Question to the Antis — Money and Life

Just a drive by post and a simple question to the antis.

Given the repeated statements that no property, no money, etc is worth shooting a criminal; why don’t you protect their lives by simply providing them with money?

 

Wouldn’t that reduce crime — we know Bloomberg can afford at least $50,000,000.

Question for the Antis: Holocaust Edition

Found this little gem of a comment over at Sparky’s place

Anonymous March 21, 2014 at 4:17 PM

The Jews had over 5,000 guns in the Ghetto. They used them to kill German, but were exterminated by German superior forces. Having guns did not stop their extermination.

He’s right in that it didn’t stop their extermination. My question is “How did  not having firearms keep the unarmed Jews from being exterminated?”

For me this is a classic case of proving why the 2nd Amendment has “shall not be infringed” — 200 years before the atrocities; the Founding Fathers foresaw the possibility.

Please join the discussion 

Answer to the Question : Why Carry to the Store?

The Anti-Rights Cultists want to make people seem paranoid for exercising their right to carry firearms in public. They’ll often try mocking people with questions like “Why do you need a gun at a library” or “Why carry a firearm to a store like _____(fill in the blank)?”

FORT WORTHFour men were behind bars Thursday, suspected in 17 robberies of Fort Worth businesses over a one-month span, police officials said.

….

The robberies began Dec. 2 with the one at the Family Dollar store at 2606 Hemphill Street. In the weeks that followed, police believe the men robbed several other businesses in the city — sometimes two in one day — including GameStop, Metro PCS stores and fast-food restaurants like Subway and Sonic.

Shortly afterward, patrol officers tracked three of the suspects to a convenience store at East Berry Street and South Riverside Drive, Loughman said.

17 Robberies at stores like GameStop, Metro PCS, Subway, Sonic, Family Dollar  — places like the ones I’ve been to often. Gee, if there is a possibility criminals will be robbing the place; isn’t that a good reason to carry a firearm?

These thugs do prey on other people also answer another question; “Why do you need more then X number of rounds?”

“They were all there for some of the robberies and on others, only two or three would participate,” said robbery Sgt. Joe Loughman.

While the anti-rights cultists may believe it is better to allow such evil and anti-social behavior to go unchallenged; I disagree.

For too long we’ve tolerated thugs hurting others — think of how many families were impacted by 17 robberies — isn’t it time we started making it not only unacceptable for such crimes but dangerous for the criminals?

So I’ll end with a question to the anti-rights cultists; if you don’t want people to carry firearms in public; how do you propose to stop thugs from committing crimes?

Please join the discussion.

Just a fist fight.

I normally try to keep the language, including anything I link or embed, on this blog PG-13. Sometimes though it is necessary to break that guideline. This is one of them. I’m posting the video, unedited because I want all the sounds to be heard, clearly and without any indication that the sounds were altered.

Foul language is used by Sharkeisha — the female thug –and others in the video. Please listen to the video anyways. Watch it carefully.

 

(Language Alert)

 

The anti-rights cultists want to call this “just a fist fight”. It wasn’t.

It was a vicious beating, an assault without warning. The smack of that first roundhouse is quite audible isn’t it? And the viciousness of the first kick is stunning; I wonder if a District Attorney would view it as attempted murder. Given how defenseless the victim was, I couldn’t see how anyone wouldn’t fear for their life or great bodily harm in that assault. And that is one teen female attacking another; now imagine one or more adult males threatening a physical assault.

If you have the stomach for violence, go to World Star HipHop and look at some of the ‘fight’ videos. Some of them are fist fights; some are recordings of one sided assaults like this one. Watch a few and see what type of world the Anti-Rights Cultists want you to live in.
Look at some of the “Knock Out Game” videos going around and see what type of world the Anti-Rights Cultists want you to live in.

 

I don’t understand the mindset of those people; they would rather live in a world where the strong or the many prey on others undaunted by the prospect of effective self defense.

So, I’ll make this a question for the anti-rights cultists; why do you think violence like this will stop / be reduced if we ‘make guns harder for criminals to get’?

 

 

Gun Control Advocate – Here’s an Idea for you

Technology is a wonderful tool that opens up possibilities unimagined several years ago. It allows information to be stored, shared and acted upon by today’s first responders; for example, Concealed Handgun License information is pulled up when an LEO pulls up information on a driver’s license or car registration.

Since most anti-rights cultists, aka gun control advocates, seem to be firmly convinced that “property isn’t worth dying over” and “there is too much gun violence” ; why not start a program to list your home address, work location and vehicle information with the police?

That way when an anti-rights cultist calls the police; the police can respect values and principles of that person but sending unarmed personnel only to respond?

After all, any time you introduce a gun into the situation the chances of some one dying goes up, right?

This would save the government money (support personnel get paid less) and free up officers to respond to other crimes in progress.

Edited to Add — and we can make this even better by offering it as a “Gun Free License” — if you truly believe in “a gun is only designed to kill” then you’ll be happy to pay for the privilege, right?

We could make it a requirement you take “non-violent conflict resolution classes”; show proficiency (Here, take my wallet, my keys, my spouse Please Mr. Criminal), have pictures required along with finger prints and a background check including mental health exam. Hey, we have to make sure you are mentally competent to make this decision. Include evaluations from 2 psychologists, 1 doctor and a lawyer (hold blameless agreement for the police).  All for the low, low price of $140 or so.

So, what say you Mr. or Ms. Anti-Rights Cultist; will you sign up?

Concealed Handgun and Voting

As I previously mentioned, without a lot of detail, I voted on Saturday. I’ve also previously mentioned that I have a Concealed Handgun License and generally carry where I morally and ethically can.

Some might wonder where the two statements intersect; the answer is in the law of course. Seems the Legislators think that those of us who carry firearms can’t be trusted to vote and not shoot up the place at the same time.

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):

(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;

(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;

There are more prohibited places but I want to just focus on #2 for now.

A couple of questions come to mind– I doubt if any anti-rights cultist will stop by and answer them but who knows. They might and the horse might learn to sing also.

Question #1 — How do you know that I didn’t carry on the premises at the polling location?

After all, the firearm has to be concealed from detection by a reasonable person, right? And unless the volunteers staffing the polls have extensive training and experience; they are unlikely to be able to detect a concealed firearm.

Question #2 — What harm was committed even IF I did carry on the premises of the polling place?

This isn’t a rhetorical question; I am seriously interested in someone explaining just what harm, what damage to someone in our society was created if someone carried a firearm with them to vote?

There was no scuffle, no fights, no shootings, no threats made, no drama of any type involved in the voting process. I drove up, walked in, showed my voter registration card and driver’s license, signed by on the line, got my “I voted” sticker then spent 2 minutes at the booth.

I understand some proposals or elections may be a little contentious but that isn’t the norm. Most elections are dull, boring and completely drama free. I wonder why legislators felt it necessary to include polling places in the list of prohibited places.

Question #3 — If the idea is to keep disturbances to a minimum; why doesn’t the penal code prohibit various other crimes at the polling place?

Look through the penal code and the election laws; there is a limit on how close people can advocate for near a polling location. Other then that, no other crime is called out as especially prohibited at the polls. No “no sexual assault at the polls” laws, no “pick pocketing prohibited” on the premises, “no aggravated assault at the polls” is listed.

Nope, just a prohibition against carrying weapons at the polls. Isn’t it difficult to argue that the laws are designed to change behavior when they aren’t focused on behavior but inanimate objects.

Question #4 — And this is really the key question; Does anyone really think that a person is going to change because the law draws an imaginary line around a certain place?

The law doesn’t cover just those with a Concealed Handgun License; it covers everyone. It prohibits everyone from carrying a weapon past the doors of the polls. Of course, without a license a person is breaking the law. Wouldn’t a person breaking the law by carrying without a license ignore one more law ?
And and the same time, wouldn’t a person who goes through the trouble of getting a license be generally willing to follow the law and not cause harm?

A person doesn’t change their values, their principles, their entire philosophy just because they are carrying a weapon or not, just because they cross some imaginary line. Nope, they are the same person aren’t they?

 

I want to make it very clear — some anti right cultists are a little thick — I didn’t break the law regarding the carrying a weapon at the polling place. My wife and I drove up to the polling location, we voted and came back home. When I dropped off my wife at home, I donned my concealed handgun and then proceeded on the errands I mentioned yesterday. Notice how I was willing to follow a law even though I see no purpose in it. Notice how criminals will go about their purpose without regard to the law. There is a big difference there and it really matters.

Please join the discussion.

Question for the Antis — Really If It Saves One Life?

Thought I would throw this out there for the anti-rights cultists who frequently claim “If it would save just one life, it would be worth it.”

My question is do you really believe it?

See I own a firearm, many actually but this is one of the few I’m willing to sell, that could be used to take a life. I doubt it would ever but it is possible — so do you truly believe we should do what every it takes to save a life?

Because if you do, I’ll sell you this firearm. And you’ll be able to proudly melt it down so it can never be used to take a life or cause an injury.

Asking price — a modest $5,000*.

Wonder if you’ll take me up on it or tell the world you are unwilling to spend just 5,000 dollars to possibly save a life.

*I’

 

 


Switch to our mobile site