With every tragic shooting, such as what happened at NIU yesterday, I have to give it up to the lib mindset that determined it is good for the law-abiding citizen to be defenseless against lunatics with malicious intent. Illinois is quite possibly the worst state for those who believe they have the right to not be shot to death. As a bastion for the looney left, in the state that gave us complete idiots such as Dick Durbin and Barak Obama, it is felt that gun control legislation actually means something to scumbags. Some years ago we had a crazy bitch walk into an elementary school and open fire on small children. How is it that criminals and lunatics are the only people able to aquire weapons and the good people of the state cannot? In Chicago and other towns, it's illegal to own a handgun, never mind carrying one. A couple of years ago, a man in a NorthShore town was in trouble with the law for shooting a burglar who was trying to rob his home a second time. That town preferred he get robbed than to own a weapon to defend his property.
The Supreme Court is currently, or very soon to be, debating the understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Somewhere in my personal archives, what my wife calls "that junk in the garage", I have a gun magazine that ran an article about the 2nd and detailing the mindset of the founders and the top people in each colony as they worked to decide what should be considered a right in our Constitution. Self defense was paramount and to question that the 2nd means I can carry a weapon for self defense is akin to arguing whether or not water is wet. The left has long suffered from an inability to understand the obvious, and people die as a result. The decision to disarm the general public, an example of the fascism of which they accuse the right, parallels the attitude of the left toward the war in Iraq, a major front in the war on terror. They will leave the citizens to the mercy of the despots and lunatics and somehow claim a superior position of compassion. Thank you so very much looney liberal left. May God have mercy on the souls of the victims of liberal philosophy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I don't have the link handy, but I saw a great video where Ted Nugent pointed out that if someone dropped in from outer space it would be spectacularly self-evident that we should have the right to defend ourselves. It takes a lot of work to rationalize that away.
I'm split on the gun issue, and always have been. As I'm a hunter, I own a shotgun, and I thoroughly enjoy going out to my cousin's farm and poppin' off a few rounds with his 9mm and his AK-47 (don't tell anybody). We all know how to responsibly operate firearms and see no reason why our rights to own them should be diminished.
At the same time, I can't ignore the allure of a gun-free world. It's a textbook case of an idealistic state. Do the math: less guns = less gun deaths. It's one of those things that might look good on paper, but doesn't really play well in real life. Kinda like Marxism. Or Art's politics (zing!). Guns are still gonna find their way into the hands of criminals who intend to do us harm. Yet I wonder how significant a difference, even as a deterrent, the right to carry a concealed weapon for personal protection would really matter. In most of these shoot-up cases, it seems the shooter's ultimate goal is either death by cop or death by their own hand. Either way, they know the story ends with their own death, so I don't really see deterrence playing a big role. As far as carrying a gun for self protection, how many teachers/professors/mall employees would we have to arm to make that significant of a difference in future shooting sprees?
On the flip side, I have no problem whatsoever with shooting home invaders without question. Our homes are our castles, and how are we to know the intention of someone breaking in? Could be a rapist, could be a murderer, who can say? We shouldn't be forced to assume this risk.
Wow. So, this fella shooting people is the responsibility of "liberals"?
I thought you "conservative" types were the ones that disagreed with blaming others for your own actions?
So, when a poor fella says, "It's the system that keeps me poor!" He's blaming conservatives and is wrong, because it's his own fault.
But when this fella shoots a bunch of innocent people, it's somehow the fault of so-called "liberals?"
Is that really what you're saying?
Wow. As a right-of-center type, I agree that an extreme liberal agenda leaves something to be desired. However, I believe the actions of the individual easily trump any politics in this tragedy. Having worked professionally with a similar situation here in Virginia, I can tell you that there are many factors that can lead to a breakdown of such horrific proportions. Political climate is way down on that list, if not off it completely. I view this degree of political finger pointing as detracting, similar to the Republican-bashing that went on after VA Tech's tragedy.
One would hardly consider Virginia a liberal mecca.
-Doc
I thought the point was incredibly obvious. I really didn't think the discussin would have to go in this direction (it can go anywhere it wants, though).
Politics, or political ideology, didn't have anything to do with the shooter shooting. It had everything to do with there being no one about to return fire. We just had an incident within the last six months or so with a guy going into a church or temple or something and the lady security guard dropped him like a bad habit before he could kill anyone. Hu-freakin'-rah!
Most of these perps are mentally imbalanced in some way. This guy at NIU was said to be off his meds. These types cannot be deterred. This makes in more important that those who so choose are not restricted from carrying a weapon to defend against the carnage the looney is about to unleash.
It makes me sad to hear about such people who are often said to be just fine when taking their medications. But when the gun is drawn, there's not a whole lot of time to be practicing "non-violent" responses, unless being dead or bleeding profusely is part of that process. But if God has a problem with me taking out a guy like that, I'll take my chances pointing to the people who were not killed by the guy, as well as the risk to myself that I was willing to take, and proceed to pop a cap in his ass. (If I practice, I just might be able to wound him in his shooting hand.)
As to deterrence, it is hard to defend that concealed carry has none for the common scumbag who preys upon the weak and defenseless. I read of people in England having to shudder in their homes while intruders jiggle doors and windows in hopes of finding easy access, but the denizens are prohibited from owning a weapon, and can be prosecuted for using one to defend themselves or their property. How can that make sense to even anyone with only a mere dollop of gray matter? To those who can't see it, I suggest you shoot yourselves. That way, the crooks will be deterred a bit by having only smart people to mug.
Finally, I don't think one could find a conservative who doesn't believe the world would be a better place without weapons of any kind, be they guns, knives, lead pipes, slingshots, spit-wads or my wife's "look". We understand the math of which Les speaks. We also understand reality, and we understand that there isn't one cop to every citizen, so citizens need to be, not "allowed", because it is our right, but assured that they are free to exercise the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
Huh?
Because students routinely going around campus armed is going to result in fewer deaths? All those student brawls after a few too many beers on a Friday night augmented by lashing out with instant death rather than a fist?
Maybe if you train your children to military discipline from infancy and ban alcohol and falling in love, but until then, come back to the real world Marshall.
Marshall, the other day, a fourteen-year old middle-school student shot and killed another fourteen-year old classmate in class, because the classmate was gay, and I hold YOU and your hateful, homophobic agenda personally responsible for actually promoting, aiding, and abetting this and other similar murders of Americans, based on sexual orientation.
Thank YOU, marshall, for your filthy, deranged bigotry and baseless hatred.
Thank YOU, marshall, for coarsening American culture.
Ever since they outlawed any mention of God in schools, these attacks have increased. That's another thing we have to left to thank for.
Liam,
Thanks for stopping by. You're always welcome.
I don't know which world it is to which you refer, but in the real world in which I live, there is generally people like professors, support staff, maintenance people and other non-student personnel that could be armed, so excuse me if I find your response just a bit lame. Perhaps you were joking. In that case, we could arm toddlers as well. What I do know is, students in this country are targets due to the restrictions against even the adults on campus from carrying weapons. And so we have five dead and seventeen hospitalized. How is this a better way?
Speaking of jokers, we have Hashfanatic who leaves because of how mean and evil I am, but graces us with the occasional visit to remind us of what humor really is.
Maybe if the homosexual kid was armed, he could have defended himself.
Seriously, though, are you off your meds? You'd have to be to frame my position on traditional marriage and homosexuality as fearful, deranged, filthy, hateful or any of the other wacky adjectives you throw around like a bi-polar lunatic. But hey, you're always welcome to stop by as you're such a joy to have around. Get some rest now, ya hear?
Mark,
I don't disagree with your statement generally speaking. I'm sure that fourteen-year old was lacking a bit in the moral upbringing department, but the shooters at NIU and Virginia Tech and most other places like these are generally mental and religion likely wouldn't deter them either.
No Marshall, that’s where you are wrong; the students were not targets because they were unarmed. Your logic doesn’t hold up: If the gunman just wanted to shoot unarmed people (or even unarmed students), then I’m certain he didn’t need to go all the way to the auditorium to find some.
Without plenty of training and practice for such situations, people react unpredictably when faced with the real thing, so giving vigilante authority to professors and janitors is either a massive exercise in training, or a bloodbath waiting to happen every time some high school teacher misinterprets someone else’s action or intent.
Even if you do provide the training up front, my original point is still valid; you are suggesting putting small arms into the hands of millions more people; people who are subject to the stresses and strains of everyday life. Drunken brawls, road rage, jilted lovers, employees with a grudge and dozens of other situations where otherwise balanced and civilised people see red for a few moments, all these become potential massacres.
I maintain that such a policy would result in more innocents dying, not fewer.
It sounds good, Liam, but it doesn't hold true in states where concealed carry is respected. (I'd say "legal", but technically it already IS legal nationwide. There's just too many libs interfering.)
You also assume the worst about the general population. This is troubling for me because it's difficult to keep track of when I'm supposed to think well or ill of them when I'm talking to folks left of me. I disagree with penalizing the good due to the actions of the bad. If one is innocent until proven guilty in this country, that notion must run through everything, including whether or not a random citizen would be guilty of poor self-control or discipline.
"How is it that criminals and lunatics are the only people able to aquire weapons and the good people of the state cannot?" Easy, they just buy them like you or I. Meaningless background check...wait a few days. Thanks NRA!! And you worry about libs *heh*
Touche BB. Let's rephrase to more accurately reflect the problem: How is it that only criminals and lunatics are carrying weapons? They ignore the laws that law-abiding people don't. Thank you libs.
It is a tough issue. I spent my career in the ammunition industry and around gun-owners and it is a great hobby. My argument with the NRA is that they shoot themselves in the foot by fighting registration, gunshow sale regs,
even AP ammo. They should be part of the solution and they could gain respect from the majority who are afraid of guns and gunowners.
What you are saying is essentially, we cannot keep firearms out of the wrong hands, so we need arm everyone. Even here in Idaho, our campuses are gun-free, although our legislature is looking into a movement of college kids who want to strap on a Glock or two prior to Early English Poetry class. The logical thing, IMHO, is to permit CC on some selected campuses and compare & contrast for a few years. The dichotomy of college is that it is
a peaceful place of higher learning: it can also be a place of very high stress. I can say, though, that everytime one of these nutcases wipes out some promising youngsters, it makes those of us in the industry just sick. It has to do with weapons,
minds and circumstance and you may place the blame squarely on liberals...but you would be wrong.
Perhaps if we spent 5% of the amount we do frisking old ladies at airports, we could solve the problem of lunatic shooters....
"It has to do with weapons,
minds and circumstance and you may place the blame squarely on liberals...but you would be wrong."
I disagree. It has to do with who has the weapons. As a result of gun laws enacted by liberal politicians and their constituents, only criminals and loonies have them for use in murder and theft and extortion.
From cnn.com today:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/20/
cnnu.guns/index.html
Thanks for the link, Les. I'm posting it again here in case others have the same trouble copying the whole address as I did.
I don't understand the belief that more people no longer prohibited from exercising their right to carry a weapon means more people settling everyday issues with gunfire. One of the people interviewed for Les's linked article made this statement and I've heard it before. Doesn't make sense.
Post a Comment