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.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Why can't they all be like this?

Charles A. Williams III wastes little time before stating his abhorrence for guns, and describing his efforts to convince others to share that abhorrence.

I'M A CARD-carrying Democrat. Moreover, as a former co-chairman of Philadelphia Against Drugs, Guns and Violence, I abhor guns and the carnage they create.

While working with Operation Ceasefire, I helped to promote a program that promises a mandatory five years tacked onto a defendant's sentence when the defendant uses a gun in the commission of a crime.
I take some issues with his assertion that guns "create" carnage, and I'm puzzled by anyone who is a "card-carrying" member of any political party. Furthermore, the idea of mandatory increased penalties for a crime, based on the fact that a gun was used, rather than on the degree and heinousness of the violence committed, makes no sense to me.

On the other hand . . .
Rally after rally and march after march, we would talk about the need to put down guns and "stop the violence" - but let me be clear, at no point did I believe that restricting an individual's rights to own a gun would improve the situation in the communities hardest hit by drug-related gun violence.
You mean that the decision about whether to exercise the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms should be left . . . to the individual? Blasphemy! At least to the Bryan Miller and Josh Sugarmann types.
The court's conservative majority decided to ignore the liberals who believe that the only way to make our communities safer is to impose further gun restrictions on law-abiding Americans.

Essentially, the court upheld the Second Amendment, which is contained within the U.S.

Constitution, as . . . well . . .

Watch out, Charles--the Party might revoke your card.
At some point, liberals and anti-gun folks will have to realize that it is failing families, schools and communities that lead to drug-related gun violence, not guns purchased by law-abiding citizens.

Even if you examine straw purchases, the impact is infinitesimal when compared with the impact of poor education, absentee fathers and a community lacking a moral focus and appropriate priorities. All of these things lead a young person to make the wrong choices, which is at the heart of our gun violence problem in urban America.

By the way, the same can be said for this silly public-relations hoax that we call gun "buyback" programs. What a waste of time, energy and effort. There is no research to demonstrate that such programs lead to even a slight decrease in gun violence.
Those are the kinds of things I might say--actually I have said some of those things.

He continues in a similar vein, with some superb points, and a bit of rather scathing commentary, but I've already fairly shredded the Fair Use rules, so rather than posting any more quotes, I'll urge readers to follow the link and read the entire op-ed.

If only Mayor Nutter would listen to this guy.


B Smith said...

Gun buybacks have always enraged me. Instead of selling the guns back to law abiding citizens---or at least dealers--- for MONEY (and thus not having to rely on taxing the public more and more), the assholes always DESTROY them.
I've always fantasized about having the money to set up a stand outside the PD, and offer to buy peoples' guns for 20 or 30 dollars more than the police were giving. Hey, as long as I didn't resell them, it'd just be a series of private transactions, right?