The author
The author
And second: Why do some people feel the need to carry around a gun — an object that could end someone’s life in a second? Do gun packers derive some feeling of power? Do they not understand the risk of turning a bad situation into a tragedy?
... because, my young misguided friend, bad, henious, villianous people want to hurt other good people. Sometimes they want to hurt them for money or possessions. Sometimes they want to hurt them to rape the women. Sometimes, they want to hurt them simply because.
And only guns will stop them.
George Zimmerman might be dead had he not carried the gun. A lot of us would effectively be slaves or might be dead if we didn't have the right to carry guns. . . . Morons.
What a dweeb and sissy!
Please, 2DV...explain why this is up here. These words are from a meaningless fool, with zero experience or relevance in today's world.
This kid has never had to defend himself physically as an adult.
It's not the elementary school playground. When a man is bouncing your head off the concrete curb, you don't go home and have mommy put Neosporin on your boo-boo.
You go to the hospital. You may wind up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life. Or you may bleed out right there and die on the street.
Good God, we are raising such a generation of doughy, clueless pussies.
Sweet Jesus. This guy cannot write for a lick.
NO GUNS ARE EVIL. Evil is not an attribute you can attach to a physical object.
Or Martin would have beaten Zimmerman's head to a pulp against the sidewalk killing him...
People like this idiot "author" need a swift kick in the head. Something needs to shake loose in their brain to return them to reality.
Required reading for the young Mr Omar:
Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality by Raymond Kraft
Last week, Jack and Jill Pacifisto were walking home through the park after dinner with friends, during which they had spent a few hours discussing the immorality of violence and war and their commitments to send more money to progressive activists over the next year. Suddenly, Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows and pointed a pistol at Jack and said, “Give me your wallet,” and, pointing the gun at Jill, “Your purse.”
“What?” asked Jack, incredulous, “Hey, we don’t want any trouble. We’re pacifists. We aren’t going to hurt you.”
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your money.”
So Jack and Jill did, and then Tony said, “And now gimme your watches, rings, jewelry, everything worth anything.”
“Hey,” said Jill, “This is my wedding ring!”
And Tony said, “Not my problem.”
Jack and Jill handed over their wallet, and purse, and all their jewelry and Rolex watches, and then Tony shot them both twice in the chest and picked up the loot and stepped back into the shadows.
As Jill lay dying she whispered, “Jack? Why didn’t you fight back? Why didn’t you have a gun?” Those were her last words.
“I couldn’t,” whispered Jack. “I’m a pacifist.” Those were his last words.
A few days later, Bill Thaxton and his wife were walking home through the park after dinner, when Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows.
“Give me your wallet, your purse,” said Tony, pointing his gun first at Bill, and then at his wife. He did not know that Bill was an old lawman, and had been a Marine sniper when he was young, and was active in the Single Action Shooters Society and had a concealed-carry-permit. Tony assumed that the old man was just an old man with some money and a few credit cards in his wallet walking home from dinner.
“Sorry, friend, I don’t like guns, and I don’t want any trouble,” said Bill.
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your wallet, your purse,” he said, waving the gun at Bill’s wife, “Rings, watches, everything.”
“And what if I don’t?” asked Bill.
“I’ll shoot you both. Her first,” said Tony, pointing his gun at Bill’s wife again.
“Well,” said Bill, “Okay, honey, do what he says.”
She tossed down her purse. Bill reached slowly for his left lapel with his right hand and then, like lightning, did a cross-draw with his left and came out blazing with his trusty little 9, nailing Tony three times.
As he lay on the sidewalk dying, Tony Thug was heard to mutter, “Damn, I shoulda stuck with the pacifists . . .”
An acquaintance wrote me last week to tell me proudly how he had been a pacifist since the ‘60s. His letter set me thinking about pacifism, which is the ultimate and vilest form of immorality.
If you are Hitler, or Saddam, or Osama, or Ahmadinejad, your desire to kill those you dislike is at least honest and open. You wear you hate on your sleeve and we know who and what you are. But the Pacifist wears his refusal to resist evil as if it were a badge of honor, and claims it as a sign of his or her absolute moral superiority. The Hitlers and Osamas are at least honest about who they are, the Pacifist is not. Not even to himself.
The German Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote a poem circa 1946 about the quiescence of German intellectuals in the face of the Nazi rise to power that has become famous. Translated, it reads:
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent,
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out,
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out,
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me
there was no one left to speak out.
The Pacifist says something like this, but, unlike Niemoller, without apology. He says:
When you come for my allies
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my countrymen
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my neighbor,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my mother,
my father, my brother,
my sister, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my wife,
my husband, my son,
my daughter, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for me,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
The Pacifist claims that he (or she) is too good to fight against evil, and this is the catastrophic intellectual and moral failure of Pacifism. In the guise of being too good to oppose evil, the Pacifist invokes the ultimate immorality by aiding and abetting and encouraging evil, on the pretext of being too pure, too wise, too sophisticated to fight evil, thereby turning the pretense of goodness and purity into an invocation and license for evil to act without opposition.
The moral stance of the Pacifist is, unwittingly perhaps, homicidal, genocidal, fratricidal, suicidal. The Pacifist says, in effect: “There is nothing good worth fighting for. And there is nothing so evil worth fighting against.”
The Pacifist is willing to give evil free reign, because he or she thinks or feels that fighting against evil is even worse than evil itself . . . an intellectual and moral equivocation of monumentally staggering proportions. In order to be a Pacifist, one must hold that Nazism or Islamism or Communism or any other puritanical totalitarian ideology that seeks to slaughter or oppress all the Jews or all of any other race or tribe is no worse, is not morally inferior, to the existence of Jews and Judaism, or whatever other race or tribe is the whipping boy of the day.
To be a Pacifist, one must hold that acquiescence to a Jihad that seeks to destroy Western Civilization is no worse than Western Civilization, even though the Jihad seeks to extinguish intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, and ultimately even the freedom to be a Pacifist.
As the English philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The Pacifist replies, “I am so good that I will do nothing, I will hurt no one, even if that means that good will be destroyed and evil will win. I am so peaceful that I will not discriminate between the goodness of good and the badness of evil, certainly not with enough conviction to take up arms, literally or figuratively, against the triumph of evil over good, of totalitarianism over freedom, of barbarianism over civilization.”
And so the Pacifist, perhaps unthinkingly, unwittingly, mistakenly, is deeply mired in his intellectual confusion, but surely and unequivocally, the epitome of evil itself, For the Pacifist devoutly believes that by refusing to fight against evil he is affirming that he is good, too good and pure to oppose evil, too good and pure to fight evil, to good and pure to kill evil. But in the end, he is the enabler without whom the triumph of evil would not be possible.
I wonder what the numbers would show if the number of gun related homicides was reduced by subtracting the number of people who WERE NOT killed because they or someone nearby had a firearm. I would bet it would be a negative number meaning more people saved than killed. For instance, in 2005 there were 10,100 homicides. Of those at least 7,500 were criminals so that leaves 2,600 law abiding citizens as homicide victims during 2005. Now I do not have access to data on the number of people who were not killed BECAUSE they or someone nearby had a firearm, it is a no brainer to figure out that a whole lot more people were saved. With more people carrying weapons increasing every year a telling number is that in 2000 there were 12,600 homicides. So more law abiding citizens carrying weapons and there is a 20% reduction in homicides. Hmmmm. OK so maybe it is not a perfect correlation with other factors contributing, BUT, with more people carrying, THE NUMBER DID NOT GO UP.
Did you post this just to make fun of the author? His writing doesn’t seem that bad but his reasoning is close to what you would call idiotic.
Sounds like another Dan Rather in the making.
>>There is no need for the average American to be armed.
Idiot. Does this moron think that guns are the only weapon in the world? How would he fare versus a criminal with a knife, or a bat, or a brick? If all the guns disappeared from the earth tonight, I’d leave the house tomorrow with a bowie knife.
Criminals get to choose the victim, time, place, and mode of attack. I’m sure this guy believes in “fairness” so at least my choice of weapons should be mine.
You forgot the Barf Alert.
Come on down to Anacostia and take a walk around.
Ditto cars.
What’s his stance on banning those?
Yeah. I’m going to take life guidance from a junior journalism major. Because actors aren’t stupid enough.
The author, just another victim in waiting.
Those that believe that their own personal protection is to be left up to someone else (police/government) are just victims waiting in line............