A good start would be allowing everybody to serve as their own bodyguard because, when it comes right down to brass tacks, government can’t protect, only punish. Whether your assailant comes at you with ballistic missiles or butcher knives, all the .gov can do is retaliate after the fact.
Be Prepared: You will be your own first responder.
[As I’ve said before, and even put more succinctly here but it bears repeating. You are the help, you are the rescue, you are the extraction team. Accept it, learn it, love it. -B]
We would not allow cities or states to require poor women to spend several hundred dollars on training and licensing before having a child or an abortion and I don’t see how it is any more constitutional to require a woman to spend several hundred dollars to obtain a license to defend herself against rape.
So Mom’s Demand Action, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg, Inc. issued the following statement. Most of note was this line:
The right of mothers to protect our children SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Evidently in their twisted view of the world there are only a few acceptable means of defending your children. One small problem with that, their statement in and of itself is full of hypocrisy. Why? Let me illustrate with 1000 words with help from A Girl.
I could continue down the list of mothers I thought of who would stand opposed to what “Moms Demand Action” is claiming to be right. Not only do they stand opposed, but the desires of Moms Demand Action stands as a direct infringement to prevent them from doing what they claim to be protecting.
No one is forcing you to pick up a rifle to defend your family. If you don’t want to, fine, that’s your choice and your business. If however someone does want to pick up a rifle to defend their family, no one has any right whatsoever to tell them they cannot. Any attempt to tell a woman she cannot pick up a rifle to defend her children is an infringement on the right to protect their children. As such, any attempt at gun control whereby arms are removed from the hands of law-abiding citizens is just such an infringement.
So I went through and fixed up their document while adding commentary:
A Mother’s Bill of Rights
We, as mothers, have the absolute right to protect our childrenfamilies from harm. We have the right to know our children are safe from gun violence, from the moment they leave our arms in the morning until they return home later in the day. (That sentence is false, see Warren v. District of Columbia.)We have a right and responsibility to defend our families from those who might do them violence.But the rights of Americans mothers are under attack by criminals, the gun lobby, and legislators and puritanswho wish to trample those rights while still sticking them with the responsibilityare unable to stand up for common-sense gun reforms. The right of mothers people to protect their families our children SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
As mothers people, we have the right to…
Expect that assault weapons will remain in the hands of our military, not civiliansthat our right to keep and bear arms in defense of our families and children shall not be infringed.
Preserve our children’s innocence and shield them from gunany violence by taking any means necessary to stop it abruptly and swiftly without prejudice. in America, real and scripted(Really, scripted, why don’t you just turn off the TV instead of attacking Free Speech).
Demand that all public places remain gun-free zones;’ except private homes and shooting rangesallow the carry of defensive arms by those legally entitled to do so.
Know our children are safe in their schools: any school, anywhere, by allowing those who wish to defend our children the tools to do so.
Expect our teachers to be focused on teaching our children, not training to become armed guards.(Because what a teacher does in their own time to defend themselves and your children is a bad horrible thing?)
Expect our leaders to put our children’s safety above the profitdesire for power and influence of the gun industrythose who hate and wish to deny us our rights and personal liberties.
Have access to complete, accurate information about the impact of gun violence on our families and communitiespersonal responsibilities we have in ensuring our own family’s safety and wellbeing.
Hold our elected officials accountable for keeping our children safe from gun violencebreaking their oath to support and defend the constitution.
Seriously, in what world does anything they wrote count as not an infringement. You all keep using these words rights and infringements and I don’t think any of you on the other side really understand what a right is and what it means to infringe on one.
Not to mention it seems that they think some how their opinion is worth more merely because they are mothers. Tell me, does the father’s opinion not matter? Does the opinion of the desire of the husband to defend his wife count for nothing? Just the same, does the opinion of the wife and mother to carry for the defense of her own family not matter? No they would rather tell you, me, and everyone else how to live our lives. Our opinion to them counts for jack.
It doesn’t matter we respect them and their decision not to carry firearms, but they want to force their decisions on the rest of us. To them I say, “NO!” I’ve had enough of you taking my cake and you will not get a single solitary inch until you give something back. I am sick of “compromising” where I give up everything and you give up nothing. GO TO HELL! There’s a reason I get angry.
I think this version of the picture of A Girl with some additional text says it best:
[Let me start off by saying, Paul was trying to be fair though there were a few comments that I don't really agree with. For example attacking Wayne LaPierre or this little bit at the end of his article.
But the NRA and some of its friends are not interested in rational discourse. They thrive on slippery-slope reasoning, according to which any limit on guns is a mere precursor to firearm registration and confiscation. As any gun manufacturer will tell you, the 9/11 attacks helped sales at firearm counters around the country and strengthened the NRA’s hand in lobbying against greater federal restrictions.
Paul most people, even the NRA, are willing to have a rational discourse. The problem is there are so many irrational people on the other side trying to control the conversation the only reasonable thing is to just shut it all down. For example look at Fienstein and what she was pushing and trying to tack on to that bill. Moving further forward that bill honestly didn't have anything really to do with background checks. The people pushing for the bill even admit it would have not made any difference at any of the mass shootings.
So is it irrational that we want to put on the breaks, let the emotion die, and approach this in a rational and reasoned manner instead of an emotional hysteria?
There were a few other errors, such as the comment regarding background checks for commercial firearms sales. That is already required by federal law, so are we redefining commercial sales to include any sale? Including letting someone borrow a firearm? At which point if you exempt it, today's exemption is tomorrows loophole, not to mention how do you define and prove "borrowing".
Paul's conclusion though is correct and can easily be seen with this poll.
As noted by Weer'd the lock-down also occurred in one of the most difficult areas to get a gun permit. I expect there will be a large influx of new owners in that area. Many of them will have an experience much like this individual.
Boy, Chicago's restrictive gun laws while pushing reliance on the police really helped that family now didn't it.
Last weeks incident served as wake-up call to many, doubly so since it was a citizen who was confined to his house that found the man on the run after they lifted the lock-down. I'm sure that man probably would prefer to have a firearm the next time he investigates something out of place.
*As an additional aside. I've met Paul and his wife both and they were both extremely nice. I do not think Paul was trying to slight gun owners as a whole or even directly wanted was was really in that bill. Odds are the particular publication for which he works had a serious hand in the tone of the article.
I do not know of any gun owner who actively supports giving firearms to criminals. We all know damn well how that would have a negative affect on us and our rights. What we don't want though is the state coming in and arbitrarily denying or delaying the rights of law-abiding people because in the end, we know the criminals will still get their hands on a firearm. The comments within that article do nothing more than aid in driving a wedge and turning off the other side causing them to ignore you and your position.
I do not think any firearm owner would complain about providing additional tools to aid people in "doing the right thing". Where we all have a problem is trying to trace that and enforce it under law. It becomes this complicated problem fraught with danger because it will become all to easy to criminalize someone who would actually be innocent. -B]
So where am I headin’ with this whole diatribe… well I’m tired of gals who tell me they’d do anything to protect they’re kids when they don’t have a plan, training, or tools for that night when some scumbag kicks in their door during a home-invasion. You don’t need a “rape whistle” or to fire off a double-barrel shotgun into the air. You need sound advice and the determination to take care of yourself and survive no matter what you encounter.
It’s not paranoia, just reality and the world we live in… so… To the weaker sex… accept it and plan accordingly!
[I have nothing else to add that he didn't say in that post. Which I recommend reading the whole thing.
Some may be upset by what he said, but the fact of the matter is just because it's politically incorrect doesn't make it false. We have tools and people are perfectly capable of learning the skills necessary to defend themselves. It's much easier though to say evil men just shouldn't do that.
Well I'm sorry folks, evil men do exist and the prey on those weaker than them. Accept it and plan accordingly. -B]
If I had known this would come from those mags, I would have purchased them for that sole purpose.
John Klein – IM Conversation
March 22nd, 2013
[The magazines in question can be seen here. Screen shot is below, though it’s worth clicking over just to read the whole debate it started (I will include the best part).
You can probably already guess who the problem child was in that threat of comments. Read through them the debate was interesting even if honestly it fits the script I’ve seen 100 times. Seriously I don’t know how they do it but I swear every “debate” goes through the exact same evolution. The kicker though is during that evolution they always do the same thing at one particular point.
And that folks, ended the debate. Seriously, he stayed quite after that. Though there is one other comment that frankly had me laughing my ass off.
I think Matthew’s final observation there nails it. I gave plenty of counter anecdotal evidence along with information he could independently verify. Instead he alluded to the idea that John and I are compensating for something. Yup, that’s the sign of the winning argument there. –B]
These are the people who consider themselves more enlightened than you or I and who think they have what it takes to rule your life. It’s like watching a retarded kid scream about how your tying your shoelaces wrong and then gets confused over the Velcro straps holding his sandals on his hands.
[And it isn't just one or two people who seem to think like the person who wrote the provoking tweet either. Look at this recent tweet that came across twitter.
Hmm, interesting, why wasn’t this covered in the 5 o’clock evening news? Why didn’t the media out all these folks who are obviously racist for their views of the NRA?
Could it be that people are using the racist label to shame those with opinions of which they differ? Could it be the racist flag is being thrown when someone doesn’t like the argument of the other and see it as an easy out? Or could it be that those people are honestly racist and think that anyone else must always be racist in their motives?
Plus, the NRA has thought of a cynical new way to make angry white guys more afraid of Black people with guns by encouraging people of color to arm themselves.
*blink* Seriously, I’m the racist here because I don’t have a problem with anyone being armed, yet Joan isn’t racist and is upset at the though of black people carrying weapons because it upsets her and her racist friends.
Look at the reaction by anti-gunners because Colion Noir decided to join with the NRA. Heck, look at the media in general (just google Colion Noir NRA and you’ll find pages of this type of garbage), their focus wasn’t on Colion’s message, or that he had been doing videos on his own for a long time, it was, “How dare the NRA have a black man come into it’s ranks, especially as any type of spokesman!?”
Seriously, who’s acting racist in this debate? Because the NRA doesn’t have any other members who are black, much less any black members of the board of directors? Could it be you cannot argue with facts and logic and you are upset that the NRA represents 4 million people of whom you wish to deprive them of their inalienable as well as constitutionally protected rights?
You all keep using that word in that way and honestly it’s going to be the same as every other abused adjective, devoid of meaning. You’ve labeled so many people terrorists no one really cares anymore. When we see a real terrorist you call us racist if they aren’t Christian or have a slightly darker skin color. Doesn’t matter he just tried to kill a bunch of people, we’re being racist if we label him a terrorist.
I’m seriously sick of this bullshit and hypocrisy. When I see a man, I see exactly that, a man, nothing more. He has his own ideas and character and if I call into question either of those things and his skin is a different color than my own I suddenly become racist?
And lets not forget about being called women haters and otherwise being disparaging towards women either; yet those who want to disarm women get a free pass when they say things like the following:
Not to mention the commentary by Joseph Salazar and the recommendation that women should just piss themselves to fend off attackers by the University of Colorado.
Seriously, WTF!? How am I the racist misogynist pig in this debate? How am I the person who hates women or those of a different race? How is it that my desire to have equal access to arms is a racist or misogynistic tendency? Someone explain to me how treating every individual as being an equal is treating them as being unequal. I don’t freaking see it and frankly I’m getting down right pissed at those telling me I am while claiming women should just lie back and think of England.
Because evidently it’s a misogynistic to prefer a woman standing over the cooling body of her attacker in an alley instead of lying brutally beaten and raped with her rapist running away to possibly never be caught.
Because evidently it’s racist to want minorities to have the same rights as everyone else. It’s racist to want those to have arms to defend themselves from the same threats any of us may face.
Why didn’t anyone tell me I was back in 3rd grade and it is opposite day?
Raw Feed
FeedBurner Feed
Subscribe by Email
