As she holds her mechanism of death in her hands, Katz should understand the responsibility she takes on.
For no longer would she be Shirley Katz, English teacher, but Shirley Katz, killer of a fellow human being.
Not necessarily. If you had a clue about the subject on which you babble, you'd know most DGUs don't even result in shots being fired (15.6% per Kleck/Gertz, but that's assuming we intend to ground our opinions in reality.
If she listens to you and the situation arises, she may very well end up Shirley Katz, corpse. As might any number of her charges she could have otherwise protected.
And this fool speaks to us of "powerlessness."
So, "Mr." Unknown Editorialist: How does it feel to be contemptible, you despicable coward, you weakling?
[Via KABA Newslinks]
14 comments:
He's lower'n that, actually.But my yellermeter doesn't register anything lower than that. Wonder what he thinks of all them donut riddled cops waltzing around with the mechanism of death on their well fed hips? This country is overun with guys like that scientist in the original "Thing", pleading with vegetables that live on humans to "reason" with them and live in harmony. Remember how he said it was their duty to die in the name of science and learning? Shore wish we could get a few of em' on that wooden pallet, you know, right where we want em', afore we turn loose the juice.
The author of that article listed tragic events where evil people went on rampages of murder. Evil exists in our world, it always has. It is part of the natural balance, good vs evil. The obligation of those who are "good" is to be prepared to defend themselves against those who are "evil"
To be best prepared, you want to have tools at least equal to the bad guy. In ancient times it was swords, spears, & arrows. Today it is usually a gun. Since the bad guy usually has a gun, the good folks should be allowed to have their gun too.
I'm not advocating forcing anybody to carry a gun who wishes not to, I'm simply advocating "pro choice" as in I should have the right to bear arms to protect myself & those I love if I choose to. Walking onto school grounds does not make me suddenly turn into an evil killer, I'm the same person on or off of school grounds. So why should I loose my 2nd Amendment right to equal self defense just because I'm walking onto school grounds, where we already know bad people are perfectly willing to go in hunt of defenseless victims?
Gun free zones simply create places where large numbers of defenseless victims are easily located. Makes it as easy as shooting fish in a barrel for the bad guy since nobody has a better defense than perhaps a broomstick. Broomsticks against guns creates bad odds for the good guys, and good odds for the bad guy. Gun free zones is bad policy, now well proven by all the tragic events that have happened since the time that they were created. It is well past time to end this bad experiment which is using our children as the mice.
Dustin, I couldn't agree more. Along with your recently urging gun owners to join NRA, you might want to consider urging NRA to end their absurd insistence that schools remain Maniac Empowerment Zones, and demanding getting a straight answer from them as a condition of further endorsement.
Instead of the NRA, gun owners should consider joining a group that is already pro-gun, such as JPFO or GOA. I think that would send a clearer message than trying to change the mind of an established anti-gun group such as the NRA.
Yes I definitely plan to vote for NRA board members who believe like I do that gun free zones are a failed experiment on our kids long over due for being ended. I'm not sure exactly where the majority of the 4 million NRA members currently stand on the issue (hopefully much closer than the majority of non gun owners) but if there are enough of us who feel like I do than the NRA will be forced to take a stronger stance in opposition to gun free zones. Wayne has already made a few statements indicating that he is getting closer to my viewpoint. Check out his blog on nra.org for Jul 7th 2007:
"Saturday, July 07, 2007
No Guarantee of Safety
The Fayetteville Observer got one thing right in a recent rambling about safety on college campuses. "No college can offer every student a guarantee of safety," the North Carolina newspaper noted in a June 19 editorial.
But what the newspaper failed to state, and what virtually no one in the news media is talking about, is that every law-abiding American—whether they're a college student or not—has a right to his or her own safety.
NRA members and gun owners know that's what the Second Amendment is all about—the freedom of personal protection. But anti-freedom politicians, and the anti-gun news media, won't talk about that when it comes to safety on campus, even in the wake of horrific tragedy.
Instead, the head-in-the-sand crowd—like the Fayetteville Observer—drone on about communication between government entities, crime-mapping software and dealing with students with mental health issues.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. School security is a multi-faceted issue. And anything that might help make students safer should be open for discussion.
But what they're not talking about is the most obvious fact of all: The surest way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.
No deranged, homicidal, suicidal madman on a rampage will EVER be stopped by crime-mapping software.
But he can be stopped right in his tracks by a law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holder who is trained and armed to protect himself.
That's a fact of life and death."
Yes I definitely plan to vote for NRA board members who believe like I do that gun free zones are a failed experiment on our kids long over due for being ended.
How will you know? There's no standard for finding out what they believe--it's not in their bios, there's no website that itemizes their positions on specific issues, and my proposal to have a Board candidate Questionnaire has gone nowhere--so what do we do--try to get contact info for each candidate and chase them down and hope they answer?
Wayne has already made a few statements indicating that he is getting closer to my viewpoint.
That he has not long ago come out squarely leading the charge on this is a total sellout. Instead, he urges everyone to not exploit the VTech situation--all the while helping Carolyn McCarthy et al exploit it with their NICS information expansion instead of using his position to lead in the name of RKBA.
That he's blogging "maybe" for college students says nothing to repudiate his earlier advocacy that no one should be armed at lower schools but the "Only Ones." And his squelching of Sandra Froman when she brought the subject up shows he's still against it.
But my comment to you, Dustin, was for you to make an NRA turnaround on this a condition for further endorsement. You're telling me that--despite what you just professed about believing this matter to be "life and death"--you won't demand that of them? Yet you really believe people could die?
I guess I'm just too simple of a person. The shades of grey and political concessions lose me when people's lives are on the line--especially when it involves something as simple as the head of the mighty NRA not disparaging the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Betwewen that, "enforce existing gun laws" and project exile, he might as well just come out and say he believes gun control works.
Thanks David. I understand your viewpoint & don't wish to try to change it. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this item. I believe that in the political world Wayne is required to walk on "eggshells" to make sure he doesn't upset the majority of the 4 million members & those who are not NRA members in support of the overall goals of the NRA. For example, it is possible that Wayne is actually a strict constitutionalist on the 2nd Amendment just like you and I, but in an attempt to maintain the power that the NRA has via support of the overall public he is restricted on what he can say by the NRA BoD via an overall game plan to overcome the anti-gun sentiment fostered by the media. I'm sure you have heard the media talk about the "evil NRA lobbying group" - he has to be careful not to give the media rope to hang us with while working on the overall strategy of getting the truth out there to our fellow Americans.
I can understand your viewpoint though as I too would just like to repeal all of the gun laws. Rather than attempting to improve the NICS bill I'd prefer to see it repealed. I just don't think there are enough supporters out there yet to be able to elect enough candidates with that aggressive of a game plan, at least not yet. All we need are a bunch of Ron Paul clones in government, say 60% of congress & the Senate should do the trick, then we could finally enjoy the full freedoms intended by the 2nd Amendment.
In the mean time, join both groups, the more moderate NRA with much larger support base to work gradually on fixing the problems, and the more aggressive groups out there that have a smaller support base in large part because of their hard line views. Hopefully both strategies will end up working together in the end.
I just love this sentence from the little hysteria piece:
In bringing her gun to school, Katz may rest her fear but by adding another weapon to any given situation she is exasperating the problems.
That's exacerbating, genius.
Dustin, I've been a life member for more years than I can remember--and have experienced betrayal after betrayal by current management and staff to where what you say just doesn't wash with what members like myself and others have lived through. Time and again. It's all on the internet, going back for years,no need to repeat it here, but by virtue of the fact that you're telling me to join means you're not aware I'm even a member, let alone the years of documentation I and others like me have provided.
So sorry, Wayne being a strict constitutionalist who's playing some genius political stealth game ain't flying here.
And there's a world of difference between not talking about an issue and coming down vocally and directly on the side of the gun controllers, which Wayne has done time and again. Tell me what other issue advocacy lobbying group does that--promotes the agenda of their enemies?
If you really want to believe what you just said, I won't try to stop you--but good Lord--you really intend to promote a group that has to lie about their agenda because they're afraid to champion the truth? You can believe in them because they're liars? Is that your premise? And this is the mighty most powerful lobby on the hill?
And the thing is--this theory of yours has been conjured out of what? Do you have some basis for promulgating it? Please share that--I'd like to know how you not only figured that out, but how you're confident enough in it to put your name behind it and tell others that's why Wayne & Co are really the secret good guys.
And if it turns out you're wrong, then what?
The problem with being a secret good guy is you must do bad things to maintain your cover. However, if you really are a bad guy, you can fool the less intuitive by claiming you are a "secret, stealth, surprise good guy, and get their support for all the harm you cause them. Hell, you can even get them to pay you to do it.
Loyalty to men instead of principle is a guarantee serious error, even with the most honorable intentions.
I get a little tired of hearing people say they must support the NRA because they belong. Huh uh, dummies. The NRA is supposed to be supporting you and your rights. Where the Hell is its loyalty?
Oh, the NRA has plenty of "loyalty". he question is, loyalty to what? It sure isn't loyalty to the principle that everyone has a right to own and to carry any type of weapon they choose, anywhere they see fit, without asking permission from anyone. Funny thing is, that is exactly what the Second Amendment they say they support says.
Well, Kent, that was why the question "where is its loyalty?". It sure as Hell isn't to the Constitution or the rights of its members under guarantee of the Constitution. Is it?
David, actually I didn't ask you to join the NRA. I was just repeating that I invite everyone to consider joining. Why should you re-join when you're already a life member? That would be a waste of your time & money.
I also didn't mean to imply that the NRA are liars with a secret agenda, I was attempting to say that they have to represent the majority of their 4 million members. If 51% of their members believe some gun control such as instant background checks are OK, and that guns in schools are a bad idea, than people like Wayne are forced to represent that. It doesn't make him a liar, it makes him a responsible employee who does not want to be fired. Obviously the scales have finally tipped for NRA members who support guns on college campuses based on his recent statements, so we are making progress.
I think overall we agree on many things, you just happen to not like the NRA. I can accept that. I have no problem with that. We do after all live in a free country. I personally feel that for myself being a part of the NRA I can try to tip the scale in favor of the members who believe like I do, that all gun control laws are bad & I should be allowed to have my guns anywhere so long as I'm not stepping on the rights of others by threatening or shooting at them. I even think guns on planes would be good, perhaps with regulations on the kind of ammunition you can carry - perhaps only frangible bullets proven to not penetrate the airplane "skin".
So 51% of NRA members think guns is school are a bad idea?
Where do you get that from? Are you just making it up because you think it might be so?
Matter of fact, where do you get the theory that the moderate middle of the roaders would demand Wayne be fired for getting more activist than they--and how would they go about organizing and gaining the needed control to make that happen? If they're moderates, they don't care enough to get radical, which is what is needed for dramatic change. What you're proposing is such an improbability, I don't even know why I'm responding to it.
Dustin, all you're doing is conjuring up unsubstantiated speculation out of thin air--and using it as the basis for your belief system.
Do NOT sit there and tell me it boils down to me not liking the NRA. What I don't like is current sell-out management, the undue influence of Ackerman-McQueen, calls for gun control, school bans, enforcing existing gun laws, A ratings for gun grabbers, no-bid contracts issues to vendors, a rubber stamp board of directors and apologists willing to bend to all sorts of amazing contortions in order to deny realities they're not even apparently aware of.
You can't sit there and even pretend you have any knowledge about what steps NRA has taken to determine if guns in schools will sell or not--the truth of the matter is, they have not only kept silent, they have adopted the position of the enemy and said they should be banned.
That's crap, pure and unadulterated, and if you're going to continue to be an apologist for it, I'm going to call you on it.
Post a Comment