What this means is Judge Kollar-Kotelly, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Brady Campaign, et al, subscribe to the perverted value system that the potential for an immeasurable effect on the environment outweighs the right of a human to defend their life and the lives of their loved ones. That is what it boils down to.Forget the statistics and the debating points. This treason boils down to the essentials and needs to be couched that way.
Bottom line: They would rather see you dead than armed. And they'll use the force of the state to bend you to their will.
That's despicable. [More]
Here's today's Gun Rights Examiner column. In addition to also giving you the latest from my fellow GREs, I also have a list of other Examiners covering this latest judicial assault on Liberty. If anyone wants to
click on the "Biggest threat from guns in national parks: Visitation" link and leave a comment kicking some of the more clownishly ignorant asses, I won't mind.
Please help bring wider readership to this column by sharing the link with your friends.
2 comments:
Ed Stone has it just right by focusing on the lunacy of Killar-Kotelly opinion.
Self defense is harmful to the environment? Of course not, and any grownup would know that.
Would a grownup write this:
"[T]he issue ... is not whether persons carrying concealed firearms will use them more often than the general public, but rather, whether they will use them at all. If the firearms will be used, then the Final Rule will obviously have some impact on the environment, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative."
Insane.
I'm a bit bleary-eyed at this point (long day) but I posted this at the "Visitation" article:
______________
There are all kinds of minor points that could be made, illustrating how patently irrational a fear of someone just because she is armed is. Others may make those points, but for me, if we get down to brass tacks, it all comes back to these two questions:
1) When did it become acceptable for one group of people to force its arbitrary will on those who have done no harm, using the state as a hired goon to enforce the prior restraint? The way I learned it, the individual is protected from the majority, unless and until he actually does something harmful.
2) When, exactly, did it become acceptable to demand (by threat of armed force, ironically), that putatively free and demonstrably peaceable people should have to beg anyone else's permission for the means to protect themselves, anywhere, any time? This may be the most offensive insult that anyone could level at a sapient being.
I've yet to see an intelligible answer to either of these questions, and I certainly don't expect to suddenly see one now. The self-sanctified seem to show no interest in backing off their attacks on the peaceable.
"...may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen" indeed.
Post a Comment