The site:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty_com/19991105_xcjod_tired_brpl.shtml
The article:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Tired of playing victim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
I don't know about the rest of you but personally I'm tired of being forced to play the role of "victim." Two recent mass shootings -- one in Hawaii Tuesday and one in Seattle Wednesday -- have forced me to dramatically change my views on guns and gun rights.
Which is to say, I would like to see all prohibitions against guns repealed and repealed now. All of them -- against handguns, "assault" guns, shotguns, cheap guns, expensive guns, long guns, short guns, and guns with funny names. All of them.
Before this week, I could see the logic in forbidding guns in some public places like courtrooms, businesses, schools, churches, and bars. Not anymore; that's because it's obvious that regardless of where you live or where you go, you're not safe enough.
The police, God bless 'em, cannot protect us entirely. I don't care if President Clinton and Congress pass laws enabling the hiring of another 500,000 police officers -- you and I are not going to be safe 100 percent of the time. That expectation -- long held by liberals as the very reason for more gun control -- is pure fantasy. To play off a line from Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, it is not the religious who are "weak-minded" but instead people who honestly believe they can be safe 100 percent of the time -- if only we had 500,000 more police and no civilian-owned and carried guns in circulation. Get real.
No doubt that abolishing all gun control laws will not guarantee that you and I will be safe 100 percent of the time either. But based on the statistics and common sense, you and I will sure be much safer without laws that, in essence, prohibit us from being able to adequately protect ourselves. It is a fact.
That's because the problem here is not now, nor has it ever been, guns. Guns are inanimate objects that are being misused by losers, crazies, and idiots. But so are cars, alcohol, crack cocaine and baseball bats. In fact, I dare say there are precious few inanimate objects in existence today that cannot be misused in some way to hurt another person. It takes a sick mind to even decide to hurt somebody else; the choice of "weapon" is irrelevant.
When you're talking about guns in the hands of lunatics, only guns in the hands of honest people who have a desire (and a right) to survive will suffice. Only giving people "911" in the face of an immediate and armed threat is itself criminal. Like the old saying goes, "Don't bring your fists to a gunfight. You'll lose."
But liberal statists -- those weird creatures who perceive a utopia that simply cannot exist in this world -- continue to insist that you and I play the hapless, helpless victim. Their gun control policies have gotten more decent people killed than crazies with guns. Look it up.
Enough already. They have no right to put you, our families or me at risk any longer.
In nearly all cases crazed lunatics with guns -- as in Seattle Wednesday -- actually run past a number of people when picking their targets. All these people can do is hide, cower in fear, watch their friends and co-workers get killed, and hope like Hades they aren't going to be shot next. What kind of lunatic seriously believes this is better than having an actual means to defend oneself?
Liberal lunatics, that's who. Congressional, judicial and presidential lunatics -- just the sort of people who have their own (taxpayer financed) security detachments. They don't sweat idiots with guns because squads of security personnel armed with fully automatic weapons and enough handguns to open a small gun store surround them. They say they deserve protection; I say they're right, but so do I. Better still, I'm not asking them to "defend" me, so it doesn't cost anyone else one thin dime. I'll bear those costs myself.
And I'll take responsibility for my own defense as well. If, by some grotesque act of Satan, I wrongly shoot another person, then put me in chains and give me my day in court. In the meantime, however, I say stop forcing me to walk around with a target on my chest or a sign that says, "I'm legally unarmed; kill me."
If, after all of these dangerous gun control laws are repealed, liberals still insist on playing the victim, let them. That's their choice; but as for my family and me we choose "life."
The funny thing is, with less gun control even anti-gun liberals are better defended. That's because, in places where people are "allowed" to carry weapons, idiots with guns don't always know who is and isn't armed when planning their crimes. That fact alone has deterred unknown thousands of crimes; the criminals themselves have repeatedly said so. They hate an armed populace because it makes their "trade" more dangerous. Duh.
But creating more danger for criminals is exactly what we ought to be seeking in terms of public policy. Instead, the liberals have it backwards -- they have made it more dangerous for law-abiding people to walk their own streets. How does that accomplish "domestic tranquility?"
We don't have to legalize artillery pieces, nuclear weapons and anti-aircraft guns in order to achieve the kind of society we all want -- one that is safer, more respectful, and better behaved. We do, however, have to stop liberals from mandating all of this feministic victimization; they're literally killing us with all their "concern."
The right to self-defense is a God-given right, not a "government-given" right. People concerned about their own safety ought to turn the entire gun control debate into one that mimics the "pro-choice" line by insisting it is our "choice" to either protect ourselves or rely on others to do it.
I choose the former. I also choose to put armed criminals on notice -- if you waltz into my office with a gun and evil intentions, you will in turn be gunned down for your stupidity; you won't live to see a trial. That's the message we, as a nation, ought to be sending to those elements of our society who like to prey on us. No more.
Let the statist liberals and arrogant lawmakers opt for victimhood. It suits them better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
[/quote]
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty_com/19991105_xcjod_tired_brpl.shtml
The article:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Tired of playing victim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
I don't know about the rest of you but personally I'm tired of being forced to play the role of "victim." Two recent mass shootings -- one in Hawaii Tuesday and one in Seattle Wednesday -- have forced me to dramatically change my views on guns and gun rights.
Which is to say, I would like to see all prohibitions against guns repealed and repealed now. All of them -- against handguns, "assault" guns, shotguns, cheap guns, expensive guns, long guns, short guns, and guns with funny names. All of them.
Before this week, I could see the logic in forbidding guns in some public places like courtrooms, businesses, schools, churches, and bars. Not anymore; that's because it's obvious that regardless of where you live or where you go, you're not safe enough.
The police, God bless 'em, cannot protect us entirely. I don't care if President Clinton and Congress pass laws enabling the hiring of another 500,000 police officers -- you and I are not going to be safe 100 percent of the time. That expectation -- long held by liberals as the very reason for more gun control -- is pure fantasy. To play off a line from Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, it is not the religious who are "weak-minded" but instead people who honestly believe they can be safe 100 percent of the time -- if only we had 500,000 more police and no civilian-owned and carried guns in circulation. Get real.
No doubt that abolishing all gun control laws will not guarantee that you and I will be safe 100 percent of the time either. But based on the statistics and common sense, you and I will sure be much safer without laws that, in essence, prohibit us from being able to adequately protect ourselves. It is a fact.
That's because the problem here is not now, nor has it ever been, guns. Guns are inanimate objects that are being misused by losers, crazies, and idiots. But so are cars, alcohol, crack cocaine and baseball bats. In fact, I dare say there are precious few inanimate objects in existence today that cannot be misused in some way to hurt another person. It takes a sick mind to even decide to hurt somebody else; the choice of "weapon" is irrelevant.
When you're talking about guns in the hands of lunatics, only guns in the hands of honest people who have a desire (and a right) to survive will suffice. Only giving people "911" in the face of an immediate and armed threat is itself criminal. Like the old saying goes, "Don't bring your fists to a gunfight. You'll lose."
But liberal statists -- those weird creatures who perceive a utopia that simply cannot exist in this world -- continue to insist that you and I play the hapless, helpless victim. Their gun control policies have gotten more decent people killed than crazies with guns. Look it up.
Enough already. They have no right to put you, our families or me at risk any longer.
In nearly all cases crazed lunatics with guns -- as in Seattle Wednesday -- actually run past a number of people when picking their targets. All these people can do is hide, cower in fear, watch their friends and co-workers get killed, and hope like Hades they aren't going to be shot next. What kind of lunatic seriously believes this is better than having an actual means to defend oneself?
Liberal lunatics, that's who. Congressional, judicial and presidential lunatics -- just the sort of people who have their own (taxpayer financed) security detachments. They don't sweat idiots with guns because squads of security personnel armed with fully automatic weapons and enough handguns to open a small gun store surround them. They say they deserve protection; I say they're right, but so do I. Better still, I'm not asking them to "defend" me, so it doesn't cost anyone else one thin dime. I'll bear those costs myself.
And I'll take responsibility for my own defense as well. If, by some grotesque act of Satan, I wrongly shoot another person, then put me in chains and give me my day in court. In the meantime, however, I say stop forcing me to walk around with a target on my chest or a sign that says, "I'm legally unarmed; kill me."
If, after all of these dangerous gun control laws are repealed, liberals still insist on playing the victim, let them. That's their choice; but as for my family and me we choose "life."
The funny thing is, with less gun control even anti-gun liberals are better defended. That's because, in places where people are "allowed" to carry weapons, idiots with guns don't always know who is and isn't armed when planning their crimes. That fact alone has deterred unknown thousands of crimes; the criminals themselves have repeatedly said so. They hate an armed populace because it makes their "trade" more dangerous. Duh.
But creating more danger for criminals is exactly what we ought to be seeking in terms of public policy. Instead, the liberals have it backwards -- they have made it more dangerous for law-abiding people to walk their own streets. How does that accomplish "domestic tranquility?"
We don't have to legalize artillery pieces, nuclear weapons and anti-aircraft guns in order to achieve the kind of society we all want -- one that is safer, more respectful, and better behaved. We do, however, have to stop liberals from mandating all of this feministic victimization; they're literally killing us with all their "concern."
The right to self-defense is a God-given right, not a "government-given" right. People concerned about their own safety ought to turn the entire gun control debate into one that mimics the "pro-choice" line by insisting it is our "choice" to either protect ourselves or rely on others to do it.
I choose the former. I also choose to put armed criminals on notice -- if you waltz into my office with a gun and evil intentions, you will in turn be gunned down for your stupidity; you won't live to see a trial. That's the message we, as a nation, ought to be sending to those elements of our society who like to prey on us. No more.
Let the statist liberals and arrogant lawmakers opt for victimhood. It suits them better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
[/quote]
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
). I was also aware of and vehemently disagreed with his "reasonable restrictions" viewpoint, which he pointed out in this article.