Trolley Square survivor calls need for tighter gun lawsObviously.
'obvious'...
And the fact that you were helpless--and saved by another man with a gun--is obviously of no relevance.
It's hard to feel sorry for some people--at least the ones who demand imposing their despicable abdication of responsibility for self defense on the rest of us--under force of arms. While planting daffodils outside a police station...
Good Lord.
5 comments:
I posted a comment on their website, but they appear to be "filtering."
Why, obliviously, "more gun laws" is a no-brainer. That's why this man-with-no-brain advocates it.
That guy seems to be a few hundred cards short of a full deck. Hello - he is likely a surviver due in large part to the fact that one armed person ignored the stupid "gun free zone" policy of Trolley Square so that he was prepared to fight off the bad guy until Police were able to arrive. Untold carnage was avoided thanks to him. We need more good people with guns, not less. Why else was crime at such a low per capita rate in the "cowboy" days if not for the fact that there were more good guys with guns than bad guys.
Did anyone else notice the technically accurate, but still untrue statement in the news article?
How can it be technically accurate and still not true, you ask. Well, let's see the man that shot and killed the scumbag was technically a policeman. Just not in that jurisdiction, nor was he on duty performing police work. He was merely a citizen going shopping like many others that day. The only difference is he ignored the "No guns Allowed" sign.
So, in actual fact, another shopper who was armed in direct defiance of the policy of the mall was able to stop the killer and save a number of lives.
To read the article it sounds like the cavalry, excuse me, the police road in to save the day and capped the bad guy. Their statement wasn't true, but technically accurate. That's how it is done when truth takes a back seat to a virulently harmful agenda.
Now, I want to know why the good guy in this sceanrio has not been charged with criminal trespass for carrying a gun in direct conflict with mall policy. Why are they not doing to him what they would to any other carrier of arms?
Sort of belies their averred belief in their policy and the authorities belief that it is right, doesn't it?
As for the jackass quoted in the article saying we need more gun control because he got hurt, where the Hell is his gratitude for a man with a gun illegally carrying to save no telling how many lives?
I'm sorry he got hurt, I'm even more sorry he is a moral and intellectual midget, far worse than being hurt.
Thanks for the link to the newspaper. It's my own state, but I miss some articles. Often the paper won't publish a pro-firearm article in the letters to the editor, so it's good to see some good comments allowed below the article. Have sent a post also. Will see if they allow it.
Post a Comment