Used it to do what, you may wonder? The ad strangely omits that part.
Here’s the problem: The CSGV has done some selective editing in its video. In its version of the ad, Barrow displays a pistol and says:Not just around here, I hope. This is a major part of the reason why something like our Second Amendment is so important to a just society.“Long before I was born, my grandfather used this little Smith & Wesson here….”It cuts the Augusta congressman off there. How did Barrow finish the sentence in the original, and what did the CSGV choose to omit? This:”…to help stop a lynching.”Around here, those five additional words make a big difference.
Congressman Barrow was targeted because, as a Democrat, he was thought to be vulnerable. "Shame on you," the ad ends, though it seems to me the shame belongs to someone else. Here is a man who comes from an honorable tradition, who values his ancestors and the arms they bore in the defense of the innocent. The shame belongs to those who do not understand the value of such things. I don't know what they are, but I know that whoever made this ad is not fit to speak the language of honor.
5 comments:
Thanks for that. My mother-in-law's father had to hold of the Klan with a loaded rifle to keep them from burning down his farmhouse. With his family inside. The left wing forgets that guns in the right hands are a lifesaver.
My great-great grandfather had a similar story. It's not that unusual, but people forget (or never knew). Still, this isn't a case of forgetting. They knew: he told them, and they made a specific choice to cut it out.
They just don't like guns and think *no one* should have them, ignoring the fact that criminals don't give a sh|t about gun control laws and they'll always be armed. They are blinded by ideology. This weekend, I hope to review some emails I received offering firearms advice about what might be suitable for the ladies, and then go from there in an effort to acquire some (starting with a shotgun for home defense and a handgun I can handle).
John Lott, in today's WSJ had some thoughts on this, also. A couple excerpts:
A common question is: "Why do people need a semiautomatic Bushmaster to go out and kill deer?" The answer is simple: It is a hunting rifle. It has just been made to look like a military weapon.
But the point isn't to help hunters. Semiautomatic weapons also protect people and save lives. Single-shot rifles that require you to physically reload the gun may not do people a lot of good when they are facing multiple criminals or when their first shot misses or fails to stop an attacker.
and
Ms. Feinstein's new proposal also calls for gun registration, and the reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.
Nice logic, but in reality it hardly ever works that way. Guns are very rarely left behind at a crime scene. When they are, they're usually stolen or unregistered. Criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind guns that are registered to them. Even in the few cases where registered guns are left at crime scenes, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes would have been solved even without registration.
And, not included in Lott's piece, the principle that it's not the government's place to tell a private citizen what his purpose is in keeping and bearing an arm.
Eric Hines
Eric, I like Mark Levin's take on this: "It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs."
This has become my response as well. It's simple and near impossible to argue against without also arguing against all of the remaining enumerated rights.
0>;~}
Post a Comment