It appears that the WAPO has gotten a few panties in a wad. Seems someone in our leadership at the NRA has read The Art of War or Machiavelli. Now instead of asking why the lead attorney for D.C. ( he was the representative of a governmental entity, or something like that) was helping to coordinate a nationwide anti-gun campaign via teleconference, the WAPO is concerned with the fact that the NRA may have had a spy in the opposition. You ask me that should be SOP (standard operating procedure) when you are trying to keep a bunch of nutcases from infringing on your rights and destroying the Constitution. I guess they think that once all of the ‘evil’ firearms are gone that there won’t be somebody bigger and meaner than them that might want to take something they have by force. These are the same people who would try to appease terrorist fanatics.
I especially enjoyed this comment. “People act like owning a handgun is a human right.” First, owning a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, just affirmed by the Supreme Court. Second, self defense is a human right (screw the U.N., I wouldn’t need a firearm either if I had a bunch of armed bodyguards) and having a handgun helps to facilitate that right. I wish people would wake up and realize that rights are only as good as the means that are available to enforce them. I would expect people who like to use litigation as a weapon to understand that the law, or a contract, is only good if there is a means of backing it up. I will never understand why some people are so anxious to give up their rights. Why shouldn’t owning a handgun be a human right. It is a very useful tool. My .22 handgun comes in quite handy for dispatching rattlesnakes here at the compound. Yes, I could probably use a hoe or shovel, but why would I want to risk getting bit when I can have the same effect from a safe distance. Handguns can also be used to provide food for a family (yes, I mean killing an animal to eat it, prepared correctly they are delicious).
Better and Better has a post about a woman whose livestock was attacked by wild dogs and had to resort to risking her own life by kicking the dogs because she did not know how to use the shotgun that was in the house. Had she been able to operate the shotgun she could have protected her livestock, protected herself, and perhaps prevented subsequent attacks and loss of life.
There is an inherent logic behind the statement “God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal.” A firearm can put a 120 pound 50 year old woman on even terms with a 200 pound 20 year old rapist, or even two rapists. If you want to argue that a firearm is no good against many assailants I will respond that high capacity magazines even the odds.
This is usually the point at which anti-gun fanatics will say that criminals use guns to commit crimes and kill innocent people. I submit that Al-Qaeda attacked us with airplanes in 2001 and killed thousands, yet I have heard no one advocating the banning of planes. I would also submit that far more people die each year in car crashes than from gunshot wounds, but I don’t hear anyone protesting to ban cars. A 2000 pound vehicle is capable of causing much more destruction than a handgun.
Bottom line: If you as an American citizen (or citizen of the world) feel comfortable turning your rights over to politicians, currently the ‘evil’ Bush administration, (that should scare some liberals) then feel free, just don’t expect me to surrender my rights to satisfy your need for control and world domination by the U.N. I would really think that people who are opposed to the Patriot Act and believe in right wing conspiracies would be opposed to giving the .gov more control.
Guess that is why I don’t understand moonbats.