The world is ruled by force. Better to have balancing forces, than to create disarmed victim zones.
If you weren’t born and raised here you will without a doubt have no concept of our inherent rights which are supposed to be protected from the government. Sadly too many people are under the impression these days that the government grants these rights. Not so. Typical brit.
Share the lead.
The English method of dealing with bad people with guns:
Chuck them and run to a little boat on the beach to take you away.
Okay. Let’s say that we get more “gun control” laws and some guy decides he wants to kill a bunch of kindergartners and shows up with a samurai sword. Who in the school is going to be brave enough to approach the guy and take the sword away from him?
I thought we told you folks in England a LONG time ago to stop telling us how to live. What part of “Mind your own business!” do you NOT understand?
400+ dead in Chicago alone for 2012...mostly black on black violence...No tears shed or outrage.
Would Adam Lanza have even thought about killing people at Sandy Hook Elementary School if he knew the principal and teachers were armed?
All schools have to consider what they will do now. How do they protect themselves. A sign on the door that says “no guns allowed” obviously isn’t going to deter an Adam Lanza.
Bank Guards are armed
Armored truck guards are armed also.
is money worth more than Children? I dont think so
The traitorous Connecticut governor and state legislators who passed laws establishing school as “gun-free zones” are co-conspirators with the Sandy Hook murderer.
May these unrepentant 2nd Amendment traitors, especially the leftstream media anti-gun advocates and other political leaders who rip away the right of school administrators and teachers to defend themselves and their students, burn in hell twice as long as the piece of excrement that committed such murders.
This is factually incorrect.
Almost every country in Europe and most other industrialized (and non-totalitarian) countries around the world have much lower gun ownership and (partially consequently) lower murder rates than the USA, despite in many cases having a considerably higher general violent crime rate. Thus, demonstrably having "made a difference." Does not prevent "gun violence," but does significantly reduce it.
It is true that in UK only criminals have guns, but even most of them do not have guns, thus violent attacks are less likely to end in death.
I strongly support the 2nd Amendment, but I think it is dishonest to try to claim that there aren't highly unpleasant side effects to the 200M guns floating around America.
On I believe the same day as the Newtown shooting, a nut in China similarly attacked schoolchildren, except he didn't have a gun. So he used a knife.
23 people were injured, but there were no deaths. So far, anyway.
The problem here is that guns indeed do not kill people, but they make it so much easier and more efficient. Does anyone seriously contend Lanza would have been able to kill so many children armed with a knife? Or that the nut in China would not have been more deadly armed with a gun?
One of the costs of an armed populace, unfortunately, is that occasionally one of those armed citizens will go off the rails and do something like this.
This cost is vastly outweighed by the benefits of an armed people, but I think it is dishonest to claim the costs don't exist.
“It’s insane. Insane to think teachers should be armed and insanity itself to try to explain the killer’s motives.”
So according to this ding-dong, we shouldn’t look for a motive ? Isn’t finding the motive the only way to prevent future incidents ?
Oh yeah. I forgot. People just want to ban guns and allow our current leadership to enslave us all, permanently.
My SIL is an elementary school teacher. Yesterday her fellow teachers were wanting my brother to help pick out a gun and teach them to use the new piece to protect the kids.
These are all Obama voters. Has anyone else heard similar stories?
SCREAMING mums at schools, dads cradling children... it’s all too familiar to those of us who live in the United States.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
You don’t have to live here Anton, you can get the Fug out anytime you like.
Don’t let the door hit you in the butt when you leave a-hole.
In Britian, if you are the victim of a violent criminal, you just have to die because if you defend yourself and hurt the predator, you could end up in prison. If your child is being raped by a sex ring of Muslims, you just have to report it to your local police who will accuse you of being a racist and do nothing to protect your child.
The British limo-left media have no business telling Americans what to do. Their sense of justice has gone brutally p.c. insane. Maybe they have some more elderly people to starve to death “in hospital.”
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.