That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.Granted, the sorts of young thugs whose cowardice tends to dictate that they choose lone victims, while themselves numbering sometimes in the dozens, would seem unlikely to continue to press an attack as their would-be victim fires 10 shots into their fellow predators, it would be a mistake to expect any rationality from the kind of creature who finds entertainment in brutalizing innocent people.
The only prudent course is to be equipped stop all of them. And at some point those public officials who have chosen to stand with the thugs, rather than their would-be victims, will need to be dealt with. [More]
Stumble it!
4 comments:
Of course, if an armed citizen does shoot some of these vicious sociopaths in self-defense, then the MSM will twist everything around and make the shooter look like a trigger-happy, racist vigilante. The "victims" will be portrayed as innocent children on their way home from buying candy and iced tea. The "vigilante" will be tried for murder or manslaughter, possibly with an added "hate crime enhancement." Even if the defendant is acquitted by an impartial jury, the federal government may still prosecute him on civil rights charges. And our Fearless Leader will fan the flames by blubbering about how "if I had a son..."
The "knockout game" proves that there is a legitimate need for civilians to own weapons that can fire more then ten rounds without having to stop and reload. That said, I am tired of honest citizens being expected to show a "need" to own property that they bought with their own hard-earned money. More people (and, specifically, more children) die in traffic accidents, or drown in swimming pools, than get shot. But no one proposes a law banning cars or swimming pools, and no one suggests that you should have to prove "need" before you can get a license to own one. The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are not "the Bill of Needs."
Your point about the implication that we must demonstrate "need" is a very good one, and I agree a gazillion percent. Still, when the need is so starkly illustrated, I kinda feel compelled to point it out.
Thank goodness that 72 year-old Vietnamese immigrant and that 46 year-old Hoboken man did not have guns. If they had been armed, someone might have gotten hurt.
Post a Comment