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.Both Reid and Horsford appear to be arguing that the fact that sometimes law enforcement agencies do indeed abuse the power of certain firearms should not mean that agencies that do
not engage in such abuses be forced to get by with lesser guns. Does the same logic somehow not apply to the rest of us? [More]
Stumble it!
1 comments:
So, the Library of Congress needs its own police department (including a S.W.A.T. team), and the Mayberry Sheriff's Department needs an armored personnel carrier (even though the state police have a Special Response Unit, complete with aircraft and armored vehicles, to assist local police in emergencies). But a grocer in Ferguson (or in South Central L.A.) doesn't need an AR-15 rifle, even when his store is being fire bombed by a mob.
Police in Ferguson were too overwhelmed to help anyone. Victims who called the city police department were told to call the county sheriff's office. When they called the sheriff, they were told to call the MO Highway Patrol. When they called the state cops, they were told to call the city police department. Then the city police referred them back to the sheriff, and so on. But the anti-gun activists still insist that you don't need a gun, because the police will protect you.
Those anti-gun activists are the same bleeding heart liberals who condone violent crime, and who condemn any use of force against criminals, whether it's a private citizen shooting a mugger in self-defense, or a cop shooting a bank robber in a gunfight. When it helps their anti-gun agenda, they shed crocodile tears for cops killed in the line of duty. But cops win more fights than they lose, and then the leftists complain about police brutality, and demand that the cops be prosecuted for murder, with an added "hate crime" enhancement.
Rep. Steven Horsford is a good example of that kind of twisted logic. He refers to the rioters as "innocent protesters" who were exercising their First Amendment rights and expressing outrage at the shooting of an "unarmed boy."
The "innocent protesters" were rioters, throwing Molotov cocktails and attacking helpless victims. And the "unarmed boy" was a legal adult, 6'4" tall and weighing over 290 pounds. He had committed a strong-arm robbery minutes before, and brutally beat the cop who stopped him for questioning. And he was rushing at the injured cop when the cop shot him in self-defense.
I suspect if Horsford had called Michael Brown a "boy" to his face, Brown would have beaten him to a bloody pulp.
Post a Comment