Saturday, March 05, 2005|
Rick at over at Centerfield gets it completely wrong concerning the shooting that recently happened in Tyler, just east of here, where an armed citizen attempted to defend bystanders and ended up getting killed. Admitting his bias upfront, Rick says that "this incident shows the need for trained police officers rather than armed citizens." While we're thankful to him for admitting his clear bias, that doesn't change the fact that his following statements don't make any sense. There were trained police officers in Tyler. They eventually chased down and killed the monster on the rampage. His statement however changes nothing about the fact that Mark Wilson, the armed citizen, saved lives by attempting to kill Arroyo. Because of Mark Wilson and the handgun he legally used in the defense attempt, Arroyo was unable to kill his own 22 year old son and possibly others. To think say that these types of situations should be left to trained police officers is ridiculous since situations like this often happen, surprisingly, where there are no police officers. It's the people who say they aren't radical gun control proponents out of one side of their mouth while arguing for it out the other side who should scare those of us who honor and value our right to bear arms the most. |
Tuesday, May 18, 2004|
A great post from Alphecca about buying a first gun. In case any of the left-leaning people who read my blog are thinking about it. :-) 8:48:17 PM permalink What do you think? [] trackback [] |
Friday, March 05, 2004|
Alphecca has his weekly look at gun bias up. It's actually been up since Monday but I'm a little behind the times. Of course, almost all the news this week was on the bill trying to exempt gun makers and dealers from being held responsible when someone buys a gun and goes out and kills some one. However, once a couple of ridiculous amendments were attached to the bill, it got killed. The media is making a big deal about how the sponsor of the bill actually argued to kill it in the end but he was completely right to do so. The two amendments would have extended the assault weapons ban and closed the supposed gunshow loophole, a loophole that doesn't exist. The assault weapons ban needs to be sunsetted in September and once that was attached, this bill needed to die. For those of you scoring at home, the assault weapons ban isn't really about assault weapons, it's about guns that have the cosmetic characteristics of assault weapons. It's a pretty outrageous assault on the 2nd Amendment and needs to be retired which it will be in September. Concerning the gun show "loophole", the leftists like to make it sound like there are tons of unlicensed dealers at gun shows, just selling to terrorists left and right. However, most all of the dealers at gun shows are licensed dealers, meaning they have to call in an instant check no matter where they sell a gun. Granted there are a few unlicensed dealers at gun shows, but these tend to be kitchen table dealers, dealers who occasionally sell firearms that they own, and the wording of the amendment could have made it a crime for people to do that. Because of these two amendments, the bill was right to have been voted down. We'll get the protection for the gun industry eventually, protection I believe they should have. No rational person would think of suing GM because someone bought a car, got drunk and plowed through a group of school children but that's exactly what lots of leftists think should happen when someone buys a gun and then shoots people with it. There are laws on the books that make it illegal to provide a firearm to someone with the express intent to use it in a crime and they are there for just such a purpose. |
Last update: 7/29/2005; 10:51:55 PM .
