Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Monday, March 03, 2008

Twenty reasons to fear for the nation

Recently, the Courier Post (a newspaper in south New Jersey) asked members of its community editorial boards about their opinions of what could be done to prevent the kinds of mass shootings that took place at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. I counted twenty responses, ranging from stricter "gun control" (a popular option, of course), to banning abortion (yeah--I didn't quite follow that logic, either). Of the twenty, one pointed out that, just maybe, mandating that all the psycho's intended victims be unarmed, and thus defenseless, was a bad idea--and even this person has some strange ideas about the meaning of a right of the people that shall not be infringed.

ROBIN MOLLENHAUER of Pitman: If even a few bystanders in these shooting rampages were armed, there almost certainly would be fewer victims. These killers may be reluctant to act in this manner if they could not be so sure of the results. At the very least, these killers would not have time to "calmly reload."

The police cannot respond in time to prevent these tragedies. An armed citizenry would provide an option. There should be federal regulations (not state) to sell, purchase and carry guns. There should be strict requirements, better background checks and mandatory training. If you are not competent enough to carry a gun, you should not be allowed to purchase one.
I was with you all the way, Robin, through the first paragraph, but you ran off the rails pretty quickly after that.

One of the "gun control" advocates had the . . . interesting idea of requiring that all gun purchases be paid for via credit card--the longer the paper trail, the better, according to Sam Podietz, of Lumberton.

Another respondent does favor permitting concealed carry (and in his case, "permitting" is definitely the operative term--he sees nothing wrong with requiring people to ask the government for permission to exercise a fundamental human right), but . . . I can't really provide a fair description of this guy's ideas--see for yourself:
DONALD FLASSING of Sewell: To eliminate violence, idealists would like to deport all guns. Like deporting all illegal immigrants, there are just too many. And you couldn't find them all. A plan to employ both legally makes sense.

The gun problem in the United States is huge. Some 4,000 soldiers have died in Iraq during the long war. Virtually none of these were killed by handguns, but by improvised explosive devices, rockets and, on occasion, AK-47s. During the same period, in the United States, 200,000 people have been murdered, the vast majority with handguns.

It is decidedly safer to be a solder in Iraq than to simply walk in areas of our cities. More people are killed annually by handguns in the tri-state area alone than all the soldiers killed by handguns in Iraq, ever. The difference? Soldiers are armed to the teeth, and trained to use their weapons. "Bad guys" don't want to mess with someone who is armed.

As a citizen of New Jersey, I have no right to carry a concealed weapon to protect myself.

For hundreds of years, our forefathers armed themselves. They almost never shot each other. Their children, from birth, were taught not to play with guns, and didn't shoot themselves. The son of a peace officer, I was trained as our forefathers, but I am not allowed to protect myself, or my family, by carrying a weapon. Crooks and idiots carry guns, but I can't. States allowing the concealed carrying of guns have the lowest crime and murder rates in the country.

Lest someone think I am a "gun-nik," in addition to allowing concealed weapons, we should ban assault and similar weapons. (In New Jersey there aren't many places to hunt anymore, anyway.)

Even in Iraq, households are legally allowed to own and carry one firearm for protection. A major benefit of allowing permitted, concealed weapons is that police would be legally entitled to "stop and frisk." This would put the fear of God in crooks on every drug corner.

Philadelphia is looking to implement this policy, but if a gun is found, the police will have to prove the firearm is not registered, and the defendant will immediately make bail.

The law should be that if you are stopped and have an unpermitted gun, you are jailed, without bond, until trial. Minimum-term for conviction is 20 years without parole.

Allowing concealed carry permits, banning assault type weapons, "stop and frisk" with minimum, non-bondable 20-year sentences, will reduce the number of murders in this country by two-thirds; I guarantee it.
Just curious, Donald, did you happen to eat a lot of paint chips as a kid?

UPDATE: Illspirit has more.


Anonymous said...

Why don't people like this just move to Europe?

My ancestors left Europe for a reason. Sadly, many of these yahoos are working really hard to bring Europe here.

Here's a hint, if freedom scares you, then move somewhere there is less freedom, don't crap it up for the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Infringe the 2A big time, and just throw out the 4A in one fell swoop! What a player!

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Wow! Infringe the 2A big time, and just throw out the 4A in one fell swoop! What a player!

Yeah--this is a guy with little use for the Bill of Rights.

I also wonder about this part:

A major benefit of allowing permitted, concealed weapons is that police would be legally entitled to "stop and frisk."

What is the connection between concealed carry and "stop and frisk" campaigns?

Anonymous said...

Not only did he apparently eat paint chips as a child, but it looks like he never learned to count either. 'Twas fun to de-construct though: