When my uncle was mugged by four young black socialists intent on the redistribution of wealth, he complained bitterly to my mother that he explained to them that he was a card-carrying member of the NAACP, and the ACLU, and they couldn't DO this to him!
That's when my father told him: "There's no one more conservative than a Liberal who has just been mugged."
These "wooden-heads" haven't had any socialists play Whack-A-Mole with their noggins yet, and until that happens, their vision will remain clouded.
Posted this comment there, it is awaiting moderation. We'll see if it gets through. ********************************
For all you logically impaired people who wish to eliminate guns from your environment, I suggest that if you were serious and this was a stand based on principle you would demand that the police department personnel not upgrade their carry arms, but rather, surrender them entirely and go about their duties unarmed.
That would certainly cause fewer firearms on the streets of your timid town.
You ask; "Who would then protect us from the criminals who will always arm themselves with something?". Why, no one. You don't deserve protection.
It is a cowardly person indeed, who would hire others to do for himself and his loved ones ( I used "loved ones" here purely as a common though inappropriate phrase to identify the people one should care about, but does not) what he is uprepared to risk in their defense.
If your town's problem with criminality is as severe as described by some commenters here and the blogger, the fault can be traced to your willingness to avoid your responsibility as citizens, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. It is your cowardly acquiesence to the marauders of your little society.
Attempting to buy your security by hiring professionals who are undermanned, usually undertrained, and always underpaid is folly.
When seconds count the police are only minutes away. But they do get there in time to draw chalk outlines around the bodies and file reports. Not a satisfying outcome from a practical standpoint, even eschewing the considerations of a lack of moral fortitude and violations of the responsibilities of a free people.
Ownership of a firearm does not determine whether one will become vicious or a criminal, character does. Disarming those of good character in favor of those not so disposed is something only those of bad character would do.
Just a very little study of the issue and only a brain cell or two would show you the idiocy of making good people defenseless.
Helplessness is not a security measure. Everywhere in this nation where the carrying and/or ownership of arms has become more prevalent by the ordinary good citizen the criminals have either moved to safer predation areas or become much more timid in their predations.
I did some independent study on some east coast state's new gun crusher a year or so ago. One of the selling points involved taking the money gleaned from the scrap and putting it into the county's coffers.
Doing the math, based on the number of guns seized, scrap metal prices, and the price of the scrapper and estimated overhead, I figured the county really didn't do better than the older system it had (which involved taking loads of guns every so often to another county's scrapper).
But we know it really wasn't about economy as it was about making some sort of political statement. I guess they know where their values lie.
It was Suffolk County, NY, off an article David himself posted back in March of '06.
The machine costed $18,000, with $8,000 annual overhead. To just cover the cost of the overhead, they'd have to do seize more than 56,000 guns per year (which was the total number for New York City in the years 1994-97). That isn't even touching the ROI on the machine itself.
Sigh... Welcome to Illinois...
ReplyDeleteWhat did Hemingway say once, "Where the lawns are as wide as their minds are narrow."
the funny thing is that RGuns, home of the all nude Girls and Guns calendar, is a shop in Carpentersville that sells great stuff!
Bought my first FAL there...
When my uncle was mugged by four young black socialists intent on the redistribution of wealth, he complained bitterly to my mother that he explained to them that he was a card-carrying member of the NAACP, and the ACLU, and they couldn't DO this to him!
ReplyDeleteThat's when my father told him: "There's no one more conservative than a Liberal who has just been mugged."
These "wooden-heads" haven't had any socialists play Whack-A-Mole with their noggins yet, and until that happens, their vision will remain clouded.
Posted this comment there, it is awaiting moderation. We'll see if it gets through.
ReplyDelete********************************
For all you logically impaired people who wish to eliminate guns from your environment, I suggest that if you were serious and this was a stand based on principle you would demand that the police department personnel not upgrade their carry arms, but rather, surrender them entirely and go about their duties unarmed.
That would certainly cause fewer firearms on the streets of your timid town.
You ask; "Who would then protect us from the criminals who will always arm themselves with something?". Why, no one. You don't deserve protection.
It is a cowardly person indeed, who would hire others to do for himself and his loved ones ( I used "loved ones" here purely as a common though inappropriate phrase to identify the people one should care about, but does not) what he is uprepared to risk in their defense.
If your town's problem with criminality is as severe as described by some commenters here and the blogger, the fault can be traced to your willingness to avoid your responsibility as citizens, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. It is your cowardly acquiesence to the marauders of your little society.
Attempting to buy your security by hiring professionals who are undermanned, usually undertrained, and always underpaid is folly.
When seconds count the police are only minutes away. But they do get there in time to draw chalk outlines around the bodies and file reports. Not a satisfying outcome from a practical standpoint, even eschewing the considerations of a lack of moral fortitude and violations of the responsibilities of a free people.
Ownership of a firearm does not determine whether one will become vicious or a criminal, character does. Disarming those of good character in favor of those not so disposed is something only those of bad character would do.
Just a very little study of the issue and only a brain cell or two would show you the idiocy of making good people defenseless.
Helplessness is not a security measure. Everywhere in this nation where the carrying and/or ownership of arms has become more prevalent by the ordinary good citizen the criminals have either moved to safer predation areas or become much more timid in their predations.
I repeat, helplessness is not a security measure.
I did some independent study on some east coast state's new gun crusher a year or so ago. One of the selling points involved taking the money gleaned from the scrap and putting it into the county's coffers.
ReplyDeleteDoing the math, based on the number of guns seized, scrap metal prices, and the price of the scrapper and estimated overhead, I figured the county really didn't do better than the older system it had (which involved taking loads of guns every so often to another county's scrapper).
But we know it really wasn't about economy as it was about making some sort of political statement. I guess they know where their values lie.
Matter of fact, I found the article:
ReplyDeleteRead it here
It was Suffolk County, NY, off an article David himself posted back in March of '06.
The machine costed $18,000, with $8,000 annual overhead. To just cover the cost of the overhead, they'd have to do seize more than 56,000 guns per year (which was the total number for New York City in the years 1994-97). That isn't even touching the ROI on the machine itself.
Jeremy, welcome back. I've missed your college reports.
ReplyDelete