Posted on 05/29/2018 4:30:18 PM PDT by Kaslin
Among my friends here in deepest blue Los Angeles, I am likely the only openly conservative Republican some of them know.
And as a veteran, I am probably the closest contact they’ve had with the military since sitting in the theater to watch American Sniper.
So when events like the Las Vegas shootings occurred, knowledge of my personal history and political views would temporarily displace the usual Trump/Russia collusion banter and lead to genuinely uncomfortable conversations about guns.
Over the past weeks the conversations have become more frequent because California is in the midst of an election cycle where the shining lights of state’s Democratic Party are climbing over each other to position themselves as the strongest “gun control” candidate.
Why does anyone need a gun anyway? my liberal, well-educated SoCal friends invariably - and rhetorically - ask.
Shotguns and hunting rifles I can understand if you’re a sportsman, but there’s nobody in America who needs a military-grade assault rifle. You’re not going to shoot ducks with that. And look at the damage they cause!
I’d usually just nod and agree that the shootings were cowardly, despicable acts, and that I too wanted them to end, just like everyone else. Evil people killing innocent people is unspeakably heinous whenever and wherever it occurs, be it with a rock, a knife, or a Kalashnikov.
My somber observation confirming the obvious usually concluded the conversation, but doubtlessly left my liberal “gun control” friends unconvinced that people like me who adhere to the belief that Americans have a fundamental right (maybe even a moral duty) to bear arms have any real desire to “fix the problem.”
Then the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School happened and the subsequent press reports uncovered something that crystallized my conviction.
Eleven minutes- the length of time it took law enforcement officers who responded to the school to enter the building after the shooting began.
“Eleven minutes” supplies the explanation that I’ve never been able to clearly articulate: I believe in the Second Amendment because I want to be able to protect my loved ones and myself for those eleven minutes, wherever and whenever those eleven minutes happen.
See, the thing that’s hardest to communicate to “gun control” advocates is that all the people who own firearms aren’t caricatured “gun nuts” who drink Wild Turkey out of the bottle. They aren’t “survivalists” stockpiling ammunition and canned tuna living in cabins in the woods. Their convictions don’t spring from some sort of strange gun fetish or allegiance to an anachronistic ideology birthed in a less civilized time. They are not morally flawed because they have an “assault rifle” in their gun safe. They are instead people who, in moments of heart-pounding necessity, believe they would stand their ground during those eleven minutes. A considerable portion of the American public is armed for no other reason than it aspires to be brave in the darkest of moments when them and theirs are threatened. They want to be able to defend their loved ones and themselves for those eleven minutes when nobody else will - or can.
People believe in the Second Amendment because they don’t want the safety and security of their friends and families to depend upon the bravery of others. They are not willing to put the lives of those dear to them, or their own, at risk because the armed person the government assigned to protect them is cowering behind his patrol car.
I wonder what Korean shopkeepers in South Central Los Angeles who survived the 1992 riots would think about the progressive notion that the only guns the public should have are basic rifles and shotguns designed for ducks and deer. Those who stood on the rooftops with weapons in hand while the Los Angeles Police Department was miles away and the city in flames around them would probably think it was quaint. More likely they’d think it was dangerously naive because their eleven minutes lasted for days.
Ideas about what sorts of weapons are “necessary” can change dramatically during eleven minutes, especially when the bad guys have guns and their intentions aren’t focused on ducks or deer.
So now when my “gun control” friends ask about why anyone needs a modern firearm, or that the Founding Fathers couldn’t conceive of bump-stocks or 30-round magazines when they wrote the Second Amendment, I simply respond - eleven minutes.
Snopes “investigated” a quote I wrote making fun of Hillary and her lack of accomplishments as SoS. They determined that she never really said it, but since I made it up, I can confirm that she really said it, probably.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
This is what gun grabbers do not realize. The police are not there to protect them. The people insisting on gun free zones do not staff them with security to replace the private gun owner. The police, as we've seen over and over, rather stand outside safe while the shooting is underway instead of going in and stopping.
Having a gun is the only sure protection any of us have. We cannot defer this basic right to others who will not respond in time, nor necessarily be obligated to do so.
Damned right!
I hate canned tuna!
Shortly after I became the Clerk of Court, I was in the courtroom underneath the judge's bench looking for the so-called "panic button" that the judge is supposed to use in case of emergency to call the military police.
I found a strange-looking box attached to the underneath of the bench and started fiddling with it. Surely, this couldn't be the "panic button": one end of the "box" was able to be pushed in and couldn't be re-set back out without a key, but it didn't look like a "button" ...
Approximately 30 seconds to a minute later, as I was fiddling with the box, the judge came up behind me and informed me that there were about a dozen heavily-armed MPs in his office wanting to know if he was all right ...
Did you say "tuna"?
[I hate canned tuna!]
Right there with ya.
I go for Spam, canned chicken, canned vegetables.
Yes, actually it IS about hunting...just not Bambi or Daffy Duck.
The article makes no mention whatsoever about the real reason for the 2nd Amendment: to deter or, if said deterrence fails, to fight tyrannical government... whether said government has its location within or without this country.
Hunting is a nice recreation, and at times perhaps necessary to survival...but the Founding Fathers would have rightly considered it too trivial to address in the Constitution or any amendment thereto. Dealing with ordinary street criminals: yeah, it is certainly nice to have - as a bonus - the means to defend one’s self with lethal force if needed, but it is also too trivial to address this in the Constitution or an amendment. It is a side benefit to owning firearms.
The BOR was designed and expected to act as a check on government power. What’s that got to do with hunting or self-defense? Not a blessed thing.
Was he?
He was, but I had some ‘splainin’ to do ...
Bravery... and contiguity.
NEVER!!!!! Turn the turkey loose.....
Warning, off topic:
My first job was fueling planes. My favorite visiting plane was owned by a Texas oil baron.
He had a personalized N# (only one I ever saw):
101WT = 101 Whiskey Tango = 101 Wild Turkey.
He had, as I recall, a Cessna Turbo Centurian II (3-blade prop). It had a custom paint job, with the 101 Proof Wild Turkey head logo on the tailfin. Very professionally done.
He stopped at our muni along his way for the great restaurant at the top of the tower (The Red Baron).
Since that was not the end of his flight plan (again, as I recall), I assume he did not have his favorite drink there.
Urban Legend:
Snopes is a fact-checking website.
Eleven minutes. Excellent answer to why do you need an “assault weapon” or 30-round magazine. In many cities and rural areas, the response time is even higher. I want the baddest gun I have and the biggest magazines practical.
I drink mine straight from the keg.
Excellent article & thanks for the *PING* PROCON.
You, Kaslin, post the BEST STUFF!
*SMOOCH* to you both!
Just on the cheek - no sexual over-or-undertones intended...my Lawyer says I have to post that clarification, now if I *SMOOCH* someone for any reason, at any time.
*SNORT*
P.S. Never bring a rock to a Kalashnikov fight. ;)
“They aren’t ‘survivalists’ stockpiling ammunition and canned tuna living in cabins in the woods.”
Well, SOME of us are!
Access to potable water. Quick-Dry socks. Sturdy boots. PLENTY of ammo and more guns than you can DREAM of. Cases of canned goods and a manual can opener. Dehydrated protein. Chocolate. Coffee...and some ‘medieval’ way to brew it. ;)
See my tagline. :)
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.