Early updates on the shooting in Oregon.
The President has issued his predictable call for more gun control. Every time one of these thing happens, he sees a need to strip more Americans of arms. I see a positive demonstration that the police can't protect you, and a duty to try to protect my fellow citizens, and thus become more firmly intent on never surrendering my arms nor the right to bear them. This is the sort of thing that could have been stopped, but once again, the victims were disarmed under color of law.
10 comments:
Guns and swords are merely tools.
It is the user that matters. A warrior or citizen that has a gun means that they are developing the virtue of independence. A citizen or serf that does not have a gun and needs to rely on the System to protect them, is merely a slave that thinks they are free. The virtues of independence matters a whole lot more than whether someone has a gun or not.
Why does evil exist? Because people are weak. Why are they weak? They lack virtue. Why do they lack virtue? What is the point of getting virtue if somebody else is going to guarantee your safety and economic survival?
A lack of virtue wasn't the problem here.
"The one to remember is 30-year-old Chris Mintz, the student and Army vet who was shot at least five times while charging straight at the gunman in an effort to save others.... Bourgeois was somewhat amazed that a guy who survived a combat deployment without serious injury had come so close to being killed in a small Oregon town not unlike the one in North Carolina where they grew up together."
He could have stopped this if he'd had the tools. He made a valiant effort without them, one that might have worked in other circumstances.
" In fact, a good weapon can go from "unnecessary" to "the most important object in the universe", in a femtosecond. "
cross comment from the "modern man" comments.
According to the local Sheriff, all the gunman's weapons were lawfully purchased and obtained under current laws. I.e. short of full confiscation, no "common sense gun law" would have prevented this.
MikeD said...
" According to the local Sheriff, all the gunman's weapons were lawfully purchased and obtained under current laws. I.e. short of full confiscation, no "common sense gun law" would have prevented this."
Well there is the goal, eh?
He could have stopped this if he'd had the tools.
And you're claiming if he had a sword he would have won?
And if he had a gun, the SWAT snipers would have head shotted him like they did to the WACO 2 bike club members too. He was a "terrorist", you see, in the police after action lethal force justification papers.
http://gunssavelives.net/category/self-defense/
When you can convince your Demoncrat politicians, Grim, maybe you'll make a difference. Probably not though.
It's not Republicans that ordered others to stop the sale of Confederate flags. It was those Democrat "let's disarm slaves and make it illegal to educate them, and then lock up whites for treating blacks equally under Jim Crow" tyrants that gave the orders.
Abstract calls to arms over little technical details isn't going to change anything, Grim, so long as you ignore what's in your blind spot.
I thought this was a pretty concrete call to action. I wasn't talking about a metaphorical weapon. Neither was Jesus, for that matter.
I'm not referring to a metaphorical weapon either, unless you're claiming that swords are useless in today's civilian vs Islamic invader modern battlefield.
Much can be done with a sword, if a man knows how to use a sword. Much can be done with a knife. You know this much. Our disagreements are on other grounds.
Post a Comment