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, June 16, 2014

'Progressive' gun rights foe announces plan to foment 'gun violence'

At least we now have a pretty good idea as to why Malloy is so insistent on restrictive gun laws. Being so consumed himself by hate and rage, it's hardly surprising that he projects those qualities even onto the vast majority of gun owners who are not inclined to kill those with whom they disagree, and to therefore believe they should not be armed.

If he wants to purchase any more guns, though, he might be well advised to not push so hard for mental health checks of prospective gun buyers. [More]

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.


Anonymous said...

Malloy wants a cop to shoot a gun owner (who is not breaking any laws) "right in the forehead." Of course, when a cop shoots a mugger or bank robber in a gunfight, Malloy will whine, "Why didn't that trigger-happy cop shoot to wound? Why didn't he just shoot the gun out of that poor kid's hand!?"

And he wants to start a panic, possibly provoking a shooting, drawing police to a site where there is no emergency (and maybe away from some real emergency where they are needed). Talk about the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" analogy.

Then he, in effect, challenges someone to a duel, and he completely misrepresents the Stand Your Ground law, claiming that he can shoot an NRA member and get away with it by claiming that he felt "threatened."

Georgia law prohibits dueling, and its law re: justifiable use of force specifically says that you can't claim "self defense" if you engage in a prearranged duel by mutual consent. That goes whether you were the challenger or the challenged.

And Stand Your Ground laws are not a license to kill. They can only be invoked in shootings that were already justifiable anyway. You can't pick a fight, shoot your opponent, and then claim immunity under SYG. You can't shoot some harmless panhandler because he "looked weird" and you arbitrarily decided you "felt threatened." You still have to be the innocent victim of an unprovoked attack, and you have to have reasonable cause to fear for your life at the time of the shooting. For that matter, if you willingly engage in a gunfight that you could have avoided, a prosecutor could still argue that your actions were reckless and unreasonable, and therefore not justified.

SYG laws were passed to protect innocent people from being railroaded. The victim of an assault might have a split second to make a life-or-death decision: flight or fight, shoot or don't shoot. A prosecutor or a plaintiff's lawyer can take months to cook up some hypothetical scenario in which the defendant theoretically "could have" retreated.

In Malloy's world, if a cop shoots back at an armed robber, it's police brutality. If the cop shoots an NRA member, it's OK. If you grumble about paying taxes, or if you admit you can't see Emperor Obama's new clothes, you are guilty of "hate speech." But it's OK for leftists to threaten to shoot someone, or to deliberately cause a panic and provoke violence.

I wouldn't worry much about Malloy buying a gun and shooting Wayne LaPierre, though. After all, it's already illegal to sell a firearm to anyone who is psychotic, insane, or incompetent.