That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.You want to know why the Bundy ranch guardians were able to make the government back down, while Ferguson residents remain under the government's jackboots, CSGV? It's because at the Bundy ranch, the government
knew that they would not enjoy a "monopoly on force"--that they would pay for their excesses in blood, more of it than they were willing to lose. The Ferguson cops, on the other hand, clearly like their overwhelming edge in firepower. That's your "government monopoly on force," CSGV. Own it. [More]
Stumble it!
1 comments:
First: I am pro-RKBA, and I believe that people have a right to own weapons, including so-called "high capacity assault rifles" for self-defense against criminals, and, if necessary, for revolution against tyrannical government. Also, I dislike the term "Second Amendment rights" because it makes it sound as if 2A grants citizens a right to own guns. The US Constitution does not give any rights to people; it just recognizes and codifies the rights that you already had.
Re: the shooting itself, I would avoid forming an opinion before more facts are known. The MSM have made it sound as if the "unarmed kid" was walking down the street, minding his own business, when some racist cop gunned him down. Now, more details are starting to come out. The cop stopped the "kid" for jaywalking, and may have found stolen items on him. The suspect apparently assaulted the cop before the cop shot him. And the "kid" had committed a strong-arm robbery in a convenience store shortly before the run-in with the cop.
Whenever a criminal is killed or injured, he suddenly becomes a Boy Scout, a saint, an honor student, and a Nobel Prize candidate. We saw the same thing with Rodney King (a convicted armed robber with a long history of violence), with the "unarmed bridegroom" in New York (who was shot while trying to run over cops with his SUV), and with Trayvon Martin (a punk with a history of assault, drug abuse, and theft).
And the media who portray Michael Brown as an innocent victim are the same people who said, "If Zimmerman had not been allowed to own a gun, poor little Trayvon would still be alive." They made it sound as if Zimmerman stalked and attacked Martin, but we now know that it was more nearly the other way around. They also tried to portray Harold Fish (the retired teacher in AZ) as a trigger-happy vigilante after he shot a homicidal maniac in self-defense. And they described a woman in GA as "trigger happy" when she shot a home invasion robber (after he followed her into the attic into which she had retreated).
And yet, the same "mainstream media" generally condoned the massacres at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
I don't know if the police in MO overreacted to the protests, or if the response (SWAT teams, full riot gear, armored vehicle) was justified. And, again, I don't expect to get any sort of accurate and objective coverage from the MSM.
Having said all that, it is an ironic double standard. The leftists, on the one hand, say that cops are trigger-happy and racist. Then they say that the government "should take guns away from everyone except the police and the military." And they say that civilians don't need body armor, while, at the same time, they complain that criminals are running around shooting up schools with AK-47's every day. Then they complain that the cops are "outgunned," but then they complain that cops are too heavily armed (with AR-15's and 16-shot automatic pistols).
But facts and logic are never allowed to get in the way of the leftist agenda.
Post a Comment