Saturday, June 05, 2010

Should Law Require 'Shooting to Wound'?

That any would believe Lone Ranger outcomes can be mandated by legislation speaks more to the childish ignorance of much of the political class running our cities. It figures this would be proposed in New York. [More]
Today's Gun Rights Examiner column shows what juveniles some urban politicians are when you strip away their mask of pretend authority.

Share the link?

1 comment:

sofa said...

Are politicians shooting at America 'to wound' or 'to kill'?

Muslim communists seem to be going for the kill.

Socialists and other statists seem oriented toward wounding, and then using each wound, each manufactured crisis to compel their victims to do whatever they decide 'is best for them' (also known as slavery).

It used to be occaissional wing nuts taking pot shots at our liberty, safety, and property; at our way of life. Then it was more and more regular. Now there are well funded federal regiments standing shoulder to shoulder like Grant's army, loosing volleys at us, firing from many flanks (medical, business, legal, social, economic). And the Obamacorps for internal security isn't even on line yet.

Does it make you feel better if the statists promise to only shoot to wound? (Not too much choice in November elections.)

Socialists, statists, muslims, communists: All shooting at us. For different reasons. Toward different ends. To 'wound' or to 'kill'. But all targetting the productive moral American middle.

"We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem."
-Chesty Puller