Yes, I Do Have Guns
March 18th 2008 22:48
Now that the Supreme Court is deciding whether or not the Founding Fathers were serious about our right to bear arms (more than 200 hundred years after the fact), we need to look at the possibilities from both sides.
The case concerns Washington D.C.'s ban on weapons within their district limits. The ban has been in effect for 20 years or more and the crime rate has fluctuated during that time. One man testified that he carried a gun to protect politicians but was not allowed to offer the same protection to his own family, due to the ban. It reminds me of Rosie O'Donnell, when she bragged about the armed guards that escorted her kids to and from school as she insisted that all guns be outlawed for everyone else. Just a little smug and selective, don't you think?
Maybe in some places, crime goes down once the guns are removed. Gun crimes, at least. But I'm not willing to dial 911 and hope the operator takes me seriously, then wait until such time as the police arrive if someone just kicked down my front door. I'm gonna stick a shotgun in his face. If he doesn't stop, I know how to pull the trigger. It has always been our right to protect our homes and families by whatever means necessary, hasn't it? Is the thief or killer going to sit by and patiently await the police? Or is he going to kill you when you interrupt his intended robbery?
How about all the shootings on school campuses? If someone (other than the shooter) had a gun, how many victims would still be alive? How many store clerks have died (when a robber shot them for fun), after handing over their cash? How often have you heard of a robber being thwarted (sometimes permanently) by a clerk who was able to defend himself?
I have no intention of giving up my ability to defend myself and family, folks. Remember this while you're thinking about the issue...
The ban on weapons only applies to law abiding citizens, not criminals. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Think about it...
The case concerns Washington D.C.'s ban on weapons within their district limits. The ban has been in effect for 20 years or more and the crime rate has fluctuated during that time. One man testified that he carried a gun to protect politicians but was not allowed to offer the same protection to his own family, due to the ban. It reminds me of Rosie O'Donnell, when she bragged about the armed guards that escorted her kids to and from school as she insisted that all guns be outlawed for everyone else. Just a little smug and selective, don't you think?
Maybe in some places, crime goes down once the guns are removed. Gun crimes, at least. But I'm not willing to dial 911 and hope the operator takes me seriously, then wait until such time as the police arrive if someone just kicked down my front door. I'm gonna stick a shotgun in his face. If he doesn't stop, I know how to pull the trigger. It has always been our right to protect our homes and families by whatever means necessary, hasn't it? Is the thief or killer going to sit by and patiently await the police? Or is he going to kill you when you interrupt his intended robbery?
How about all the shootings on school campuses? If someone (other than the shooter) had a gun, how many victims would still be alive? How many store clerks have died (when a robber shot them for fun), after handing over their cash? How often have you heard of a robber being thwarted (sometimes permanently) by a clerk who was able to defend himself?
I have no intention of giving up my ability to defend myself and family, folks. Remember this while you're thinking about the issue...
The ban on weapons only applies to law abiding citizens, not criminals. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Think about it...
| 66 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog