Stone Mountain Park settled its lawsuit with the grassroots activist group GeorgiaCarry.Org recently, agreeing to drop its complete ban on firearms within the park boundaries. [More]Ed Stone brings news of a legal victory that he and his group made happen.
He calls my attention to a statement by an "Only One"-worshiper:
The folks who are adamantly in favor of that see themselves as substitutes for law enforcement and that’s very dangerous.Damn vigilantes!
6 comments:
G*d help us if we should take up arms and defend ourselves. Naw, we'uns ain't substitutes for law enforcement, sugah, we're the people, you know, (you constipated deleted) the ones' the laws were created FOR. So,if'n we git up off our well-fed asses, n' actually exercise those rights, people like you(who are mostly upset because a house fell on your sister) start squealing like pigs. Cry me a river.
"Law enforcement" is a substitute (and a pretty darn pathetic one) for REAL PEOPLE taking responsibility for themselves and their loved ones; NOT the other way around.
it continues to amaze me that anyone can think so backwards. its as if demons walk among us.
Sometimes I get the feeling that my own incredulity at the cranio-rectal inversion hampers my effectiveness.
My first thought is: how can I possibly be more dangerous to innocents than law enforcers?
Seriously: how is that physically OR metaphysically possible? I, after all, have to answer both to my conscience, and to my fellow man. And the Only Ones files pretty well establish that LEOs are in no way burdened by that latter, and only occasionally restrained by the former.
Then there is this thought: I have no interest in being a substitute for law enforcement. I am only interested in keeping the peace. Those jobs are not the same.
"The folks who are adamantly in favor of that see themselves as substitutes for law enforcement and that’s very dangerous."
It's a dangerous world. We who believe in the right to carry believe that we have the right to defend ourselves against that danger. If Ms. Johnson chooses to be vulnerable to that danger, that's her decision. I, however, believe that it is my right and responsibility to make myself less vulnerable to that danger when at all possible.
"The folks who are adamantly in favor of that see themselves as substitutes for law enforcement and that’s very dangerous."
Substitutes? No. We don't wish to come out to the scene of the crime after the fact (where we or someone close to us was just the victims of some crime) and try to put the pieces together. That would be substituting law enforcement.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing them for this. Its just a fact of life that there's a snowballs change in haydes that they can be present in time to intercede in the commission of a crime and protect a would-be victim. Like lightening striking, it happens daily of course - God bless them for the good deeds they do.
But lightening doesn't strike everywhere, every time. Sometimes, often, almost always, we are on our own. We can (and should) call when trouble is afoot and we have time to dial the phone, but it unless an officer is driving past at that moment and gets the dispatch... Well you get it.
I respectfully would dare any law enforcement officer to argue that they can be excepted to be on the spot and in time to avert crime 100% of the time, Not even 1/4 of the time.
They may well come in later and find out what happened, and may even find and catch the bad guy(s), but that doesn't help the victim that point.
To avoid being a victim is then the only reasonable choice to make by a Free person. To be prepared (not paranoid). To do what one can to increase the odds of being around for later, when law enforcement comes to figured out what happened and pick up the pieces.
Its defies reason, how some people cant' grasp this. Oh well. At least the ball is moving in the right direction.
Post a Comment