Skip to comments.I'm Still Not A Gun Person But...
Posted on 09/26/2013 2:57:53 AM PDT by rellimpank
A day doesnt go by that the debate of guns doesnt somehow come up in conversation. I live close to Chicago where it seems like there are multiple shootings daily. It has gotten to the point where it doesnt even raise an eyebrow anymore. That statement saddens me dramatically. Even if that person is a gang member, its still another human being getting shot. Somebody lost a child, a brother, a dad, a cousin, a friend. That should bother us but it sure does seem that we have gotten immune to it.
I never considered myself a gun person. For the longest time, I really had no opinion on the gun control or the concealed carry laws. I have to admit that the amount of mass shootings lately is concerning enough for me to now have an opinion on the matter. I hesitate to give it at times because the issue is such a hot button for people and most people involved in this issue are very passionate for one side or the other.
I sense that the reality of liberalism is becoming apparent even to those who were its strongest adherents. Hopefully, they’ll be like reformed smokers and even conservatives will avoid their anti-liberal tirades at parties. Perhaps the pendulum swingeth back.
The gun-free zones: that's where the defenseless victims are.
The best web site ever lives right in the author’s back yard. I invite you all to check out www.heyjackass.com for a light hearted look at the tragedy that is Obammy’s and Rahm’s Chicago.
Note to the criminal community: rob this guy at his house; he’s not carrying.
By “gun person” he presumably means someone who believes that human beings have the right to defend themselves against predators who wish to kill them.
In stating that he is NOT a “gun person” he is thus confessing that he is, ipso facto, an idiot.
Guns are no more the problem than spoons are for fat people. A useful or misused tool. The “problem” isn’t the tool, the problem is the motive of the person using the tool. But that’s too deep for libs, so they ban sodas, guns, and probably spoons next.
Thanks for the tip on HeyJackass.com — reading the data assembled in one place is simply overwhelming compared to experiencing it week after week.
Wwo. Give the guy a break! Did you read the article? He’s a newly minted Second Amendment supporter.
He doesn’t know jack about guns, but he’s now on the right side. It’s a great start...
Maybe this guy tripped on a shot dead body on his way into work.
I’ll give the guy a break when he writes an article entitled ‘I AM a Gun Person.’
To the author: Welcome to the party, new friend.
FRiend, never confuse a headline for content.
He still does not grasp what the real reason for the dems obsession with gun control. It’s not crime or self protection ...it’s disarming the populace so they can enforce their policies. The founding fathers in their wisdom recognized this...thus the second amendment.
Start dropping mortars into the slums and send the inhabitants into the rumored massive FEMA camps. Then send them to Mugabe, he needs farmers. Reclaim the territory.
Most anti-gunners will never get past the headline, so I say again...
Way before I acquired my first firearm, I became a “gun person,” having been recruited by Bill Clinton. I was an NRA member for about seven years before I got my first handgun and learned all about gun safety and usage from a friend who is a law enforcement firearms instructor. So, there’s plenty of hope for this guy and others like him.
When they’re kicking yer door down at 3:00 AM, you are either a ‘gun person’ or wish you were.
I would say this guy is on the right path. While he may not consider himself a “gun person,” he already is. He may have walked politely out of the gate, but he definitely left the plantation.
Is it that so many do not read, or that so many cannot comprehend? Just wondering.
Anyone remember Mike Royko, Chicago columnist? Very anti-gun till he read of the woman who was kidnapped, raped, kicked out in a bad section of Chicago, and raped again by others.
He had a turn about at that time and became very pro-gun for self defense.
Thanks for the tip. Here is the link in an easy to use form:
It is one of the best summations of the homicide situation in Chicago that I have ever seen.
The point in this case is really not about guns. It is that law enforcement is a public duty of all citizens, that police are just a convenience that perform three functions.
1) 24/7 watchmen.
2) Arresting of those believed to be caught in the commission of a crime, and gathering evidence that a crime has been committed.
3) The dogged pursuit of those implicated in crimes, so that they might be arrested.
None of these things implies providing immediate assistance or protection to citizens confronted with crime. This means that citizens must be able to themselves confront and thwart crime, by being armed.
But, and this is important, police have severe constraints on their functions that other citizens do not have. Citizens, if their life is imperiled by a criminal, may effectively act as a judge, jury and executioner, and yet their actions are legal and just.
This is important, because it implies that carrying out violent felony offenses can potentially have a death penalty.
While courts treat adults and juveniles differently, the honest citizenry is under no obligation to do so. Being shot does not discriminate by age. The courts may give a limited sentence, with an offer of eventual probation or parole; but citizens can kill that same criminal dead, without appeal or mitigation because of the criminal’s “troubled childhood.”
The author writes: “...Even if that person is a gang member, its still another human being getting shot. Somebody lost a child, a brother, a dad, a cousin, a friend...”
Yes, but that human being, if they were involved in the felony commission of a crime, are *subject* to the death penalty from honest citizens. And this is just, so while their family may mourn their passing, society should not, even if “they were a good boy, who was turning their life around.”
No, they were a violent criminal committing a violent crime. And even criminal trials only care about what a defendant has done, not what beneficial things they *might* have done in the future.
Especially the trial given by an honest citizen to a criminal committing a violent crime.
There's something radically flawed in the thinking process of the average liberal.
This liberal is abandoning the idea that, "guns cause crimes", which was always nonsense, to a new idea, "poor mental health causes crimes".
Both of these flawed opinions were adopted by the liberal after considering anecdotes printed by the liberal media.
Does anyone really believe that the gangsters fighting over control of the drug trade and other illegal activities in Chicago have mental health issues? I don't.
These gangsters are simply evil. Hundreds of deaths in Chicage each year and thousands nationwide have nothing whatever to do with "mental health". These murders are committed by vermin who value only their own welfare and who simply do not value the lives of others. They may have heard of the Golden Rule, but they don't observe it.
The best solution to curbing this evil is the arming of good people so that they have at least a fighting chance when confronted by evil people or, in those rare occasions, when they are confronted by people with mental health issues.
BELOW IS YOUR DAILY QUIZ. THE SUBJECT IS CURRENT EVENTS. THIS IS NOT MULTIPLE CHOICE. INSTEAD
YOU HAVE 10,685 POSSIBLE CORRECT ANSWERS.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GET ONE RIGHT.
During thte 503 Days between the Trayvon Martin Shoting and the Zimmerman Verdict..... 10,865 Blacks were killed by other Blacks.
Had a remarkable opportunity to meet a Republican candidate for Illinois governor and as it happened we discussed gun control versus the real problems driving Chicago’s extraordinary homicide rate. I think he’s good on 2A issues, but I was distressed to hear him blame the Chicago murder rate on poverty. Certainly that is a factor but it is lib-think to assume it is the sole or primary factor. The whole moral justification for Marxism is that if we can just even up the economic outcomes crime will cease to exist, which of course is a fraud of an idea.
But sometime we get politicians who take some conservative positions, but they don’t seem to get some core conservative ideas, they’re more technocrats, simply believing they can manage the existing system better than the other guy, but without showing they really understand the flaws in the logical foundation of the system. I don’t know if this fellow just didn’t know, or if he was glossing over the deeper problems because he can’t win among certain demographics if he confronts those problems head on.
For example, I can’t believe he didn’t know there’s a cartel turf war for the Chicago drug trade underway. See, this violence is not about guns or even mental health. It is the natural, foreseeable byproduct of rational people looking at enormoud, if illegal, economic opportunity. The poverty is only a factor because it create a large pool of cheap, willing labor for the big money players. So the more pressing question is what can be done to drive out the cartels, while also addressing the cultural issues that create these opportunities for the drug lords. A thriving legitimate economy would help, but so much more is needed, and so much of that must be hidden and denied for the sake of political correctness, that it seems unlikely to be solved by technocrats, no matter what party.