"Give them what they want and they won't hurt you."That's been the mantra of the Brady Campaign for years and it is continued by BC board member/Joyce Foundation puppet leader Joan Peterson as she acts the apologist for criminal activity in lieu of self defense:
Did the robber intend to shoot someone to kill? Did the robber have a gun? Is this a shoot first situation where a shooting is justified for self defense or the inevitability of bodily harm? Would the robber just have gotten the employee into a place where he could have taken money with no harm?So before you can defend yourself in Gun Control-land, you have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a violent criminal is 'just' after your property. Otherwise you're at fault. To them, defending yourself is classified as 'gun violence'. They don't care about victims or criminals as long as none of it is done w/ a gun.
Where's the 'common-sense'? Certainly not in the shallowed halls of the Brady Campaign.
More at Weer'd's
9 comments:
"To them, defending yourself is classified as 'gun violence'."
Strictly speaking this is true, we just think defensive violence is good.
Joan Peterson is a violent criminal. She conspires to violate our Second Amendment rights and do harm to us and our freedom. Government is her weapon; it is her instrument of violence. We are all her intended victims and she means to do us harm. Joan and her Batty Campaign should be shut down by law.
Please let me know when the day arrives that a robber will arrive at the potential crime scene with a pre-filled out declaration of what his intentions are.
Robbery?..... Check.
Rape?....... No not today.
Kidnapping?...... Maybe.
Murder?.......
Multiple homicide? .......
What weapon will you using today? Gun?
Finger?
Knife?
Baseball bat?
And lets make sure its filled out in triplicate and notarized.
Yes we should pass a law requiring that.......
I had a conversation with a friend of a friend several years ago. NYC liberal couldn't get over the fact that I would shoot a burglar who "only wants to steal my TV". The conversation REALLY went down hill on her end when she found out that I carry EVERY time I'm out of my house (not just because I'm in law enforcement and can).
Joan is bat-shit insane and a shrink could do one hell of a case study on her.
What if the goblin in question wants to leave no witnesses?
Again, lawful self-defense is the elephant in the room for the anti-rights cult. Its the inconvenient truth that blows all their arguments to hell.
The more they allow people to defend themselves the more stories like this will get to the public, and the closer to pure defeat they come.
Justice would see her victimized in a situation where she could have stopped it cold just by demonstrating her ability to defend herself, not actually having to do it. As much as no-one deserves to be victimized, I would have to point at her and laugh, as she argues against our ability to do so for ourselves. She's just confused the tool with the act.
If it hasn't already in some corner of the swamp, I foresee this:
"You shot him because he was trying to make you get into his car? What if he didn't intend to rape and torture and kill you? What if he had something non-fatal in mind? You may have committed MURDER!! because you shot too soon!"
One of the arguments that really bugs and should be corrected wherever it occurs is the idea of "shooting someone just for stealing". This is a ploy to make gun owners sound like sociopaths. We don't shoot people 'just for stealing'. We shoot criminals that refuse a lawful order to stop and then become a threat. They don't get shot for stealing a loaf of bread, they get shot for attacking the person unlucky enough to catch them. The lefties will twist a story of a mugger getting killed "for only 50 cents"... no, he got killed for his attempted murder of a person with only 50 cents and a gun. I listen to Tom Gresham (GunTalk) and he has been falling for this argument too. It's not just annoying and flawed, it's dangerous for gun rights.
Post a Comment