am so peaceful that I will not discriminate between the goodness of good and the badness of evil, certainly not with enough conviction to take up arms, literally or figuratively, against the triumph of evil over good, of totalitarianism over freedom, of barbarianism over civilization.”
And so the Pacifist, perhaps unthinkingly, unwittingly, mistakenly, is deeply mired in his intellectual confusion, but surely and unequivocally, the epitome of evil itself, For the Pacifist devoutly believes that by refusing to fight against evil he is affirming that he is good, too good and pure to oppose evil, too good and pure to fight evil, to good and pure to kill evil. But in the end, he is the enabler without whom the triumph of evil would not be possible.
The Democrats believe that their best ‘weapon’ against the 2nd Amendment will be new and very high taxes at the Fed, State, and local level on firearms and firearm ammunition.
Chicago’s Cook County drops bullet tax, keeps gun levy
By Mary Wisniewski | Reuters – Wed, Oct 31, 2012
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The senior executive of the county that includes Chicago dropped a proposed tax on bullets on Wednesday but kept a plan to tax firearms to help defray healthcare expenses associated with the high rate of gun.
“It is very important to us to tax guns because we know that guns are the sources of the incredible violence we have in our neighborhoods,”
Under the plan, the county would impose a $25 tax on the purchase of firearms.
If approved by the board, the nation’s third most populous county with nearly 5.2 million residents could be the first major U.S. metropolitan area to impose a tax as a form of gun control, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
“The notion of taxing ammunition may be traced to comedian Chris Rock, who once quipped, “If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.” Before that, the legendary New York Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested a 10,000 percent tax on the most destructive bullets. Make them too expensive, he theorized, and they would disappear.”
If Guns Do Not Kill, Tax the Bullets
By JIM DWYER
Published: August 9, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/nyregion/taxing-bullets-as-de-facto-gun-control.html?_r=0
The Economist - 1994
“The idea of a license for gun owners has been floated by Mr Clinton and by Janet Reno, the attorney-general; it is argued most strongly by Charles Schumer, a Democratic congressman from Brooklyn. Under Mr Schumer’s bill, which is now before Congress, every owner would have a national handgun card, issued after a thorough background check, and all gun transfers would be registered with the ATF.”
An armed citizen is a free man. An unarmed subject is a serf.
Great post. A heck of a lot of useful info for anyone wanting to engage in a debate with Leftists on this subject. Thanks!
Mitt said he had a problem reaching 47% too, wonder if there's a connection. Everywhere I go on the tee vee today, important people are clamoring for control of those scary assault rifles. Especially proud ERA members who are hunters who have never needed an assault rifle to hunt with and doesn't know anybody else who does either. Many of them are politicians. Here comes FRiends, rearing its ugly head again.
We have a mental health instability problem in the USA.
The mother of this shooter knew he had problems. As a non-professional, she kept making decisions about how far he could be trusted. She paid for that mistake with her life, and her death was followed by 27 others.
She apparently told the baby sitter when he was younger NOT TO TURN YOUR BACK.
How powerful a statement is that?
Was she shielding him and the father wanted him to have more professional help? Was that a factor in the divorce????
How does Canada handle the mentally unstable?
Everyone refers to how Canada handles guns, but how do they also handle their crazies?
The ACLU sued in the 70’s and got all the mental institutions closed in this country and got the laws changed so that an outsider cannot get much help for a person who obviously needs it. Only the subject can ask for help, and then such help is mostly only offered as an out-patient situation. The patient is prescribed medication, but there is no actual control of whether that patient takes the meds timely and consistently.
Subsequently, we now have a severe homeless population problem, with the majority of those persons also carrying on in the world with mental instability.
As long as the Liberals try to have everything both ways, such shootings and other trouble will continue.
Meanwhile, MILLIONS of gun owners will be punished for the act of a person who should have been in custody of some kind years ago.
I, for one, am tired of punishing the successful because the multi-generational welfare recipients choose to keep living the same life style—no work—no education—no future—and many children to take care of. Such resources are expected to come from those who were successful for a large variety of reasons. But they don’t deserve to be punished by the takers.
I am also very tired of seeing responsible people who happen to own guns be blamed for something they had nothing to do with.
Liberals think they have an answer and a rule which applies to the successful and responsible in this country.
They don’t seem to ever find a rule to apply to those who are constant and consistant takers.