http://orlandosentinel.com/automagic/columnists/2000-10-03/OPEDreese03100300.html
The choice: Arm all or arm none
Charley Reese
Commentary
Published in The Orlando Sentinel on October 03, 2000
Let's play let's pretend. Let's pretend that Suzy, an innocent citizen, and Joe, a cop, are forced to deal with the same criminal, Zack.
Now Zack one night catches Suzy on the way to her car in a parking lot, beats the stew out of her, and rapes her. Now the gun-control crowd absolutely insists that Suzy does not need a handgun in order to deal with Zack. So an unarmed Suzy becomes a victim of Zack.
Now Joe, the cop, tracks down Zack and puts his worthless carcass into the can. What's the difference?
Joe was armed with a handgun when he had to deal with Zack.
Now you tell me what warped, sick logic says that the victim of a criminal should not have a handgun while the policeman who arrests the very same criminal should have a handgun. If, as the gun-control crowd purports, Suzy doesn't need a handgun in her encounter with the criminal, why does the policeman?
After all, Joe, the cop, is bigger than Suzy. Why does he need a weapon?
How can people who live in gated communities with armed guards argue that we common folk must be disarmed?
I say, take down your gates and fire your armed guards. I say to politicians, get rid of your bodyguards. I say to Congress, tell the Capitol police to go write traffic tickets; you no longer need their arms to protect you. I say to the president, get rid of the Secret Service or at least take its guns away. Disarm every one of the 60,000 federal officials authorized to carry handguns.
It seems to me that either we all disarm or we all arm. It seems to me unacceptably illogical to argue that crime victims must be unarmed while the police, dealing with the very same criminals, should be armed. This business of the elitists, living behind the protection of pistols, telling the common folk you must not have firearms smacks of totalitarianism.
It was clearly the intent of the Founding Fathers that every American be armed. That's why the ancient Anglo-Saxon right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. And the amendment states "right of the people" not right of the states or right of the militias. All honest scholars agree that in every instance the Bill of Rights uses the word "people," it is referring to individual rights.
I know that millions of Americans today suffer from urban psychosis, in which their world view is distorted by dishonest politicians and even more dishonest news media and their miserable environment of stone, concrete and asphalt. But the facts are simple. A handgun is a tool, just like a saw or a hammer. It is an ideal tool for self-defense.
With a handgun, 90-pound Suzy can stop 200-pound Zack. After Samuel Colt invented his revolver, a common saying in America was, "God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."
And so he did.
You don't have to be built like a linebacker or invest five years of sweat in becoming a martial artist. You can defend yourself quite well with a handgun with just a little bit of practice and common sense. It is, in fact, an ideal tool for women and for the elderly.
Gun-control has always been an elitist method of controlling the common folk. It always has been racist. New York City's first gun-control laws were aimed at those immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe whom the hoity-toity types viewed as vermin. In the South, gun-control laws most often applied only to blacks.
Nevertheless, if the urban insane wish to be prey for predators, that's their privilege. But no one has the right to tell someone else that he or she cannot possess the tools necessary to defend his or her life and the lives of loved ones.
The choice: Arm all or arm none
Charley Reese
Commentary
Published in The Orlando Sentinel on October 03, 2000
Let's play let's pretend. Let's pretend that Suzy, an innocent citizen, and Joe, a cop, are forced to deal with the same criminal, Zack.
Now Zack one night catches Suzy on the way to her car in a parking lot, beats the stew out of her, and rapes her. Now the gun-control crowd absolutely insists that Suzy does not need a handgun in order to deal with Zack. So an unarmed Suzy becomes a victim of Zack.
Now Joe, the cop, tracks down Zack and puts his worthless carcass into the can. What's the difference?
Joe was armed with a handgun when he had to deal with Zack.
Now you tell me what warped, sick logic says that the victim of a criminal should not have a handgun while the policeman who arrests the very same criminal should have a handgun. If, as the gun-control crowd purports, Suzy doesn't need a handgun in her encounter with the criminal, why does the policeman?
After all, Joe, the cop, is bigger than Suzy. Why does he need a weapon?
How can people who live in gated communities with armed guards argue that we common folk must be disarmed?
I say, take down your gates and fire your armed guards. I say to politicians, get rid of your bodyguards. I say to Congress, tell the Capitol police to go write traffic tickets; you no longer need their arms to protect you. I say to the president, get rid of the Secret Service or at least take its guns away. Disarm every one of the 60,000 federal officials authorized to carry handguns.
It seems to me that either we all disarm or we all arm. It seems to me unacceptably illogical to argue that crime victims must be unarmed while the police, dealing with the very same criminals, should be armed. This business of the elitists, living behind the protection of pistols, telling the common folk you must not have firearms smacks of totalitarianism.
It was clearly the intent of the Founding Fathers that every American be armed. That's why the ancient Anglo-Saxon right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. And the amendment states "right of the people" not right of the states or right of the militias. All honest scholars agree that in every instance the Bill of Rights uses the word "people," it is referring to individual rights.
I know that millions of Americans today suffer from urban psychosis, in which their world view is distorted by dishonest politicians and even more dishonest news media and their miserable environment of stone, concrete and asphalt. But the facts are simple. A handgun is a tool, just like a saw or a hammer. It is an ideal tool for self-defense.
With a handgun, 90-pound Suzy can stop 200-pound Zack. After Samuel Colt invented his revolver, a common saying in America was, "God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."
And so he did.
You don't have to be built like a linebacker or invest five years of sweat in becoming a martial artist. You can defend yourself quite well with a handgun with just a little bit of practice and common sense. It is, in fact, an ideal tool for women and for the elderly.
Gun-control has always been an elitist method of controlling the common folk. It always has been racist. New York City's first gun-control laws were aimed at those immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe whom the hoity-toity types viewed as vermin. In the South, gun-control laws most often applied only to blacks.
Nevertheless, if the urban insane wish to be prey for predators, that's their privilege. But no one has the right to tell someone else that he or she cannot possess the tools necessary to defend his or her life and the lives of loved ones.