HarrySchell
New member
Letter to the Los Angeles Times:
Dear Editor:
Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg et. all have huge amounts of money to pay for all the security they could want, in addtion to what the taxpayers already give them. Why are gun-free zones good for some when these people refuse to work or live in them? Aren't they our LEADERS? What example are they setting?
VD Hansen put out an essay titled "Arrogance" on realclearpolitics.com. It was mainly about Corzine's gross violation of seatbelt and speed laws in his own state. But I think the shoe fits with regard to gun control.
Bloomberg et. al. will never face the results of their legislation, if they could impose their gun bans. Someone else will do the bleeding, maybe some more students.
Are our lives comparatively so worthless to theirs? I don't think so. But they have to see it that way. Their lives are worth protecting and ours are not.
No slam on police, but don't even start. Details omitted, I know first hand the limited protection police can provide for the average citizen. They have no legal obligation to do so in the first place, and there are nowhere near enough of them around to do that kind of job. They do the best they can but dialling 911 and asking the criminal to wait for the police to come is nonsensical. So is living like a prisoner in a bunker.
The Washington DC mayor wants a town that is a gun-free zone. He was "outraged" when the federal court disagreed, that a citizen's right to self-defense trumped his case. The clear evidence is his police force is manifestly unable to protect citizens. Its insistence on monopolizing the possession of weapons thus violated the constitutional rights of citizens. When government fails to do what it says, in cases like this, and basic inalienable rights of citizens are taken away, the Constitution and any general sense of morality requires that government cede power back to citizens. The monopoly is unconstitutional and morally bankrupt. And this mayor was "outraged". Maybe he collects a tithe from the criminal community.
It is a dead cinch he does not work or live in the gun-free zone he wants to impose on his fellow citizens, or perhaps I should say, subjects. Why is that, if it is such a good deal...
I don't know, with all the evidence that has piled up about shall issue, the aborted Trolley Square massacre (among others), etc., that there is any other intellectually valid conclusion. Simple denial of the facts?
If Bloomberg and our solons in Sacramento and Washington DC think gun-free zones are so good and make things safe, then they can give up their security teams and live gun-free lives.
The contradiction could not be clearer in my mind.
Dear Editor:
Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg et. all have huge amounts of money to pay for all the security they could want, in addtion to what the taxpayers already give them. Why are gun-free zones good for some when these people refuse to work or live in them? Aren't they our LEADERS? What example are they setting?
VD Hansen put out an essay titled "Arrogance" on realclearpolitics.com. It was mainly about Corzine's gross violation of seatbelt and speed laws in his own state. But I think the shoe fits with regard to gun control.
Bloomberg et. al. will never face the results of their legislation, if they could impose their gun bans. Someone else will do the bleeding, maybe some more students.
Are our lives comparatively so worthless to theirs? I don't think so. But they have to see it that way. Their lives are worth protecting and ours are not.
No slam on police, but don't even start. Details omitted, I know first hand the limited protection police can provide for the average citizen. They have no legal obligation to do so in the first place, and there are nowhere near enough of them around to do that kind of job. They do the best they can but dialling 911 and asking the criminal to wait for the police to come is nonsensical. So is living like a prisoner in a bunker.
The Washington DC mayor wants a town that is a gun-free zone. He was "outraged" when the federal court disagreed, that a citizen's right to self-defense trumped his case. The clear evidence is his police force is manifestly unable to protect citizens. Its insistence on monopolizing the possession of weapons thus violated the constitutional rights of citizens. When government fails to do what it says, in cases like this, and basic inalienable rights of citizens are taken away, the Constitution and any general sense of morality requires that government cede power back to citizens. The monopoly is unconstitutional and morally bankrupt. And this mayor was "outraged". Maybe he collects a tithe from the criminal community.
It is a dead cinch he does not work or live in the gun-free zone he wants to impose on his fellow citizens, or perhaps I should say, subjects. Why is that, if it is such a good deal...
I don't know, with all the evidence that has piled up about shall issue, the aborted Trolley Square massacre (among others), etc., that there is any other intellectually valid conclusion. Simple denial of the facts?
If Bloomberg and our solons in Sacramento and Washington DC think gun-free zones are so good and make things safe, then they can give up their security teams and live gun-free lives.
The contradiction could not be clearer in my mind.